|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/1/2007 9:58:19 AM |
In theroy
If GOD created sea creatures, birds, land creatures, according to thier kinds.
Then it is possible that any creature in evolution was created by GOD.
And people tell me I'm an ***hole for thinking I'm superior to religious people... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/1/2007 10:07:33 AM | | At least that hypothesis does nothing to undermine the basic idea of a theological creation, nor does it contradict evolution. It's neither supported by science, nor refuted by it. That's the best you can really hope for when trying compare theology and science, as they're imiscible concepts. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/1/2007 5:05:57 PM | geometry:
Good post.
Would have been great, except for:
Some of my other posts vs. people of faith on issues on belief in demons and other such nonsense are directly against "making stuff up"
But I know it's difficult to please anyone 100% of the time. So I hope you're ok with "good post". | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/1/2007 10:16:33 PM | More to the point, science actually offers explanations, whereas what Geometry has offered is an endless stream of vague biblical comments which don't actually predict, explain or describe anything, even when interpretted after the fact. Too many stars to count? Duh. Science gave us an idea of just how many stars there are, where they are, what they are... the Bible gives us "gee, there are a lot."
It's excusable to not read the entirety of 150+ pages of posts, but he's actually offered nothing but a more extensive rendition of the usual fallacious arguments. "Not even a hypothesis" is among the best. Offered up without any understanding of what a theory, hypothesis, or evolution is, much less any demonstration of how evolution doesn't qualify. That's simply because any such demonstration would be impossible without resorting to changing the definitions of one or more of the terms. The biblical citations are great, from the perspective of understanding what the Bible offers in this regard [which isn't much beyond carnival quality prophecy], but they don't really lead anywhere since the bottom line is that gods are never acceptable scientific answers. If you can't offer proof of existence or influence, or even a definition, then you can't show it as cause.
I don't endorse "making stuff up", and not researching. Some of my other posts vs. people of faith on issues on belief in demons and other such nonsense are directly against "making stuff up". Evolution has too many holes in it, it isn't even a hypothesis
Hypocrisy, thy name is "Geometry". | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/3/2007 1:14:42 PM | More to the point, science actually offers explanations, whereas what Geometry has offered is an endless stream of vague biblical comments which don't actually predict, explain or describe anything, even when interpretted after the fact. Too many stars to count? Duh. Science gave us an idea of just how many stars there are, where they are, what they are... the Bible gives us "gee, there are a lot."
Damn Froggo! When we agree I find it hard to elaborate!
I'll just say the rabbit chewing its cud part is actually just the Bible stating an observable fact... That would be the Bible catching up with science, not the other way around.
The rest are just either too silly or the same thing. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/3/2007 2:06:37 PM | Except that rabbits DO NOT chew the cud. To chew cud, they would have to be ruminants with a multi-compartment stomach. Chew once, swallow, digest in one stomach, re-chew, swallow, digest in the second stomach...
Rabbits are lagomorphs and don't have compartmentalized guts. They don't have a cud, much less chew it. Cattle, antelope, and their relatives DO.
I knew I had missed a few things, and had meant to address this one before, but frankly, I posted in haste and didn't want to take hours to deal with my response.
One could reasonably argue that this definition of "cud" is a relatively modern, limited, and scientific one, compared to 2000 years ago. Fair enough. However that would change the biblical observation from scientifically wrong to simply unscientific, as it makes the definition of "cud" too broad and vague to be useful. Either way, it's a no-go for biblical "science". | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/3/2007 7:17:14 PM |
Creation Vs. Evolution
People can get all twisted with this question but I think it's real simple. People are getting the two things mixed up.
The idea of creation is a shared concept by both Science and religion. They may differ to some extent as to how that creation came to be but both are in complete agreement on the fact that there was nothing in the begining... (If there was something that came before that singularity then its exsistance is entirely another question and most likely irrealvant to the present state of the universe)
Evolution, is a different thing than creation. It's principal bases is that life arouse from ever increasing biological adaptations into the species we see today (short answer).
I feel it's a fruitless endevor to judge the two against one another because Evolution is an after the fact explination for life, it doesn't give birth to that life. Sure it makes an excellent arguement of how life has adapted from random gentic code and through natural selection, but it falls far short of giving an explination for how it orginially started. You can pass a spark through a chosen mixture of gasses that will form amino acids, the building blocks of proteins which are the main ingredients of living cells, but that doesn't bring about a life form! I've yet to see an elephant or a single celled animal for that matter arise from such an experiment?
Now I agree it's debatable, that evolution may simply be a tool of creation but to express that evoultion vs. creation in the sense to discredit creation altogether has no validity. Real science doesn't support such a claim and yet the biologist like to use science to say it does. How's that suppose to work? What, we scientist use our science to give credit to our theories but when the science itself doesn't support it, we are to disregard the science... That sounds a whole lot like "faith" not good science! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/3/2007 8:34:50 PM |
What, we scientist use our science to give credit to our theories but when the science itself doesn't support it, we are to disregard the science... That sounds a whole lot like "faith" not good science!
Nice christian propaganda.
If the science doesn't support the theory then the theory is discarded, not the science.
