Poll - Age Old Question Evolution or Creation

[sumociv]

Calm yourself. As a somewhat objective observer, I find I have to side with Polymath. Many of your arguments are creative and valid. Evolution still is a theory and it is entirely appropriate for you to be skeptical and to challenge it. However, you are obviously a lay person in regards to science and your logic is not very consistant. You seem to think of yourself as an expert on evolutionary biology and you label your detractors as less intelligent than you. This is clear in your response to ploymath.

Your approach seems to be to label anyone who disagrees with you as a blind follower of science. Fine, then you are a blind rejector of science. So we all come to the table equal.

You are also a lay person in regards to the Bible. Here's a typical example:

Your quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the two theories, which is the logical choice? One actively disproves itself. It does so by basing itself on two natural phenomena acting in a totally different manner than they can be clearly observed to act in. The other accepts as evidence a document that is known to contain a great many facts, contains no known untruths, and has survived intact and unchanged for thousands of years. In fact, the only body of study that does contradict this written work is the other theory.

Polymath's response:
You claim the bible contains no known untruths. There are so many documented ones it's pointless to list them. Unchanged for thousands of years? Ha ha ha ha! ROFLMAO. Was the original bible written in English? What happened to all the apocrypha? Do you even know what apocrypha are? The only body of study that contradicts it? I suppose the other religions the world over don't count? Not in your little world, clearly. All just hot air, FL2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your rebuttal:
I wonder. Why do you keep dodging the fact that evolution is based on two contradicitions? As to your rants about the Bible, well, my copy is based on the earliest available manuscripts, and rather than basing it on the tranlsators dogma, they based their 'dogma' on it.


My reaction:
The issue polymath is trying to get through to you is not the textual consistency of the new testament manuscripts (of which you are blissfully optimistic). He is attacking your earlier claims that the Bible is internally consistant and historically accurate. That is simply a very shallow view of the Bible, and shows that you lack the ability to be critical of your own closely held beliefs and assumptions. This really lowers your credibilty level with the readers of your posts.

You constantly attack scientists inability to ever question the TOE since so much science has been built on it as a foundation. That would be a much more effective tactic if you didn't suffer from an identical weakness in your own position.

As a brother in your faith, I would suggest that you be a little more open minded in your defense of your faith. There are many christians (myself included) who are not threatened by the TOE. If evolution could be proven in a test tube it would not change my theology at all, in fact it would be further evidence to me of the existence of a God who is intricately involved in his creation.

 

[Vrylakas]

*sigh* Just when I think this thread has safely faded into forum oblivion....

I would have even stayed away if my name hadn't been invoked. I respect Sumociv's attempts to inject balance into the debate, but I really think FearlessLeader2 is confusing some things. Sumociv has voiced something that I've repeated ad nauseum though, that religion and science are completely different things and incomparable. One need not compromise or threaten the other, any more than my cat threatens my belief that Cyrus Chestnut plays great jazz.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by polymath I'm curious about this. Well, until he does prove it definitively, let's just put God aside as bogus. That's the way you work, isn't it?[/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I accept that Creationism requires faith. Evolutionism declares that it is science, and thus no faith is required. Therefore, Creationism does not need proof, only faith. Now if you could PROVE it wrong, that would be one thing, but the ToE is flawed.

This is flawed logic. You're saying that 1. Creation requires faith (Variable "A"), 2. Evolution as science does not (Variable "B"), ergo Creationism does not require presumably scientific proof (Value "C", or A + B infers C), but then Creationism would for an unknown/unstated reason need to be proved wrong (??? Value "D"; or A + B /= -D???) and that somehow this adds up to "ToE" being flawed (Value "E", whose origin I can't get from your logic).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by polymath (Vrylakas studying anthropology is Kind of like how the Jesuits have you pore over illuminated manuscripts in seminary... But Evolutionism definitely has no similarities to religion. Nope, nosirreeBob, none whatsoever
Vrylakas studying anthropology is nothing like Jesuits poring over illuminated manuscripts. It's just you'd rather see it that way because then you don't have to claim any special knowledge of the subject (which you obviously do not have) in order to knock it down. You can just say, oh it's blind faith. You are wrong. It astonishes me that you can claim more knowledge of something than someone who has actually studied it. But this is typical of your posts in this thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I probably know more about the ToE than you ever knew existed. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I don't understand it. In point of fact, the opposite is true. I understand perfectly what the ToE is saying, and because of that, I reject it as a cause of speciation.

