Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 12:47 PM
25 online now:
14174dm, dwise1, ooh-child, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ringo, Stile, Tangle, Theodoric (9 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,053 Year: 5,090/19,786 Month: 1,212/873 Week: 108/460 Day: 50/58 Hour: 3/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution vs creation?
Hill Billy
Member (Idle past 3462 days)
Posts: 163
From: The hills
Joined: 01-26-2008


Message 1 of 10 (457453)
02-23-2008 3:01 PM


EvC Forum
Discussion and Controversy

That's what this place is tagged as. Discussion and controversy over evolution vs creation.

Then, over here

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=815&m=49#49 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=815&m=49#49">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=815&m=49#49

Jaderis says :

And for the millionth time, how the first life forms came to be has absolutely NO bearing on the subsequent evolution of their descendants.

Ok, I'll buy that. I've read it around here a million times. All this is verifiable.

So, wheres the controversy?

Evolution does not deal with origins. Creation deals with origins.

Lets debate manufacturing vs maintenance, TV production vs broadcast, sowing vs reaping, engines vs fuel. Is it just me, or is something strange goin on here? If the word evolution does not deal with origins where the *$%# is the debate? If you are going to incorporate concepts other than biological into the theory that debates creation than it ain't evolution that your debatin.

Is it?

Or is it?

There is much to be learned and little has been proven here, but still, a place where minds meet, a battlefield without blood, this place is a place to take a stand, for or against, God.

Just so you know, I chose to stand for God. Not only that but I have a tough time wrapping my head around the concept of no God. I'm not claiming I have some sort of higher understanding and some will likely think it's proof I have a lower level, but none the less, it's my conclusion, based on what I consider to be the big picture. So far, no science anywhere has brought into question the accuracy of my concept of God. Nothing has shown ME my Bible is inaccurate. Only some interpretations, not the words themselves.

For example, the issue of the age of the earth. My Bible DOES NOT say the earth is 6000 years old. In fact, my Bible clearly tells ME that that information is unavailable to me. So my position on the age of the earth, speaking as a "creationist".... I DON'T KNOW. Probably pretty old. Not much debate there. I'm not stupid enough to argue against the idea that things change so whats left?


The years tell what the days never knew.
Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by obvious Child, posted 02-23-2008 3:07 PM Hill Billy has responded
 Message 3 by Taz, posted 02-23-2008 3:14 PM Hill Billy has responded
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 02-23-2008 3:24 PM Hill Billy has responded
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 02-23-2008 5:52 PM Hill Billy has not yet responded

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2223 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 2 of 10 (457455)
02-23-2008 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hill Billy
02-23-2008 3:01 PM


simple:

Most literal creationists have no idea what they are talking about.

I recently ran into a creationists who was attacking the theory based on the lack of genetic markers on fossils.

Um...hello? Do we understand the difference between organic material and rock? Obviously he didn't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hill Billy, posted 02-23-2008 3:01 PM Hill Billy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Hill Billy, posted 02-23-2008 6:09 PM obvious Child has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 3 of 10 (457457)
02-23-2008 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hill Billy
02-23-2008 3:01 PM


If I was an admin, I'd say that you have brought an on-topic topic of EvC into an off-topic forum. In other words, you've illegally bypassed the PNT process. A team of ninjas has been dispatched to arrest you. Please stand by while the judge, jury, and executioner (aka admin) decides what to do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hill Billy, posted 02-23-2008 3:01 PM Hill Billy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Hill Billy, posted 02-23-2008 3:38 PM Taz has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 4 of 10 (457459)
02-23-2008 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hill Billy
02-23-2008 3:01 PM


So, wheres the controversy?

It's in a couple of places.

One, is that scientists are studying purely materialistic mechanisms for the origin of life itself -- this study is called abiogenesis. If the origin of life can be explained through purely materialistic processes, then that will eliminate the need to invoke God as a cause, and some people have a problem with that. And, although separate disciplines, abiogenesis and the theory of evolution as an explanation of the history of life on earth are pretty closely related (enough that I don't get too pedantic about separating them), so the two tend to get conflated.

The other problem is that people take the first two chapters of Genesis as the exact history of the earth and life on it. And, according to those people, this forms an important part of their "world view". At least they claim that discarding a literal reading of Genesis would shatter their entire "world view" -- it sounds odd to me, too, but I have no reason to not believe them when they say this. So it is very emotionally important to them that Genesis be promoted as literal history, and the entire fields of geology, biology, and cosmology be discarded.

It wouldn't be a problem if we could just dismiss these people as nutcakes and let them whine in their churches, but here in the U.S. they have a lot of political clout, and tend to use the political system to piss in the trough from which we all must drink.


If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hill Billy, posted 02-23-2008 3:01 PM Hill Billy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Hill Billy, posted 02-23-2008 6:41 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Hill Billy
Member (Idle past 3462 days)
Posts: 163
From: The hills
Joined: 01-26-2008


Message 5 of 10 (457462)
02-23-2008 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Taz
02-23-2008 3:14 PM


Taz,

I'd say that you have brought an on-topic topic of EvC into an off-topic forum.

if this is true than it is completely unintentional. My intention was to generate a coffee style discussion about what the debates might be about under the strict umbrella of the "evolution vs creation controversy" as opposed to a debate about a single topic under that umbrella.