Except for creationist scientists who find only what they want to find by blinding themselves to the rest. When your buddy Kirk Cameron looks on in wonder at how the banana fits his hand so well thanks to God's intervention, he ignores the coconuts and pineapples and innumerable other fruits that are hard as hell to open without tools. An objective scientist welcomes disconfirming evidence, a creationist typically puts on the blinders and ignores it.
Scientific results are challenged. They are tested. Scientists don't rally together to support bad science (again, except for creationists), they find the flaws and race to publish it.
I've yet to see an elephant or a single celled animal for that matter arise from such an experiment?
Really? How strange. You have, of course, performed a million trials simultaneously every moment for a billion years in order to more correctly compare how life would have originated right? Oh but of course you did. And did you know that abiogenesis and evolution are different things?
At the start of the 19th century, most scientists were creationists. When they sought to find evidence of a global flood, and such a massive world-wide phenomena would surely be easy to prove if it occurred, they instead found evidence for evolution. That's what creationists do when they look at evidence objectively - they prove evolution. The theory of evolution grows stronger every day, not despite the efforts of those who try to disprove it, but because of the efforts of those who try to disprove it. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/3/2007 9:33:22 PM |
rockondon
Nice christian propaganda---------When your buddy Kirk Cameron
I think you owe me an apology and if you want any credit for your arguments in the eyes of others here in this thread you should be very forth coming with it right away. Sir, you've made some very big assumptions about me, that has no merit.
1. I have never professed to be of the Christian faifh
2. I have no affilation nor do I agree with Mr. Cameron and his clan
I do not agree with scientology or the creationist scientist. We are in perfect agreement that I too believe they only use half truths and science when it serves their purpose. But I really don't see how your not doing the very same thing?
"The Big Bang" as science calls it, is itself a creation. You will not get any of the brightest minds on the planet today to disagree with that fact. They don't know what gave spark to that begining and openly admit that. They do their best to explain it in several ways but give no credit to any given concept. It's just as likey to have been the work of god as it is any other theory they've said. Believe me I have several of their books, which I have read each one several times...
Really? How strange. You have, of course, performed a million trials simultaneously every moment for a billion years in order to more correctly compare how life would have originated right? Oh but of course you did. And did you know that abiogenesis and evolution are different things?
Actually, according to them on the one side they say it took millions of years for such life to come about. However, you will catch a refernce from time to time hidden amoung all that text that goes against the over all theme. Now why propose one idealogy and intemitently say something like that it seems the universe is ripe for life that the science seems to say that it would have been more extrodinary given the circumstances that life would have never came into being? Or when they speak of the 5 or 6 times they think the earth has had life nearly wiped out for it to only return in short order with all sorts of various animals. If we are to believe the idea of evolution then we are talking about the complete rebuilding of life starting from scratch on at least some of those extermination events... The Science itself says there wouldn't be enough time between those events to account for the explosive development and repopulation of the planet with so many different spieces.... Remember the over all Science says it takes hundreds of billions of years to get from blue green algae to creatures like Marrella. Yet the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly and abruptly came from nowhere?
I disagree on your opinion on evolution. It's case is growing less founded than it was 20 years ago. It seems to me that the idea is falling apart and biologist just don't want to let it go. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/3/2007 10:13:27 PM |
TopGear1: 1. I have never professed to be of the Christian faifh
2. I have no affilation nor do I agree with Mr. Cameron and his clan
1. Yes you did. Check your profile.
2. If that's true, then I apologize. In that wayofthemaster thread you made you seemed somewhat supportive of their position and against the atheist position, for example I felt that...
TopGear1: Boy do those athiest have it wrong they are missing a great and enjoyable life, stealing, murdering and raping...
...was a pretty harsh generalization. I'm a little put off after being labelled a stealing murdering rapist. I'm thin-skinned I guess. 
The Science itself says there wouldn't be enough time between those events to account for the explosive development and repopulation of the planet with so many different spieces
Good point. The Cambrian explosion is definately a curiosity. Personally, I have no idea why the sudden rapid burst of evolving species occurred - perhaps there were environmental changes at that time, perhaps the genes finally reached a point of complexity where diversification could occur much faster than before, or any number of other possibilities. Although it is difficult to say why it happened, it is difficult to refute that it did happen. The fossils tell a tale that is hard to ignore.
I disagree on your opinion on evolution. It's case is growing less founded than it was 20 years ago. It seems to me that the idea is falling apart and biologist just don't want to let it go.
On that point, we definately disagree. With each passing day evolution survives scrutiny, it grows ever stronger. It is every scientist's dream, and especially every evolutionist's dream, to disprove the theory of evolution. Anyone who did so would be hallmarked the greatest mind of their time. They would be beyond wealthy and loved around the world. Generally speaking, man is a proud animal and doesn't really WANT to be descended from 'lower' species, if it was disproved everyone would be a lot happier I'm sure.
