|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/28/2007 2:11:38 AM |
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?
These arn't biological constructs. It's like asking the evolutionary origin of the atomic theory, or ice cream. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/28/2007 2:44:07 AM | If you believe in evolution. Why are you trying to save every animal on earth?
For one animal to evolve. The one before it has to die off.
Remember the dodo bird, extincted. evolved into evolutionists.
That my opinion.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.
Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —
Based on those 2 documents our gov't say Creation not evolution. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/28/2007 5:22:29 AM | | And we all know that the government's always right. lol. What a dumb statement. I'm rolling on the floor right now at the sheer ignorance of it. I don't suppose you read the part where it talks about freedom to believe whatever you want. This contradicts the foolish opening line about "god" and his supremacy. This alone shows that even the government isn't sure what they mean. Surprise surprise. Not to mention the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with us and is so old that people were still hunting down witches at the time. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/28/2007 11:39:26 AM | I read the OP and a lot of what has gone before, forgive me if I don't take the time to read it all. A lot of good points have been made for both sides of this issue and I am not one to criticize. I have an answer which satisfies my curiosity and would be pleased to share it with this group, I just wonder how many will be interested. You see, the answer may be lengthy and exceed the allowed message length or violate some rules.
To state it simply, all one need do is do the math for oneself, or develop the necessary skills to enlist the aid of the fabulous technological device which makes this communication possible.
Do The Math Yourself.
It is difficult for us to pick a beginning, As humans, we have a beginning and so everything else must.
Science has finally begun to accept the fact that the earth is made of star stuff. the idea that it was our Sun which went nova at some time in the past and the planets all just came together on their own is where most psuedo scientists have philosophized.
Do the Math for yourselves.
In order for the planets to have formed around the origin of a supernova, the initial velocity of the debris would have to have exceeded the escape velocity for the original star predecessor of the Sun by some infinitesimal amount required for it to sit here in orbit.
I have done the math. It just doesn’t work that way. I’ll try to KISS (keep it simple stupid) for all you fish. I’ll use Nice round single significant digit factual numbers.
The initial velocity of debris from a supernova in the neighborhood of 0.3c (three tenths the velocity of light). The escape velocity of a star massive enough to go supernova is about 0.2c (two tenths the velocity of light). That leaves a residual velocity of 0.1c (one tenth the velocity of light or 18,600 miles per second). To put that in perspective, consider the space shuttle flying between 100 and 200 miles up. 17,000 miles per hour. The residual velocity of the debris from which we know planets are formed, is 3600 times as fast as our (unclassified) spacecraft.
It is relatively simple math to see that any object traveling faster than the escape velocity of another object will gain velocity as it approaches and lose velocity as it recedes. The difference in the amount of time the force of gravity has to work. Since its velocity as it recedes is greater, the amount of time gravity has to slow it down is less than the amount of time gravity has to accelerate it as it approaches. It is called the sling shot effect. It has been well publicized in recent times getting our unmanned probes to Jupiter and Saturn.
Due to length constraints, I must draw this to a close as If I make it too long, nobody will read it. The bottom line is it takes intelligent intervention to cause planetary bodies to form from the debris as well as get parked in stable orbits around stars. The math says it can’t happen by accident as often as we can see that it has happened in our own Solar System. Eight major planets, and a whole lot of other stuff from exploded or other relatively slow orbiting debris.
I say eight because Poor Pluto got demoted. Being smaller than the Moon of Earth and other larger than Pluto objects having been identified in the vicinity of Pluto’s orbit, we either have to add a whole bunch more bodies to the list of planets or take the ones that can only be seen with powerful telescopes off the list.
 Damn it what is that X doing in place of Christ?  My doing, I'm sorry. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/28/2007 12:28:53 PM | While one cannot honestly ignore that animals and other life forms have "evolved" (read adapted) over a certain period of time, where evolution breaks down IMO is concerning the question of Ultimate Origin.
Just start asking "Where did "XYZ" come from?" The evolutionist will typically have a ready answer. But continue asking where did THAT come from and ultimately the evolutonist will either have to admit they do not know or they will proclaim that IT (whatever "IT" is) always has been. In my own experience this has led to a simple conclusion.
1. If the evolutionist is a "Big Bang" proponent, they believe "In the beginning...dirt created all we see in this vast universe". Therefore Dirt is their Creator.