Sorry Fearless, but I strongly disagree. You've made some very basic mistakes in your exchanges with me that revealed you do not understand some of the most basic mechanations of how the theory of Evolution works. You stumbled repeatedly over why Natural Selection would allow individual animals die, how speciation and Natural Selection are connected, what role variation plays; these are basic components to the theory and your inability to adequately explain them - regardless of whether you agree with their premises or not - led me to believe you don't understand them. It's rather like claiming to understand how the modern combustion engine works but then being astonished at how the alternator or oil filter contribute.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by polymath No reputable scientist will claim that Neanderthal man was a different species anymore. The best working theory is that they were a clannish group of tribes that inbred heavily and died out
Two howlers here. You mentioned logical fallacies before. You first sentence is known as the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy, as in 'No true Scotsman would beat his wife'. It's a nothing sentence, let's throw it away.
Your second claim is more bizarre. 'The best working theory'? According to who? Sources, please, you seem so fond of them. Otherwise, let's dismiss it. Note I'm using your own particular brand of logic here, not mine, but it seems to be the only way you work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How about Omni? Is that good enough a source for you?

[...]

What constitutes studying them to you? I've read articles in scientific magazines (and no, none of them were Christian Science magazines, we're Talking SciAmer, Omni, PopSci, etc...),
I've read the drivel on TalkOrigins, I keep up with the latest discoveries. How much more do i have to do? Oh, wait, I know. I have to convert, right? Because not agreeing with people who have a vested interest in being right makes me wrong somehow.

...and this is one of the reasons I don't believe you understand the theory of Evolution. THESE constitute adequate resources for scientific information for you, resources that provide you with enough background to confidently refute a 150+ year old scientific theory? I was amazed when I read this. Would you accept popular supermarket magazines and papers like these as sources for information about your religious beliefs? Assuming you don't, why then would you consider them adequate to form opinions of complex scientific matters? Yes, they are informative for the lay public and I enjoy reading them sometimes - but I don't derive my personal thoughts on genetics from my Discover magazine subscription.

How many real scientific journals or monographs, published by and for professionals, have you delved into? You seem fairly confident that you can refute the theory of Evolution, and yet you've just told me you have been reading the equivelent of intellectual junk food. Again, interesting reading and many are quite reputable but as conveyers of the most basic and simple explanations for non-professionals. Nothing too intricate or controversial in them. When in my last post to you (which you didn't answer) I asked you to provide specific examples to back up your rather wild conspiracy theories, I was thinking in terms of at least university-level publications, not corner newsstand McMagazines.

Well, not you anyways. Okay, listen close, and try to keep up. Darwin published origin of the species, and all of a sudden, the scientific community, including the people who contribute to it, are all a-twitter with excitment. Paleontologists realise that they can get a whole lot of money for their research if they come up with plausible proto-human artifacts and such. The love of money being the root of all evil, they pounce on the opportunity. We get the Piltdown Man, and other hoaxes. People get a little testy. Now we get monkey fragments, carefully numbered and boxed, and reams of paper describing their possible relationship to humans. These get much better reception, as, like fortune teller's predictions, they are just vague enough to avoid saying anything, and just controversial enough to cause a stir. And the money comes a rollin' in.

Um, you left out the Tooth fairy in this wonderful fictional narritive. Again Fearless; I need at least ONE example of the conspiracy you mention above. Surely someone somewhere has documented a deliberate falsification by a scientist trying to keep up a fraudulent theory as you claim? If you believe it so strongly as you've obviously made clear in this thread, then I assume you've seen proof. And please - please - do not quote from a supermarket magazine....

FearlessLeader2
Miskatonic Frat Boy

BTW, I've been meaning to ask: Pardon my ignorance of New England geography but is there really a "Miskatonic" river/college, or are you referencing good old Lovecraft?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by polymath You want evidence that we are created? Draw a breath. Look around. Listen to your heart beat. You exist, the world exists, the universe exists. Since it is all here,and it can't be proved that it got here by itself, it logically follows that it was created.
Complete rubbish! Since one thing can't be definitively proved, it must logically be something else, is that what you are saying? In fact, yes, that's exactly what you are saying! This is so dim, it's funny. It's like saying 'since it can't be proved that God exists, it logically follows that it must be something else'. Now, you can say it, but to call it logic is laughable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Let's dumb it down a notch: There are two and only two plausible explanations for the universe (C). Either it was created (A), or it happened by itself (B).
IF A<>C THEN B=C ELSE IF B<>C THEN A=C
Whether you like it or not, I have blasted wide open the already gaping holes in the ToE. Clearly, B<>C. That leaves A=C.

