| creation VS Darwin's theory [Locked - bumped legacy thread]
Posted: 3/13/2005 12:53:14 PM | Anyone interested in a cool and interesting view of creation Vs Darwin’s theory.. check out this radio show. Politics and religion..
I will admit it is from a creationist view point.. But the guy asks fair questions, and Makes so much sense with simple things. I found it pretty enlightening.
You can listen to it on your computer. I would be interested in anyone’s comments on the show.. NO flame war please..
I don’t know if I am supposed to add a link on here? but there below. if not mods please deleat the post and I apologies.
http://www.endtime.com/radiohtm.asp
Broadcast Date: 7/10/03
Title: God's creation VS Darwin's theory with Steve Grohman
Broadcast Date: 7/12/03
Title: God's creation VS Darwin's theory with Steve Grohman - Part 2 | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 3/13/2005 3:08:09 PM | A good resource for the predominant scientific view of "creationism" and "intelligent design" vis a vis pseudo-science is here-
add prefix (http://www.)
ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=8
There are many great articles that illustrate how the use of pseudo-science and other fallacies are the basis of most of the religious-right's arguments against science in the U.S..
There are also many consise examples of the co-opting and misinterperatation of it's terms and the deliberate dismissal of their true meanings and definitions.
The one that always says it for me is "It's only a theory!"
theory
n. The consensus, idea, plan, story, or set of rules that is currently being used to inform a behavior. This usage is a generalization and (deliberate) abuse of the technical meaning.
As opposed to -
theory
n 1: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena.
For me the deliberate dishonesty in applying fallacies and abuse of language makes the discussion of this issue a futility.
Good post though bro' thanks,
late™ | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 3/13/2005 3:08:32 PM | | oo ooo ooo Yes...justa cause I WILL b checking it out. And with my opinionianted mouth, will be back with thoughts that just refuse to stay locked within my brain. lol but true | |
|
| |
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 3/13/2005 3:29:49 PM | Man them are all some good sights.. I added to my favorites..
Has anyone listen to that show on the radio? Politics and religion..
I listen to it everyday on my way home or on the computer.. They cover a wide range of topics and seem to be pretty fair..
The announcer even disclosed when asked about his own family that his daughter had a drinking problem and was gay.. that to me said a lot.. he was not trying to hide anything or portray himself as anything other then what he is.. also they take calls from non believers and its all done tastefully
there for the most part a bible Prophecy show. | |
|
| |
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 3/14/2005 5:44:15 PM | | OMGZ TEH SCINEZ IZ RONG CUZ TEH BIBBLE SEZ SO. U HEETHENS ALL SUXORZ N R GONNA BURN N H3ll 4EVA!!111!1111!!11~1!!!11!1! | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 3/14/2005 5:52:56 PM | | your right.. you made it so clear.. you have such a way with words.. i never seen it like that. | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 3/14/2005 5:57:07 PM | Just so there's a proper understanding of the ideas surrounding "theory" and "fact".
Often the creationalist side points to the "It's just a THEORY" when talking about evolution, using the meaning as in general English usage.
This is wrong.
In science, there are laws, and theories (as well as another level down, the hypothesis, but nevermind that for now).
A theory within a scientific framework is not considered simply someone's opinion. Someone on the street may say they have a theory about why X's grocery charges more for apples than Y's grocery. That's not using 'theory' in the scientific meaning...
In science, a theory is an established set of facts used to define a principle and (here's the key) subject to peer review and independent testing. In other words, it's proven within the environment of independent (no partisan agenda) review. This is NOT what is a theory within creationalist thought...a theory, for the creationalist, is the 'regular english usage', and in this regard is a red herring.
For a pretty straight forward description of this...
http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm
Oh, and yeah, creationlists and evolutionalists are, I believe I can safely say, united in their stand against the use of '4eva', 'rong', and 'iz' as a mode of discourse. | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 3/14/2005 6:19:21 PM | LOL!!! that proves evolution is false! "'4eva', 'rong', and 'iz" that is not an evolved language.
I get what your saying, but neither is provable because neither side was there to see it happen.
Maybe in bits and pieces but as a whole.. no one really knows for sure.. it is the word against the theory. To be honest..both sides and point and counter point for years to come. | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 3/14/2005 6:37:29 PM | Jimi, much as I love reading your stuff...on this one, gotta disagree with you.