But unfortunately there's that issue about evidence. Tons of it and from many different fields all pointing unambiguously toward the same picture. The fossils were being used to date layers of soil long before little Charlie Darwin was ever born and suggested evolution to be the cause of that. We watch evolution every day at a microscopic level. It is used in epidemiology, pest control, and drug discovery and consistently proves itself. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/5/2007 2:33:16 AM |
rockondon
1. Yes you did. Check your profile.
I'm at a loss for words? Thank you for bringing this to my attention... I was not aware that my profile had that in it? I rarely if ever visit my profile and I guess that's why I have never noticed it. I suppose that when I filled it out way back then that I must have accidently got that stuck on there? Nevertheless, again thanks I've corrected it...
2. If that's true, then I apologize. In that wayofthemaster thread you made you seemed somewhat supportive of their position and against the atheist position, for example I felt that...
No problem, bud... I'm very happy you enlightened me about my profile I was not aware of the error. As for the "way of the master" thread, I believe I made it very clear that I was not a supporter of theirs. The only things I agreed with they ever said was: as far as I'm concerned they can speak the word as they know it on the streets. Also that when ever they use a quote from the Bible, I'm not going to disagree that the Bible says that quote, when in fact it is written in that book...
I can't address everything else right now for I need to go to work but I will talk about it later...
Again thanks :) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/5/2007 11:44:45 AM | hersheyboy
What was the evolutionary origin of speech? How did it happen?
I'll put it simply to keep the post short.
First animals developed a gut to disolve food, then from the opening of that gut (the throat) a swim blader devloped alowing for neutral bounacy, this is the start of vocalisations. Some fish are able to vibrate thier swim bladers and click thier tounges in order to creat sounds that cary to nearby fish and are detected as presure waves by presure sensative organs at the head end of the latterla line, Catfish are a good example of this.
After this it was not untill the swim blader evloved into the lungs that animals were able to push signifigant amount of air through the mouth and sinus cavity to make sounds. The presure sensative organ evoloed into an eardrum capable of detecting a great range of presure waves (also known as sounds). These basic structures can be seen in amphibians such as frogs, with eardrums but no complex ear structures and loud vocalisations but only simple vocal chords.
The next leap forwards was the evolution of the voice box. The vocal chords devloped becoming more complex, alowing for a greater range of vocolisations. Alongside this, the ears devloped to filter out background sound and to become more selective to set freaquncies. after this it was not untill the devloment of extrordinary inteligence that vocolisations made any significant changes. With the devlopment of our inteligince, we were able to refine the vocolisations into language, where a combination of sounds is ussed to convey information instead of a single sound (that is what diferentiates the calls of animals such as gazelle, from the complex language ussed by humans and a few other animals.).
What was the evolutionary origin of Algebra? How did it happen?
Algebra has no evolutionary origin due to not being a factor of our biology. Our understanding of algebra comes from our inteligance, not our biology.
What was the evolutionary origin of music? How did it happen?
This is part of the evolution of speach. The first animals to use language, did so as music. You may not think so but frog calls are music. they use vocalisations that change in pitch and intensity to convey information. The female then listens for the most mathimaticaly and preciselly pitched perfect calls and sellects her mate bassed on how well the male is able to sing. This preferance for mathematicaly precision and pitch perfect sound has been a factor of almost every complex organism since its inception. With humans it displays itself in our love of music and also in the fact that we apreciate difrent accents. One of the reasons we like french and scotish acents is because of the musical qualities of them.
____________________________________
geometry
***I'm not reading 100+ pages of posts. I'm responding directly to the OP.***
I don't blame you, it is a bit long.
Evolution isn't a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis.
Quite right.... Its a fact. What Darwin wrote was "The Theory of Evolution Through Natural Selection." darwin invented natural selection not evolution, he created a theory (natural selction) to explain the facts of evolution.
Darwin himself believed in intelligent design.
Yes he did.... when he was young. then he went to University. It was not even when he went to university to study Biology, but when we first went and studied theology, that he lost his belife in the biblecal god and design.
In order to remain consistent with this point, it must be admitted that everything quoted from any scientist is also in the "someone told me" category.
Nope, sory but you are wrong. Anything that a scientist sais THAT IS NOT BACKED UP BY EVIDENCE, must be taken in the "bloke down the pub told me", catagory. But anything that is backed up by evidence and therfore can be proven must be taken as true.
The Bible contains an enormous wealth of scientific fact.
It contains no such thing. The bible dose not concern intself with scientific fact because there was no science at the time of the bible, nor is its subject matter even somthing that is scientifically verifiable. Looking back and prescribing certain texts to science is falicious.
For example, the Bible says a rabbit chews the cud. Science of course scoffed and ridiculed the passage until it was observed in the late 18th or early 19th century a rabbit does indeed chew it's cud.
WRONG.
Rabbits do not chew cud. They eat grass but do not chew cud. In order to redigest food what rabbits do is to produce two difrent types of feces, one partially difgested and the other fully so, they then go on to redigest the partially diggested feces. This can in no way be construed as chewing the cud.
The only way that rabbits could be considered to chew cud, is if you take cud to simply mean grass and if that is the case then people have known rabbits eat grass for about as long as they have known rabbits exist!
"host of heaven" is the biblical term for the stars).