I don't want to get involved in your discussion with Polymath here but you're making an assumption here that is distorting your point: You're assuming that will played a role in the creation of the universe. You're assuming that someone willed it into being, either itself or a God. Minor logical point, but you've taken a step that affects your conclusion.

It seems to me that you get very defensive when faced with a rational Creationist.

I thought you said earlier Creationism requires faith? How can faith be rational?

As to your rants about the Bible, well, my copy is based on the earliest available manuscripts, and rather than basing it on the tranlsators dogma, they based their 'dogma' on it.

But what versions of those earliest available manuscripts? The early church councils and synods that cobbled the many books that make up the modern Bible together had to grapple with multiple versions of almost every text, some with differing versions of the same stories, some with parts added or missing, some quite damaged by time and wear, and all written in multiple versions of non-standardized languages, two of which (Aramaic and Hebrew) were nearly dead languages already by the 4th century, and whose authors spanned more than a millenium of human experience and language (what language from the year A.D. 1000 can you understand?)... Also, to boot, many of the "original manuscripts" the early church elders used to create the Bible are long since lost.

The Bible isn't a book, it's a technology, a compendium of other books and letters that were never intended to be put together in physical form. The "books" of the Bible were created in scroll form on various materials (mostly very delicate and perishable ones). The technology of book-binding is what gave birth to the Bible as we know it in early medieval European history, to the need for the early church to suddenly collect the very scattered, varied and contradictory texts that were flowing through the nascent Christian community, and there was a lot of political influence over what texts were chosen and which rejected creating controversies that have not died not since, with multiple communities across Christendom claiming to have the conclusively authentic versions of the sacred texts and of course the True interpretation... You've mentioned before the issue of translations and while I'm glad you've acknowledged as much you should be aware that it is a very deep and disconcerting problem, involving the many bastardized versions of Greek and Latin that have flourished in Medieval Europe.

The bottom line is that to claim to have The True Bible based on the Most Authentic Original manuscripts, a common claim among many Christian communities, is to walk on very, very shaky historic ground. This is a digression, but you keep evoking the Bible and God in what is supposed to be a scientific discussion on the scientific merits of Evolution as a theory.

 

[CurtSibling]

From ancient philosophers to keyboard-tapping civ fans,
This debate has never shown any sign of cooling,
And I am glad. Debate is good for the mind.

Science may have its detractors but it has given us much as
A race, this cannot be denied by any of you. The very system
You are communicating with is borne of science, computers
And the Internet is a testament to our genius and development
As an advanced species...

I have a feeling that the light of science and discovery will chase
the shadows of humanity's self-doubt in to the deep corners of his being.
The fairy tales and myths of yester-year are being unravelled one by one,
as they have been since the renaissance.

But faith is not really a bad thing.
Hope and looking for a higher state of mind is a reason for
Our development as a race. It gave us art, culture and many
Good and vital ideas.

I accept religion was borne out of humanity's desire to help
each other and rise above the common animal desires. But
Like all great social ideas, greed and self-serving individuals
Poison the theologies for all. This is the great flaw of religion,
Humans cannot conform to the perfect ideals.

I repeat faith is not bad, blind faith is. A questing mind is a well-fed one.
Our ability to learn sets us apart from the common ape,
I never discount a concept, if it seems to hold up to scrutiny.

Those who scream in objection to any, who question their faiths,
Are no better than the blind nazi thugs who burned books in the
1930's, sadly we seldom learn from history, and this attitude
Still lives on in our modern age, sadly in a great nation that
Highly upholds freedom of speech and liberty of action.

We can all learn things from each other, only if we listen to each
Other.

I will end this treatise, with what I always say about evolution
And religion, some questions are still beyond our young race,
And we will uncover our secrets in time.

Those who say they know for sure were we originated from are
Suffering from conceit and self-delusion,

We do not know,

We can only stare in to the dark until our eyes adjust to it...

