| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/13/2007 08:25:49 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by ryand:
I'm not really interested in debating evolution vs. creation, I was simply stating that I believe in God and Creation, and nothing anyone can say is going to change that. I don't for one second believe that i can convince you of my point either, my job isn't to prove everyone wrong, by job is to love everyone. |
:) That's very sweet, but you can also love everyone while also believing the evidence all around you that evolution is a reality, and that creationism is literary myth. |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 08:42:52 PM · #202 |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 08:48:25 PM · #203 |
That really is snarktastic! :-D
I LOL from the first paragraph... |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 09:07:38 PM · #204 |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 09:17:31 PM · #205 |
You know that I believe in evolution so much that whenever a monkey passes by, I always greet her by saying: how are you sister, have a nice day.
:-D |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 09:21:06 PM · #206 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
You know that I believe in evolution so much that whenever a monkey passes by, I always greet her by saying: how are you sister, have a nice day.
:-D |
Me Too! This is a self portrait and you just might be greeting my sis! ;-P
 |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 09:34:14 PM · #207 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Instead of the fossil of a pre-dinosaur that was also a pre-duck, you provided a link to a fossil purported to be a dinosaur that was the DIRECT ancestor of a duck. I assume that you couldn't find the common ancestor, and so provided the DIRECT ancestor fossil instead. That's OK, it just means that they dinosaurs and ducks aren't cousins. |
Now I understand why you will never accept fossil evidence as proof of anything. No matter how complete the puzzle, you'll just point to a missing piece and dismiss the whole thing even if the overall picture is plainly obvious. You even didn't dispute the idea that Archeopteryx may be a direct ancestor of ducks, but went into some detail about toes. IT DOESN'T MATTER. Lots of dinosaurs had feathers, but you'll just claim that those weren't really dinosaurs, or the structures we see don't really indicate feathers like they do in every other case. You will simply never accept anything as proof, while at the same time clinging to an idea that doesn't even require evidence, much less proof (the ultimate in hypocrisy), and doesn't even acknowledge the existence of dinosaurs let alone how their toes are arranged. :-/ |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 10:20:46 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
Instead of the fossil of a pre-dinosaur that was also a pre-duck, you provided a link to a fossil purported to be a dinosaur that was the DIRECT ancestor of a duck. I assume that you couldn't find the common ancestor, and so provided the DIRECT ancestor fossil instead. That's OK, it just means that they dinosaurs and ducks aren't cousins. |
Now I understand why you will never accept fossil evidence as proof of anything. No matter how complete the puzzle, you'll just point to a missing piece and dismiss the whole thing even if the overall picture is plainly obvious. |
What is plainly obvious to me is that God exists and that we and everything around us are His creation. The evidence is all around me.
Originally posted by scalvert:
You even didn't dispute the idea that Archeopteryx may be a direct ancestor of ducks, but went into some detail about toes. IT DOESN'T MATTER. Lots of dinosaurs had feathers, but you'll just claim that those weren't really dinosaurs, or the structures we see don't really indicate feathers like they do in every other case. |
I hereby dispute the idea that Archeopteryx may be a direct ancestor of ducks. ( fwiw, I thought I made that clear by my use of the word PURPORTED ).
Originally posted by scalvert:
You will simply never accept anything as proof, while at the same time clinging to an idea that doesn't even require evidence, much less proof (the ultimate in hypocrisy), and doesn't even acknowledge the existence of dinosaurs let alone how their toes are arranged. :-/ |
Now, in addition to ranting, you're raving.
1) Faith does not require proof. If proof were provided, it wouldn't be faith. However, I have more than ample evidence to support my faith - though you wouldn't agree since the evidence is all subjective. You would explain away answered prayer as just coincidence or something induced by indigestion, perhaps.
2) You have lots of "good" evidence, but apparently, your belief in the theory of evolution doesn't require proof, either. Do you call yourself a hypocrite?
3) My Calculus Book doesn't acknowledge the existence of dinosaurs either. For that matter, it doesn't acknowledge evolution or the Bible either. Does that invalidate the idea of Mathematics, Evolution, and Theology all in one fell swoop? |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 10:44:10 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Now, in addition to ranting, you're raving. |
I'm not the one who claimed dinosaurs could've been on a boat.
Originally posted by RonB:
You would explain away answered prayer as just coincidence or something induced by indigestion, perhaps. |
And you would distinguish answered prayer from a fulfilled fortune cookie or psychic reading how?