2. Whereas the Creationists believe, "In the beginning God...."
And THAT my friends is where the discussion has to end doesn't it? What or Who started all this we see? One needs to make a choice for whatever reason satisfies the question. Do you believe "What" or "Who"? | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/28/2007 12:36:38 PM | Me:
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?
Charlesdm:
These arn't biological constructs. It's like asking the evolutionary origin of the atomic theory, or ice cream.
___________________________________________________________
Me again:
And that is my point. I should point out that ice cream is a biological substance, but I digress and return back to my point.
IF evolution were true then WHERE did intelligence begin? HOW did it begin? Ultimately it HAS to be explained biologically for evolution to be true. Intelligence doesn't just "happen". IF intelligence evolved over vast periods of time the evolutionist still has to answer the "Origin" question. How did a mindless object suddenly develope a mind? It cannot be demonstrated that it happened at all. Therefore, Intelligence must have come from something OUTSIDE of the Evolutionary construct. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/28/2007 12:58:10 PM | Intelligence has been adressed as part of the evolutionary process. Read some books on the evolution of the mind and you will find That it has all been ask and Biology does suppy the ancwer.
The simple fact is that an intelligent amimal has a better chance of survival them one that only acts on instinct. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/28/2007 1:49:04 PM |
1. If the evolutionist is a "Big Bang" proponent, they believe "In the beginning...dirt created all we see in this vast universe". Therefore Dirt is their Creator.
2. Whereas the Creationists believe, "In the beginning God...."
False dilemma. There are evolutionists who believe that a god was the first cause of what we now have.
Intelligence doesn't just "happen".
How about God's intelligence? Is that the one exception in your line of argument? If so, it still is not a scientific line of thinking, which is what the OP is about. As the thread title suggests, it is vitally important to read the OP. Nevertheless, I suppose thread history is doomed to repeat itself... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/28/2007 1:51:38 PM | Mindless objects...like Viruses?(viruses are pretty primitive) Bacteria? Corals, Mold? They are "alive" but you couldn't really grant them sentience, per se. Yet they do reproduce, eat, eliminate..ummm..algae? (algae is one of the very first "lifeforms" to have inhabited the planet...for some billion years the ONLY lifeform I believe, other than bacteria), Lichen? Plankton? Fungi? Okay a bit farther along..Ferns? trees, plants? worms... solitary insects... no real sentience there... communal insects..nope, not doing algebra...okay a bit farther, trilobites and sea snails, sea cucumbers, Anemones, shellfish, now we see some basic intelligence,,VERY basic...farther along dinosaurs in all there millions of years of evolution...AGES, primitive fish (see Coelecanth, sharks) Fish...,simple octopi, lizards, turtles, crocodiles and other reptiles, still in the "cold-blooded" arena here...okay moving right along....amphibians, frogs and such, maybe mudskippers before frogs...primitive mammals, shrews, platypuses, "birds" (sort of, the first ones didn't really fly) okay...dinosaurs become "extinct" (large ones anyway) flowering plants, grasses, then small marsupials (precursors to primates) and other mammals...then primates...then several different branches of hominids (including neanderthal)...all have died out except homo sapiens sapiens. (descendants of Cro-Magnon man)
This is a VERY simple line of the evolutionary scale...and the progression noted so far. There have also been HUGE extinctions..where only a certain amount of animals survived to carry on their genes (the extinction of the dinosaurs is only one such event)
I don't have a problem with evolution, and God. I see it as rather elegant, and way more amazing than just "POOF!" something appears...it's a system that works beautifully and constantly improves on the basic templates. It is a self-correcting system also. What doesn't work when there are environmental changes becomes obsolete, and something more marvelous fills the vacuum. Did you know that the ancestor of the horse (and hippo) was only 2 feet tall? This delicate little forest forager... amazing. Did you know there were dragonflies with an almost 3 ft wingspan once? And that some dinosaurs had feathers?
It just fills me with awe. It's a marvelous universe we live in...and it doesn't require "Harry Potter" type magic to make it any more wondrous. Go look at the pics on the Chandra space telescope site...or the Hubble site. If that doesn't give you a good idea of our place in the universe and the beauty of it, I don't know what would. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/28/2007 2:44:58 PM | Creation vs. Evolution is a matter of perspective.