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Vry-

It was a Lovecraft reference.

As to your reply, well, hell, let's just agree to disagree. If I reply in the topic, it'll just get recycled yet again.

It's going nowhere.

I completely fail to see why you won't address a single one of my points, other than to briefly allude to some of them having merit, without mentioning which ones, or attempting to explain them.

Your insulting tone as to my intellectual capacity notwithstanding, you almost had a point, except that the article whose link I posted is clearly a researcher's treatise, and as such, clearly is not 'McMagazine' material. In it, this man flat-out states that evolution and taxonomy are anathema to each other, and he is a leading researcher in the field. You may have heard of him, Dr. Mayr?

That validates my objection from much earlier that evolutionists have abandoned the concept of species, and decided to declare every organism a species unto itself. While this eliminates any possibility of them suffering the indignity of a question that sheds doubt on their belief structure, it does not make them right.

I've changed my mind. This is going onto the forum. Now to select all...

 

[hothead2]

jeez dont you all know that this universe is just one of millions of marbles being traded and bought by better beings then us! Now lets all put on are happy faces so we can get a better asking price!

*walks out puting on his hood*

:frog:

 

[Lian Purge]

Originally posted by Knowltok


The problem is that you accept as basic fact that Mt. Everest was covered with 20 fathoms of water. Your proof is the bible. That is fine, but I'm just not going to buy that that happened. Hence, we will continue to have differences on this.

I know i am late to this forum and this discussion...but i just wanted to add one thing that occured to me as i was reading this rather lengthly thread.

As FL2 already responded that the earth as a whole was covered with water and so whether or not Everest was covered with 20 fathoms was immaterial...another thought popped in my head. We all know that one of the greatest erosive influences in the world is water. IF you belive that a global flood did occur then it is also possible that the topography of the world looked much different before the flood so that statement could be true. The Flood could have caused massive changes in the way the land of earth was distributed vertically speaking.

My reason for writing this small comment is just to point out that...neither will be entirely convinced that the other side is correct until that side is absolutely proven to be so. Creationists would have to see Evolution taking place for it to be true to them. And on the other hand, Evolutionists would have to see the prohecies in the bible coming true before them to belive Creation. And maybe not even then.

My point is...while many condemn Christians for being "dogmatic" about Creation...the same could apply to Evolutionists who deride Christians as "unscientific" and belivers in blind faith. To me, true closemindedness is when a person becomes emotional rather than rational about a subject. And I have to admit, both some of both camps are guilty of that.

 

[Cavalry]

I would like to add some points.

The first being that when mutations occur the result is, the loss of genetic data, not the increase or a new form of genetic data. Since damage or change does not result in a new product appearing out poof nowhere nor does it equal a transmutation into something amazing! It just leads to a scrambled egg type situation. Therefore on these grounds evolution is impossible. I will elaborte: Say you have a frog, he has 100% frog genes. Say a mutation occurs, that causes either genetic damage or genetic loss, for example loss of a vital organ. The result of this is that no new genes or no new types of genes have been formed. Therefore it is safe to conclude evolution is theortically impossible and implausible.

Next point is, there is evidence of a civilzation that was based in South America were destoryed by....drowning. They lived in the mountains also! Hmm, interesting eh?


Cheerio friends.

 

[Reichsmarshal]

Shing! Two more cents just went into this thread's coffers!



Time to debunk the vicious myth that Fundamentalism is a negative or somehow adverse idea.

From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

Fundamentalism:

Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism
Pronunciation: -t&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1922

1 a : often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
- fun·da·men·tal·ist /-t&l-ist/ noun
- fundamentalist or fun.da.men.tal.is.tic adjective

Don't bother claiming that Fundamentalism somehow causes problems again.

Fearless Leader (who is by far one of the most intelligent posters here) seems to have covered the evolution myth pretty well so I will focus on other stuff.

It has been proven that the Shroud of Turin could not have been made by a medieval artist. The "middle age photography" theory was also disproven. There is absolutely no paiting that even comes close to the Shroud's realism! The blood stains and the wrist/thumb thing are 100% realistic. In the middle ages they had very poor understanding of how these things worked so it clearly was not a fake!

Plus there are immense amounts of documents that describe how the Shroud of Turin's origins and how it ended up where it was.

