Evolution vs. Creationism
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=63181
Printed Date: November 26 2024 at 04:49
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Evolution vs. Creationism
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Subject: Evolution vs. Creationism
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 09:14
|
If you don't know what Creationism is (or the young/old earth types), have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism For the sake of this poll, "evolution" refers to the process that resulted in the existence of every living thing on this planet, including humans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution So ... what do you believe in? No - that's a poor choice of words, since evolution is supported by fact and evidence (which of course creationist ignore or at least not accept as valid) so rather than "believe" we should say "accept as fact", and that's also how I put it in the poll. BTW: Being a scientist and atheist/agnostic, I'm completely sure that all live evolved from a common ancestor by natural selection, without any doubt in my mind. The only truly unsolved question is how it all got started, but I don't think it's necessary to answer it in order to understand or accept the process itself. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Replies:
Posted By: Diaby
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 09:20
|
What's the difference between being a young earth or not young earth creationist? #update: Thanks for the link! ------------- yeah |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 09:23
|
^ look it up in detail on the wikipedia page ... in a nutshell a young earth creationist takes the bible literally, in that our world is about 10,000 years old and that it was created in 6 days, whereas an old earth creationist accepts the scientific theories about the creation of the universe (big bang etc) and our planet (such as it being about 4,600,000,000 years old), but may not accept the theory of evolution.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Diaby
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 09:29
An Old Earth Creationist is a somewhat ambivalent person  How can you believe in the big bang but don't accept the evolution?------------- yeah |
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 09:37
|
None. The entire Earth was inhabited by alien seeds - and these aliens were all looking like Erich von Daniken. However, the uninhabited Earth itself was created by divinity - and it's standing on the back of the giant turtle. The Earth is round, not flat; it won't roll off the turtle because it's nested in Steven Hawking's wheel chair. With brakes. ------------- |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 09:46
You could also ask "how can you believe the earth is not flat but don't accept the evolution". I guess the reason is that accepting evolution and natural selection negates every concept of religion, including the afterlife. People might find it easier to accept that we live on a planet that revolves around the sun and is much older than people used to think, than to accept that we are merely animals who evolved bi-pedal walk and a brain capable of sentience and language. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Diaby wrote:Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 09:54
| Being a catholic I believe in creationism, but I don't take the story of creation literally. Besides, how could something like evolution be explained back then? It's like going back in time and trying to get people to use antibiotics. |
Posted By: Diaby
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 09:56
Don't tell it me, I accept evolution although being a Christian. ------------- yeah |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 10:02
|
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-disturbing-ways-the-human-body-will-evolve-in-the-future/ - http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-disturbing-ways-the-human-body-will-evolve-in-the-future/ ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 10:17
That was disturbing in a good way.  |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 11:33
| http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/theosophy/ww/setting/emanation.html - This . |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 11:38
The thing is that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive ... one rules out the other. So ... how would you vote? ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 11:44
|
Although I do believe in evolution as fact, I have also been on a stag night in the Highlands of Scotland which made the Cro-Magnon appear quite urbane and possibly effete.
------------- 
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 11:45
-------------
|
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 11:45
Why are they exclusive? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 11:53
|
^ There's a good book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259430683&sr=8-1 - http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259430683&sr=8-1 "Creation" as described in the bible is simply hugely contradictive with the process of evolution, which is totally driven by natural selection and not at all compatible with the idea of a "creator" or "architect" guiding the process. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Hemispheres
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 12:04
Your all a bunch of communist liberals, with all your socialism!!!!!! Not too mention you are destroying the world. ------------- [IMG]http://www.wheresthatfrom.com/avatars/miguelsanchez.gif">[IMG]http://www.rockphiles.com/all_images/Act_Images/TheMothersOfInvention/mothers300.jpg"> |
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 12:05
|
I'm with George Carlin & Richard Dawkins on this. Invisible man in the sky ? ------------- |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 12:10
|
The story where God stops the sun in the sky finally pushed me all the way over to the evolution camp. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 12:17
Really? It's usually the reason why the "sun stopped" that people take issue with. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 12:35
|
^ lol! Well, I was a dedicated Christian for my whole life up until this year, so I really did try to accept EVERYTHING about that story; not just its scientific contradictions.