Originally posted by RonB:
You have lots of "good" evidence, but apparently, your belief in the theory of evolution doesn't require proof, either. |
It does require proof, and each new bit of evidence confirms the overall theory. There are plenty of details we don't know about electromagnetism or relativity, but enough evidence exists that they are regarded as proven theories, and even the Catholic Church accepts evolution.
Originally posted by RonB:
My Calculus Book doesn't acknowledge the existence of dinosaurs either. |
Your calculus book isn't purported to explain the origin and history of life. |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 11:39:17 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
Now, in addition to ranting, you're raving. |
I'm not the one who claimed dinosaurs could've been on a boat. |
Nor have you offered proof that young dinosaurs couldn't have been on a boat.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
You would explain away answered prayer as just coincidence or something induced by indigestion, perhaps. |
And you would distinguish answered prayer from a fulfilled fortune cookie or psychic reading how? |
It's spiritual. You don't understand.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
You have lots of "good" evidence, but apparently, your belief in the theory of evolution doesn't require proof, either. |
It does require proof, and each new bit of evidence confirms the overall theory. There are plenty of details we don't know about electromagnetism or relativity, but enough evidence exists that they are regarded as proven theories, and even the Catholic Church accepts evolution. |
Proof is a black / white issue. There is no room for confirms or don't know or regarded. Mathematics have proofs. Some sciences ( chemistry, for example ) have proofs. The theory of evolution cannot be proven. Deal with it. Just as I have learned to live with the fact that the existence of God cannot be Proven.
Why do defenders of the theory of evolution keep bringing up The Catholic Church? The Catholic Church is not the arbiter of scientific propositions.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
My Calculus Book doesn't acknowledge the existence of dinosaurs either. |
Your calculus book isn't purported to explain the origin and history of life. |
The theory of evolution is purported to explain, if not the origin, at least the history of life, yet IT doesn't acknowledges the existence of dinosaurs, by direct reference, either. If you argue that dinosaurs are included by implication, then I will claim the same for the Bible - it speaks of beasts ( that includes dinosaurs ). |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 11:50:29 PM · #211 |
Oops. Yet another nail in the God-as-Creator coffin. Our esteemed scientists have now put forth the hypothesis that life on earth might have come from ( you guessed it ) Mars.
Elevation of this hypothesis to "largely proven" "theory" status is expected within the next 10 years. As soon as some "better facts" are found, well formulated "extrapolations" can be made and viola! the new "theory" of intergalactic evolution will be ready for release to the unsuspecting masses. The people will believe it, scientists claim, because a) we'll publish it in peer-reviewed journals, b) we'll publicize it as a scientific "consensus", c) we say so ( and we're scientists, so we should know ), and d) we'll ridicule and do our best to discredit anyone who disagrees.
With that, I'll say goodnight.
P.S. This post was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek look at some of the favorite positions and arguments of the scientific community. If it offends you, then you would do well to go and read the story of Ephraim and the Ark in another thread. |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 12:13:51 AM · #212 |
Originally posted by RonB:
...though you wouldn't agree since the evidence is all subjective. |
"Subjective" evidence isn't evidence at all.
Originally posted by RonB:
You have lots of "good" evidence, but apparently, your belief in the theory of evolution doesn't require proof, either. Do you call yourself a hypocrite? |
Hm? No proof? What in blazes are you talking about, man? As stated elsewhere, the theory of evolution is one of the most well-formed scientific theories in existence, and is corroborated constantly from dozens of different scientific disciplines. Sound scientific evidence arrived at by almost antiseptic theoretical models isn't good enough for you?
|
|
|
|
11/14/2007 12:57:43 AM · #213 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I'm not the one who claimed dinosaurs could've been on a boat. |
Nor have you offered proof that young dinosaurs couldn't have been on a boat. |
ROFL!
Originally posted by RonB:
It's spiritual. You don't understand. |
No argument there.