In your opinion. There are MANY more eminant scholoars who have always understood the host of heaven to mean the angels and there is certainly more evidence to support this claim than your claim.
When it made this statement, no one knew how vast the numbers of stars were as only about 1,100 were observable
There are billions of stars presently visable today and the sky today is full of polution and light disturbance, when the bible was writen the sky was much clearer and there would have been even more stars visable. So where do you get the 1100 stars bit?
The Bible claimed that the earth freely floated in space. Science then thought that the earth sat on a large animal.
Science thought no such thing (as scince is a tool not an entity and did not exist at that time) and no such claims were made by people trying to use logic at that time. The only claims of such things were from other religions, for example the chinease belived that the earth was a lotus floating in a stream and the Iriqui belived that the world was nothing but a great lake with no bounds.
The first people to apply reason to the subject were the Greeks, who reasoned that the earth was round because ships disapeared botom first over the horizon. From this they reasoned that the earth must not be floating in anything, unfortunately, due to not having ay concept of gravity, they reaoned that the earth was the centre of the universe and so did not require anything to support it.
Hebrews 11:3 (written 2000 years ago): "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
The Bible claims that all creation is made of invisible material. Science then was ignorant of the subject. We now know that the entire creation is made of invisible elements called "atoms."
Again that is your opinion and there are many more eligable scholors who state that the meaning of theis verse is that god dose not show himself in his workings and works without the notice of the world. God moves in misterious ways, he dose not walk the earth and make the stars, he lies invisble and outside of the universe and guides thier formation.
Up until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled", and many died because of the practice. We now know that blood is the source of life. If you lose your blood, you will lose your life.
This was due to a theory by the greeks called the four humours, where it was belived that an excess of one of the fluids of the body would make you ill, so they bled people to remove the excess blood. It should be pointed out that people only died from this parctice due to infection or complications caused by the method. The most comon way of removing excess vitriol was to use leaches, which will not drain you of all your blood, in fact people only ever had a small amount of blood drained, less than when you go to give blood nowerdays.
the reason they only removed a small amount of blood is because people knew that draining the blood will kill you! People have been suffering from cuts for longer than they have been aware of what a cut is and we, just like many other animals, try to stem the flow of bleeding because we are fully aware that loosing to much blood will kill us.
Leviticus 15:13 (written 3000 years ago): "And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean."
The Bible said that when dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water.
sorry but you are very wrong on this point. I have not seen ANY biblical scholor that states issue to mean disease and to do so is an increadible leap of faith. The biblical use of the word issue is a greavance, (taking issue with someone) and the passage refers to ritual purifaction of the body after a greavance is cleared up.
Job 38:35 (written 3,500 years ago. God Himself speaking): "Can you send lightnings, that they may go and say unto you, Here we are?"
The Bible here is saying a scientifically ludicrous statement -- that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech.
Sorry again but you are wrong. the bible is not saying anthing ludicrus but you are by trying to sugest that the meaning of this pasage is to do with radiowaves. This pasage is about asking for a sign to be sent, not for god to actualy make light travel to someone then change into sounds. I think the important part of the text is the word... Lightnings, not light, lightnings, which has always been one of the more traditional forms of god comoning with people. Aditionally, lightning alos is normally acompanied by thunder, a method that god could use to comunicate to people without doing anything outside the realms of the natural world people at that time understood.
Isaiah 40:22 (written 2800 years ago): "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth."
The Bible informs us here that the earth is round. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat,
Only because the Catholic church had told them it was. It is important to point out that a disk is both round and flat, which is why the RCC belived it was flat. Greek scholors however recorded that the earth was not only round but the greek mathematician Eratosthenes calculated that the earth was 250,000 stadia or 25,000 geographical miles. The circumference of the Earth is 24,902 miles.
Job 38:19 (written 3500 years ago). "Where is the way where light dwells?"
Modern man has only just discovered that light (electromagnetic radiation) has a "way," involving motion traveling at 186,000 miles per second.
Read the text in context. It is eminantly clear to ANYONE who reads it that it is refering to the place that light dwells in, not to the way light moves.
"Have you understood the expanse of the earth? Tell Me, if you know all this.
Where is the way to the dwelling of light? And darkness, where is its place,
That you may take it to its territory And that you may discern the paths to its home?"
Genesis 1:1,3 (written 3,450 years ago): "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth . . . And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power and motion. "In the beginning (time) God created (power) the Heaven (space) and the earth (matter) . . . And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters."
Pseudo scintific nonses. Q: Where do you get these five expresions of science?
Why did the dinosaur disappear? This is something that has modern science mystified,
Not particulaly so. We know several facts about what was going on at the time, but the fact is that we will never know why they died out, only what did not cause them to die out and the factors that contributed to thier demise. No serious scientist looks for the answer as to what killed the dinosaurs, but for factors that may have pushed them to extinction.
* This was the Largest of all creatures He made.
No, the leviathon was the largest of all living creatures he made... or possobly the fish that swallowed Jhona.
* Its tail was like a large tree (a cedar).
Again no, it states that its tail MOVED like cedar, not was as large as. This is a statement of the way the tail moved, not of its size.
Its habitat was among the trees.
