Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is NOT science: A challenge
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 591 (126056)
07-20-2004 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by mark24
07-20-2004 6:28 PM


Re: Back to business
quote:
As long as you don't compare the fairies, you should be OK. That doesn't happen in nature, or supernature.
The only way to compare fairies is at the individual level. Fairy populations are not comparable, unless you subvert the Fairy Tales into a religious movement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by mark24, posted 07-20-2004 6:28 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by mark24, posted 07-21-2004 2:49 AM Loudmouth has not replied

Glordag
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 591 (126066)
07-20-2004 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Loudmouth
07-20-2004 6:13 PM


Re: Back to business
*plays the part of a creationist*
My keys are missing, oh no!
Observation: There are evil fairies in the movie Labyrinth. Observation: My keys are missing. Observation: My keys are small enough for a group of fairies to carry. Observation: The couch is a perfect environment for fairies to live in (Data available at http://www.answersinthebookoffairies.com/habitat/evidence). Hypothesis: The fairies took my keys and put them in the couch! Test: I look in the couch and find my keys. Conclusion: The fairies indeed took my keys and put them in the couch.
See, fairyology is science as much as evolution! Also, evolutionists, highly influenced by anti-fairytale-ism, deny and ignore fairyology, therefore evolution is not real science! Ha!
Note: This is all purely humor, do not take any of it seriously. I take no responsibility for my words in this post, and will not attempt to back any of it up. Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Loudmouth, posted 07-20-2004 6:13 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Lysimachus, posted 07-20-2004 9:22 PM Glordag has not replied
 Message 251 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-03-2004 1:23 AM Glordag has not replied

Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5191 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 198 of 591 (126087)
07-20-2004 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Glordag
07-20-2004 8:12 PM


Re: Back to business
Just spotted something I thought I'd comment on.
quote:
3. Theory of Thermodynamics.
Never heard it before as "theory". It's always been known as a "Law".
The Laws of Thermodynamics. In fact, these laws are the most proven thing in the universe.
I believe it was jar that mentioned that the majority of Christians believe in Evolution.
First of all, where are these statistics obtained? As of yet, out of all these 26 years of living, I still haven't bumped into one Christian that believes in Evolution, however, I have only heard "of" them.
But I will concede to one level within the evolutionary concepts. Most Christians believe in microevolution. It would be wise to define "evolution" instead of just using the word so freely as if the word only applies from a non-creation point of view. It is Macroevolution, to be precise, of which the majority of Christians either do not believe, or do not even understand.
This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 07-20-2004 08:24 PM

~Lysimachus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Glordag, posted 07-20-2004 8:12 PM Glordag has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by CK, posted 07-20-2004 9:24 PM Lysimachus has not replied
 Message 200 by jar, posted 07-20-2004 9:30 PM Lysimachus has not replied
 Message 201 by Loudmouth, posted 07-21-2004 12:01 AM Lysimachus has not replied
 Message 202 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2004 12:22 AM Lysimachus has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 199 of 591 (126088)
07-20-2004 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Lysimachus
07-20-2004 9:22 PM


Re: Back to business
Where are you located?
To most Christians in the UK, the evolution/creationism is not even an issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Lysimachus, posted 07-20-2004 9:22 PM Lysimachus has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 200 of 591 (126093)
07-20-2004 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Lysimachus
07-20-2004 9:22 PM


Re: Back to business
As of yet, out of all these 26 years of living, I still haven't bumped into one Christian that believes in Evolution, however, I have only heard "of" them.
Well, you've met one now. LOL
And here is a partial list of those Religions that I know of that have taken a position on the issue of Evolution vs Creationism.
Religions Supporting Evolution
These churches and religious organizations have come out in opposition to teaching creationism in school:
* American Jewish Congress
* American Scientific Affiliation
* Center For Theology And The Natural Sciences
* Central Conference Of American Rabbis
* Episcopal Bishop Of Atlanta, Pastoral Letter
* The General Convention Of The Episcopal Church
* Lexington Alliance Of Religious Leaders
* The Lutheran World Federation
* Roman Catholic Church
* Unitarian Universalist Association
* United Church Board For Homeland Ministries
* United Methodist Church
* United Presbyterian Church In The U.S.A.
I think that if you add up the Roman Catholic Church, The Episcopal Church, The Lutheran Church, The United Presbyterian and United Methodist Church that will cover a pretty broad sample of the Christian community.
In fact, I'd say that was just about all of the main Christian churches except for the literal fringe Fundamental cults.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Lysimachus, posted 07-20-2004 9:22 PM Lysimachus has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 591 (126128)
07-21-2004 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Lysimachus
07-20-2004 9:22 PM


