spycatcher34
Emperor
Everything is a joke to you curt. Lifes a joke isnt it?
Poll - Age Old Question Evolution or Creation
- Thread starter BigBirdZ28
- Start date
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Maybe you should try and laugh more, Spyguy.
(I'm serious)
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Ok, so I am here. 
We all knew I'd get here sooner or later. Deep breath.
Hamlet:
May I ask what it is about evolution that makes it a more plausible theory to you?
More importantly, what is it a more plausible theory of?
And what it is you think evolution (the theory) actually postulates?
I think you and others may be under the misguided notion that it is a theory that explains how life got here, and how it shows such amazing diversity. If this is the case, then someone has mislead you. Go to TalkOrigins, and read the definition they give of evolution. To save you some time (but check to be sure that I'm not lying) the theory of evolution is:
"Over time, the frequency of an allele in a population will change."
Assuming you have the science background to understand this 'theory', could you please explain how it successfully addresses the questions of the origin of life, and biodiversity?
It seems to me that the above is nothing but a brief, overly technically worded summary of Natural Selection. NS, while it does account for in-species diversity (like grey and black moths that are otherwise identical, or St. Bernards and Doberman Pinschers), does not explain at all how the species 'moth' came from some proto-bug ancestor.
But please, tell me why I am wrong. But do avoid silliness like 'Because you're wrong.', or 'Because God is a myth.' Me being wrong does not make you right. You being wrong makes you wrong. Now, I can't trot God out of the closet and prop Him up in front of a mike to answer questions, but unless there is another equally valid explanation offered (and we'll get into the validity of Creationism in another thread or at least post), I'd at least like to get evolution shoved aside as bogus, and then get on to the matter of dissecting Creationism, and de-bunking it if possible.
One myth at a time, youngest one first.
We all knew I'd get here sooner or later. Deep breath.Hamlet:
May I ask what it is about evolution that makes it a more plausible theory to you?
More importantly, what is it a more plausible theory of?
And what it is you think evolution (the theory) actually postulates?
I think you and others may be under the misguided notion that it is a theory that explains how life got here, and how it shows such amazing diversity. If this is the case, then someone has mislead you. Go to TalkOrigins, and read the definition they give of evolution. To save you some time (but check to be sure that I'm not lying) the theory of evolution is:
"Over time, the frequency of an allele in a population will change."
Assuming you have the science background to understand this 'theory', could you please explain how it successfully addresses the questions of the origin of life, and biodiversity?
It seems to me that the above is nothing but a brief, overly technically worded summary of Natural Selection. NS, while it does account for in-species diversity (like grey and black moths that are otherwise identical, or St. Bernards and Doberman Pinschers), does not explain at all how the species 'moth' came from some proto-bug ancestor.
But please, tell me why I am wrong. But do avoid silliness like 'Because you're wrong.', or 'Because God is a myth.' Me being wrong does not make you right. You being wrong makes you wrong. Now, I can't trot God out of the closet and prop Him up in front of a mike to answer questions, but unless there is another equally valid explanation offered (and we'll get into the validity of Creationism in another thread or at least post), I'd at least like to get evolution shoved aside as bogus, and then get on to the matter of dissecting Creationism, and de-bunking it if possible.
One myth at a time, youngest one first.
Becka
M AS IN MARTINI
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2001
- Messages
- 2,583
What would not make it "level-headed"? You could dismiss anything I say just because you don't think it's "level-headed", right?
Not that I'd think you'd do that. 
Don't worry. :crazyeyes:
I always thought the Creation theory was good.
Well, you have to admit, the evolutionists do have a somewhat shady past when it comes to proof. Not that they didn't have any, but that they've sometimes resorted to fabricating things and continuing to use debunked "proof". Take for instance the peppered moth.
They still use that in my biology text book. My book has a copyright of 2000. Not to mention the use of dating techniques I find questionable at the very best.And although science protested, a lot of things in the Bible that they said was not true eventually turned out to be true. For exapmle the exitance of several ancient civilizations, Soloman's mines and such.
But that's not about Creation. What I'm saying is there is a lot of stuff on both sides that isn't fully understood yet. Some of it will be discovered, some of it will be speculated about, and this debate isn't going to do squat about either. The Christian Creationists aren't going to save the entire forum, and the Evolutionists aren't going to make the Creationist become atheists, (or at least Theistic Evolutionists
).
spycatcher34
Emperor
Curt I am by no means "armed and ready for battle" I belive if wanted to be taken seriously you must act in a calm and a dult manner. Maybe you should think of that the next tiem you use that horrible "lol" smilie.
