|
|
|
|
|
| | Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent DesignPage 4 of 54 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41) | | I apologize I am not more knowledgeable on the Qur'an. However I do believe the origin stories are similar are they not? | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/8/2011 4:20:13 PM |
Answer is simply neither because you don't have an answer. All the veggies, fruits and animals have knowledge instilled within them from birth. But mankind is the only creation born ignorant and has to learn for years.
I gave you an answer. Read it. Why is that not an answer? Because its not one of your chosen 2? Life's not black and white my friend. Saying that a Watermelon knows how to be hard, is saying that humans know how to have hair. Or grow. You are talking about DNA my friend. And yes I guess to explain it primitively you could call it sort of a "knowledge" I guess. It contains data. But Watermelons and humans are on the same field on that one. Watermelons know how to be hard, but humans know how to have hair. Through mini storage banks called DNA. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/8/2011 4:26:50 PM | Well most are similar to the stories of the Prophet and Messengers. But when it comes to Jesus that's where it starts to differ very much. And there's most descriptive narrations than the Torah and Bible.
And unlike the Torah and Bible. It is the same word for word since 1400 and so years ago. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/8/2011 4:35:50 PM |
I gave you an answer. Read it. Why is that not an answer? Because its not one of your chosen 2? Life's not black and white my friend. Saying that a Watermelon knows how to be hard, is saying that humans know how to have hair. Or grow. You are talking about DNA my friend. And yes I guess to explain it primitively you could call it sort of a "knowledge" I guess. It contains data. But Watermelons and humans are on the same field on that one. Watermelons know how to be hard, but humans know how to have hair. Through mini storage banks called DNA.
That's DNA and it's true. Yes and we DNA to be in a certain way, but we are talking about physicality (to grow and shape) rather than the "knowledge" of I have to be sweet, I have to be watery (watermelon). It's like where did that DNA know to be like that?
Or like I got a kitten and I didn't train it to clean it self or use the litter but it knew right away, without learning it from anywhere else. Just like salmons know where to go or turtles that get hatched know to go straight to the water. Everything is balanced. If this was by chance this universe. Than it would be quite chaotic. But the only people that make this world chaotic is humans and we are born ignorant and must learn till our death bed. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/8/2011 4:45:30 PM |
I gave you the opposites.
No, you did no such thing. Science and Theology aren't competing ideologies.
Just like evolution and intelligent design.
No, evolution is a scientific fact, intelligent design isn't even science, it's just a deceitful attempt (see "wedge strategy") to get religion into the science curricula of schools as well as areas of secular default.
Answer is simply neither. Its easy to try and get the answer you want when you limit the possible results based on your own preconceived notion.
Answer is simply neither because you don't have an answer.
Now you aren't even making sense.
It was a loaded question with a very stupid premise. Here's one for you;
"Have you stopped stealing from and killing those who don't believe what you do because your pet cat asked you to?"
A creationist says everything has been designed by an Ultimate Prime Mover
Who created the ultimate prime mover? | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/8/2011 6:32:35 PM | It's like where did that DNA know to be like that?
The same way it knows how to make humans have hair. Everything tastes a certain way, and that is part of the DNA. It really comes back to that, you aren't making any new arguments. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/9/2011 1:25:55 AM | parts of evolution is FACT the other part of it is questionable.
FACT: organisms change over time, small changes over a very long time can make an entirely different organism all together. This is observed in the DNA and Fossil record, and in relation to current organisms.
Questionable: The mechanism that DRIVES the evolutionary processes! (natural selection and dna mutations don't explain everything perfectly)
Anyone who believes the literal account of genesis, their opinion is laughable. | |
|
| |
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/9/2011 4:29:42 AM | Main Entry; the belief in and worship of a supernatural controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods
• details of belief as taught or discussed
• a particular system of faith and worship
• a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance
~ New Oxford American Dictionary 2nd edition © 2005 by Oxford University Press, Inc.
"Science" does not fit the main entry definition, while it can be argued that it fits the last sub-definition, it should be obvious as to the differences in meaning.
My response:
you do know, do you know not, that the topic of Science as a "religion" has been addressed before, may be not on this forum....the point I made about science being equal to religion isn't original. It was best articulated by Husserl in the 70's at a lecture on science and Religion, a phenomenological exploration at Northwestern.
But centuries before him, HUME in his tiny little book "Dialogue...."Made a distinction that I am yet to see any one refute. He suggested the categories like: statements of fact, (1+1=2) matters of fact (if it rains it pours). the former does not require an external verification...the validity of that statement is contained in the statement....The latter however is argued from the argument of contiguity...eg every day I see a crow it is has a white strip on its body, I have seen hundred of them and they all look the same, therefore I can safely assume that next crow will have the same color. The conclusion is not necessarily false, but it isn't equal in strength to the first argument, wounldn't say?