The Ark of Noah exists. Fact. It has been discovered in Turkey. I suggest you get to a library if you still doubt this.

The Universe did not always exist, it is proven that is has an age. Therefore it did somehow it was created. If you are an atheist what do you believe happened?

The earth's age?

Read this web site:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/05agee1.htm

Quoted from the site

"The Magnetic Field:

Magnetic field decay. Earth's magnetic field is slowly, relentlessly lessening. Even 7,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger than it is now. Only 20,000 years ago, enough heat would have been generated to liquefy the planet. Therefore, the earth cannot be over 6,000 or 7,000 years old. This is an important matter, affects the entire planet, and has been measured for over 150 years."

It also says this:


"Our planet is not more than a few thousand years old. Here are scientific facts to prove it. Evolutionists have repeated suggested dates, ranging from a few million years to 5 billion. But facts are what we want, and what we have for you here. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia , brought to you by Creation Science Facts."

Anyone who hasn't read this thread really should:


http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=18115

God proved Himself over Baal to the Israelites. So now has He done in Prophecies of the Bible.

All in all, I say that the atheist/evolutionist arguments combined haven't equaled those of a single person on the Creationist side!

 

[Maj]

Earth's magnetic field is slowly, relentlessly lessening. Even 7,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger than it is now. Only 20,000 years ago, enough heat would have been generated to liquefy the planet. Therefore, the earth cannot be over 6,000 or 7,000 years old. This is an important matter, affects the entire planet, and has been measured for over 150 years."

As the year progresses and summer approaches, the temperature of Ottawa, Canada will increase an average of 5 degrees Celsius per month . The current temperature is 3 degress Celsius. Therefore, in 10 years, the temperature of Ottawa will be, statistically permitting, approximately 600 degrees Celsius.
Has there been any evidence indicative of a fluctuating magnetic field or has that theory been dismissed?

 

[Cavalry]

Reichmarshal meant that it is relentlessly decreasing not flucating. This has been comfirmed and proven as fact. The speed can be debated if you wish though, if nessecary.

 

[Maj]

Reichmarshal meant that it is relentlessly decreasing not flucating. This has been comfirmed and proven as fact. The speed can be debated if you wish though, if nessecary.

If I were to go outside and measure the temperature from now to 150 minutes later, I would notice that it had relentlessly decreased.

What has been proven as a fact is that the Earth's magnetic field has been relentlessly decreasing over the past 150 years. There is no evidence indicating the Earth's magnetic field has been relentlessly decreasing since its argued creation some four to five thousand, or billion, years ago. If it isn't fluctuating and steadily decreasing, I would like to see estimates on how long it will take before the magnetic field reaches dangerously 'low' levels. If it's not fluctuating, we're doomed.

I've been reading over this "The Age of the Earth" website and can only say that it takes an overly simplistic view at scientific and historical facts and theories.

The guy who wrote this goes on about oil and natural gas and how they must have been "placed" into the Earth's crust only mere thousands of years ago even though it is a "proven fact" that oil requires millions of years to transform itself from dead organic matter to what is now oil.

Here's a quote from the page:
"Every type of historical records mysteriously ends a few thousand years ago"
He then goes on to say this:
" The oldest writing (pictographic Sumerian) is dated at about 3500 B.C. The earliest Western script (Proto-Sinaitic) somewhat before 1550 B.C."
Then there's this:
"If mankind had been living on earth for millions of years, we should find records extending back at least 500,000 years. (Evolutionists claim that man has been here for a million years.)"

- Maj

 

[FearlessLeader2]

It all makes perfect sense to me now. The reason that evolution won't die, no matter how many different theories related to it are tested and rejected. I know now. I see, I understand.

It's all about arrogance. There are people out there who simply will not ever accept that there are some things which they, which mankind, will never know.

That's the whole basis of it. Arrogance. It doesn't matter if I prove a million different versions wrong, or even ask a question so damning that they must be discarded, because someone will come along with version 1,000,001, and offer it for examination. And because these people will never accept that they'll just plain never know, they will embrace it, and I'll have to start all over again.

I guess the question is, which will last longer, arrogance, or patience? Specifically to this forum, their arogance, or my patience.

Well, I never was a very patient man. . .

God, on the other hand, actually waited 11 or so billion years for the earth to form, and another three billion after it cooled. Well, He's got me beat.

