Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
40 online now:
Hyroglyphx, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Theodoric (6 members, 34 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Upcoming Birthdays: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,368 Year: 18,404/19,786 Month: 824/1,705 Week: 76/518 Day: 2/74 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   QUESTIONS
joz
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 113 (7517)
03-21-2002 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by TrueCreation
03-21-2002 11:46 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
And then all of a soden (though the time-scale would give it a good couple thousand years for the process) it 'evolves' into something simmilar though apparently different. This is where punctuated equillibria comes in, and where Darwin got it wrong, assuming it was a gradual process (which, if not relying on the fossil record, is much more plausable). So if I am not mistaken, your looking for this smooth transition, and not this rather blocky separation of fossils.

Your implication that the appearence of discrete as opposed to continuous changes in the fossil record is a "dilemma" for gradualism is resolved by Punk Eeek, so it is puzzling that you mention Punk Eeeek as an alternative to gradualism....

Its not an alternative it is gradualistic and as Darwin noted we don`t expect to find a smooth transition, hence no dilemma.....

Also your description of species muddling along for millenia before undergoing a rapid burst of evolution and settling back down in relative evolutionary inactivity again when coupled with mention of Punk Eeeek implys a notion that Punk Eeeek = Hopeful Monster ie non gradual evolution...

Do you understand that your post either a)betrayed an ignorance of Punk Eeek or b)was misleading in its representation of Punk Eeeek....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 11:46 AM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 4:55 PM joz has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 113 (7521)
03-21-2002 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by joz
03-21-2002 4:15 PM


"Your implication that the appearence of discrete as opposed to continuous changes in the fossil record is a "dilemma" for gradualism is resolved by Punk Eeek, so it is puzzling that you mention Punk Eeeek as an alternative to gradualism....

Its not an alternative it is gradualistic and as Darwin noted we don`t expect to find a smooth transition, hence no dilemma.....

Also your description of species muddling along for millenia before undergoing a rapid burst of evolution and settling back down in relative evolutionary inactivity again when coupled with mention of Punk Eeeek implys a notion that Punk Eeeek = Hopeful Monster ie non gradual evolution..."
--Alternative may not have been the 'best' word for its description, though it is another explination, gradualism would be as if a continuous non-segregated population of kinds were continually developing through geologic time, so you would not see jumps of this magnitude. Punctuated equillibria shows that population by some geologic mechenism disrupted this non-segregation and forced an isolation of different populations for such a seperate evolution.

"Do you understand that your post either a)betrayed an ignorance of Punk Eeek or b)was misleading in its representation of Punk Eeeek...."
--I think that a more accurate choice of words would have been 'insufficient attention to detail', though some people would say this is analogous to misleading. (sorry!)

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by joz, posted 03-21-2002 4:15 PM joz has not yet responded

  
William E. Harris
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 113 (15072)
08-09-2002 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by joz
03-01-2002 12:58 PM


In an article called, Beyond Physics (Scientific American, Aug. 1998, page 20), renowned scientists contemplated the evidence for God. Allan R. Sandage, a father’s of modern astronomy, asked several hundred scientists and theologians if there were sufficient evidence to support a belief in a Jedeo-Christian god.
Many of the scientists had as belief in a supreme being but could not support their belief with scientific evidence. About two dozen, nearly all at the top of their fields, arrived at a different conclusion.
George Ellis, a cosmologist said, “There is a huge amount of data supporting the existence of God.” “The question is how to evaluate it.” Item one on his list was the so-called Anthropic Principle. This principle has to do with the extreme unlikelihood for all the fundamental constants of nature to be so precisely balanced by accident. Without this very precise balance, galaxies and life could not exist. Astronomer John D. Barrows asked, “How is it that humans’ cognitive abilities greatly exceed the demands imposed by evolutionary pressures, so that we can perceive the quantum nature of the universe and map its cosmic features: And why is mathematics so surprisingly effective at describing the physical world?” One possible explanation they give is that “the universe was designed.”
Mitchell P. Marcus, chairman of computer science at the University of Pennsylvania said, “In mathematics and information theory, we can now guarantee that there are truths out there that we cannot find. The inability of science de to provide a basis for meaning, purpose, value and ethics is evidence of the necessity of religion” Sandage adds, “The reasons for the existence of the universe, the existence of any physical laws at all and the nature of the physical laws that do hold--science takes all of these for granted, and so cannot investigate them.”
Einstein stated, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” I believe Einstein was a Nobel prize winner.
William