If Admin wants this in a different forum , well....what can I do?

In other words, you've illegally bypassed the PNT process.

Actually, it seems to me that I've "legally" posted a coffee house topic.

A team of ninjas has been dispatched to arrest you.

Shit, I hate ninjas. Still, I'm invisible.

Please stand by while the judge, jury, and executioner (aka admin) decides what to do.

I'm right here, ha, you can't seeee meeee. Seriously, you neglected to suggest where you thought this thread would belong.

Edited by Hill Billy, : No reason given.


The years tell what the days never knew.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Taz, posted 02-23-2008 3:14 PM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-23-2008 6:29 PM Hill Billy has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19816
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 6 of 10 (457474)
02-23-2008 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hill Billy
02-23-2008 3:01 PM


distilling it down
So, wheres the controversy?

With people that want to teach creationism in public schools as science.

See Kansas and Dover school board decisions and the resultant controversy caused by such attempts.

With people that think they have a right to have beliefs taught as science.

It doesn't really matter what the belief is.

It's with people that don't understand the difference between belief and scientific knowledge.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hill Billy, posted 02-23-2008 3:01 PM Hill Billy has not yet responded

Hill Billy
Member (Idle past 3462 days)
Posts: 163
From: The hills
Joined: 01-26-2008


Message 7 of 10 (457481)
02-23-2008 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by obvious Child
02-23-2008 3:07 PM


No idea
Most literal creationists have no idea what they are talking about.

I think most people have no idea about most things. I think some people have some idea about some things but no idea about most things. There are a lot of things to know about. Do you know anything about fractional reserve lending, or injection molding, or acoustics, or antibiotics, or, string theory, or fuel injection, or baking, or fishing? What does this have to do with the idea that evolution does not deal with origins and creation does? What can you debate under this umbrella?

Evolution vs creation?

Um...hello?
One deals with origins, the other does not.


The years tell what the days never knew.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by obvious Child, posted 02-23-2008 3:07 PM obvious Child has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 8 of 10 (457484)
02-23-2008 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Hill Billy
02-23-2008 3:38 PM


Moving this to "Free For All"
Percy put a kind of "cutesy" description on the "Coffee House" forum:

quote:
Take a break from the debate, kick back, and enjoy conversations on other topics.

My translation of the above:

quote:
A place for discussion/debate of topics outside of creation/evolution, religion/science. Topics may be very serious or rather light. Hopefuly not too many will be profoundly stupid

This topic does not belong in the "Coffee House". I'm going to bounce it to "Free For All" in 10 minutes (giving time for messages in progress). Stand by.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Hill Billy, posted 02-23-2008 3:38 PM Hill Billy has not yet responded

  
Hill Billy
Member (Idle past 3462 days)
Posts: 163
From: The hills
Joined: 01-26-2008


Message 9 of 10 (457487)
02-23-2008 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Chiroptera
02-23-2008 3:24 PM


One, is that scientists are studying purely materialistic mechanisms for the origin of life itself -- this study is called abiogenesis.

Yes, which is clearly defined as NOT evolution around here, isn't it?

If the origin of life can be explained through purely materialistic processes, then that will eliminate the need to invoke God as a cause, and some people have a problem with that.

First of all thats a pretty big IF, and secondly, this is where where the confusion begins, which is not always the same thing as controversy. Abiogenesis is , as far as I know, still very much theoretical. It isn't being observed here in front of us like electricity, gravity or biological evolution. Thirdly, it ain't under the umbrella of evolution.

And, although separate disciplines, abiogenesis and the theory of evolution as an explanation of the history of life on earth are pretty closely related (enough that I don't get too pedantic about separating them), so the two tend to get conflated.

Yep. Kinda hard to draw a line between them, isn't it?

The other problem is that people take the first two chapters of Genesis as the exact history of the earth and life on it.

Really, its not a problem for me, but i think you are adding to the confusion cause I think the first few chapters of genesis are, in fact, accurate and I see no conflict with science. I recognize that others disagree but now we are talking about interpretations, of which I am allowed my own.

And, according to those people, this forms an important part of their "world view". At least they claim that discarding a literal reading of Genesis would shatter their entire "world view" -- it sounds odd to me, too, but I have no reason to not believe them when they say this.

Ok, but this :

So it is very emotionally important to them that Genesis be promoted as literal history, and the entire fields of geology, biology, and cosmology be discarded.

seems a bit......I'm not sure how to put this....over the top. I don't think they are asking for anything to be discarded, just an other view be allowed. One you disagree with.

It wouldn't be a problem if we could just dismiss these people as nutcakes and let them whine in their churches,

Gee, ain't it a bitch to have to live in a world where people are allowed to think differently than you?

but here in the U.S. they have a lot of political clout, and tend to use the political system to piss in the trough from which we all must drink.

Oh, we should all have to drink your piss?


The years tell what the days never knew.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 02-23-2008 3:24 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 10 of 10 (457488)
02-23-2008 6:44 PM


Thread copied to the Evolution vs creation? thread in the Free For All forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019