(of course, Hume's goal was to address the subjectivism that emerged from Kant's)
SO what is my point:
While I do see fallacies in the creationist arguments, they are as valid as any of the arguments of our quasi scientist friends.
the validity of scientific calculation are internally verifiable. Scientific assertion from evolution are speculations, at best. Yet most scientist run with those discoveries without thinking twice...it makes one wonder | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/9/2011 5:46:28 AM |
SO what is my point:
While I do see fallacies in the creationist arguments, they are as valid as any of the arguments of our quasi scientist friends.
the validity of scientific calculation are internally verifiable. Scientific assertion from evolution are speculations, at best. Yet most scientist run with those discoveries without thinking twice...
Science doesn't make 'speculative assertions' other than for the purposes of testing. The theory regarding evolution is not a series of wild guesses, or assertions based on speculation, it's a set of conclusions based on a body of evidence accumulated through verifiable discovery.
Scientists don't "run with those discoveries without thinking twice". That's the antithesis of the scientific method, which obliges one to, not only, think twice, but to think three times, then four. Then to think again, and then to ask scientists world wide to think on it too, and test, and look for exceptions.
Darwins theory has stood up remarkably well to 150 years of questioning, unlike creationist accounts of the origins of, and reasons for, biological diversity. Which resist about 5 minutes of rational scrutiny.
...it makes one wonder
It certainly does. It makes me wonder how anyone over the age of about 8 could possibly believe an invisible magic voodoo man could materialise an entire universe complete with inhabitants.
| |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/9/2011 7:38:32 AM | This is my issue with evolution. Yes, well and good they are all well documented and 'proven'. Really? then why are there no wild evolution recorded at present time as they say it is that happened before? Why don't humans evolve into something else? Are we the ultimate evolved form? what? are the dogs, giraffe, elephant, etc. the ultimate evolved form? Why did they stop evolving? When waaaaaay before they evolve from this into this into this. I mean come on!!
Even animals don't evolve to another species as science has been telling us. I have to witness an evolution just as what science said happened when all those magical evolutions happen into the form we all know now. How convenient too that there were noone to witness those evolution as science said happened.
They say they watch and recorded and documented bacterias or worms evolve. Well and good, but guess what form they 'evolve'? yes, still worm and bacteria just different type.
What I wanna see is the magical evolution of where humans evolve from. If I witness that kind of evolution of man as science has told us. Then ya there really is no God.
I have to see to believe what they are trying to tell me too. But alas, they don't. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/9/2011 7:54:30 AM |
What I wanna see is the magical evolution of where humans evolve from. If I witness that kind of evolution of man as science has told us. Then ya there really is no God. I wouldn't mind some of what you're smoking to believe that evolution is an overnight occurence.
I can't see a microscopic organism without aid, why do you expect that evolution of living organisms are capable of being seen with the naked eye?
A scientist can show the growth of man's intelligence over the past millenia, can you show me your god?
Didn't think so... | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/9/2011 8:55:55 AM | | smilingatyou55 My response:
you do know, do you know not, that the topic of Science as a "religion" has been addressed before, may be not on this forum…
Many times here on the Science and Religion forums both. It always boils down to being a tu quoque argument based on equivocation (religion, faith, belief - science, evidence, knowledge). jay.m83 has answered a few of your comments, so I'll just address a few things...
..the point I made about science being equal to religion isn't original...
For a more contemporary take the two being entirely independent and exclusive pursuits of "knowledge", see: Stephen Gould's 1997 essay "Non-Overlapping Magisteria"
"...the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."
We're talking about science and theology really, the two ideologies are only in conflict when one tries to superimpose one frame of reference on the other. Can anybody cite a single instance of a scientist entering a church, temple, synagog, mosque, etc; for the purpose of trying to press an evidence-based view of alleged deities and their respective mythos? Can anybody cite an instance of a scientist insisting that any of the many and myriad religious texts or scriptures change their creation mythos, or even resolve the contradictions within them?
One example?
The conflict here is one sided.
lookinglifetime
This is my issue with evolution. Yes, well and good they are all well documented and 'proven'. Really?
Yes, by both observation and tested predictions throughout all branches of biology.
Your questions point to a multi-walled barrier to understanding evolution; an unfamiliarity of the basics of what evolution is, as well as preconceptions containing aspects of what it isn't.Either that or this is just another post trotting out old, tired and oft refuted C/ID parroting.
If you really want answers?
See:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml
If you read through this site, you'll find answers to all your questions that are cogent, as well as correct a lot of your basic misconceptions.
If I witness that kind of evolution of man as science has told us.
The first step is to actually understand what science tells us, not what C/ID poses as a straw man/misinterpretation.
Then ya there really is no God.
