or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Don't Believe In Evolution? Read This.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Don't Believe In Evolution? Read This. - Page 7

post #241 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin

How can we be if we are subjected to forces beyond our control?

because we have bought all the bullshit about what God is supposed to be, without questioning any of it or looking for the correct answer.
post #242 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin

Then how can you reasonably expect everyone to accept it? Can you imagine if our justice system was based on that kind of reasoning. Sure Michael Jackson may not be a pedophile but a lot of people believe he is and the evidence all points to it so let's just accept it.

Our justice system IS based on that reasoning. If there was ample evidence that Michael Jackson was a pedophile, he would be in jail. Rather, there's evidence that he wasn't: his accuser had previously testified that he hadn't been abused.

The same with evolution: there's plenty of evidence for it, and the only evidence against it is a book that's not even self-consistent.

It doesn't matter that lots of people believe Michael Jackson is a pedophile, just like it doesn't matter that lots of people believe in intelligent design. Because there's no evidence to support those beliefs, we disregard them.
post #243 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat


Hollow bones are certainly weaker than solid ("solid") bones, but they are not brittle. Brittle is a concept that has to do with the makeup of the structure of something, not that structure's overall strength. It's a technical point, but an important one.

Yes. Poor use of a word on my part. I watched a movie the other day where a man was said to have brittle bones and the word stuck in my mind. I know that mammal bones can become brittle due to conditions in the body, and it is a change in structure. If we exercise and get proper nutrition we can help to keep our bone structure strong.


Quote:

Marrow does not help with strength, but mammal bones are (generally) much thicker than bird bones.

Do I get partial credit?


Quote:

. . . I think the question/answer dialogue is more fruitful than the abstract philosophical dialogue.

I stay interested in a dialog longer when I'm learning something too.

post #244 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline


Tough. You'll get debate on it anyway! (I'll at least get to another question of yours later too, to make up for this. )

FYI, I just archived your post to study more, later. Excellent. You and groverat have been very helpful to me with your replies. I'm interested in hearing what both sides have to say actually, but I'll agree now that the ID camp needs to make some real progress before anyone can take them seriously.

Also, I did follow much commentary on the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, but did not read the actual transcripts.

post #245 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

but I'll agree now that the ID camp needs to make some real progress before anyone can take them seriously.

They're finished.

Kitzmiller proved ID was just a dressed-up façade for creationism.

I can't imagine what "progress" they could make to erase those connections.
post #246 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

Interesting. I actually knew bird bones were hollow, but jumped to the conclusion it makes their bone weak, like a hollow steel tube is weaker than a solid steel bar of the same diameter. Thinking about it, I now realize that the center of our bones is marrow, which may not contribute to their strength.



Interesting subject for a structural engineer!

Bird bones are relatively stiff, hollow, and have an internal structure (or compartments). Thus the structural moment of inertia of bird bones is efficient since most of the mass/area/weight of said bones is near the perimeter, where I~AD^2/4, whereas bat bones would have I~AD^2/16 (assuming solid round). But we also need to consider the stress in said bones, which is sigma=MD/2I (where M is the bending moment, A is the area, D is the diameter, and I is the inertia, sigma is the stress).

Perhaps this is over the top for most of you?

Also, for birds the internal compartments form a latticework of internal bracing to prevent buckling similar to the strategy used on large ships.

We would also need to have some additional information such as elastic modulus and limiting stress.

Thus, nature shows us two successful stratigies for efficient structural members, one is stiff yet light, the other is compliant yet light.

PS - Also of passing interest to me is locomotion of birds, bats, and fish, here the relevant non-dimensional parameter is the Strouhal number. Vortex shedding for fixed objects is additive (in a forcing sense), while vortex shedding for oscillatory objects (i. e. wings/fins) is subtractive (again in a forcing sense). Thus it has been shown that natural vortex shedding frequencies on fixed objects (piers/pillings/cylinders/fixed wings) versus natural frequencies of animal wing/fin cyclic frequency through Strouhal number plots have very similar trend lines. Inotherwords, there is an optimal (i. e. most efficient) frequency to impart thrust into the flow field for birds/bats/fish.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #247 of 522
Nerd.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #248 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin

Not necessarily. A lot of the greatest scientists we've ever known had a firm belief in a higher power. Newton and Einstein being the classic examples. This may well have had a lot to do with their time period or upbringing but they would surely have shown some resistance to the idea if they had reason to. Since some of the greatest scientists can maintain such a belief then I don't see such an idea harming scientific progress. I agree that it shouldn't be used as a stop gap but nor should it be dismissed entirely to prevent it becoming that.