Originally posted by RonB:
Proof is a black / white issue. There is no room for confirms or don't know or regarded. Mathematics have proofs. Some sciences ( chemistry, for example ) have proofs. |
LOL
Originally posted by RonB:
The theory of evolution is purported to explain, if not the origin, at least the history of life, yet IT doesn't acknowledges the existence of dinosaurs, by direct reference, either. |
Riiiiiight. |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 01:10:36 AM · #214 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I'm not the one who claimed dinosaurs could've been on a boat. |
Nor have you offered proof that young dinosaurs couldn't have been on a boat. |
ROFL! |
What's so funny? I've seent The Flintstones -- if it was on TV it must be true ... though I suspect Bam-Bam has latent paganist tendencies -- he WAS adopted, after all ... |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 12:56:55 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
...though you wouldn't agree since the evidence is all subjective. |
"Subjective" evidence isn't evidence at all. |
In that case, the theory of evolution is questionable. While the fossils, themselves, are objective, the claims that one represents the ancestor of another is ( get ready ) subjective, not objective. 'Objective', adjective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
There are no 'facts' that prove that a dinosaur was the ancestor of a duck. That is an interpretation and is, therefore, subjective. And, beliee it or not, most scientists ARE biased - they are biased in favor of finding a non-theistic explanation for everything.
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
You have lots of "good" evidence, but apparently, your belief in the theory of evolution doesn't require proof, either. Do you call yourself a hypocrite? |
Hm? No proof? |
That's right. No proof.
Originally posted by Louis:
What in blazes are you talking about, man? As stated elsewhere, the theory of evolution is one of the most well-formed scientific theories in existence, and is corroborated constantly from dozens of different scientific disciplines. Sound scientific evidence arrived at by almost antiseptic theoretical models isn't good enough for you? |
Nope.
Well-formed ( by men ) is not proof - the theory of abiogenesis ( spontaneous generation ) was, at the time, one of the most well-formed theories in existence. It has since been shown to have been totally erroneous.
Corroborated ( by men ) is not proof - the warning of extreme global cooling in the 1970's was corroborated by dozens of different scientific disciplines. That warning has since been shown to have been totally erroneous.
Theoretical models aren't proof - geocentricity being just one example of (bad) theoretical models. One of the characteristic of a theoretical model is that it begins with a set of assumptions about some concept or system. In speaking of the theoretical models of galaxy formation, astronomer Charles Steidel says:
Originally posted by Charles Steidel:
One of the problems with any theoretical model of galaxy formation is that there is not enough good observational data to determine whether or not any conclusion is correct, so in most models the result is more or less predetermined by the assumptions initially put in.
All it means that they've put in a prescription that more or less guarantees that they need to get out this particular answer. |
|
|
|
|
11/14/2007 01:19:02 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Well-formed ( by men ) is not proof - the theory of abiogenesis ( spontaneous generation ) was, at the time, one of the most well-formed theories in existence. It has since been shown to have been totally erroneous. |
That's "macro-abiogenesis" -- flies arising from rotting meat -- which was "proven" wrong. The Miller-Urey experiments of the 1950s demonstrated that "micro-abiogenesis" -- the formation of "organic" products from non-living chemical components -- was perfectly possible. |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 01:27:14 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Corroborated ( by men ) is not proof - the warning of extreme global cooling in the 1970's was corroborated by dozens of different scientific disciplines. That warning has since been shown to have been totally erroneous. |
Not really. We SHOULD be in a period of global cooling, the conditions exist for it. But the explosion in the creation of greenhouse gases has kept it from happening.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2007 01:31:54 PM · #218 |
For anyone with misapprehensions about Evolution, please familiarize yourself with the excellent, in-depth articles and information available at talk.origins. Many of your questions or concerns about the theory of evolution will be answered.
//www.talkorigins.org/
Another site worth visiting, admittedly for those already satisfied with the abundace of evidence in favour of the ToE, is The Panda's Thumb.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2007 01:38:57 PM · #219 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Well-formed ( by men ) is not proof - the theory of abiogenesis ( spontaneous generation ) was, at the time, one of the most well-formed theories in existence. It has since been shown to have been totally erroneous. |
That's "macro-abiogenesis" -- flies arising from rotting meat -- which was "proven" wrong. The Miller-Urey experiments of the 1950s demonstrated that "micro-abiogenesis" -- the formation of "organic" products from non-living chemical components -- was perfectly possible. |
No one has ever been able to demonstrate that abiogenesis on any scale is possible. The term means creation of life, not creation of organic material. At best Miller's work promotes the idea that once enough primordial organic muck was laying around, it just glopped together and worked out how to become life. Once again, heavy on the faith light on the science.
Message edited by author 2007-11-14 13:39:33. |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 01:43:31 PM · #220 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by RonB:
Corroborated ( by men ) is not proof - the warning of extreme global cooling in the 1970's was corroborated by dozens of different scientific disciplines. That warning has since been shown to have been totally erroneous. |
Not really. We SHOULD be in a period of global cooling, the conditions exist for it. But the explosion in the creation of greenhouse gases has kept it from happening.