Re: Back to business
quote:
Never heard it before as "theory". It's always been known as a "Law".
Early on in the current scientific movement "Law" was used to in reference to theories that were well supported and thought to be indicative of reality. However, they are still potentially falsifiable, and they could in fact be incorrect. For example, Newton's "Laws of Motion" have been shown to be false at higher velocities. Einstien's Theory of Relitivity is actually more accurate than Newton's Laws.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Lysimachus, posted 07-20-2004 9:22 PM Lysimachus has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 202 of 591 (126132)
07-21-2004 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Lysimachus
07-20-2004 9:22 PM


It would be wise to define "evolution" instead of just using the word so freely as if the word only applies from a non-creation point of view.
Most evolutionists would, I think, accept a definition that said something like "the development of Earth's species, past and present, is best explained by a theory that posits that natural selection and random mutation cause changes in allele frequencies in gene pools."
The really important concept is that what you refer to as "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are really the same thing; a change in allele frequencies in a gene pool. Macro and micro-evolution are simply how you've decided to refer to different amounts of change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Lysimachus, posted 07-20-2004 9:22 PM Lysimachus has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 203 of 591 (126156)
07-21-2004 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Loudmouth
07-20-2004 7:24 PM


Re: Back to business
Touche!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Loudmouth, posted 07-20-2004 7:24 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 204 of 591 (126187)
07-21-2004 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Glordag
07-20-2004 4:15 PM


Re: Back to business
I will try to tell you about creation, but you will not comprehend anything about it unless you develop your own thoughts on the matter.
The point of a creation event is that it's not a neccesary effect of what went before. Something new is introduced. If you choose between left or right, and you choose left, then by definition there can't be any material property which makes you choose left over right, unless it wasn't in fact a choice which side you chose. Material properties neccesitate a particular outcome, or make one outcome more likely then another, but choice is not a material property this way.
Likewise if a rock falls to the ground and in the event it can bounce left or right, you can see that this is conceptually much the same as choice. I will not go into what the differences are between a choice, and the "outcome-determination" of a chance, I just want to note the basic similarity here, so to say that things are created without the presence of a material brain.
Materialism can be wholy counterintuitive to creation, but this should not be a problem once you recognize that the number zero is just as much a part of math as the number one is, and math describes all the material. Creation is from nothing, materially speaking.
The religious version of creationism says that there is something beyond or within choice, which is not material. The scientific version just notes what effects the creation event has.
I think you can vaguely see how choice relates to intelligence, and how intelligence relates to beliefs about God. The association to religion is quite straightforward when considering creation.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Glordag, posted 07-20-2004 4:15 PM Glordag has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Wounded King, posted 07-21-2004 6:19 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 206 by Glordag, posted 07-21-2004 7:51 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 217 by portmaster1000, posted 07-22-2004 9:29 AM Syamsu has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 205 of 591 (126190)
07-21-2004 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Syamsu
07-21-2004 5:54 AM


Re: Back to business
You seem to be saying that 'creation' is an issue of free will. Dear Syamsu,
Religions may say 'that there is something beyond or within choice, which is not material', but as yet there seems to be no evidence of this, so it is reasonable for the scientific approach, which relies on evidence, not to include these immaterial things in its purview.
Your version of 'creation' is not one I suspect many creationists would subscribe to. They may well agree about the presence of an immaterial 'creative' aspect to choice but I doubt they would say this is what makes them creationists. There is a commonly understood meaning to creationism, that being that creationists are people that believe the universe was created by some sort of God.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Syamsu, posted 07-21-2004 5:54 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Syamsu, posted 07-22-2004 6:23 AM Wounded King has replied

Glordag
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 591 (126208)
07-21-2004 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Syamsu
07-21-2004 5:54 AM


