Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-18-2019 10:16 PM
133 online now:
(133 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,446 Year: 3,483/19,786 Month: 478/1,087 Week: 68/212 Day: 29/39 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
456
7
89Next
Author Topic:   Does teaching of evolution cause social decay?
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 137 (106178)
05-07-2004 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Lammy
05-07-2004 2:19 AM


Re: Supporting Assertions
No my worldview isnt changing just yet. I still believe the Bible is Gods word and until i get proved otherwise i wont change. Evolution doesnt disprove it because its just an Evolutionists interpretation of the facts.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Lammy, posted 05-07-2004 2:19 AM Lammy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by NosyNed, posted 05-07-2004 2:41 AM almeyda has responded
 Message 98 by Lammy, posted 05-07-2004 2:46 AM almeyda has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8837
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 97 of 137 (106179)
05-07-2004 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by almeyda
05-07-2004 2:38 AM


Disproval
No my worldview isnt changing just yet. I still believe the Bible is Gods word and until i get proved otherwise i wont change. Evolution doesnt disprove it because its just an Evolutionists interpretation of the facts.

"Evolution" (by which I presume you mean biology, physics, geology and cosmology, rather a large catchall) doesn't disprove Gods word at all. It simple disproves a particular, and rather peculiar interpretation of the Bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by almeyda, posted 05-07-2004 2:38 AM almeyda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by almeyda, posted 05-07-2004 3:01 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3607
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 98 of 137 (106180)
05-07-2004 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by almeyda
05-07-2004 2:38 AM


Re: Supporting Assertions
almeyda writes:

No my worldview isnt changing just yet. I still believe the Bible is Gods word and until i get proved otherwise i wont change. Evolution doesnt disprove it because its just an Evolutionists interpretation of the facts.

A little work on reading comprehension will do you much good.

I did not ask you to change your worldview. I only recommended that you question your worldview more often. I question my worldview all the time, too. The fact that I have demonstrated that your assertion about increasing crime rates is wrong should be enough to tell you that not questioning your worldview will lead you down the wrong paths.

Here is something that I normally tell people after a debate. Nothing I've said here is necessarily true. I've given you some facts. Hopefully, you will take the time to analyze the facts and determine if my argument is valid or not.


The Laminator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by almeyda, posted 05-07-2004 2:38 AM almeyda has not yet responded

    
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 137 (106185)
05-07-2004 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by NosyNed
05-07-2004 2:41 AM


Re: Disproval
But want you dont realise is that there are thousands of biologists,physists,geologists etc that arent Evolutionsts. Evolution is not a neccessity. You can do an experiment if you dont believe billions of yrs ago nothing became everything. Evolution is just a theory and although the mainstream of science may believe evolution as fact,In fact it is and ive said this hundreds of times made up of ideologies,assumtions,presuppositions,frameworks,opinions. Peer pressure,ignorance,pride or some sin problem is the only factor that determines what the scientist belives in. Others are blinded into thinking this is science and the Bible is just a book of make believe stories. Creationists are living proof one does not need Evolution to perform science. What one does need is a framework or an idea of what may have happened, then one can start fitting the evidence to your specific ideology.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by NosyNed, posted 05-07-2004 2:41 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Lammy, posted 05-07-2004 3:18 AM almeyda has responded

  
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3607
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 100 of 137 (106187)
05-07-2004 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by almeyda
05-07-2004 3:01 AM


Cranky mode
almeyda writes:

But want you dont realise is that there are thousands of biologists,physists,geologists etc that arent Evolutionsts.


Could you name some references? I will deal with each one accordingly.

Evolution is not a neccessity.

Neither is your computer.

You can do an experiment if you dont believe billions of yrs ago nothing became everything.

What does that have to do with anything we are discussing about?

Evolution is just a theory and although the mainstream of science may believe evolution as fact,In fact it is and ive said this hundreds of times made up of ideologies,assumtions,presuppositions,frameworks,opinions.

(Note to self: calm down. Everything is going to be ok.)

Mainstream science does NOT consider evolution as fact!!!

The fact that you've said hundreds of times doesn't mean squat to us if you don't provide any evidence to back up your assertions. In fact, I can tell you with certainty that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about regarding the scientific approach to the theory of evolution. I could write more, but I highly doubt that you could understand anything I write.