I hope you can forgtive me my sinful ways and still consider yourself my friend, though. ''Refulgance'' still stands on my top most anticipated albums list.  |
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 12:38
Basically I am a creationist. It is too hard to believe for me that more developed life forms are evolved out of simple ones or that human beings are the offspring of some sort of monkey. Even a look in the mirror cannot change my mind  .------------- 
|
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 12:41
Yes, because somebody snapping their fingers to bring everything into existence without any scientific support is SO much more logical. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 12:53
We certainly aren't offsprings of monkeys ... it would be more accurate to say that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor. But read the book that I linked to on the previous page ... Dawkins presents all the evidence anyone should need to understand how all this could happen. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 12:55
I appreciate that.  By the way, I am fairly convinced that the sun standing still business is http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:oYl0sS_9wCIJ:www.trinity-pres.net/audio/070513sermonnotessexton.pdf+sun+stand+still+idiom&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbRdZFv2wkPbU6IYrAxnzCR8xYYDMA">meant to be read idiomatically. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 12:57
Don't bother trying to explain how evolution actually works to this man. He obviously has never had a true science class in his life. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 12:59
|
^ If little by little everything the bible says is meant to be read idiomatically, it's longer a religion ... it's myth. Which is exactly how I see it.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:01
I know, Robert. I used to try and explain away all the Bible's contradictions as well, but after years of cherry-picking which passages shpuld be taken literal, which passages were being misinterprerated, etc. I realized that I was trying to justify something that was unjustifiable. Or at least . . . that's how I feel these days. Who knows . . . ''pray for me'' and maybe I'll find my way back. Until then, let's just all enjoy the beauty of Prog, nomatter how it got here.  |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:02
If little by little everything in the newspaper is meant to be read idiomatically, it's not longer news. Some things in the Bible are literal, some are figurative. Just like pretty much every piece of writing ever made. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:08
This. The more science contradicts the Bible, the more Christians will re-interperate it as allegorical, metephorical, etc. Just so they can continue believing in it for a little while longer. Talking snakes no longer a possiblity? All of a sudden 'the serpant' becomes a title rather than a physical form Satan took on. Too many species of animal discovered by this point to possibly fit in a boat? That's okay, because some bible scholars are now saying that the entire book of Gnesis is allegorical. *phew!* that was close! Not possible to part an ocean? Cool! Because don't ya know, the ''Red Sea'' was actually mistranslated! Now they're saying Moses and crew most likely crossed the ''Reed Sea'', a very shallow river of sorts that will evaporate into mist sometimes. See? It's still the infallable word of God! We just f**ked around with its meaning a lot in order to keep it making sense in modern times. No big deal.  |
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:13
|
You guys are deep ------------- |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:24
But you see Micah, people go about things backwards. I'm fairly sure there wasn't a big discovery down the line that told us that serpents don't speak words. The Bible is Middle Eastern literature. As such, it is riddled with hyperbole, heterosis, personification, etc, etc. EW Bullinger's greatest contribution to biblical study is his index of http://www.ewbullingerbooks.com/Catalog/e-w-bullinger-figures-of-speech-used-in-the-bible.htm - figurative language (which is over 1100 pages). But figurative language doesn't disrupt the flow, coherence, or reliability of a narrative among people sharing the same culture. Think of how frustrating it is when someone who is not a native English speaker on the forum here becomes confused over an idiom you have used (poor Marty McFly...I really must watch myself around him ).I've said this a hundred times...the Bible is removed from our culture by the span of centuries and many miles. If a person thinks he will understand it just by reading it through the lens of his own cultural and linguistic background, he will come away with an erroneous interpretation. Sadly, that's what most folks do. From time to time, people tell me that I misunderstand the tenets of evolution, and so they want to refer me to some books- I can accept that. I have not spent much time studying the subject. I have spent over a decade studying the Bible and its culture, and would appreciate that folks don't immediately "poo poo" the Bible simply because of a few difficult passages or erroneous interpretations from "scholars." I have a few books these people should read. And say, don't evolutionists change their opinions and beliefs all the time to reflect new discoveries? What's wrong with that? ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:27
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/specious - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/specious BTW: I thought the bible was more than just a "piece of writing"? ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:30
Spoken like a true snake . For one, evolution is neither opinion nor belief. It is a theory. Which is again an ambiguous word, as explained by Richard Dawkins in the first chapter of the book I linked to. And while it is true that scientific theories sometimes need to be amended as new discoveries are made, evolution as a theory has not been changed since the days of Darwin. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:34
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/red+herring - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/red+herring http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/composition/ - http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/composition/ ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:35
Interesting. And here I thought the authors of the Bible were trying to spread the word of God. Seems to me if you're on that important of a mission, you would be very exact and straightforward so as to avoid confusion. But I guess telling the good news in a literal sense was too boring, so they riddled the infallible word of God with culture-specific hyperbole and personification. I'll be damned. |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:36
The problem with modern science is that it accepts a materialistic view of the world without any scientific proof. It's no wonder that some of the things in the Bible seem unbelievable when people are trying to squeeze them into their narrow, "scientific" view of the world. 