Creation is an end result of a process....whereas Evolution is a process.
The question should have been based on 'time' as Evolution and Creation are both very evident to the natural eye and should be viewed on a continuum.
Having said that, it would only make sense to teach creation in conjuction with evolution -or- continue to deprive the learner of the full equation. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/28/2007 3:11:57 PM | IF evolution were true then WHERE did intelligence begin? HOW did it begin? Ultimately it HAS to be explained biologically for evolution to be true. Intelligence doesn't just "happen". IF intelligence evolved over vast periods of time the evolutionist still has to answer the "Origin" question. How did a mindless object suddenly develope a mind? It cannot be demonstrated that it happened at all. Therefore, Intelligence must have come from something OUTSIDE of the Evolutionary construct.
Anyone who uses a term like "suddenly" obviously doesn't understand the mechanism of evolution in action. Intelligence was developed in intermediate states. Examples of less complicated intelligences exist in fish, lizards, insects, mamals. ect.
This of course is not what you asked earlier. Ice cream didn't evolve, the intelligence to understand our environment, and manipulate it to our liking evolved.
Bsofa: if you have proved with mathematics that the planets could not have formed as astro physicists stated, why haven't you had it published in a peer reviewed journal.
I suspect rather you made a rounding error.
Also, it has nothing to do with evolution. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/28/2007 3:17:12 PM |
If you believe in evolution. Why are you trying to save every animal on earth?
For one animal to evolve. The one before it has to die off.
what an insightful comment. You clearly know nothing about evolution.
hersheyboy: While one cannot honestly ignore that animals and other life forms have "evolved" (read adapted) over a certain period of time, where evolution breaks down IMO is concerning the question of Ultimate Origin.
No theory explains everything. Evolution does not explain ultimate origin, electricity, or why I chose to wear blacks today, and nor does it try to. However, it does explain a great deal in the fields of biology, archaeology, epidemiology, etc etc. It explains a lot about how species evolved, not how the universe was created or how life began.
Lancione: Having said that, it would only make sense to teach creation in conjuction with evolution -or- continue to deprive the learner of the full equation.
But the full equation involves a lot more belief systems than only evolution and creation. The 'full equation' should address all creation belief systems. Here are some of the different belief systems about creation:
creation traditions from other religions and cultures, including, but not limited to, the Aaragon, Abenaki, Acoma, Ainu, Aleut, Amunge, Angevin, Anishinabek, Anvik-Shageluk, Apache, Arapaho, Ararapivka, Arikara, Armenian, Arrernte, Ashkenazim, Assiniboine, Athabascan, Athena, Aztec, Babylonian, Balinese, Bannock, Bantu, Basque, Blackfoot, Blood, Bosnian, Breton, Brul, Bundjalung, Burns Paiute, Caddo, Cahuilla, Catalan, Cayuga, Cayuse, Celt, Chehalis, Chelan, Cherokee, Chewella, Cheyenne, Chickasaw, Chinook, Chippewa, Chirachaua, Choctaw, Chukchi, Coeur d'Alene, Columbia River, Colville, Comanche, Congolese, Concow, Coquille, Cow Creek, Cowlitz, Cree, Creek, Croat, Crow, Crow Creek, Cumbres, Curonian, Cushite, Cut Head, Da'an, Devon, Dihai-Kutchin, Diyari, Dogon, Duwamish, Egyptian, Elwha, Eritrean, Eskimo, Esrolvuli, Eta, Even, Evenk, Flathead, Fijian, Fox, Fuegan, Gaul, Gooniyandi, Gond, Govi Basin Mongolian, Grand Ronde, Gros Ventre, Haida, Han, Haranding, Havasupai, Hendriki, Heortling, Hidatsa, Hindi, Hmong, HoChunk, Hoh, Hoopa, Hopi, Hunkpapa, Hutu, Ik-kil-lin, Inca, Innu, Intsi Dindjich, Inuit, Iroquois, Isleta, Itchali, Itelemen, It-ka-lya-ruin, Itkpe'lit, Itku'dlin, Jicarilla Apache, Jotvingian, Kaiyuhkhotana, Kalapuya, Kalispel, Kamchandal, Kansa, Karuk, Katshikotin, Kaurna, Kaw, Kazahk, Ketschetnaer, Khanti, Khoi-San, Khymer, Kickapoo, Kiowa, Kirghiz, Kitchin-Kutchin, Klamath, Knaiakhotana, K'nyaw, Koch-Rajbongshi, Kolshina, Kono, Kootenai, Koyukukhotana, !Kung, Kurd, La Jolla, Lac Courte D'Oreille, Lac Du Flambeau, Laguna, Lake, Lakota, Lao, Latgalian, Leech Lake Chippewa, Lemmi, Lower Brul, Lower Yanktonai, Lowland Lummi, Lummi, Malawi, Makah, Mandan, Maori, Maricopan, Martinez, Mayan, Mazatec, Mednofski, Menominee, Meryam Mir, Mesa Grande, Mescalero Apache, Metlakatla, Miniconjou, Mission, Moallalla, Modoc, Mohawk, Mojave, Morongo, Muckleshoot, Murrinh-Patha, Nadruvian, Nagorno-Karabakh, Na-Kotchpo-tschig-Kouttchin, Nambe, Namib, Natche'-Kutehin, Navajo, Nes Pelem, Neyetse-kutchi, Nez Perce, Ngiyampaa, Nisqualli, Nnatsit-Kutchin, Nomelackie, Nooksack, Norman, Norse, Northern Cheyenne, Nyungar, Oglala, Ogorvalte, Ojibway, Okanagon, Okinawan, Olmec, Omaha, Oneida, Onondaga, Ordovices, Orlanthi, Osage, Osetto, O-til'-tin, Otoe, Paakantyi, Paiute, Pala Mission, Papago, Pawnee, Pazyryk, Pechango, Penan, Piegan, Pima, Pitt River, Ponca, Potowatomie, Prussian, Pueblo, Puyallup, Qiang, Quileute, Quinault, Red Cliff Chippewa, Red Lake Chippewa, Redwood, Rincon, Sac, Saisiyat, Sakuddeis, Salish, Salt River, Samish, Samoan, Samogitian, San Carlos Apache, San Idlefonso, San Juan, San Poil, Santa Clara, Sartar, Sauk-Suiattle, Selonian, Semigolian, Seminole, Senecan, Sephardim, Serano, Serb, Shasta, Shawnee, Shiite, Shinnecock, Shoalwater Bay, Shoshone, Sikh, Siletz, Silures, Sinhalese, Sioux, Siskiyou, Sisseton, Siuslaw, Skalvian, S'Klallam, Skokomish, Skyomish, Slovene, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Soboba, Southern Cheyenne, Spokane, Squaxin Island, Steilacoom, Stillaquamish, Stockbridge, Sunni, Suquamish, Swinomish, Tadjik, Takhayuna, Tala, Talastari, Tamil, Tanaina, Taos, Tarim, Tasman, Tatar, Tesuque, Tlingit, Toltec, Tpe-ttckie-dhidie-Kouttchin, Tranjik-Kutchin, Truk, Tukkutih-Kutchin, Tulalip, Tungus, Turtle Mountain, Tuscarora, Turk, Turkmen, Tutsi, Ugalakmiut, Uintah, Umatilla, Umpqua, Uncompagre, U-nung'un, Upper Skagit, Ute, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Viking, Vunta-Kutchin, Wahpeton, Walla Walla, Wasco, Wembawemba, White Mountain Apache, Wichita, Wik-ungkan, Winnebago, Wiradjuri, Wylackie, Xhosa, Yahi, Yakama, Yakima, Yakut, Yanamamo, Yankton Sioux, Yellowknife, Yindjibarnd, Youkon Louchioux, Yukaghir, Yukonikhotana, Yullit, Yuma, Zjen-ta-Kouttchin, and Zulu.
