|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6155 days) Posts: 690 From: USA West Coast Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is NOT science: A challenge | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Glordag Inactive Member |
*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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lysimachus Member (Idle past 5191 days) Posts: 380 Joined: |
Just spotted something I thought I'd comment on.
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Where are you located?
To most Christians in the UK, the evolution/creationism is not even an issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Touche!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Glordag Inactive Member |
quote: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: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: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: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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
portmaster1000 Inactive Member |
Unfortunately, if I stop the spin it would foil my plot to hypnotize everyone on this forum... and from there... TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!
muhahahahaPM1K
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Glordag Inactive Member |
It's pinky and the brain brain brain brain....
heh.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Glordag Inactive Member |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024