Evolution, and science in general aren't "proofs" of a non-existence of god(s), …nor are god(s) existences even under the purview of science/evolution.
For science to be able to disprove god(s), they first must be proven to exist (still waiting on that one). | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/9/2011 9:35:08 AM | | Correct. It isn't science's job to disprove god. But if religion wants to have credibility in the scientific realm it has to show some evidence of a god. And sorry, but the whole how does a watermelon know to be hard on the outside just doesn't cut it. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/9/2011 9:45:46 AM |
And sorry, but the whole how does a watermelon know to be hard on the outside just doesn't cut it.
Kinda' reminded me of Linus and "The Great Pumpkin".
Imagine that, …asking a watermelon about "the meaning of life"?
…and getting an answer. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/9/2011 10:10:41 AM | By the way, if evolution's success is adaptability. Why the need for different languages. How can they successfully adapt if they don't understand each other? And how did they learn to speak them? Honestly anyone wonder how these different languages come from?
I know science said it takes millions of years to evolve but why no significant evolutionary changes on present species, humans included? They've been like that for thousand of years still no change? | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/9/2011 10:24:59 AM |
They've been like that for thousand of years still no change? Cupcake, have you even thought of cracking open a history book?
The computer that you are typing on is part of evolution - the evolution of thoughts, ideas and inventions. Life expectancies have increased by almost double over the past thousands of years due to innovations of diet and medicine.
I wonder that these things are ignored by people when trying to make an argument?  | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/9/2011 11:19:14 AM | By the way, if evolution's success is adaptability.
Specifically, "adaptation to environmental niches" is required for a species to persist. Success means survival of species which best fit an environment/adapt to any environmental changes.
Why the need for different languages.
Why the word "need"?
Distances between populations created the means for different languages as well as variants of those languages to develope.
How can they successfully adapt if they don't understand each other?
Are you now representing a Lamarkian theory of evolution? Or do you just not understand what "adaptation" means in the context of evolution?
And how did they learn to speak them?
The same way one learns anything, a combination of rote, trial and error and practice.
Honestly anyone wonder how these different languages come from?
Why the word "how"?
Where is a "how"?
Any who do wonder where different languages come from will find many resources that explain etymology as well as origins quite well.
Google: "Lingustic taxonomy"
I know science said it takes millions of years to evolve but why no significant evolutionary changes on present species, humans included?
Not entirely accurate, you seem to be conflating speciation with adaption, …many examples of both, if one merely looks for them.
Have you checked out the link for learning the simple basics of evolution yet?
After all, you can feed a man to fish, teach a man to fish, but if the man is only interested in trolling and doesn't eat the fish, …what's the point in giving him anything?
They've been like that for thousand of years still no change?
Incorrect:
Here's a fish...
Here's just one well cited article (there are countless more)
http://www.lurj.org/article.php/vol4n1/genome.xml | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/9/2011 12:10:01 PM | Wow, had no idea this was still going!!
Someone asked about the books/source materials I have, I'll list off what I can see on my book shelf from here:
Dark Nature
The Greatest Show on Earth (Amazing book!)
The Human Story
The Selfish Gene
The Blind Watchmaker
The Naked Ape Trilogy
Peoplewatching
The Third Chimpanzee
The Artificial Ape
The Evolutionary World
Your Inner Fish
Just finished watching a documentary called Judgement Day (you can find it free online from Nova), about the Dover trial. That's what fascinates me about this subject, there are Christians (in the case of this trial) that were so strongly opposed to evolution, that they perjured themselves on the stand, vandalized school property, and even sent death threats to the presiding judge. Almost every other industrialized nation doesn't have this debate, science is left to scientists, science is not determined by consensus.
As for Darwin's Black Box, I am tempted to read it. But, the problem is ID is not science, and ID doesn't really set out to prove anything rather than disprove evolution, and no research has ever been submitted to a scientific journal. It brings nothing to the table. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/9/2011 12:35:51 PM | lookinglifetime:
Really? then why are there no wild evolution recorded at present time as they say it is that happened before?
Evolution is a slow process, and it is happening constantly. You say "no wild evolution recorded", what sources have you been looking at? We can witness evolution in small increments, as it happens generation to generation, in animals with very fast reproduction rates. A few examples, and you can probably find more by searching these online:
-Russian silver foxes (through selective breeding): after about 35 generations their coats changed colours, eye colour changed, began barking, wagged their tails, tails stood upright, and ears drooped down
-Italian wall lizards displaced to a Croation island: over 30 years their skull structure changed, territorial instincts changed, larger guts, new organ structures in their bodies
-Stickleback in Lake Washington: due to lake water clarity increasing, since the 1960's their bodies are now covered in boney plates, similar to marine sticklebacks
-A species of butterfly on the Hawaiian Islands: have a mouth structure that is only capable of eating bananas, bananas were not on the island until the Polynesians introduced them
-Cichlids placed in test ponds with varying pond floors, and predators: cichlid colouration varied depending on the pattern on the pond floor, and if there were predators in the pond
Those are just a few I'm familiar with off the top of my head.