And it slept amoungst the reeds and ferns and was hidden there so it must have been small enough for medium sized plants to cover it, just like a hippo really.
Psalm 8:8: "And the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passes through the paths of the seas."
What does the Bible mean by "paths" of the seas? The sea is just a huge mass of water, how then could it have "paths?" Man discovered the existence of ocean currents in the 1850's,
No man discovered the oceon curents s far back in antiquity that there is no record of when he first discovered them. EVERY sea fairing nation has known about and ussed the ocean currents, the pollonisian islanders are capable of staering for thousands of milles in the dark without stars to guide them by ussing thier knowledge of the oceans. The great standing cairns of the scilli isles are alighned to a difrent water current around the isle, in order to guide boats inland safelly.
Jonah 2:6 (written 2,800 years ago): "I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet have you brought up my life from corruption, O YHWH my God."
When Jonah was in the depths of the ocean, he spoke of going down to the "bottoms of the mountains."
Actualy the word is ROTTS, not bottoms. This is an important diferance because it was wel known that mountains extended down into the ground and below the ocean. He is talking about mountains that are visable on the earth and desending to the underwater base of these mountains.
Job 38:12, 14, (written 3500 years ago) God Himself says: "Have you commanded the morning since your days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; that it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? It [the earth] is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment."
Modern science has come to understand that the earth's rotation on its axis is responsible for the sun's rising and setting. The picture here is of a vessel of clay being turned or rotated upon the potter's wheel -- an accurate analogy of the earth's rotation.
Sory but no its not. You need to learn to read more carefully. It sais (and is an acurate translation) that the day is changed as clay under the seal. This means that god has put his mark (his seal) uppon everything, even the changing of the dawn to the day. that is what passage reffers to.
Hebrews 1:10,11 (written 2000 years ago): ". . . And, You, Lord, in the beginning have laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of your hands: They shall perish; but you remain; and they all shall wax old as does a garment."
The Bible tells us that the earth is wearing out.
This is not a new concept. It was quite a comon theme in many other religions, for example the Inuit belived that the world wore down and decayed into slush and then reconsolidated into a new world. This is infact true, as the planet will eventualy decay into particulate matter when the sun dies, and then will most likely go on to become more planets when that mater meets up with other clouds of matter that ussed to be planets. But I do not see anyone saying the Inuit were gifted astro-physicists, because they guessed something corectly.
Genesis 17 "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed."
Why was circumcision to be carried out on the eighth day? Medical science has discovered that the eighth day is the only day in the entire life of the newborn that the blood clotting element prothrombin is above 100%. Medical science has also discovered that this is when the human body's immune system is at its peak.
Most likely learned through trial and eror. People were performing circumcisions for thousands of years before that, and in all that time they would have noticed that children circumcised on the 8th day had the best chance of surviving. Just because the science explains why later on dose not make the observation in the bible scientific in the least.
Genesis 3 "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."
This verse reveals that a female possesses the "seed of life." This was not the common knowledge until a few centuries ago. It was widely believed that the male only possessed the "seed of life" and that the woman was nothing more than a glorified incubator.
Again no. It was only recently that we discovered the mechanics of procreation, however every society in history has had thier own take on who was responsable for what. In Patrarchal societies like Christianity it is generally belived that the father is the bearer of the seed of life, whilst in many matriarchal societies it is belived that the woman bears the seed of life and the male meerly provides sustenance, however in more egalitarian societies where niether male nor female is held above the other, it is often belived that both partners carry the seed of life, the Massai tribesmen of Affrica for example belive that men and women are equals (although both have thier stict jobs to do) and also belive that both cary the seed of life.
All this passage shows is that the writers of the bible belinged to a more egalitarian society than modern christianity.
Isaiah 40:12 (written 2,800 years ago): "Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand . . ."
We are told that God has measured the waters and set a proper amount of water on the earth. Modern science has proved that the quantity of water on earth is just enough for our needs. If the sea became three meters deeper, the water would absorb all the carbon dioxide and nitrogen, and no creature could live any longer.
Wrong again. If the sea were deaper, then more carbon dioxide would be be absorbed which would reduce the number of plants first, and in turn reduce the number of animals as we are dependant upon plants for sustenance. In doing so the predation on the plants would reduce and the plants recover, and in turn the animals would recover as well. All that would change would be the ratio of plants to animals, so long as there is still carbon dioxide and oxygen in the air, life will go on because it is a self balancing system.
I don't endorse "making stuff up", and not researching...... Evolution has too many holes in it, it isn't even a hypothesis.
And yet you go and make up things like this without even checking the facts. I challange you to point out just one hole in evolution that is not due to your lack of understanding of the subject but is infact a problem for evolution. (For example, saying monkeys should have died out when we evolved is lack of understanding, but providing a reason that monkeys should be dieing out and yet they thrive, would be a problem.)