I have neither the time nor energy to write the nessesitices-sp of a "theroy". However I would like to point out some of the 'highlights' of Christanity. The Bible for a start. Where did it come from? Who wrote it. Add why is it still around, if its just 'outdated'? Dont you find it strange that it confronts many today issuse that were not around when it was written? How many other writtings do we have from (i'm not a scholoar of any sorts so i dont really have anyway to put a naccurate date) back then? The reason many dissmiss the Bible is because they cannot understand it. Revelations for example. Do you understand the significance of the seven bwols of God's wrath? I somehow doubt it. Also is it not amazing how predictions made in the old testament(B.C.) came true?In plain english for some of you, JESUS. Jesus spoke in parables. Some of these parables were also predictions. Such as the parable of the tenates. Now I could explain it to you all but some how I dont think you would care. However in it Jesus predicted that an army would come and destroy Israel. Now for you history buffs out there can you tell me what happened to Israel in 70 AD? Thats right the Romans came and conquered Israel destroyed the Temple and one of my favorite subjects of all time, the showdown at Masada. Anyway this might not be enough to convince you of craetionism but shurly you can see the legitimacy of the Bible.
Forgive me of any misspellings please.
I have neither the time nor energy to write the nessesitices-sp of a "theroy". However I would like to point out some of the 'highlights' of Christanity. The Bible for a start. Where did it come from? Who wrote it. Add why is it still around, if its just 'outdated'? Dont you find it strange that it confronts many today issuse that were not around when it was written? How many other writtings do we have from (i'm not a scholoar of any sorts so i dont really have anyway to put a naccurate date) back then? The reason many dissmiss the Bible is because they cannot understand it. Revelations for example. Do you understand the significance of the seven bwols of God's wrath? I somehow doubt it. Also is it not amazing how predictions made in the old testament(B.C.) came true?In plain english for some of you, JESUS. Jesus spoke in parables. Some of these parables were also predictions. Such as the parable of the tenates. Now I could explain it to you all but some how I dont think you would care. However in it Jesus predicted that an army would come and destroy Israel. Now for you history buffs out there can you tell me what happened to Israel in 70 AD? Thats right the Romans came and conquered Israel destroyed the Temple and one of my favorite subjects of all time, the showdown at Masada. Anyway this might not be enough to convince you of craetionism but shurly you can see the legitimacy of the Bible.
Forgive me of any misspellings please.
CrayonX
Ray of Sunshine
Oh boy, here we go...
Curt says:
A theory only carries water if you say it does. If something sounds nice to you that's doesn't make it a fact. And it all depends what material you are referencing. Just by referring to creationists as 'religious fundamentalists', you are introducing a preconception of your own choosing into the arguments. That in itself should not convince you either way about what is right and what is wrong.
Hamlet says:
I guess majority rules, huh?! What a totally unproven subjective statement based on preconceived biases. (hmm...I suppose everyone has these though...)
Spycatcher says:
No time to put in a detailed analysis, but my view is that people really need to know what they are specifically talking about before they decide to argue with one another. There are so many facets of evolutionism and creationism, including overlaps, that it is a little silly to do a black and white comparison. I find that most so called 'evolutionists' are more interested in trying to disprove creation than actually proving evolution in the broadest sense of the word, and that so called 'creationists' often get overzealous and prideful without actually 'proving' or 'disproving' anything. It is also a bit of a cop out for creationists to say 'well I have the truth and you don't so neener neener', and for evolutionists to categorize creationists as 'religious fundamentilists'. Too much labelling going on, and not enough substantial discussion.
Anyhow, this is one of those questions that essentially degenerates into a childish banter of sorts, with both sides basically making fools of themselves. As you can tell, the discussion has 'evolved' into degeneracy already, only 16 posts in, with both sides not really saying much.
I voted for creation, by the way, and would have voted for it even before I became a Christian 12 years ago.
Curt says:
A theory only carries water if you say it does. If something sounds nice to you that's doesn't make it a fact. And it all depends what material you are referencing. Just by referring to creationists as 'religious fundamentalists', you are introducing a preconception of your own choosing into the arguments. That in itself should not convince you either way about what is right and what is wrong.