Peer pressure,ignorance,pride or some sin problem is the only factor that determines what the scientist belives in.

Please, provide some evidence to back up this claim.

Others are blinded into thinking this is science and the Bible is just a book of make believe stories.

And your head is a watermelon. Since so far you have refused to provide any evidence for your claims, I believe I am justified in believing that your head is just a watermelon. I don't have to put forth any evidence for this.

Creationists are living proof one does not need Evolution to perform science.

Can you even tell us what the scientific method is? Could you tell us the steps involved?

What one does need is a framework or an idea of what may have happened, then one can start fitting the evidence to your specific ideology.

Sounds like the opposite of the scientific method to me. As been demonstrated before, creationists pound the evidence with their hammers until the evidence fit their faith.

The scientific method demands that you consider all evidence available and come up with a theory to that could fit in all the evidence.

This message has been edited by Lam, 05-07-2004 02:24 AM


The Laminator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by almeyda, posted 05-07-2004 3:01 AM almeyda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-07-2004 3:48 AM Lammy has responded
 Message 102 by Sylas, posted 05-07-2004 3:53 AM Lammy has responded
 Message 110 by almeyda, posted 05-07-2004 5:35 AM Lammy has responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3706
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 101 of 137 (106191)
05-07-2004 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Lammy
05-07-2004 3:18 AM


Re: Cranky mode
The admin mode notes that this topic is a terminal mess - Carry on.

quote:
Mainstream science does NOT consider evolution as fact!!!

I will strongly disagree with that. Mainstream science does consider evolution (biological, geological, cosmoslogical) to be a fact. See my most generalized definition in my "signature".

I think I'll start a new topic, about that definition.

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Lammy, posted 05-07-2004 3:18 AM Lammy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Lammy, posted 05-07-2004 3:56 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 105 by berberry, posted 05-07-2004 4:14 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Sylas
Member (Idle past 3333 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 102 of 137 (106193)
05-07-2004 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Lammy
05-07-2004 3:18 AM


Actually, I think evolution is considered a fact.
Lam writes:

Mainstream science does NOT consider evolution as fact!!!

I think it does, in so far as anything is considered a fact in science. In principle, of course, any conclusions in science are subject to revision in the light of new evidence; but generally scientists do find things out, and are willing to call a sufficiently well established conclusion a fact.

For example, it is a fact that your body is made up of atoms.

It is also a fact that you are descended from creatures living millions of years in the past that were not human.

Allow me to quote from Evolution as Fact and Theory by S. J. Gould, first written in 1981 and published as an essay in the collection Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes (Gould, 1994).

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." [...] In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

I consider that science is pretty good at making a meaningful distinction between things that we have found out and can build upon, and things which remain speculative. Biological evolution, and the relationship of diverse life forms from very different forms through diverging chains of descent over millions of years, is in the former category.

Cheers -- Sylas


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Lammy, posted 05-07-2004 3:18 AM Lammy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Lammy, posted 05-07-2004 4:01 AM Sylas has not yet responded

  
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3607
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 103 of 137 (106196)
05-07-2004 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Minnemooseus
05-07-2004 3:48 AM


Re: Cranky mode
The moose writes:

I will strongly disagree with that. Mainstream science does consider evolution (biological, geological, cosmoslogical) to be a fact.

Evolution is a theory. It's the mechanisms and the effects that are considered facts simply because we observe them happening all the time. At least this is what I've always thought to be the case with the theory of evolution.

Anyway, new thread it is.


The Laminator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-07-2004 3:48 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3607
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 104 of 137 (106197)
05-07-2004 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Sylas
05-07-2004 3:53 AM


Re: Actually, I think evolution is considered a fact.
Sylas writes:

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty."

Perhaps this is where the disagreement is. I'm a pretty sure that almeyda meant "fact" as "absolute certainty" based on what he has written so far. It is also this definition of "fact" that I used for my statement.


The Laminator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Sylas, posted 05-07-2004 3:53 AM Sylas has not yet responded

    
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 137 (106199)
05-07-2004 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Minnemooseus
05-07-2004 3:48 AM


Re: Cranky mode
I think Lam may have been making a distinction between fact and theory as relates to science. If so, the point will be lost on almeyda. She or he is not nearly ready to deal with the difference yet.