Evolution has been proven, so too has there been essential proof that the young earth theory of creationalist thought is patently wrong.
There's not much to debate on this though, you're right. It's just that there's no point in arguing science versus religious agenda. It's sad, but religion should not try to encroach on science in order to prove itself. The very fact that religion needs to feel it must do so, is indicative of a sad and misguided desperation.
You don't need facts to believe in god, you don't need god to believe in facts. There's the essential difference. | |
|
Loukus
|
Joined: 2/15/2004
Msg: 12 | |
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 3/14/2005 8:18:46 PM |
Evolution has been proven
Boy, do you suck. There are massive holes in the evolution theory.
Off the top of my head; it's more or less impossible that humans would have "evolved" to digest cooked meat better than uncooked meat. | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 3/14/2005 9:02:34 PM | on uncooked meat..
Major logic error. they don't need to evolve to do it if it works that way to begin with. perhaps they evolved to cook because it allows hem to digest meat better but that falls within the theory.
Everything digests cooked meat better than uncooked meat except the stuff that happend living in it before it was cooked. cooking breaks chemical bonds. it is partial digestion | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 3/14/2005 9:20:16 PM | Okay, Loukus...I was kinda hoping to get you in on this a bit (hate to think I was out and out picking on ya, but I had a sense you might trickle in...)
Off the top of your head (that lovely, cute, little homophobic head), humans haven't evolved to digest cooked meat better than anything else. That's not evolution, big guy, although it's a good little misdirection in terms of creationalist argument. Here's the scoop on your misapprehension about cooked meat being an evolutionary thing.
Cooking meat is an adaptation, another science word, done because the process of eating cooked meat has become a habit born of a necessity to 'keep' meat for longer than it takes to kill it and bring it back to the cave. You see, cooking meat removes many air born bacteria and nasties that can make you sick, and cooking it means these dangers are reduced. Also, cooked meat (especially salted) lasts longer and can be stored. This isn't evolution, its adaptation due to environmental conditions. For the record, you don't necessarily digest cooked meat better, it's just the trade off (digest raw but well, however risk food poisoning and maybe die) is worth a bit more chewing and a colonoscopy at 50.
People haven't 'evolved' to prefer medium-rare, either. They just prefer it. There's no more validity to that argument than...well, most creationalist theories.
But let's make sure we're on the same page in your colouring book, shall we?
Young earth? Intelligent Design? It's just as the bible says, and we'll find dinosaurs and man walked about at the same time (as they were, apparently, on Noah's Ark together...just not the unicorns, if the Irish Rovers are to be believed - just as well them than anyone else, I guess)?
Because if it's young earth, you'll have to explain how the light from stars millions light years away, is arriving tonight (after traveling about a million years longer than young earth proponents say that the earth or anything existed).
Or is it intelligent design? That's the kind of wishy-washy 'well, it's like you said because god wanted it that way'. A circular argument by any other name, would smell just as convenient...and anyway, I fail to see how any god could see intelligent design in Pat Robertson, but I digress...
But hey, don't stop there, do the 'there's no intermediate eye ever shown either...eyes are too complex to evolve argument is useless too. Oh, and there's documented evidence, apparently of human footprints next to dinosaur prints...OR! The 'proof' of finding the ark... | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 3/14/2005 11:44:24 PM | | Darwin knew himself that if he could not find in the fossill records, where plants 'evolved' into flowering plants, that his idea was bunk....well, he never found what he was looking for....of of course things evolve...everything evolves however there must be creation elements at specific periods throughout history......there is no other way | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 3/15/2005 1:11:31 AM |
there must be creation elements at specific periods throughout history......there is no other way
You imply that evolutionary theory is static, .....this is an incorrect assumption backed by smoke and mirrors.
There IS another way, .....it's your perogative to ignore science however, .....though it doesn't change a thing, especially about the observable nature of change. To impose a static template on that which is dynamic is ....... very self-limiting.
Holding ones breath 'til one's face turns blue proves that holding ones breath 'til one's face turns blue can turn one's face blue.
I'll give you that.......... | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 3/15/2005 3:43:15 AM | Ok firstly I'm not a chrsitian, and have always believed in evolution, mainly because it's what i was taugh tat school, and i quite liked the idea of it. But there are some major flaws in darwins theory, he was quoted as saying 'If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down'.