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:36
Wait, so if I failed to understand something (even something as pedantic as saying "opinion" instead of "theory,") it's okay to recommend me a book? I'll do you one better. Here's two: http://www.amazon.com/Social-Science-Commentary-Synoptic-Gospels-Malina/dp/0800634918 - http://www.amazon.com/Social-Science-Commentary-Synoptic-Gospels-Malina/dp/0800634918 http://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Exodus-Scientists-Discovery-Extraordinary/dp/0060582731/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259436957&sr=1-1 - http://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Exodus-Scientists-Discovery-Extraordinary/dp/0060582731/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259436957&sr=1-1 ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:37
Are you for real? |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:37
What makes you think I'm not? |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:39
'opinion' and 'theory' are two different things, Robert, especially when speaking in scientific terms. Theory can be supported through scientific equations and studies; opinion can't be proven nor disproven since it requires neither to take place in order to hold its name. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:41
I created this thread, and the topic is creationism versus evolution. It is you who started to ridicule things, and drawing specious analogies. I referred to a book about evolution and the evidence that supports it - I can't make heads or tales of the two books you linked to. Are they in any way related to the topic? ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:41
Because you just said science doesn't support science.  You also seem to believe that angels and rising from the dead can somehow be proven by 'real' science, since apparently the science we have now doesn't use this 'real' since you speak of. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:43
I think that Jesus would say that http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2016:31&version=NASB - even if God wrote the Bible in plain English and rained copies down from a fiery sky, most people would still reject what He had to say. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:46
But He didn't, did He? So we'll never know. Honestly, if you were going to share the answer to life with somebody, would you write a book full of riddles and symbolism? Or would you tell people straight out what happened? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:49
and Satan - a rebellious angel is not a problem?
"The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits." - Modern measurement units equate this to 133m x 22m x 13.4m - a total volume of around 39,000m³. Or 1.3mm³ for each species alive today (about this >•< much), or 1.3µm³ for each species that ever existed - which is more than enough room if they were "stored" as DNA.
"Reed" and "Red" are English (near) homophones - it is very unlikely that they would be mistranslated from Hebrew or Greek like that, but you could be on the right track.
(Probably for the first time) I agree with Rob here - in there is an issue of interpreting the scriptures too deeply, or in reading any level of allegorical or idiomatically meaning into the text, probably as much as an issue with taking the words as literal, especially from a Western 21st Century perspective. They are bronze age documents describing the world in bronze age terminology from a bronze age perspective - I do not doubt that to a bronze age Israelite the meanings of every phrase was obvious, but after 3000+ years whatever the original meaning was has become buried and obfuscated.
However, that does not mean that I am willing to take at face-value any interpretation made by scholars on this subject, because no matter how well educated they are on the subject, or how well versed they are in the ancient Hebrew language, they are still do not have the complete picture, and can never have because the source of their knowledge is the very documents they purport to be interpreting.
------------- What? |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:51
All I said initially was something to Micah about biblical idiom, and it was really an aside. What, Mike, did I "ridicule?" As the thread shows, you felt the need to initiate dialogue with me.
That, Mike, is a specious statement, one which ridicules biblical narrative. If you wanted a thread where the biblical narrative (including that of creation) can be bashed without rebuttal, why didn't you just say so? I'll leave you to it. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:52
You're f**king with me, right? You knew I was being sarcasting in my post as well, while trying to make a point, correct? If that's the case, then yes, I agree with you completely. Except for, y'know . . . the whole agreeing with Rob thing. (Love ya, Rob. Mean it! ) |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:52
I'm just saying that science as I understand it should evaluate observations and experimental results without ruling out a great deal of possible explanations in advance and without any sensible reason. Isn't that what the scientific method is all about? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:54
I simply reject things that are disproved by this world we live in. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: zappaholic
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:55
Remember, Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat Atheists use to keep God out of their brainwaves!