I hereby withdraw from all evolution debates as a waste of my time, citing my inadequate patience to the ratio of arrogance as primary cause.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, and if you're a YECh, please don't say nice things about me. You people are number one with a bullet on my list. You do more damage to Christianity than a million Darwins could ever dream of.

YECh = Young Earth Creationist (The h, is, (like you should be) silent.)

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

Well, I never was a very patient man. . .

God, on the other hand, actually waited 11 or so billion years for the earth to form, and another three billion after it cooled. Well, He's got me beat.

I hereby withdraw from all evolution debates as a waste of my time, citing my inadequate patience to the ratio of arrogance as primary cause.

Now Fearless one,
Are you going to whip out the undeniable evidence that your
diety exsits? Because proving a god is real seems harder than
a million Evolution theories.

Or will you no finally end this debate and admit your faith is your business? Not ours.

Religious people and Scientists, I have a solution.
It isn't hard!
Just say;

"I'm into what I like, you guys go and believe in whatever."

Would it hurt?

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Hamlet
I've seen this all before. Creationists always get beaten by about 5-1 in the poll.

How prophetic I am.

 

[Reichsmarshal]

Originally posted by CurtSibling


Now Fearless one,
Are you going to whip out the undeniable evidence that your
diety exsits? Because proving a god is real seems harder than
a million Evolution theories.

Or will you no finally end this debate and admit your faith is your business? Not ours.

Religious people and Scientists, I have a solution.
It isn't hard!
Just say;

"I'm into what I like, you guys go and believe in whatever."

Would it hurt?

Would you agree that the proof of the authentacity of the Shroud of Turin would be considered evidence? What about the discovery of the Ark of Noah? Doesn't that indirectly prove the existance of God?

What about the fact that the Bible's prophecies come true?

Would not the refutation of evolution also discredit atheism? How would you explain the fact that there are whales and elephants if you are an atheist without evolution?

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Reichsmarshal
Would you agree that the proof of the authentacity of the Shroud of Turin would be considered evidence? What about the discovery of the Ark of Noah?

I thought the Turin shroud had been proved to be a fake through carbon dating tests? And as for Noah's ark, well, ermm, 'whatever'.

Originally posted by Reichsmarshal
What about the fact that the Bible's prophecies come true?

Such as?

 

[Sixchan]

Would you agree that the proof of the authentacity of the Shroud of Turin would be considered evidence? What about the discovery of the Ark of Noah? Doesn't that indirectly prove the existance of God?

What about the fact that the Bible's prophecies come true?

Would not the refutation of evolution also discredit atheism? How would you explain the fact that there are whales and elephants if you are an atheist without evolution?

No, Atheism would then be: "I don't give a ****. All you preachers can **** off and let me get on with my life."

Listen to Curt. He speaks the truth. Agree to disagree, and get on with your life.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Reichsmarshal


Would you agree that the proof of the authentacity of the Shroud of Turin would be considered evidence? What about the discovery of the Ark of Noah? Doesn't that indirectly prove the existance of God?

What about the fact that the Bible's prophecies come true?

Would not the refutation of evolution also discredit atheism? How would you explain the fact that there are whales and elephants if you are an atheist without evolution?

The ark on noah proves some one built a boat.
The shroud of turin is a piece of cloth. And carbon dated to
Be from the renaissance.

Neither of them goes anywhere near proving the existence of
your god...

And also, do not try to label me.
I am not an atheist; I am free from your tags and personality profiles.
For the record I do find evolution more solid than creationism.

Every time I read a creationist's explanation, it just serves
To reinforce my convictions.

All through this debate, if that's what it was, no creationist
Actually told us how they see the world was created.
I was not subject to religious programming as a kid,
So I know next-to-nothing of the christian theory of creation,

But none of the creationists would tell me.
I almost get the impression they are embarrassed to tell us all.

Goodbye to this debate,
Science wins again, just check the polls!

Ho-hum...

 

[Vrylakas]

This thread is like an intestinal infection that just won't go away.

FearlessLeader2 wrote:

Vry-

It was a Lovecraft reference.

Ah, a fellow Lovecraft fan. You can't be all bad then...

As to your reply, well, hell, let's just agree to disagree. If I reply in the topic, it'll just get recycled yet again.

You're right. We are indeed going around in circles.

It's going nowhere.

Yup.