Honestly anyone wonder how these different languages come from?
I have! So I read a book on the subject! (The Language Instinct) Most language evolved from Proto-Indo-European. Linguists can usually tell when one language broke off from another as technology evolved with the language. Words that have always been needed, ie: sun (english), sonne (german), soleil (french), sol (swedish), saule (latvian), sole (italian) all sound the same because they come from a similar word. But as technology evolved and these languages already established themselves, they had to come up with new words on their own. So, a word like "rifle", a much newer word than "sun", in those same languages is rifle, gewehr, carabine, gevar, šautene, fucile. Everything evolves. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/9/2011 12:45:07 PM | Just finished watching a documentary called Judgement Day (you can find it free online from Nova), about the Dover trial. That's what fascinates me about this subject, there are Christians (in the case of this trial) that were so strongly opposed to evolution, that they perjured themselves on the stand, vandalized school property, and even sent death threats to the presiding judge. Almost every other industrialized nation doesn't have this debate, science is left to scientists, science is not determined by consensus.
Great documentary, it's also important to note that the presiding judge, who basically found the C/ID proponents to be fraudulent and deceitful was himself a Christian, as well as a Republican appointed to his bench by an avowed Creationist, G.W. Bush.
Justice prevailed, it's nice when it works as designed.
This isn't really a "Christian" problem, but more a Fundamentalist problem (this thread's recent Muslim visitor is a good example).
Their faith is based on a literalist translation of a bronze-age dogma that for the faithful, …has to be correct, even if it conflicts with reality, or their entire world-view must be wrong (there's a whole chain of fallacious logic involved here).
This does not reflect the beliefs of all Christians (or Muslims), just the "literal" extremists. Most moderate theists are aware that the idea that evolution "proves there's no god(s)" is specious, whether one believes in god(s) or not.
This is not, nor ever will it be a "Religion vs Science" proposition, after all, there are even clergy and representatives of many religions affiliations involved in trying to prevent the C/ID wedge strategy from taking hold in American schools.
http://ncse.com/about
Wow, had no idea this was still going!!
Check out the thread started BEFORE the Dover trial (as well as prior to the science forum's creation), if you want to see persistence personified (3879 posts!)
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts1074173.aspx
Here's another pre-science forum evolution thread of some interest:
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts5081167.aspx
| |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/9/2011 1:43:31 PM | We are still evolving, Blacks mixing with whites and creating this new beautiful cream race is evolution
ive also heard in 1000 yrs we wont have that damn useless pinky toe! | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/9/2011 4:39:19 PM | We are still evolving, Blacks mixing with whites and creating this new beautiful cream race is evolution
Not really, it's called "sexual reproduction".
ive also heard in 1000 yrs we wont have that damn useless pinky toe!
"Most folk'll never lose a toe
but then again some folk'll
like Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel"
~ Simpsons
Doubtful… got a non-cartoon cite for that one?
We use that toe for balance, it would require mass mutation and reproductive pressure (Ooohh baby! love your 8 toes! I'm so glad you don't have that repulsive 5th toe...) and would take a LOT longer than 1000 years. There's no evolutionary advantage to losing a toe. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/9/2011 5:46:08 PM |
It's like democrat or republican. Just two sides of the same coin. Creation - time-space. Evolution - space-time. Both are happening simultaneously. Technically, the question itself is wrong. If you can imagine it then it is happening somewhere or it is possible as we live in an anything's possible universe. Arguments just keep the common people occupied while those that know take over your lives, just like democrats and republicans.
It's like cake or pie. Just two sides of the same desert tray. Cake - jello-ice cream. Pie - ice cream-jello. Both are happening simultaneously (but you can only have one, the coupon says so). Technically, the ice cream has no bones. If you can buy it without the coupon then you can have cake-pie or it is possible as we live in an anything's possible universe where unicorns deliver pizza. Appetizers just keep the common people too full even if they're free with the coupon, just like leprechauns and chef boyardee.
Ahhh… life without meaning or knowledge, …and two deserts! And easy as pie - piece o' cake. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/9/2011 9:01:05 PM | | I got it, this is how it all went down. After slaying his brother, blah blah blah... Cain knew his wife. His wife was a ape/missing link/ type animal that was from the evolutionary path and Cain of course was Intelligently desgined and from there we have a perfect union of evolution and Creationism. Their children weird intelligently designed evolutionary man/woman-ape things fast-forward here we are. Ta-dah. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
4
of
54 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)
|
|
Home
login 