Speaking of phenomenon that can be observed and tested! How about the phenomenon I've documented here and is so conveniently ignored
Sory, I must be ignoring something here, what phenomena. so far you have not cited ANY phenomena, or I would be able to tell you something about it, but as you have not, well as my brother sais... Put up or shut up. (I'e, proivde something of worth or stop stating that you have information that we do not)
The question of what is/should be taught in "school" is dependent upon so many more variables, and it's in no way a simple "yes" or "no" question. As far as the secular world is concerned, if it is taught in school everything about this topic should be included and presented as the raging inconclusive debate that it is. Not misrepresented by anti-science or anti-religious instructors with their own personal agenda. The deeper question would be is that possible. The answer is a big, fat "NO!".
The first thing you have said that I agre with. And as we can come to no concessus on what is and is not to be included, how about we stick to just teaching the kids science and leave everything that is not science for a diffrent classroom? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/5/2007 4:07:44 PM | | You make a common mistake that is often made by those who do not practice the science disciplines when you ask for "proof" regarding either a theological belief concept such as creation or a theory such as evolution. If there were "proof" for evolution it would no longer be a theory would it. There is a great deal of evidence supporting the plausibility of evolution however and non to support tha plausibility of creation. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/5/2007 4:33:59 PM |
The idea of creation is a shared concept by both Science and religion. They may differ to some extent as to how that creation came to be but both are in complete agreement on the fact that there was nothing in the begining... (If there was something that came before that singularity then its exsistance is entirely another question and most likely irrealvant to the present state of the universe)
I'd be very interested to see what it is that leads you to say that creation is a shared concept by both science and religion. Science only has observed evidence that relates to the "visible" universe. That evidence indicates to us what likely occured from a few miliseconds after the big bang. Science has never addressed what happend precisely during the big bang or what may have happened before. Likewise, science does not know that the universe was created from nothing, it simple has found nothing so far. That is far from meaning that there was nothing.
What, we scientist use our science to give credit to our theories but when the science itself doesn't support it, we are to disregard the science... That sounds a whole lot like "faith" not good science!
Not at all. Science is all about continually testing and challenging current laws and concepts. Isaac Newton was dead wrong in his explanation of gravity and yet it was accepted as law untile Albert Einstein came along. Albert simply had better investigative and experimental methods than Sir Isaac did. Faith in no way is an appropriate word to use with regard to any of the sciences. What science tells us today may very well be incorrect. That is precisely why we never stop testing and challenging present laws, theories and principals. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/5/2007 4:45:21 PM | Wikipedia;
The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.
In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.
No...this is where the layman get's confused. Scientific THEORY is not the same as laymans THEORY. For laymen it's an hypothesis... in science it's a testable explanation. That's why in science they use the word, HYPOTHESIS, to differentiate the two. Yes.. there is the possibility that it COULD be refuted... scientifically, IF the evidence leads one to a different conclusion, but that in itself would have to be emprical as well. When something becomes a LAW.. then it is accepted as irrefutable fact. The LAW of gravity... yet still described as a theory in science, is one example.
Semantics and sophistry do not good science make. Unless you are pedantic. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/5/2007 5:21:37 PM |
If there were "proof" for evolution it would no longer be a theory would it
actually yes it would. When theories are proven they're still called theories. Only the uninformed use the term 'theory' to indicate uncertainty.
evidence indicates to us what likely occured from a few miliseconds after the big bang. Science has never addressed what happend precisely during the big bang or what may have happened before.
I asked science the other day what happened and it said "I don't know."
If you ask an honest person what happened before the big bang they say "I don't know" or "I believe that..." If you ask a dishonest person what happened before the big bang they say....anything else. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/5/2007 5:55:02 PM |
rockondon
...was a pretty harsh generalization. I'm a little put off after being labelled a stealing murdering rapist.
I wasn't saying you or they did such things nor was I really suggesting that you, they or anyone should... I was merely bringing to light the fact that when ever a society such as we have seen with facist regimes. Who wishes to surplant it's own laws above those written in the hearts of man always results self destruction.
Good point. The Cambrian explosion is definately a curiosity. Personally, I have no idea why the sudden rapid burst of evolving species occurred - perhaps there were environmental changes at that time, perhaps the genes finally reached a point of complexity where diversification could occur much faster than before, or any number of other possibilities. Although it is difficult to say why it happened, it is difficult to refute that it did happen. The fossils tell a tale that is hard to ignore.
I'm not sure if it's a good point or not but it's an unexplained mystery science created yet can't explain. The science trips on it's on theory? However, it's not just that particular instance and according to the science it's happened 5 or 6 times. If it took billions upon billions of years for it to go from basically soup to the first single celled animals. Then have it all destroyed on 5 or 6 times there after, that same stuff couldn't do the very same thing in a much shorter period such as 1/16th of time scale...
I do not disagree to the fact that the fossils we dig out of the rock are evidence of animals that once lived. But just because something like a dinosaur once walked the earth doesn't disprove the exsistance of a supreme being...
On that point, we definately disagree. With each passing day evolution survives scrutiny, it grows ever stronger. It is every scientist's dream, and especially every evolutionist's dream, to disprove the theory of evolution. Anyone who did so would be hallmarked the greatest mind of their time. They would be beyond wealthy and loved around the world. Generally speaking, man is a proud animal and doesn't really WANT to be descended from 'lower' species, if it was disproved everyone would be a lot happier I'm sure.