I completely fail to see why you won't address a single one of my points, other than to briefly allude to some of them having merit, without mentioning which ones, or attempting to explain them.

I disagree Fearless - In a few very long posts I addressed your arguments point by point, and I noticed you more often than not didn't bother answering mine. At least twice you had to be chided, once by myself and once by someone else, to bother answering me.

Your insulting tone as to my intellectual capacity notwithstanding,[...]

I've never made any comment or judgement about your intellectual capacity FL2. I've criticized some of your logic and your arguments, but I've never doubted your intelligence or background. If you feel I have, please quote an example. In my last post I may have come across as incredulous because you'd quoted popular magazines instead of professional journals.

...you almost had a point, except that the article whose link I posted is clearly a researcher's treatise, and as such, clearly is not 'McMagazine' material. In it, this man flat-out states that evolution and taxonomy are anathema to each other, and he is a leading researcher in the field. You may have heard of him, Dr. Mayr?

Sorry, missed the link. Could you re-post it?

That validates my objection from much earlier that evolutionists have abandoned the concept of species, and decided to declare every organism a species unto itself. While this eliminates any possibility of them suffering the indignity of a question that sheds doubt on their belief structure, it does not make them right.

I'll comment after I read the article.

e changed my mind. This is going onto the forum. Now to select all...

???

It all makes perfect sense to me now. The reason that evolution won't die, no matter how many different theories related to it are tested and rejected. I know now. I see, I understand.

It's all about arrogance. There are people out there who simply will not ever accept that there are some things which they, which mankind, will never know.

That's the whole basis of it. Arrogance. It doesn't matter if I prove a million different versions wrong, or even ask a question so damning that they must be discarded, because someone will come along with version 1,000,001, and offer it for examination. And because these people will never accept that they'll just plain never know, they will embrace it, and I'll have to start all over again.

1. Actually, if you'd read some real science literature, you'll see that science has always acknowledged there were things humans could never know. We're entering once again into one of our spiral arguments, where you forget that science is based on the admittedly-limited 5 powers of observation humans have, while religion (at least the Western variety) is the one claiming to have all the answers. Discover magazine (one of the popular science magazines you mention) featured two issues ago the 11 big questions in physics still unanswered, and least likely to be answered. There is no tome like a Bible in science that claims complete and absolute truth.

2. Once again, you've proven nothing, at least in your arguments with me. You've made broad statements like "All biologists are locked together in a conspiracy to perpetuate the falsified theory called Evolution" [paraphrase], but you've never provided evidence of one of these falsifications. Just because you say it doesn't mean it's so; we infidels need some proof. Proof is a documented case of a published work or presentation at a biology conference in which a presenter knowlingly presented false material. You've said repeatedly that you've proved everyone wrong, but I just haven't seen it. And, if I may ask, if you have such proof and have an adequate grasp of the theory of Evolution to refute it, why not publish your findings and stop wasting your time on this forum? Surely such a mass conspiracy will whither from the light of truth if you shed that light on it?

3. Again - in the several exchanges we've had, you've shown that you do indeed not understand how Evolution works. Hey - let's take a minute and just give me a brief description of how the theory works. Understanding that being able to describe the theory is not an endorsement of it, I just want you to encapsulate the theory of Evolution to prove to me that you really do know what you're talking about.

I guess the question is, which will last longer, arrogance, or patience? Specifically to this forum, their arogance, or my patience.

You sure that situation isn't reversed?

God, on the other hand, actually waited 11 or so billion years for the earth to form, and another three billion after it cooled. Well, He's got me beat.

I hereby withdraw from all evolution debates as a waste of my time, citing my inadequate patience to the ratio of arrogance as primary cause.

Uh huh.

 

[Zwelgje]

First time I am going to post in this thread and I haven't read the previous 12 pages so this point may have been raised earlier. Anyway, here I go...
Many people can't see evolution and creation as something that can both exist at the same time. Personally I believe in evolution, I am a researcher in life sciences and I think that in the future we will be able to proof all aspects of how life came to earth and evolved to where we are now. Until that day there are many people I work together with who strongly believe in God and they believe both in evolution and creation.
They think God created life on earth (basic forms of life) and that he just left it to evolve, maybe giving a hand here and there, to where we are today and further in the future. It's just like here in CFC: you create a thread and it goes in directions you had never expected. Thus it is created and then evolves.