Hamlet says:
I guess majority rules, huh?! What a totally unproven subjective statement based on preconceived biases. (hmm...I suppose everyone has these though...)
Spycatcher says:
No time to put in a detailed analysis, but my view is that people really need to know what they are specifically talking about before they decide to argue with one another. There are so many facets of evolutionism and creationism, including overlaps, that it is a little silly to do a black and white comparison. I find that most so called 'evolutionists' are more interested in trying to disprove creation than actually proving evolution in the broadest sense of the word, and that so called 'creationists' often get overzealous and prideful without actually 'proving' or 'disproving' anything. It is also a bit of a cop out for creationists to say 'well I have the truth and you don't so neener neener', and for evolutionists to categorize creationists as 'religious fundamentilists'. Too much labelling going on, and not enough substantial discussion.
Anyhow, this is one of those questions that essentially degenerates into a childish banter of sorts, with both sides basically making fools of themselves. As you can tell, the discussion has 'evolved'
into degeneracy already, only 16 posts in, with both sides not really saying much.I voted for creation, by the way, and would have voted for it even before I became a Christian 12 years ago.
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
People, I was always lead to believe.
Like any good work, it touches on things that are common to us all.
That's a fairly moot point. The Republic, for example, has survived longer than the bible. That doesn't make it the divine truth, though.
Personally, I don't dismiss all of the bible, I dismiss the notion of god, which is different.
It's all about perpective with these things.
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
I was going by what I had observed in polls on forums (Non-partisan on this issue, I must stress) before. Hence, it was not biased.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Wake up, sonny.
CrayonX
Ray of Sunshine
Ok, I understand, no hard feelings.
It just sounded like you were basing one thing on another. But technically, it still is biased based on who actually goes into those kinds of forums. You may be non-partisan, but most of us aren't, unfortunately.
spycatcher34
Emperor
At least you acknowledge it has a good author
Its age doesnt make it Holy its contents do.
Perspective? Your sayining a blind person could walk up and say "A man named judas will betray a man named Jesus?
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
Originally posted by spycatcher34
At least you acknoledge it has a good author
It wasn't written by a single "author"
Only because you say it does. You seemed to be trying to claim that the bible had greater legitimacy because of it's longevity as a piece of writing. I was merely rebuking that.
Congratulations, you missed the point.
spycatcher34
Emperor
Inspired by God.
Fine then.
well then o holy one what was thir prespective? I can hardly see where it gives them any insight into the future.
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
Written by men, though. Hence, not perfect.
I was refering to propehcies.
spycatcher34
Emperor
Concided.
Now you have me totally confused. Isnt prespective the view throught wich someone sees something?
CrayonX
Ray of Sunshine
Who voted for 'other'?
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Fearless is here! My hero! (Cue: The Ten Commandments theme!)
Haw!
A real can of the worms this is!
Now that the titans of fire and brimstone are here, I can say what I have said too many times to fervent posters.
None of you can ever prove creation your theory to be correct
It is based on myth and your emotions. (see Spycatchers rant).
In the same as the evolution theory can be made open to discussion.
But the theory is based on hard cold, non-religious scientific FACT and written by some of humanitys greatest minds (and sorry FL2 but you are not one of them).
Now this is the last time I am going to repeat myself to the naive or hard of thinking
I respect others views, but all I am getting is ignorance and blind belief!
FL2 is however, an intelligent fellow who writes eloquently well.
He at least has won my respect in that factor.
Spycatcher blew a hole a mile wide in his credibility with one post
To Hamlet and the others who take stock in the evolution theory, worry not, my friends, science has vanquished religious intolerance again and again, it will triumph over ignorance every time.
An unthinking majority cannot silence those who tell it like it is.
Anyway!
You are all welcome to interpret what you want from life, and since when has ENEMY ACE been the persecutor of free speech?
Dont demonize me for things I havent done, people.
I have no problem with you if you believe some large entity in another dimension decided to create earth I think that theory full of wholes because we havent got a god sitting on earth to examine have we?
The answers to our origins are here on earth, in the real world, where our life as a species began. Some things in the past will never be known for sure, but one thing that is known is that humans have came up with religious answers for things since the dawn of time and get angry when these notions are challenged.
I think some of you have demonstrated this quite well.
Archaeologists have dug up skeletons of our un-advanced distant ancestors for many decades; we have scientifically put together a history of our species from primate status to upright man, using hard scientific method!