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by joz, posted 03-01-2002 12:58 PM joz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Andya Primanda, posted 08-09-2002 5:20 AM William E. Harris has not yet responded
 Message 112 by allen, posted 08-12-2002 10:35 AM William E. Harris has not yet responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 113 (15081)
08-09-2002 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by William E. Harris
08-09-2002 3:30 AM


quote:
Originally posted by William E. Harris:
Einstein stated, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” I believe Einstein was a Nobel prize winner.
William

umm, I think the God Einstein believe in is not the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God? He's a bit into pantheism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by William E. Harris, posted 08-09-2002 3:30 AM William E. Harris has not yet responded

  
allen
Unregistered


Message 111 of 113 (15288)
08-12-2002 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
02-28-2002 8:08 AM


thanks for your post: I will answer all your questions.
here are answers to each question numerically:
1. can YOU present a credible response to this dilemma.
2.You go and ask a Nobel Prize winner why he isnt a creationist.
3.Show me proof that the earth is that old.
4.God created different flesh types, if the created animals that are of that same type of flesh, then it is made of the same flesh.
5.The answer to this question is the choice that God gives each of as individuals,(not slaves), to choose what we believe in.
6.Can YOU prvide a evelutionist proof of any advance of anything that has evolved yet to this date?
7.put a cup of dirt in your bath tub in one area of the tub. Then put a cup of sand in one area of the tub,a cup of clay, a cup of pebbles, a cup of silt. Now turn on the water at full force, and leave it for 40 days.Do YOU see an even evident layer throughout the tub?
8.When the world was Created, if YOU read Genisis in the Bible, the only documentation that sequentually speaks of events as the world was created. Dark from light, land,heavens,water then was created,then the rest. This lets us know that water came from springs from within the earth, then the heavens, it rained, and the seas, etc. etc. so the world was not earth covered with water. so things were seperate . This could point that when animals, birds, etc. etc. were then added, climate spacific animals etc. were put where the creator designed them to thrive. Do YOU have different proof.
9.We do not know how advanced man was in the time before the flood.
The bible only documents the EVENT of the flood. The hundreds of years man lived etc. etc.Proof of events in our day may or maynot exist due to the DISTRUCTION of the Flood. When a house burns down,
there is the foundation left. If you place layers of dirt time and deposits upon that foundation. Can YOU find evidence of that particular house...Or proof that it once was a house..but yet you have access to a document showing the event of its distruction.A world is a VERY LARGE place to look for that particular house. But if we randomly drill thru the snow/ice/,and pull up the core sample, and find a portion of that core to be gravel or concrete, man again would possibly say: hummm....there is a layer of concrete below us.. and assume there is a large layer of concrete left during the flood.Missing the house they drilled thru.So, in end to your questions. If YOU read the ONLY documentation of the flood, or the steps of the creation, what proof do you have that creation DID NOT HAPPEN? you have none. Can YOU create what God has.. i think not.
Faith is needed in your questions. If you have a loved one that is at work, and you kissed them good bye before they left for work, dont you have FAITH that they are still alive and at work, and will return home that evening? That is the blind faith you need. Tho you dont see me , or have ever seen me, you do know that i exist because i am writting this to you. Do you have faith that i exist?
well yes you do. my words are written. Therefore, God wrote the Bible explaining what He wants you to know now for this time that you are in. Please get over this E vs. C stuff, and look beyond , and have faith . Also the bible will tell you what it is trying to point out for all men. And that is this: this earth will be purified again, and
there is a GREATER fear for man in the future.Read Romans 10 9-11,
that is the verse that explains what the bible is all about. NOt Creationisum/evolution.IT tells us what is about to happen..
Thank you for your time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 02-28-2002 8:08 AM quicksink has not yet responded

    
allen
Unregistered


Message 112 of 113 (15290)
08-12-2002 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by William E. Harris
08-09-2002 3:30 AM