------------- "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H.L. Mencken |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:59
When have scientists EVER ruled out something without exploring it first? Give me one recorded account of this happening. The reason why Scientists have not tested creationism (or 'intelligent design') is because there is nothing there to test! Intelligent design is NOT scientific! Do you not understand that? How is a scientist supposed to even attempt to prove something that doesn't have any scientific basis whatsoever? They can't snatch the equation out of thin air! If one day 'intelligent design' ends up being discovered as a scientific theory, then of course scientists would study it further. But how are you supposed to prove something that has yet to be discovered through actual science? It's like asking them to find an equation for the Berenstein Bears, or something! Where is this equation supposed to come from? The ink in the pages? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:03
and in my reply to indicate where I am coming from. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:06
------------- What? |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:08
Actually, there was only one of each, but alright, alright. I was just making sure we were on the same page, here.  |
Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:11
|
wheres the option for "who cares how stuff got here" ------------- who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob |
Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:13
|
I think all the theories (because let's face it, they are THEORIES as no-one actually KNOWS) are pretty much bullsh*t. Man isn't intelligent enough to work out the answers to these questions, and probably never will be. In fact, I find someone who thinks he knows the answers to be quite pompous, because let's face it: compared to the Earth and all its inhabitants (discovered and undiscovered), any number of people is pretty insignificant and small. ------------- "Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value." Arnold Schoenberg |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:13
That's in the ''sit on our ass and smoke pot'' thread. Go find it. Hurry, hurry. |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:17
Well, I already addressed the difference between opinion and scientific theory, Alex. And I hope you aren't saying us sciance lovers are 'pompous', because science can be proven. If you're gonna call evolutionists pompous, might as well go ahead and deny every scientific theory there is, including the earth being flat and the planets spinning around the sun. Science never claims to know all the snawers, anyway; it's just trying to explain as much as we can, and it is always open for re-evaluating and new discoveries. Creationists, on the other hand, claim to know it all right off the bat, and that nothing will chaneg their position, despite their position being disproven time and time again. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:19
Alex - there is a world of difference between a Scientific Theory and a general theory, please do not confuse the two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Theories_formally_and_generally - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Theories_formally_and_generally ------------- What? |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:20
lol, I should have just done that. Instead I went on a huge tirade, lol. Anyway, yes. This link is your friend, Alex. |
Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:32
i think you are confusing apathy with acceptance of the fact that neither you or i are informed enough or intelligent enough to be able to comprehend somthing this complex. rather than throwing one book agains another and one theory against another without comprehensive understanding of either i choose to live (and listen to awsome music)
i certainly understand the joy associated with these debates. I just recognize that the pleasure of winning will not be awarded to any debater who chooses a topic that can not unquestionably be proven one way or the other
------------- who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:36
|
Natural selection isn't the only mechanism of evolution. I think everything now evolved from a common ancestor.
Not all of our scientific theories will account for everything, so they probably won't be entirely the true way things work. They may objectively need tweaking. But that doesn't mean they're wrong. They're mostly right, because they account for most things we know about. We have no good reason to disregard them, especially in the case of neutered ideas, like creationism. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:38
Read Dean's last post, my friend. Creationism isn't a theory; it's a story out of a book. If you honestly think science can't be proven, you are an idiot. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:41
theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. (in a previous post I referred to the ambiguity of the word "theory") Evolution is a theory that is supported by solid evidence. Not just a single fossil or a number of fossils, but our own bodies and those of all other living things provide all the evidence any intelligent person should need to see why evolution is not just speculation or conjecture. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:43
Idea -> Hypothesis -> Theory -> Law
Idea - a guess at how something may work
Hypothesis - educated guess at how something may work based on observation
Theory - result of testing Hypothesis against all known observation and an explanation of those observations.
Law - a generalised set of observations that things happen and a prediction that things will happen, without explanation as to why.