Can you give a run down of your gods creation of us and give hard evidence, which is not from some book or psalm? No one yet has done this .
I do not have to give you all example of evolution; you are all on the Internet, GO AND FIND IT and READ THE FACTS! Dont argue about it with us, great humans spent their lives documenting the machinations of this planets life forms, at least give them some respect and read their words.
Evolution theory is more plausible than some god placing a man and woman of earth complete with snake and magic apples hmmm.
Now where did the universe come into being?
We could all be right none of us know that answer, our universe could be part of a bigger whole, or created by something else its a huge question!
NONE OF YOU KNOW!
Or you could hide in warm safe ignorance. Some of you have chosen this already.
Now none of you really know where life came from, although we can theorise
But some of you like to ponder our spirituality, which is fine by me
But to blindly rage at someone who has a differing view to your theology is to bring mockery to yourself.
I can be a joker at times, but I have scorn for anyone who refuses to listen to reason.
I ignore such losers.
Also this document is not up for discussion, it is my opinion. If you dont like it well its too bad.
You cant change me; Im a free man.
FINALLY!
This argument has been going on between great minds for centuries, a gang of CIV fans on a forum are not going to win the argument, for it will go on in great universities and colleges for years to come.
Anyone thinking they have a decisive victory in this subject (FL2) is only kidding himself or herself
It is best to just have you OWN VIEW ON THE MATTER!
Dont argue over it, kids.
These are MY FINAL WORDS on this matter.
ENEMY ACE is going to go and do something interesting now.
Feel free to whine and shriek, I will not be listening!
PS
Spyguy, this ones for you!
Haw!
A real can of the worms this is!
Now that the titans of fire and brimstone are here, I can say what I have said too many times to fervent posters.
None of you can ever prove creation your theory to be correct
It is based on myth and your emotions. (see Spycatchers rant).
In the same as the evolution theory can be made open to discussion.
But the theory is based on hard cold, non-religious scientific FACT and written by some of humanitys greatest minds (and sorry FL2 but you are not one of them).
Now this is the last time I am going to repeat myself to the naive or hard of thinking
I respect others views, but all I am getting is ignorance and blind belief!
FL2 is however, an intelligent fellow who writes eloquently well.
He at least has won my respect in that factor.
Spycatcher blew a hole a mile wide in his credibility with one post
To Hamlet and the others who take stock in the evolution theory, worry not, my friends, science has vanquished religious intolerance again and again, it will triumph over ignorance every time.
An unthinking majority cannot silence those who tell it like it is.
Anyway!
You are all welcome to interpret what you want from life, and since when has ENEMY ACE been the persecutor of free speech?
Dont demonize me for things I havent done, people.
I have no problem with you if you believe some large entity in another dimension decided to create earth I think that theory full of wholes because we havent got a god sitting on earth to examine have we?
The answers to our origins are here on earth, in the real world, where our life as a species began. Some things in the past will never be known for sure, but one thing that is known is that humans have came up with religious answers for things since the dawn of time and get angry when these notions are challenged.
I think some of you have demonstrated this quite well.
Archaeologists have dug up skeletons of our un-advanced distant ancestors for many decades; we have scientifically put together a history of our species from primate status to upright man, using hard scientific method!
Can you give a run down of your gods creation of us and give hard evidence, which is not from some book or psalm? No one yet has done this .
I do not have to give you all example of evolution; you are all on the Internet, GO AND FIND IT and READ THE FACTS! Dont argue about it with us, great humans spent their lives documenting the machinations of this planets life forms, at least give them some respect and read their words.
Evolution theory is more plausible than some god placing a man and woman of earth complete with snake and magic apples hmmm.
Now where did the universe come into being?
We could all be right none of us know that answer, our universe could be part of a bigger whole, or created by something else its a huge question!
NONE OF YOU KNOW!
Or you could hide in warm safe ignorance. Some of you have chosen this already.
Now none of you really know where life came from, although we can theorise
But some of you like to ponder our spirituality, which is fine by me
But to blindly rage at someone who has a differing view to your theology is to bring mockery to yourself.
I can be a joker at times, but I have scorn for anyone who refuses to listen to reason.
I ignore such losers.
Also this document is not up for discussion, it is my opinion. If you dont like it well its too bad.
You cant change me; Im a free man.
FINALLY!
This argument has been going on between great minds for centuries, a gang of CIV fans on a forum are not going to win the argument, for it will go on in great universities and colleges for years to come.