...and of course, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism :)
In all fairness, our kids should learn about all these cultural and religious creation beliefs in science class - its only fair right? By the time they turn 40 they might complete grade 8 science lol.
or on second thought maybe we could limit science class to learning things like...science | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/28/2007 4:10:24 PM |
I’ll use Nice round single significant digit factual numbers
Thanks. Too bad your initial suppositions are wrong and your equation incomplete. You don't account for the fact that gravity is a property of ALL matter. Anything ejected by a supernova is subject to the gravitational influences of the other matter ejected as well as any matter already present around it. The closer it gets to other matter, the stronger the attraction. The further it gets from the source, the weaker the influence. Gravity works just fine to draw form an orbital system. Second, ours is a young sun. It is NOT the remains of a supernova. You're confusing concepts here. Heavy atoms are believed to have been formed largely by the nuclear reactions of starts, beginning with those composed mainly of hydrogen [such as ours]. As those stars age and nova or supernova, they scatter the heavier elements through space, leading to the coalescence of new star systems. Our sun did not supernova. Much of the matter in our solar system is the by-product of multiple supernovae of multiple stars going back more than 14 billion years. Our sun is formed from some of the massive amounts of still unreacted hydrogen gas left from the origin of the universe. The planets are formed from bits and pieces of older stars. Your entire calculation has no bearing on the issue.
The bottom line is it takes intelligent intervention
Fallacious supposition, unsupported by evidence. Computers do pretty good simulations of the universe, and they do it with mathematical models, not with "gee, maybe I'll put a planet over here" rules. With mathematical rules and physical laws in place, no thought at all is required. Nor has it ever been shown that "intervention is required", since no benchline has ever been established as to how that intervention is to be determined. It all comes back to logically flawed arguments which compare human achievements to aspects of the natural world. "This is how we do it, therefore it must have been done the same way we do" - cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
The math says it can’t happen by accident as often as we can see that it has
Not in any math you have shown.
Having said that, it would only make sense to teach creation in conjuction with evolution -or- continue to deprive the learner of the full equation
The "full equation" has not been shown. This looks like a back door to teaching ID or creationism. It would be appropriate to teach abiogenesis, as that is a scientific concept. "Creation" is not a scientific concept, and is likely to be hijacked [probably as intended] in order to further an unscientific religious agenda.
IF evolution were true then WHERE did intelligence begin? HOW did it begin?
This has been reasonably dealt with already, but I'll add to the comments. First, intelligence did not "begin". It is a matter of degree. Every [animal] life form has some form of intelligence governing how it chooses to interact with the rest of the universe. It begins with a protist turning away from concentrations of toxic chemicals or towards a light source, and it progresses to wolves running relays to tire and ambush caribou, to chimpanzees or parrots using simple tools to obtain food they otherwise couldn't. That's a simple "if, then, else" logic at work, and it's quite widespread among animals other than man.If you deal well with problems, you're more likely to have surviving offspring than your neighbor who starves or can't get laid. Natural selection is ALWAYS at work, and it very much "creates" intelligence.
the evolutionist still has to answer the "Origin" question. How did a mindless object suddenly develope a mind?
False. There is no sudden origin. It's a cumulative and synergistic process. See above.
It cannot be demonstrated that it happened at all.
Denied by evidence. Evidence of the myriad aspects of evolution is voluminous. That you don't see it is your choice, and not the result of a shortage of proof. I'm sure I've posted previously on the volumes of data available, and it would seem pontless to try to drown a horse in water it refuses to drink.
Therefore, Intelligence must have come from something OUTSIDE of the Evolutionary construct
Discussed above. See the whole bit leading up to "cum hoc ergo propter hoc", and flyguy's "false dilemna". Furthermore, evolutionary theory doesn't deal with origins. It deals with the process of change. When you are talking about the origin of life, the theories are "abiogenesis" of one sort or another. When discussing the origin of individual species, the origin doesn't exist. It's an arbitrary cut-off point in what we consider to be distinct species. There are a few known examples of living species which demonstrate this cut off point. Look up "ring species". Ring species typically contain both what we consider "intermediates", and what we consider distinct species. The "origin" is easy to see if we kill off all the intermediates [which the evolutionary process does through time]. In the fossil record, organisms so close to their divergence would likely be impossible to tell apart, and would remain so for potentially millions of years.
where evolution breaks down IMO is concerning the question of Ultimate Origin.
op cit. Evolution doesn't break down here, because that's not a topic for evolution.
But continue asking where did THAT come from and ultimately the evolutonist will either have to admit they do not know or they will proclaim that IT (whatever "IT" is) always has been
Conversely, a creationist will ALWAYS argue that they know what "IT" is, and they do so without one shred of evidence. They will also argue that everything MUST have a creator...except the creator. Let's make a rule that only applies when we want it to.
Therefore Dirt is their Creator
Strawman fallacy. Put words in someone else's mouth, claim that it's wrong, and then make like the two are equal. It also invokes a "creator", which is a fallacious appeal to those who...believe in a creator.