A system like this is known as a irreducibly complex system - basically a system that if any part of it was missing would not work - such as our heart | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 3/15/2005 4:28:07 AM | Gahhh.. I knew if I tried to find common ground I would get burnt..LOL
Show me proof of a cow... start to finish.. Not assumptions… but actual scientific proof.. Of it's evolutionally chain. From the goo To the moo.. you can't that makes it theory not fact ..there is no observation of it, there is no way to prove where it came from..
young earth....
Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of plonium-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.
Man-made artifacts – such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock – point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.
SOLAR COLLAPSE—Research studies indicate that our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate of seconds of arc per century. At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But in far less a time than 50,000 years, life here would have ceased to exist. Recent studies have disclosed that neither the size of the sun, nor our distance from it, could be much greater or smaller—in order for life to be sustained on our planet.
Here is the reason man holds on to evolution against all odds… Men do not want to be responsible to anyone for their actions. If there is a god there held accountable.. | |
|
Loukus
|
Joined: 2/15/2004
Msg: 19 | |
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 3/15/2005 10:43:39 AM | they don't need to evolve to do it if it works that way to begin with.
uhhh.........
that lovely, cute, little homophobic head
I'm already sick of your sh*t, so cut it.
Young earth? Intelligent Design?
Old Earth, day-age, 10,000,000,000 years. | |
|
| |
| |
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 3/16/2005 5:24:11 PM | Ah loukus,
that lovely, cute, little homophobic head I'm already sick of your sh*t, so cut it.
Young earth? Intelligent Design? Old Earth, day-age, 10,000,000,000 years.
First off, if you're truly sick of it big fella, there are two little things you can do...to start with, when you open up your responses to me with 'boy do you suck' you're gonna catch a little 'sh!t'... so deal. You're a big boy, we know this, not as emotionally well developed as most would like, but hey, here's to hoping for down the road. But remember, when you go off into your next little snit, you need to stop saying "boy you suck" and then making an entirely incorrect statement to back it up. That's gonna get you a little verbal spanking...k?
The other thing you can do, is when you do respond...try addressing some of the points I made. I must say, I'm a little more aware of needing to point this out as some think I pick on you a little...but hey, there's nothing I've seen in subsequent posts to the effect of 'okay, was wrong about the meat thing...my bad' or to address any of the issues I brought up afterwards or before. So...either put up or shut up, as they say. And if you're going to insist on neither...I'm gonna insist on having a bit of fun with ya.
K?
Alright, now off to the little bit about evolution and the old earth creationalist...You are an old earth creationalist, who would disagree with the assertions of those who suggest that we're looking at about 10,000 years old. Okay. So, you also buy into the universe's generally excepted age...good again...you've been reading your science textbooks. Now, you believe that the adaptations through genetic engineering are impossible? Evolution on any scale isn't fair? There are only humans who appeared...when?
I'm guessing you don't believe that we evolved from a common ancestor to a number of current great apes. The idea of Cro-magnon and Neanderthal is that they were men? Or different species? The sense that the various 'semi-hominid' fossils found are...not human or an earlier derivative?
Or is it just "yeah, I believe that the earth is old, because that's scientifically irrefutable. But I'm not buying anything else that goes along with evolutionary theory, at either the macro level of species adaptation and genetic mutation over time, nor the micro level of genetic change through random errors in replication of DNA etc. etc."?
Just so we can clear the air here, Cool-hand, because for chrissakes, it's fun and all to listen to your one liner 'no way to evolve to eat cooked meat, that's why evolution is bunk" stuff...and then show you why you're entirely misguided, poke a little fun and watch the subsequent fireworks...but I'm quite happy to point out all the various misconceptions you have in this particular area, if you'll only take a little time to make an actual statement or two regarding your thoughts on the matter...Go on...it'll be fun.
I promise not to mention your cute, little, homophobic head as long as you're willing to actually show the nice people you're so quick to dismiss that you've got something useful that can come out of it once and a while... | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 3/18/2005 6:53:50 AM | | First of all, who is going to explain to me the Origin of Creation!!!!! Seconldly, if we did evolve, then why have we stayed humans in a long time and not evolved into something else yet!!!!!! | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 3/18/2005 9:52:37 AM |
if we did evolve, then why have we stayed humans in a long time and not evolved into something else yet!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!
That was too funny! | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 3/18/2005 10:23:40 AM | k,
Just for the sake of arguement, you do know that a few thousand years is a evolutionary blink of the eye, right? | |
|
Home
login 