Anyone thinking they have a decisive victory in this subject (FL2) is only kidding himself or herself
It is best to just have you OWN VIEW ON THE MATTER!
Dont argue over it, kids.
These are MY FINAL WORDS on this matter.
ENEMY ACE is going to go and do something interesting now.
Feel free to whine and shriek, I will not be listening!
PS
Spyguy, this ones for you!
A creation theory is not provable - it is accepted on faith. That's why it is not science and is not an "alternative" to evolution.
Believing in a god as creator is anyone's perogative, but it is not a testable theory. (please don't talk about creation science, because it's only 'science' when 'findings' support their pre-conceived notions'. I had a friend who challenged me by telling me they found Noah's Ark. When I told her the story was a hoax that even the Christian network who broadcast it had admitted to, she said 'oh, well I don't care about you're proofs and scientific evidience'....hmmm, you did just a minute ago.)
Evolution is a testable theory that has been corroborated by biology, geology, anthropology, chemistry, etc.
There is no shame in believing in a god as the creator, but you cannot dismiss evolution in the process on an "either or" grounds.
I'm not much of a religious person, but I can understand why people who are tend to become adverse with evolution, as it challenges the very fundamental core of their beliefs.
In the end, though, we should never turn our back on the knowldege we have gained, challenged, ratified during our existence (as the state of Kansas tried so hard to do).
Evolution is science. Creationism is religion, and never the twain shall meet.
BTW....the story about repealling the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was satire. (www.theonion.com)
Believing in a god as creator is anyone's perogative, but it is not a testable theory. (please don't talk about creation science, because it's only 'science' when 'findings' support their pre-conceived notions'. I had a friend who challenged me by telling me they found Noah's Ark. When I told her the story was a hoax that even the Christian network who broadcast it had admitted to, she said 'oh, well I don't care about you're proofs and scientific evidience'....hmmm, you did just a minute ago.)
Evolution is a testable theory that has been corroborated by biology, geology, anthropology, chemistry, etc.
There is no shame in believing in a god as the creator, but you cannot dismiss evolution in the process on an "either or" grounds.
I'm not much of a religious person, but I can understand why people who are tend to become adverse with evolution, as it challenges the very fundamental core of their beliefs.
In the end, though, we should never turn our back on the knowldege we have gained, challenged, ratified during our existence (as the state of Kansas tried so hard to do).
Evolution is science. Creationism is religion, and never the twain shall meet.
BTW....the story about repealling the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was satire. (www.theonion.com)
CrayonX
Ray of Sunshine
Hi Curt.
Bye Curt.
Since he supposedly won't be around to offer any sort of response to his post (in thoery), let's have some fun.
And it's many different kinds of worms too!
If it's based on hard fact, why is it still being called a theory? An what defines a great mind? Totally subjective. Some would say Hitler was one of humanity's greatest minds. Does that mean that he is right?
Ah yes, the "I think better than you" statement. You are only a better thinker in the context of the arena in which you reveal your thoughts. And people who sit around in front of a computer all day posting in forumscrazyeyes me included) instead of getting out more and making a difference in the world, well, I suppose we're ALL hard of thinking...
Same here!
Yes! We must all learn to write well, then we will be respected!
No it hasn't, and no it won't. All it has vanquished is the concept that only one way is the way people should believe. People will always have ideas, and people will always try to prove their ideas. Some will win people over, some will not. If you think science is the final answer, that's a form of 'religious intolerance' in and of itself.
Stop yelling I can't hear you.
If you say so, that's what you've chosen to accept. Others havent. So there.
Yes, I agree.
Believeing in (a) God requires faith. It's not a matter of proving or disproving. However, I find that people who don't believe in God have more faith than those who say they do. You gotta love the irony of that.
"I read it on the internet, therefore it's true!"
I find it had to believe anything I read these days. Everyone is biased in one way of another. I'm more interested in understanding HOW people came to believe what they do as opposed to WHY they believe. You will usually find that it always seems to boil down to personal preference of what is presented before them, and not necessarily any 'facts' or 'theories'. That whole incident about the Colombine high girl who said she believed in God before she got murdered in the massacre was never proven to be true or false, and different parties all had 'facts' and witnesses proving that their version of the story was 'true'. How can everyone be right? Eventually, the family gave in to the notion that, 'yes, we would like to think that that is what she said, and I'm pretty sure she did say that before she was killed, she was that type of person'. So, the truth eventually 'became' that which people wanted to believe so that they have closure on the issue. Whether she really said it or not was no longer the issue, but rather what people FELT she said and how their version was what they WANTED to believe happened. This is basically what the Creation vs Evolution discussions always boil down to. Everyone it so sure that they are right, and argue that 'gee, how can that person not believe after all I've said, they must be stooooopid'.