Whereas the Creationists believe, "In the beginning God...."
And to further the fallacy, you paint scientists as having faith in dirt, while creationists believe in the Ever Noble One True God. One with no evidence of existence, and no rational superiority to any other deity. It's also a useless argument since it doesn't actually explain anything. I don't understand. I guess God did it.
Basically, no matter where this "debate" crops up, it' the same crap. Creationists parade out the same fallacies over and over and over. They're rebutted and proven wrong rationally, scientifically, and logically, over, and over, and over...yet there's always someone two bricks short ready to trot out the same arguments in hope of an equally gullible and undiscerning audience. I'm amazed that someone who believes in evolution would feel the need to recycle this crap, as it only serves as a billboard for ID/creationist agendas which are utterly devoid of any valid science, and frequently any rational or intelligent thought either. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/28/2007 6:58:25 PM | Basically, no matter where this "debate" crops up, it' the same crap. Creationists (EVOLUTIONISTS) parade out the same fallacies over and over and over. They're rebutted and proven wrong rationally, scientifically, and logically, over, and over, and over...yet there's always someone two bricks short ready to trot out the same arguments in hope of an equally gullible and undiscerning audience. I'm amazed that someone who believes in evolution would feel the need to recycle this crap, as it only serves as a billboard for ID/creationist ( EVOLUTIONISTS) agendas which are utterly devoid of any valid science, and frequently any rational or intelligent thought either.
 Works both ways pal.
Like I said in my conclusion. Pick your belief system.
And you are telling fibs. Evolution does indeed seek to explain ORIGINS.
And evolution CANNOT explain where Intelligence comes from. They talk in circles but NEVER answer the question other than to say "Long Long ago and far far away....." | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/28/2007 7:12:59 PM |
Works both ways pal.
No, it does not. However, if you wish to SHOW how it works both ways, you need to show how and where evolutionists use logical fallacies, and where they have agendas devoid of any valid science, as we have with your arguments.
And you are telling fibs. Evolution does indeed seek to explain ORIGINS.
No he was not. I won't accuse you of lying as you have accused, but I will accuse you of arguing from ignorance. Perhaps (rather, definitely) you should learn more about the subject with which you vehemently disagree. See, I used to disagree with it until I actually sought to understand it. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/28/2007 7:42:25 PM |
Works both ways pal
If you'd quoted more selectively, I'd agree. Fallacious arguments are used on both sides. Since you quoted the whole passage, however, I can simply say "false". Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a well-supported theory. Both are established on a basis of observed fact, logic, and scientific method. Creationism disregards facts, relies extensively on logical fallacies, AND is completely unscientific. Let me be clear, although I know I have pointed it out before, and many others have as well: ID and creationism are advanced as if they have scientific support. That "support" is established by carefully selecting evidence while discarding any evidence which disagrees, and by questioning or attempting to discredit other science in order to support presuppositions. The other science which they attempt to discredit is, of course, well-founded. That's the nature of science - it is tested, re-tested, and inter-related. The world as we know it depends on those underpinnings being correct. The science which creationists discard so handily, works. If they discard the rules in one case, they must discard the rules in all cases. To be more succinct: creationism is not science, it's not logical, and it's not rational. By claiming science as support, while failing to actually use the scientific method, it is pseudoscience. It can only attract the gullible or uneducated with loud noises and pretty lights, because a more adept mind will see through the flaws.
Like I said in my conclusion. Pick your belief system
I believe in evidence. Both the faithfull and hardcore atheists can attest that I do not choose sides based on abstract faith, but on the quality and content of arguments made.
And you are telling fibs. Evolution does indeed seek to explain ORIGINS
I tried to spell this out. Evolution deals with change. Yes, organisms originate as a result of change. However, when "origin" is used in a discussion such as this, it is invariably used to build various creationism fallacies, often strawmen. Without spelling out all the possibilities, "origin" when used by a creationist has a very different meaning. It usually refers to some nebulous and magical transformation, or it refers to the origin of life, which is not addressed by evolution anyway.