ID is an Idea, not an Hypothesis - it is not based upon observation
Evolution is a Theory, not a Law - it explains all observations
------------- What? |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:43
| Creationism = Lol. |
Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:45
evolution can (and i think will be) proven. I just dont feel you are the one to decide. ------------- who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob |
Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:47
|
^^^^
that is unless of course, P0mpt3, you have some new evidence i have not yet seen ------------- who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:47
In his book Dawkins decides to use the word "theorem" instead, in order to avoid further confusion. But of course, if people want to misunderstand something, they will find a way. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:50
|
Why is it that whenever I flew my airplane at 50,000 ft that I never saw God? But then again, I never saw any UFOs either.
------------- |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:51
Oh, don't worry. Every scientist in the world has already decided for me, thanks. 'Theory' does not equal 'unproven'. You must not have checked out Dean's link like I suggested. Pity. You know gravity? The earth's rotation around the sun? The earth being round? Guess what? All of that is 'theory' too! Gee, I sure hope they get 'proven' sometime soon! 
My sn is spelled 'p0mt3', my friend. As for your proof, well . . . since I just pointed out how evolution is a theory just like gravity is a theory, why don't you step outside, pick up a pebble, then drop it back onto the ground? Proof enough for you that theory is real? EDIT: Or you could just watch the video MrProgFreak has posted below this post. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:54
|
If anyone believes in creationism instead and wants to post a video - be my guest. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:57
please reread my argument
i am not strictly debating the relivence of the evolutionary theory, rather i am choosing to make a statement about the futility of such arguments.
I am not saying that evolution is not or can not be proven but rather that the religious mind will not be convinced.
I infact do accept evolution as being true. 100%, however as you have pointed out there is not good way to test god. so while i dont believe in god, i cant say he does not exist, there is still a possibility, however small it may be ------------- who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob |
Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 14:59
|
OK correct me if I'm wrong please, but science states that every organism on the planet evolved from a single celled Amoebe, and through millions upon millions of year of genetic reconstruction, we ended up with what we have now. Correct? Most religions state that God created the universe and everything in it in the beginning. Correct? All I'm saying is that these are just two possible solutions. Yes, there may be evidence totally supporting evolution, but I'm sure if I went out and framed someone effectively for murder and fraud, the evidence for THAT would prove that the person I framed committed the crime, not me. I guess I'm saying that evidence can be taken in more than one way. Hell, only evidence we have of us even existing full stop is what our senses are telling us. But what if they are in fact lying to us and red is actually purple, corn smells like rubber and a G#dim chord is actually a single bass note? And we ALL know our senses are capable of lying to us. Look at hallucinagenic drugs and dream sequences (technically caused by a natural hallucinagenic). I'm just looking at things from a different perspective, and that "proof" as you call it can be taken in different ways. ------------- "Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value." Arnold Schoenberg |
Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 15:01
proof that theories can be true, not that they all are
sorry for not spelling your name correctly, however it is not a commonly accepted name and i couldn't possibly be expected to know its spelling
i believe in evolution
however i make a distinction between proving somthing is true and being able to convince people of it
therefore i feel that arguments such as this one are counterproductive
my point about you needing proof is that i will only accept someone talking down to me, calling me an idiot, unless they are an expert. if you were an evolutionary biologist i would be easyer to take you seriously
------------- who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 15:02
Wrong. You just got through asking me for proof for evolution, as if it didn't already exist. Then you turn around and say 'oh no, I didn't mean evolution can't be proven, I mean religious minds will not be convicted." Funny, then, how you've been babbling about evolution not being fact and asking for proof this whole time, all while ignoring the true defenition of theory, then you have the audacity to tell ME that I'M not reading posts carefully enough? Look, if you really are saying that you are an 'Agnostic', then I agree with you completely, as I now consider myself that as well. However, don't make claims that evolution can't be proven, because evolution is evident all around us in nature. |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 15:19
I'm getting sick and tired of you not having any clue as to what actual 'theory' is. Either read up on it like Dean and I keep saying, or stop talking about it. Of course I expect you to know the spelling of my screenname. You didn't hear it pronounced, you read it on a screen. All it takes is a good pair of eyes, and you can copy what you see in front of you. Simple for most people to do, really. I'm sorry if that was asking too much of you. And I don't have to be an expert scientist to know when somebody is talking out of their ass. If you think I was talking down to you, I apologize, but I'll call anybody an idiot if they say idiotic things. I've been an idiot myself on many, many occasions, so trust me, it's not a title I'm too proud to not give to myself at times. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 15:19
|
^ After reading this book I went from agnostic to atheist ... I still believe that there's more to the universe than we can understand, but I also believe that whatever that might be it's of no importance for us humans. For all intents and purposes, we are bi-pedal mammals with huge brains.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 15:23
|
^ Dawkins himself has said that there may be evidence of a designer of some sort in things. A common thread in everything, almost like a 'signature'.