'Plausible' based on the template of belief, I suppose, with the faith-based presupposition that 'there is no god'. Bring faith and feelings into the discussion, and it's a whole different scenario.
It is a hard question, but people will decide what they want to believe based on their scope of how much info they need to formulate that belief, whether it's via mountains of 'evidence', or getting snippets from the net.
I don't think the spiritual aspect of this can be ignored. And I agree that blind rage doesn't resolve anything.
Reason is subjective to what you have accepted as truth. Both sides can use this argument, and discuss it to death with no resolution, and neither group would be 'wrong' relative to their own beliefs and parameter of what makes thing right and wrong.
Just wanted to get that last word in, I guess.
Unless you are open to change, you are never truly free. You can stick to an ideology, but to say that you cannot be 'changed' is the essentially a proclamation to ignore your own personal evolution. Oh irony of ironies...! :crazyeyes
Yes, have a view, but don't make it your own personal gospel. Be open to change and new ideas.
Yes, I agree, arguing over it will just go on forever. I just like observing and commenting!
Bye Curt.
Since he supposedly won't be around to offer any sort of response to his post (in thoery), let's have some fun.
And it's many different kinds of worms too!
If it's based on hard fact, why is it still being called a theory? An what defines a great mind? Totally subjective. Some would say Hitler was one of humanity's greatest minds. Does that mean that he is right?
Ah yes, the "I think better than you" statement. You are only a better thinker in the context of the arena in which you reveal your thoughts. And people who sit around in front of a computer all day posting in forums
crazyeyes me included) instead of getting out more and making a difference in the world, well, I suppose we're ALL hard of thinking...Same here!
Yes!
We must all learn to write well, then we will be respected!No it hasn't, and no it won't. All it has vanquished is the concept that only one way is the way people should believe. People will always have ideas, and people will always try to prove their ideas. Some will win people over, some will not. If you think science is the final answer, that's a form of 'religious intolerance' in and of itself.
Stop yelling I can't hear you.
If you say so, that's what you've chosen to accept. Others havent. So there
.Yes, I agree.
Believeing in (a) God requires faith. It's not a matter of proving or disproving. However, I find that people who don't believe in God have more faith than those who say they do. You gotta love the irony of that.
"I read it on the internet, therefore it's true!"
I find it had to believe anything I read these days. Everyone is biased in one way of another. I'm more interested in understanding HOW people came to believe what they do as opposed to WHY they believe. You will usually find that it always seems to boil down to personal preference of what is presented before them, and not necessarily any 'facts' or 'theories'. That whole incident about the Colombine high girl who said she believed in God before she got murdered in the massacre was never proven to be true or false, and different parties all had 'facts' and witnesses proving that their version of the story was 'true'. How can everyone be right? Eventually, the family gave in to the notion that, 'yes, we would like to think that that is what she said, and I'm pretty sure she did say that before she was killed, she was that type of person'. So, the truth eventually 'became' that which people wanted to believe so that they have closure on the issue. Whether she really said it or not was no longer the issue, but rather what people FELT she said and how their version was what they WANTED to believe happened. This is basically what the Creation vs Evolution discussions always boil down to. Everyone it so sure that they are right, and argue that 'gee, how can that person not believe after all I've said, they must be stooooopid'.
'Plausible' based on the template of belief, I suppose, with the faith-based presupposition that 'there is no god'. Bring faith and feelings into the discussion, and it's a whole different scenario.
It is a hard question, but people will decide what they want to believe based on their scope of how much info they need to formulate that belief, whether it's via mountains of 'evidence', or getting snippets from the net.
I don't think the spiritual aspect of this can be ignored. And I agree that blind rage doesn't resolve anything.
Reason is subjective to what you have accepted as truth. Both sides can use this argument, and discuss it to death with no resolution, and neither group would be 'wrong' relative to their own beliefs and parameter of what makes thing right and wrong.
Just wanted to get that last word in, I guess.