Isn't it funny, that all the fancy words man comes up with, the meetings he visits to discuss the topics of proof when in turn the topic is actually about the SPIRIT of man. Man questions that which he cannot see. Yet is in him. To me it is like giving Einstein a piece of candy, and a small child a piece of candy, and watching the reaction of each comparitivly.I.E., Einsteins reactions to receiving the candy: Bahhhhhh! I'm NOT A CHILD! HOw dare you to insult me with such a demeaning action, my peirs are watching...who do you think i am, some sugar footed baby? Then the childs reaction: Yummm! give me..give me.. I know that is a candy, and it is SWEET .i WANT it..with faith , the child receives the candy. The older doesn't accept the candy..what does this mean.. simply put, persecution is always the falter of ones mental upholding.Therefore one contemplates his own belief in anything unknown, and needs proof of that which he has not experianced. untill one does, ONE is said to be ignorant of the facts that are involved in taking in any simple belief in what is actually there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by William E. Harris, posted 08-09-2002 3:30 AM William E. Harris has not yet responded

    
allen
Unregistered


Message 113 of 113 (15293)
08-12-2002 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by TrueCreation
03-21-2002 3:56 PM


Ok..take the first verse in the bible, and lets tear it apart...if you read that in the beginning, we see that there was a beginning , and that there seems to be a time frame in that beginning by the first word in the first verse ie: IN.. so a point of time before God created is shown here.. in the beginning...something existed before man...and we see that God was there in the time before the beginning.
We are privelaged to have such an old document of the beginning of creation...evolution does not document its beginning, it only trys to find or verify the "beginning". Trying to show proof to mans existance. So evolutionist should start their quest in the BIBLE. Why?.. Because it is the only documentation of the very same things they are trying to prove to have come about...their evolution theorys jump the gun, they over see the proof of things created. In the bible, we have testiment written of a creation by God in the BEGINNING of the time of things prepared by God for man to exist in. now if we continue to tear apart the first verse in the bible, we could see more in that verse.. ie: not only a portion of time before the beginning of creation. ...but a God doing it, an existance of some relm where God lives or exists..before creation, an before the BEGINNING . verse 2 goes on to read: AND THE EARTH WAS WITHOUT FORM, AND VOID; and darness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of G od moved upon the face of the waters. NOW LET'S tear this verse apart so we can see the proofs of things before they were made, and the state that they were in: Earth is mentioned in the first verse, and again in the second verse, but now we are being told that the earth was without form: not square, not triangular in shape, or even put into a round ball, or flat..it was without form..ok now we understand an earth was created, but now we are told how it was created..let's look closer at this crated earth and how it was done..ok..the verse then states that the earth was VOID..not put together yet..so we can safely say, earth was scattered throughout the vastness of the deep..we call space.. earth had not come together yet.As the verses go on, you will be told of how God moved upon the face of the waters, and how God said, LET THERE BE LIGHT. and so on untill we see that earth STILL has not become a round shape as of yet...other things were created and commanded to be made or seperated from ect. ...stars as we call them were started as the fermanment created, and after alot of seperating, God finally commands the waters to gather in one place, and the dry land to appear..now we have a name for that dry land.. God calls it EARTH. SO TO SAVE you time and argument between each other, take the bibles first chapers and bust loose ya'll...I mean you tear it apart bit by bit, and search each word, and make a time table of the creation that is being explaned to you.. things did not evolve, they were created..and if you read closely... God made different flesh.. animal flesh , bird flesh, fish flesh. human flesh, and God commands each flesh to go and reproduce with its own type of flesh. We are commanded not to mix the seed. You go from there..BUT YOU MUST READ THE BIBLE , it is the only existing proof of creation from the BEGINNING .
alle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 3:56 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019