Well just because I see one thing and you see another is really a fault we equally share. Once not so long ago everything was much simpler to understand. It all seemed to be so clear but since then much of the complexibility of DNA has been revealed. It's secrets have proven to be less a product of random chance or mere adapation, than a well engineered machine? The question to ask is why and how this is possible... Where we make our mistake is in dismissing a possible solution just because science doesn't like the idea that a god could be behind it.
I've seen lot's of fanciful examples of what science likes to promote as animals of ancestors to various other animals (not just man). But that's all they are is fanciful museum pieces hardly the evidence of true transitional speices as they are protrayed. I don't dismiss them as trival things nor do I not give the the information careful thought and a fair opporuinty to prove itself because I too would like to know the truth. However, I've yet to see anything that shows any true signals of one spieces branching off from another. The oddest of things and it is well documented in the fossil record but is rarely ever discussed in scientific circles and that is the extinction of one spieces and the birth of an entirely unrelated speices arriving on the scene within the same time range, in short order. There seems to be no prior developmental stage it just appears out of thin air? (It's like a new popular Christmas toy that pops out of nowhere and seems to be all over the place, while at the same time last years popular toy has vanished from the shelves never to be seen again...)
If you venture away from the large scale to a much smaller scale where you can see many mutations and adaptations over several 1000 to 10000 of generations. As with fruit flies? Sure you get many changes but that's all they are is changes, a fruit fly is still a fruit fly, it doesn't become a completely different fly...
Nevertheless:
Let's say for argument sake you was a supreme being? You could do what ever you liked as long as you didn't break the rules that you placed in motion. However, as a supreme being you wouldn't have to break the rules because your not really bound by such rules. In fact you may only need to bend them and since your the master of all you would know exactly how to do that. Being the supreme being that you are, time as we know it has no limitations to you, it's neither the past, present or the future. Distance of course also has no meaning because you can be here, there, everywhere all at the same instance. In fact as a supreme being you could be closer to us than our own skin... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/5/2007 6:59:21 PM | Geometry, it was a valiant effort, but it's not going to convince anyone. See the responses for proof of that. The problem is that your 'proofs' are riddled with errors ans assumptions. Some of them aren't, but your opponents will ignore those and latch on to the errors and dismiss it all. Anyway, as a 'scientist', here's my 20c or so:
the Bible says a rabbit chews the cud. Science of course scoffed and ridiculed the passage until it was observed in the late 18th or early 19th century a rabbit does indeed chew it's cud. But it doesn't. Chewing the cud refers to an animal that chews vegetation, partially digests it, regurgitates it, and chews it some more. Like a cow. A rabbit chews, swallows and digests, end of story. Therefore not a ruminant (chews the cud). An Error as stated. However, the simple fact is that no-one knows the critter referenced. the word in uncertain and ambiguous. Good translators would leave it transliterated (like behemoth and leviathan) instead of doing as some have done and translating it as "rabbit" or "hare". It's neither. No-one knows what it is.
Jeremiah 33:22 (written 2500 years ago): "As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured."
The Bible claimed that there are billions of stars ("host of heaven" is the biblical term for the stars). When it made this statement, no one knew how vast the numbers of stars were as only about 1,100 were observable. Now we know that there are billions of stars, and that they cannot be numbered. I have no idea if the "1100" is a typo. If it isn't, then you are so wrong! I can imagine the chagrin of Abraham when God promised his descendants would be as the stars in the night sky -- "eleven hundred descendants?? That sucks!!!" Anyway, assuming you mean more than that and you are claiming that the Bible references many more stars than could be seen in the night sky, I agree with you. Though I don't think this is the best passage to use. A Truth.
Job 26:7 (written 3500 years ago): "He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth upon nothing."
The Bible claimed that the earth freely floated in space. Science then thought that the earth sat on a large animal. "Science" never thought any such thing! Myths and stories might have said that, but not "science", not even primitive "science". However, if you mean that ancient man mostly conceived of the world resting on something or hanging from something, yes I agree. Does this passage refer to the world floating in the vacuum of space? Possibly. I mean it's not an absolute claim but it makes sense. 50-50 on this one.
Hebrews 11:3 (written 2000 years ago): "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
The Bible claims that all creation is made of invisible material. Science then was ignorant of the subject. We now know that the entire creation is made of invisible elements called "atoms." I really don't think this has anything to do with a Biblical reference to atoms. I think at best it's a reference to God creating everything out of nothing.
Leviticus 17:11 (written 3000 years ago): "For the life of the flesh is in the blood."
The Scriptures declare that blood is the source of life. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled", and many died because of the practice. We now know that blood is the source of life. If you lose your blood, you will lose your life. Another stretch. Maybe it's as you say, but I don't think anyone can be convinced by such an ambiguous reference.
Leviticus 15:13 (written 3000 years ago): "And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean." Again, it's stretch to make this a reference to the later discovery of the importance of washing ones hands in running water to remove germs. It might be, but it's a stretch.
Job 38:35 (written 3,500 years ago. God Himself speaking): "Can you send lightnings, that they may go and say unto you, Here we are?"