Unless you are open to change, you are never truly free. You can stick to an ideology, but to say that you cannot be 'changed' is the essentially a proclamation to ignore your own personal evolution. Oh irony of ironies...! :crazyeyes
Yes, have a view, but don't make it your own personal gospel. Be open to change and new ideas.
Yes, I agree, arguing over it will just go on forever. I just like observing and commenting!
BlueMonday
Can I Kick It?
You guys talk too much. Then again so do I so...
Here's what I'm thinking: I think that it is extraordinarily narrow-minded to instantly throw away heaps upon heaps of scientific evidence in blind support of creationism. All manner of scientists have dug up compelling evidence to support the evolution theory. They've found the remains of pre-history man, nenderthals, and even a three-million year old skeleton which belongs to the first family of apes to walk upright. Biologists have traced the evolution of present species backwards through time -all the way back to the point when all life was oceanic. They've even been able to re-construct the creation of genetic material (the so called "premordial soup"). Given the right conditions, competeing molecules will develop and eventually congregate into larger organisms.
Now here's why I don't believe in creationism: If it were true then there would be nothing man-like untill a few thousand years ago when man was just created. If there was no evolution and there was only creation there would be no neanderthal or three foot tall ape that walks upright.
I also am filled with vicious amusement everytime creationists use the argument, "You have no hard evidence of evolution." First of all, that's not true. Did all those pre-human remains just appear out of nowhere? We do have evidence of evolution. We can see how we've evolved through time. Second of all, we have observed evolution. Our time span of knowledge is too short to observe evolution in large creatures; however we have seen it in various bacteria, viruses, and insects. One of the most obvious observations of evolution are the insects that develop resitence to pesticide. Most bugs die everytime we spray them, however a few develop a resistence to the pesticide, then they multiply and we have to come up with a new pesticide. Like it or not, those bugs evolve into stronger creatures.
But thirdly and most importantly of all there is absolutely no evidence of creation. None whatsoever. We have tons of evidence supporting evolution and absolutely nothing to support creation. That's the deal breaker. If the creationists want evolutionists to prove evolution using scientific method, they should be held to the same standard. Right now we have all manner of evidence for evolution and nothing for creation
But just because I don't believe in creation doesn't mean I don't believe in God. Evolution vs. creation is a moot point. It doesn't change the way we lead our lives, it doesn't change the way we should conduct ourselves, and it doesn't even change my belief in God. Whether it was evolution or creation has nothing to do with spirituality.
Here's what I'm thinking: I think that it is extraordinarily narrow-minded to instantly throw away heaps upon heaps of scientific evidence in blind support of creationism. All manner of scientists have dug up compelling evidence to support the evolution theory. They've found the remains of pre-history man, nenderthals, and even a three-million year old skeleton which belongs to the first family of apes to walk upright. Biologists have traced the evolution of present species backwards through time -all the way back to the point when all life was oceanic. They've even been able to re-construct the creation of genetic material (the so called "premordial soup"). Given the right conditions, competeing molecules will develop and eventually congregate into larger organisms.
Now here's why I don't believe in creationism: If it were true then there would be nothing man-like untill a few thousand years ago when man was just created. If there was no evolution and there was only creation there would be no neanderthal or three foot tall ape that walks upright.
I also am filled with vicious amusement everytime creationists use the argument, "You have no hard evidence of evolution." First of all, that's not true. Did all those pre-human remains just appear out of nowhere? We do have evidence of evolution. We can see how we've evolved through time. Second of all, we have observed evolution. Our time span of knowledge is too short to observe evolution in large creatures; however we have seen it in various bacteria, viruses, and insects. One of the most obvious observations of evolution are the insects that develop resitence to pesticide. Most bugs die everytime we spray them, however a few develop a resistence to the pesticide, then they multiply and we have to come up with a new pesticide. Like it or not, those bugs evolve into stronger creatures.
But thirdly and most importantly of all there is absolutely no evidence of creation. None whatsoever. We have tons of evidence supporting evolution and absolutely nothing to support creation. That's the deal breaker. If the creationists want evolutionists to prove evolution using scientific method, they should be held to the same standard. Right now we have all manner of evidence for evolution and nothing for creation
But just because I don't believe in creation doesn't mean I don't believe in God. Evolution vs. creation is a moot point. It doesn't change the way we lead our lives, it doesn't change the way we should conduct ourselves, and it doesn't even change my belief in God. Whether it was evolution or creation has nothing to do with spirituality.
Similar threads
- Poll