R. |
I'm just glad that the peoples of the world managed to respond so rapidly to turn things around. |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 01:57:08 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I'm just glad that the peoples of the world managed to respond so rapidly to turn things around. |
So much for the old saying that everyone talks about the weather but no one ever does anything about it ... |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 02:02:28 PM · #222 |
Originally posted by RonB:
'Objective', adjective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased |
In other words, not faith. If you're looking for an engraved sign on each fossil that reads, "Continued on slate #544," then no, evolution is not proven in that sense (but it's pretty darn close). You appear to cheerfully accept the same methods to disprove a theory that you chastise as insufficient proof, yet refuse to apply the same standards to your own alternate explanation.
When we can look at a very old fossil and a relatively modern one and see structural similarities or identical features that appear in no other animals, it's a reasonably conclusion that they're related in some way. If this particular structure requires a specific innovation to to get from its initial form to a more sophisticated later version and, whattya know... we actually find an intermediate fossil with that very feature, then it confirms the conclusion. Add to that chemical, geographic, and even DNA matches, and the evidence is pretty darn compelling. At what point does it become proof? For some people, enough will never be enough, but for most the conclusion is acceptable as fact unless some better explanation comes along. The idea that each succeeding model was simply discontinued by a supernatural manufacturer and a replacement dropped in as-is does not rationally qualify as a better explanation (even if it hasn't been disproven).
To address the OP, there really isn't much dispute: evolution is taught as fact by religion-backed universities like Notre Dame and Brigham Young. Evolution is officially accepted by the Catholic Church, Episcopal Church, American Jewish Congress, United Methodist Church, United Presbyterian Church, Unitarian Church, and Lutheran World Federation. In fact, NO mainstream religious organization considers the bible to be literal truth OR incompatible with evolution. Fundamentalists who maintain that position apparently represent a tiny (but loud) minority.
Message edited by author 2007-11-14 14:21:55. |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 02:24:06 PM · #223 |
Creationists love fossil records, more importantly the gaps! If a discovery (lets call it 'C') fills the a gap in our understand of how animal 'A' envolved into animal 'B'...
"HAHA" they cry "there are are now TWO gaps!" (between 'A' to 'C' and 'C' to 'B')
Before saying there isnt any evidence for MACRO evolution... take a look at AT THE EVIDENCE
Just recently an interesting Dolphin was discovered!
I think some peoples attitudes can be very eloquently sumised by a nice quote from George W Bush:
"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe - I believe what I believe is right."
EVEN IF ITS WRONG!!!
Message edited by author 2007-11-14 14:36:13. |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 02:35:24 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
I think some peoples attitudes can be very eloquently sumised by a nice quote from George W Bush:
"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe - I believe what I believe is right." |
Ah, yes... our brilliant Commander-in-Chief. "You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time." Duh. :-/ |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 03:19:22 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
NO mainstream religious organization considers the bible to be literal truth OR incompatible with evolution. Fundamentalists who maintain that position apparently represent a tiny (but loud) minority. |
Not true, on both accounts.
From the Baptist Faith & Message of the Southern Baptist Convention ( one of the largest religious organizations in the U.S. with over 16 Million members in over 42,000 churches ):
"The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation."
From SBCLife, the journal of the Southern Baptist Convention:
"The Darwinian theory of evolution does not explain how life began. In the laboratory, we can "spontaneously" generate large quantities of amino acids, the building blocks of life, but even our carefully designed efforts result in useless mixtures, not the uniform series of amino acids that are necessary for life. The stereo-chemistry is always wrong when we make these molecules by chance processes. Even if we could get all the chemicals right, we still would not have life. At the moment of death, the chemicals are all still there, but life is not. Life requires a certain level of chemical complexity, but that chemical complexity is not the same as nor does it explain life, it only permits life. Life does not spontaneously arise from non-life even if all the necessary chemicals are there.
The Bible says that God made the heavens and the earth, and that He made all of the animals and established that they would reproduce after their kind. All of the evidence is consistent with this claim. Stickleback fish and Walking Sticks now have two varieties, and bacteria have become resistant to some drugs, but the fish are still fish, the insects are still insects, and the bacteria are still bacteria. There is simply no evidence that one kind of creature has ever naturally transformed itself into some other kind of creature. Darwin was simply wrong." |
|