Re: Back to business
quote:
I will try to tell you about creation, but you will not comprehend anything about it unless you develop your own thoughts on the matter.
I have developed my own thoughts on the matter. These thoughts are what has brought me to my agnostic belief system. If I had never developed my own thoughts, I'd still be Christian, as that is how I was raised (heavily, I might add) for the first 16 or so years of my life.
quote:
The point of a creation event is that it's not a neccesary effect of what went before. Something new is introduced.
I'll accept this definition of creation and come to an agreement with it. The only event I believe we cannot trace back any further is the original creation of the universe (as in, where did the matter that constituted the big bang come from?). Thus, my previous posts on this matter stand, and I'd urge you to respond to them in more detail. If you can't figure out what specifically I am talking about, I will copy/paste and elaborate, if need be.
quote:
If you choose between left or right, and you choose left, then by definition there can't be any material property which makes you choose left over right, unless it wasn't in fact a choice which side you chose. Material properties neccesitate a particular outcome, or make one outcome more likely then another, but choice is not a material property this way.
Likewise if a rock falls to the ground and in the event it can bounce left or right, you can see that this is conceptually much the same as choice. I will not go into what the differences are between a choice, and the "outcome-determination" of a chance, I just want to note the basic similarity here, so to say that things are created without the presence of a material brain.
I fail to see how choice has anything to do with creation. This correlation seems to have come from nowhere. I do believe choice is a property of living organisms, though, and especially (or perhaps exclusively) of humans. I don't think many of these choices are an exact 50%-50% split, though, as you seem to imply. Furthermore, a rock falling to the ground behaves according to the laws of motion, which have nothing to do with choice. You claim that if a material property makes you choose something, then that choice was in all actuality (sp?) not a choice. Well, perhaps material things don't come right out and force you to make a choice, but they heavily influence choices, which I would argue in the end result often "make" the choice.
quote:
Materialism can be wholy counterintuitive to creation, but this should not be a problem once you recognize that the number zero is just as much a part of math as the number one is, and math describes all the material. Creation is from nothing, materially speaking.
The problem isn't understanding the concept of creation, the problem is lack of evidence of creation. Of course there had to be some sort of creation, but we have no evidence as to whether it is natural, spiritual, or anything for that matter.
quote:
The religious version of creationism says that there is something beyond or within choice, which is not material. The scientific version just notes what effects the creation event has.
I think you can vaguely see how choice relates to intelligence, and how intelligence relates to beliefs about God. The association to religion is quite straightforward when considering creation.
The only part I can even imagine choice playing in creation is to argue that we are a new type of being that didn't exist before, able to make choices independant of material properties. I believe there is a scientific explanation for this "choice", but I don't claim that it is the absolute truth on the matter.
I can see how you believe creation relates to evolution if you take the stance that humans were "created" by some supernatural/spiritual force, as opposed to evolving into what we are. The fact is, however, that the evidence we have found all supports evolution, while much of it conflicts with a creation as told be Genesis, and none of it supports a spontaneous human creation.
I think we've about beaten this subject to a pulp, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Syamsu, posted 07-21-2004 5:54 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Syamsu, posted 07-22-2004 3:50 AM Glordag has replied

portmaster1000
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 591 (126229)
07-21-2004 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by One_Charred_Wing
07-20-2004 5:34 PM


Re: Hello Portmaster
Unfortunately, if I stop the spin it would foil my plot to hypnotize everyone on this forum... and from there... TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!
muhahahaha
PM1K

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 07-20-2004 5:34 PM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Glordag, posted 07-21-2004 5:20 PM portmaster1000 has not replied

Glordag
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 591 (126319)
07-21-2004 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by portmaster1000
07-21-2004 9:42 AM


Re: Hello Portmaster
It's pinky and the brain brain brain brain....
heh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by portmaster1000, posted 07-21-2004 9:42 AM portmaster1000 has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 209 of 591 (126494)
07-22-2004 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Glordag
07-21-2004 7:51 AM


Re: Back to business
If you don't see how creation relates to choice then you must also fail to see how creation relates to intelligence, let alone information. You basicly have no clue about creation, I think this is a fair assessment. It's evidence that evolutionists in effect surpress knowledge of creation. I think I have demonstrated my point clear enough. How can you ask for evidence when you fail to understand the concept even? Anyway, you can be assured that not many people will go tracing back to the point where it became a relative certainty that plants would appear, because of evolutionists denying, and ignoring creation this way. Your cries about fact, and evidence are meaningless since you are ignoring and denying the facts of creation. Evolution is just a science of appearances, it is deceptive for this reason.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Glordag, posted 07-21-2004 7:51 AM Glordag has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Glordag, posted 07-22-2004 4:20 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 211 by Glordag, posted 07-22-2004 4:20 AM Syamsu has not replied

Glordag
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 591 (126495)
07-22-2004 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Syamsu
07-22-2004 3:50 AM


Re: Back to business
Well, I'm glad you feel that making accusitions and claims is enough basis for proof, but I doubt many share these feelings. I asked you to explain what your definition of creation was. When you did this, it seemed as if you were making references to things that had little or nothing to do with creation. I even stated the way in which I saw choice relating to creation, and you didn't bother responding to this to tell me whether it was correct or not.
Me failing to understand your argument is not basis enough for saying I have no comprehension of creation. It is even less of a basis for saying that NO evolutionist has a comprehension of creation. Also, it's hard for me to deny or ignore facts that have not yet been presented and defended.
We are not having a reasonable debate at this point. Perhaps you can provide a reasonable argument and make this debate more worthwhile.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Syamsu, posted 07-22-2004 3:50 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Syamsu, posted 07-22-2004 5:59 AM Glordag has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024