The Bible here is saying a scientifically ludicrous statement -- that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. I think it's a clear (and poetic) reference to thunder.
Isaiah 40:22 (written 2800 years ago): "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth."
The Bible informs us here that the earth is round. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat Be careful. It wasn't "science" that insisted on a flat earth, but the RC Church. As for Columbus much of his inspiration was profit and his illumination came from maps.
Job 38:19 (written 3500 years ago). "Where is the way where light dwells?"
Modern man has only just discovered that light (electromagnetic radiation) has a "way," involving motion traveling at 186,000 miles per second.
Way too big a stretch.
Genesis 1:1,3 (written 3,450 years ago): "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth . . . And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power and motion. "In the beginning (time) God created (power) the Heaven (space) and the earth (matter) . . . And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters." A interesting hypothesis that I've never heard before. I 'll have to think about this one.
Why did the dinosaur disappear? This is something that has modern science mystified, but the Bible may have the answer (written 3500 years ago. God Himself is speaking): "Behold now behemoth, The description of "behemoth" reminds me of a brontosaurus or brachiosaur (but definitely NOT a hippo of elephant), and "leviathan" is a very large sea-going creature that apparently breaths fire (or luminescence), and is definitely not a crocodile or alligator.
Psalm 8:8: "And the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passes through the paths of the seas."
What does the Bible mean by "paths" of the seas? The sea is just a huge mass of water, how then could it have "paths?" The "path" of ocean currents has been known (by trial and error, and mapping) for as long as man has floated on the surface of the water. This one's a dud. :-)
Jonah 2:6 (written 2,800 years ago): "I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet have you brought up my life from corruption, O YHWH my God."
When Jonah was in the depths of the ocean, he spoke of going down to the "bottoms of the mountains." I think this probably valid. Certainly it requires the writer to conceive of something that wouldn't be possible to see, the bottom of the ocean.
Amos 9:6 (written 2,800 years ago): "He . . . calls for the waters of the sea, and pours them out upon the face of the earth; the Lord is His name."
The Mississippi River dumps over six million gallons of water per second into the Gulf of Mexico. Where does all that water go? That's just one of thousands of rivers. The answer lies in the hydrologic cycle,. A bit of a stretch, but an interesting one.
Genesis 17 "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed."
Why was circumcision to be carried out on the eighth day? Medical science has discovered that the eighth day is the only day in the entire life of the newborn that the blood clotting element prothrombin is above 100%. Medical science has also discovered that this is when the human body's immune system is at its peak. Do you have any scientific support for this claim? I'm curious as to how accurate it is. If it is accurate, it makes the eight day reference interesting.
Job 26:7 (written 3500 years ago): "He stretches out the north over the empty place . . ."
Less than 200 years ago, through the advent of massive telescopes, science learned about the great empty space in the north. What "great empty spaces"? I ask as someone who lives "in the North"! A "North" that was being lived in an explored 200 years ago.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/5/2007 8:59:28 PM |
When theories are proven they're still called theories.
And of course you can provide an example of a scientific theory or two that have been scientifically proven and are still called theories by science huh? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/5/2007 9:28:27 PM |
And of course you can provide an example of a scientific theory or two that have been scientifically proven and are still called theories by science huh?
Atomic theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory
Theory of Gravity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/5/2007 9:43:00 PM |
Atomic theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory
Theory of Gravity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
Nope.
Wikipedia? You're not serious are you? Are you? Really? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/5/2007 10:44:16 PM |
Wikipedia? You're not serious are you? Are you? Really?
Nope?
You're denying the existance of the atomic theory?
Really?
Here are some other sources for Atomic theory.
http://library.thinkquest.org/27948/bohr.html
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec05.html
How about cell theory?
http://fig.cox.miami.edu/~cmallery/150/unity/cell.text.htm
Circuit theory?
http://www.utwired.engr.utexas.edu/rgd1/index.cfm
 Guess theory doesn't mean unproven after all. considering we can SEE cells under a microscope. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/5/2007 11:09:14 PM |
jrbogie: Wikipedia? You're not serious are you? Are you? Really?
A perfectly appropriate source for this arena. Are you in doubt that such theories exist? If there was any doubt of their validity he could have linked you to sites that are peer-reviewed but for this level of discussion on a dating site I hardly think its necessary.
I was going to ask you if YOU were serious when you said that if there was proof for evolution it would no longer be a theory. You clearly do not know what a scientific theory is. A theory is an explanation of a phenomena.
Since I work in the health field, one of the theories I'm familiar with is Germ theory. There are many people that believe that disease is caused by sorcery, or magic, or witches. Germ theory states that diseases are caused by microorganisms. The volumes of evidence supporting germ theory makes it ludicrous to think of it as anything other than fact.
Another theory is Cell theory: that cells are the basic unit structure of living things.
These theories are proven so assuredly that as to doubt them would be, in my opinion, like doubting your existence in the universe.
If "only a theory" is a real objection toward something's validity, why does it not cast doubt on cell theory, germ theory, atomic theory, gravitational theory, etc etc? | |
|
|
| Page 153 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 