And evolution CANNOT explain where Intelligence comes from
It does so quite well. "Intelligence" is not some instantaneous, distinctive feature. Claiming that it is, is essential to building yet another strawman. IE, "Intelligence is distinct and appears instantly, therefore it can't be explained by evolution". The conclusion is false because the suppositions have not been proven. In fact, the suppositions are contradicted by a wealth of evidence from a great many fields of research, including medicine, psychology, ecology, physiology, anatomy...ad nauseum.
They talk in circles but NEVER answer the question other than to say "Long Long ago and far far away....."
Isn't that a paraphrase of Genesis? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/28/2007 8:36:52 PM | Its too bad.
Had the energy wasted on this useless thread been applied to something, we'd probably have solved half the worlds major problems. (An exaggeration, I know, lighten up) heres the answer.
If you can look yourself in the mirror and think you are here only because of the biggest accident in history (not counting the one your parents may have made), and that evolution is another. Rather than a means of automatic upgrade for species not able to do it in a school or library, and a part of a larger blueprint (didn't use the word design cause it stirs up some folks).
Then happy trails to ya, enjoy your life. I prefer to think I'm not here by accident. And to both sides, beating each other over the head with whatever dogma you believe accomplishes nothing but wearing yourselves out and giving you a headache. And is about as welcome as a door to door salesman is, when you and your SO are getting cozy. There is room for both since both are part of the same thing. If you must, relay the basic elements of both and let the new ones choose for themselves.
Now don't make me come back here.
And have a Merry Christmas, or baaaaaaaa humbug whatever works for ya. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/28/2007 9:01:42 PM | Ah, thread-necromancy, we meet again!
It is impossible to argue this matter, as science formulates a hypothesis, then gathers evidence, THEN determines what conclusions can be drawn from said evidence, even if it is contradictory to the hypothesis. Creation/ID forms a conclusion, then selects evidence to support it while actively discarding any evidence to the contrary.
Procing something wrong is a good thing in science: it is not so with ID/Creation. That's what it all boils down to. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/29/2007 12:21:01 PM | ^^^ G. K. Brown wrote that Scientists formulate a theory, then construct an experiment whose results will support it, then draw a hypothesis that supports the theory and the results. They then publish that they formed a hypothesis, gather evidence, THEN determine what conclusions can be drawn from the evidence, even if the results contradict the hypothesis.
Proving something wrong is a good thing in Science. But in practise, this rarely happens. Not because the evidence supports you, but because Scientists don't like to be proved wrong, or challenged in any way. Read up on a history of Robert Hooke, and how Newton took almost every Scientific rule and every piece of architecture that Hooke proved or built, altered to claim that they were the result of Newton, and not Hooke.
Science doesn't disagree with theories of the universe's origin. Science doesn't speak. Only Scientists speak, and Nietzsche and Sartre concluded that you cannot trust anyone who claims to know the absolute truth. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/29/2007 12:38:25 PM | Proving something wrong is a good thing in Science. But in practise, this rarely happens.
Not if you say so. Evidence? The anecdote you give is about plagiarism, not about wrong conclusions being historically undisputed by the scientific community.
Science doesn't disagree with theories of the universe's origin. Science doesn't speak. Only Scientists speak, and Nietzsche and Sartre concluded that you cannot trust anyone who claims to know the absolute truth.
If theories of origins are scientific theories, then of course science doesn't disagree with them. Science is not about absolute truths, therefor it can be trusted. At least I trust science, because it does not trust itself to be right without compelling evidence, and even then it doesn't claim to be 100%.
I'm actually not sure of what you're trying to say... I can only speculate, and none of them are very compelling. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/29/2007 1:25:28 PM |
^^^ G. K. Brown wrote that Scientists formulate a theory, then construct an experiment whose results will support it, then draw a hypothesis that supports the theory and the results. They then publish that they formed a hypothesis, gather evidence, THEN determine what conclusions can be drawn from the evidence, even if the results contradict the hypothesis.
Argumentum ad verecundiam with some various other fallacies thrown in. First, who cares what G.K.Brown wrote? His writing it does not make it so. Furthermore, his conclusions with regard to certain individuals does not establish a case against all individuals in the same field. Most of us are guilty of that fallacy to some degree or another, including myself. In this case however, the generalization is both wrong and misleading.