The statement 'evolution is a fact' may not be incorrect but it is at least misleading. As I see it, evolution is like a set of facts and cross-references between every branch of life science.

One cannot understand biology unless one understands the theory of evolution unless understands biology... This is why the creationistas (my hat is tipped to whoever came up with this word; was it someone on this board?) have such an easy time attacking ToE. It's kind of hard for unsophisticated people to wrap their minds around this theory. Unsophisticated people have always had an innate fear of that which they don't understand. They can easily be manipulated to believe that their God is being attacked by evil scientists if they can't understand just what it is those scientists are actually doing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-07-2004 3:48 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Lammy, posted 05-07-2004 4:27 AM berberry has not yet responded

  
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3607
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 106 of 137 (106200)
05-07-2004 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by berberry
05-07-2004 4:14 AM


Re: Cranky mode
Besides what you said, I believe that, as people dedicated to science, we should try to stay with the definitions that many creationists often use rather than start using sophisticated distinctions between these words.

For example, I have noticed that creationists tend to use the word "fact" as something that has "absolute certainty." By introducing the scientific approach to this word, we will only cause more confusion regarding the creationist side.

Another thing that I have observed is that creationists often have a hard time understanding that there are always a certain level of uncertainty in everything we know through science. To the creationists, truth is absolute. To science, truth is we-are-99.99%-sure-but-it-is-subject-to-change-when-necessary.


The Laminator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by berberry, posted 05-07-2004 4:14 AM berberry has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-07-2004 4:46 AM Lammy has responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3706
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 107 of 137 (106204)
05-07-2004 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Lammy
05-07-2004 4:27 AM


Many (most?) creationists can't deal with "grey" areas.
quote:
For example, I have noticed that creationists tend to use the word "fact" as something that has "absolute certainty."

As said in the subtitle - My impression is that "Many (most?) creationists can't deal with "grey" areas. To them is black or white, yes or no. Witness the common fundimentalist view that "if anything in the Bible is wrong, then the entire Bible would be worthless".

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Lammy, posted 05-07-2004 4:27 AM Lammy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Lammy, posted 05-07-2004 5:01 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 109 by gaurdian_angel, posted 05-07-2004 5:17 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3607
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 108 of 137 (106205)
05-07-2004 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Minnemooseus
05-07-2004 4:46 AM


Re: Many (most?) creationists can't deal with
What's your point?


The Laminator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-07-2004 4:46 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
gaurdian_angel
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 137 (106210)
05-07-2004 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Minnemooseus
05-07-2004 4:46 AM


Re: Many (most?) creationists can't deal with
well i just read ur reply and im going to tell you shouldnt one be consistent with what they believe in. shouldnt we be upfront with what we say or believe things should be balck or white, hot or cold u cannot be in the middle....if you are in the middle u have no basis for an agruement becuase you will not be able to stand your ground ,evrything to me is goin to be yes or no becuase i am upfront i guess you aint by that statement you have just made.
i therefore support the theory that evolution cause decay in todays society ...
becuase ppl who are evoluitonsit do not have any strong evidence on nothing at all
and its all man made with no higher power who impossed on it
heaven or hell dats da choice god gives us those can decide to take it or leave todays society is leavingheaven and sendin our future children straight to hell due to drugs free sex gayness complete immorality
This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-07-2004 4:46 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Lammy, posted 05-07-2004 6:12 AM gaurdian_angel has not yet responded

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 137 (106218)
05-07-2004 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Lammy
05-07-2004 3:18 AM


Re: Cranky mode
You asked for references to scientist who dont believe in Evolution well here are just some from AiG . AiG is not the only Creation based scientific community in the world,There are thousands of Bible believing scientist in America alone. This proves that it is the science of one religion vs the science of the other. They are both working at finding the truth with different frameworks and suppositions.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=21

http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=36

http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=37

http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=38

http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=3

http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=20

http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=29

http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=16

http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=14


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Lammy, posted 05-07-2004 3:18 AM Lammy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Lammy, posted 05-07-2004 6:00 AM almeyda has responded

  
Prev1
...
456
7
89Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019