Einstein said that despitre his knowledge of how it all works, he felt that there must be SOMETHING out there setting it all into motion. ''No doubt'', he said. I'm definately not an Atheist. I just don't believe in hocus pocus any longer. |
Posted By: Diaby
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 16:01
|
It's quite rare for me to read something that offensive and ridiculous. ------------- yeah |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 16:08
It is unfortunately quite common that people around PA cannot take a joke and get so easily offended |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 16:16
Where did he say that - and in which context? There surely is not designer at work in the process of evolution, he made that abundantly clear in the book. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Diaby
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 16:21
This was his second post in this thread referring to "somebody in the sky". Nobody laughed at the first one. So: he either really means it or he can't understand if something's not funny at all. ------------- yeah |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 16:23
|
I don't think is sense of humor is particular great either, and I didn't find it funny, but I don't see it as something to get offended at either, is more what I meant really. |
Posted By: Diaby
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 16:26
|
One of the main reasons for getting offended was that I was reading an interesting debate and then came this unnecessary stupidity.
------------- yeah |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 16:28
That is what I have always thought. |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 16:34
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc He said it in a different context than how Ben Stein twisted it, though. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 16:55
|
^ That's a truly awful interview ... the interviewer is supposed to be neutral, asking questions. Instead he's constantly commenting on Dawkin's responses, twisting (indeed, like you said) his arguments. Dawkings completely rejects the idea of intelligent design in connection with evolution - in fact one of the sections of his latest book is called "Unintelligent Design". What he might have meant is that on some level an entity of higher intelligence may have been involved in creating the first form of life on this planet, but in the book he clearly favors the idea that it might simply have been an fortunate coincidence. But from that moment on the rest happened by natural selection, without any interference. The whole point about all the evidence for evolution/natural selection is that there's nothing pointing towards a designer or architect of any kind. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 17:02
|
^ it was also the central premise of his 1986 book "The Blind Watchmaker" ------------- What? |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 17:03
|
Wait a minute...people disagree about something Dawkins supposedly said? Dawkins can't possibly be correct about anything then!   ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 17:17
Let me throw in an interesting anecdote here: Today I tested the signature generator at PF and one of my sigs (I think it was "most listened to artists in the last 12 months) showed Slayer and Neal Morse on neighboring slots.  ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: UndercoverBoy
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 17:44
This.
I'm a Christain that accepts Evolution as a fact. Also, it inspired one of the greatest albums of all time.
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 17:45
------------- What? |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 17:53
sh*te, Dean- it was a http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/joke - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/joke Also, I can't re-watch the interview because I didn't watch the damn thing in the first place. So there. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/joke - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/joke's on you. I need ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 17:55
------------- What? |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 17:56
Yeah, KKK threads will do that to ya.  ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 17:58
I need another beer too. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 17:59
|
I'm going to go with who knows? and in the end it doesn't really matter.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Kestrel
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 18:01
|
The word "proof" is being thrown around too much in this thread. Science doesn't prove anything, it merely (and hopefully) provides the best explanation given the evidence. Evolution could be wrong, certainly, but it's BY FAR the best explanation given the mountains of facts we have (fossils, DNA similarities, etc.). Furthermore, this isn't to say we know everything about evolution. Every day millions of scientists are testing and revising the theory and debating certain tenets. However, every biologist agrees EVOLUTION HAPPENED AND IS A FACT. (Some scientists do disagree, but a couple hundred out of millions of scientists is incredibly insignificant.) Also, a minor beef with the poll choices, there is more to evolution than natural selection! Someone said that the theory has gone pretty much unchanged since the days of Darwin; this is most definitely false! Darwin completely screwed up heredity and it wasn't until the 1930s that Darwin's evolution and Mendel's genetics were synthesized. Ideas like genetic drift (another major force in evolution alongside natural selection) and the neutral theory have been added to the theory since. (Unfortunately, Dawkins doesn't think genetic drift is that big of a deal...) Edit: Not to toot my own horn, but I consider myself well-versed in evolution, so if anyone has any questions, I would be more than happy to try to answer them. |