An hypothesis may be formulated first. This is quite common, though at this stage it is incorrect to call it a theory in the scientific sense. This is just the creative process of determing what answers are being sought and how to find them, not the scientific process per se yet. An experiment may then be designed to verify this hypothesis. So far, so good. Here, though, we part company. What I was taught, and what I read with regularity, differs sharply with the citation above. The experimental design of a good scientist will indeed address the assumed hypothesis. It's highly misleading to leave off there without examining the rest of the process. In designing the experiment, the scientist must provide normally two concise possible results, and a methodology which while cause negative results if the first hypothesis is wrong. The two results will be the "null" hypothesis and the "alternate" hypothesis. Which is which will depend on the experimental design. A good experiment will only allow two possible logical conclusions, and the nature of those conclusions will be such that no false dichotomy fallacy is created. Those who try to publish conclusions contrary to their results will be torn apart in prepublication peer-review, much less after publication or after the follow-ups by others. To assume that all, or the majority, of scientists operate in such an ineffective and unscientific fashion is just wrong. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/29/2007 2:42:26 PM | ^^^ It is quite correct that what you wrote is GOOD Science. Science is not run by saints, unfortunately, and everything that you wrote assumes that scientists are impartial enough, both as individuals, and as a group, to discover the truth. Unfortunately, there are enough examples throughout history, of intelligent and well-reasoned groups within society, who interacted, to show that such biases are not removed, simply by peer review, only those ideas written by those individuals who have not played the politics of Science correctly, and anyone who has spent time in university, and got to know what really goes on, knows that politics is more important than truth, in much of academia. I would like to live in the world that you describe. Unfortunately, I live in the real one, and the two have yet to coalesce.
Also, do you know who G.K.Brown is? If you did, then I doubt that you would make such a claim. If you do not, then I cannot help your lack of understanding. His work is fundamental to the basic understanding of truth and logic. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/29/2007 6:54:30 PM | As a believer and a scientist, I have no trouble reconciling the Biblical account and evolution. The problem, as I see it is a lack of knowledge of Hebrew. As we all know, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and this, of course includes Genesis and the account of the Creation. But translation of Hebrew into English isn't easy. Translation in general needs to be more than just word-for-word. Languages have idioms and phrases, and contexts. You need to be knowledgeable about the language to do a good job of translation.
So lets look at the story of Creation in Genesis. As we all know it starts in Genesis 1:1 with "In the Beginning..." So far so good. We get Light, day, night, waters, sky, land, seas, plants and trees, sun, moon, stars, fish, birds, livestock, animals, and finally mankind. Both male and female.
But then in Genesis 2:4, we find "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth,... " God creates man (only male) and places him in the Garden of Eden. God then creates plants, land animals and birds, and finally a woman.
Now if you are a literal Creationist this is a problem. There are two Creation accounts in Genesis, and they are different! Which one is literally true?
But the answer is that the literal creationists don't understand Hebrew well enough! Hebrew is a very idiomatic and poetic language. In English, the form of poetry is usually to have to ending words rhyme, and for there to be a rhythm to the words.
In Hebrew, the form of poetry is to repeat the same general meaning but alter the phrasing somewhat. You can see this more clearly when looking at most of the Psalms.
So what you're looking at in the Genesis story of creation is Hebrew poetry, not meant to be taken literally, but powerful language, nevertheless.
As for evolution, there's no reason that God needs to do everything supernaturally. He is the Creator of the entire natural world, and certainly entitled to use His own tools. Why should He not be allowed to use evolution as His tool? It apparently worked and did what He wanted. Just set it loose and sit back and watch!  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/29/2007 8:05:22 PM | | for anyone to believe in either creation or evolution it is going to take some sort of a faith. there is really no real way that either one can be proven, and this is coming from a pastor of a baptist church. the only way that you can believe in either one is to have faith in it. on one hand you can put your faith in a God that took time to create and put his love into it, or you can put your faith in everything being an accident and that we are all here by chance. even if i'm wrong and at the end of my life that's it, there is no God, i know that i wont feel as though i have missed out on anything and i'll know that i lived a good life and no harm done. but lets say i'm right and there is a God and i've chosen to put my faith in him and live my life for him, then again i've lived a good life and then i'm with the creator and all those people who haven't chosen to put their faith in him... well i'll let you read the Bible for what happens there. really creation or evolution all comes down to what do you want to put your faith in, a God that loves you or that you are just a fluke. for me the choice is pretty easy. | |
|
|
| Page 151 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 