But that doesn't relate to what I said. I said God is not useful in scientific theory, not that scientists who believe in a higher power are useless. Newton's passion may have been the Bible, but citing God isn't what made his scientific ideas plausible.

Note that Einstein didn't believe in a personal God, the sort of God that shows up in religious teaching and engages in contact with its creations. He was born in a world that knew of evolution.
post #249 of 522
Thread Starter 
Leave it to an unmoderated forum to drift off into a neverending lack of focus.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #250 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fawkes

Here are some examples of speciation that are known to have occurred.

This link describes macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

I thought we put the 'speciation' term in a box a while back -- settling for [macro]Evolution instead. Also, with regards to Behe, his department certainly would want to distance themselves from his dissent, but that isn't the same thing as 'largely discredited'. The notion that something can be irreducibly complex is very much alive. There have been attempts to mitigate things like the flagellum, and the arguments have gotten closer to finding similar structures -- but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. The problem has yet to be solved.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #251 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

dmz:



No one explores evolution's problems more than evolutionary biologists.

Of all the various hoaxes trotted out over the years (especially the missing links): Who exposed them? Not preachers. Not clergymen. But scientists.

Your assertion that there is an establishment of science that does not think critically about evolutionary theory is not only incorrect, it is completely without basis.

They're not in the business -- at all -- of asking the 'what if this whole schema is wrong' questions -- that's all I'm saying there.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #252 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz

I thought we put the 'speciation' term in a box a while back -- settling for [macro]Evolution instead. Also, with regards to Behe, his department certainly would want to distance themselves from his dissent, but that isn't the same thing as 'largely discredited'. The notion that something can be irreducibly complex is very much alive. There have been attempts to mitigate things like the flagellum, and the arguments have gotten closer to finding similar structures -- but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. The problem has yet to be solved.

No, no, you're the only one making up words in this discussion.
post #253 of 522
Quote:
They're not in the business -- at all -- of asking the 'what if this whole schema is wrong' questions -- that's all I'm saying there.

I have no other word for your statement but "dishonest". You are not talking to a dull-minded creationist here who is starving for talk about "them pointy-headed, ivory tower librul professors", dmz, and your misrepresentation of science does not pass muster.

Scientists are constantly exploring many new theories, and you have absolutely no evidence at all to back up your assertion. None. All you have to back that up is a persecution complex, that is it. Please show me a viable scientific theory that is being ignored by the scientific community at large because of a slavish devotion to evolutionary theory.

How can you trumpet differences in opinion between evolutionary theorists and then say that they do not ask tough questions? You are just being dishonest, dmz, completely and totally dishonest.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #254 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ


They're finished.

Kitzmiller proved ID was just a dressed-up façade for creationism.

I can't imagine what "progress" they could make to erase those connections.

I'm not trying to defend ID, but I think there may be some useful ideas in it. I did not pay attention to all the details on the commentary about ID, but caught two things.

First, one or more examples of irreducible complexity were found to be reducible after all. Does this mean that everything is reducible? No. Maybe they will have better luck next time. Were all science discoveries made on the first try? I don't think so. Many discoveries would never have been made if mistakes were taken to mean the theory collapsed.

Second, many eager religious folks tried to jump on the coat tails of ID. Likely we could find this kind of thing in many new movements, where others try to use another's idea for their own benefit. It's a pity, because it clouds the issue and give the other side ammunition. And the video I saw played heavily on the religious involvement with ID.

If you caught any more condemning points to sink ID, please post them. I'd like to know. For now, I have some material I need to digest on ID before I'm ready to say more.

post #255 of 522
You have it wrong snoopy... What does ID offer that is particularly insightful?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #256 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar


You have it wrong snoopy... What does ID offer that is particularly insightful?

Here's a hint.


Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline


I'll give ID a little credit for coming up with a couple of thought-provoking ideas -- trying to codify how one recognizes an intelligently designed artifact vs. an undesigned thing, and the spin-off idea of irreducible complexity.

But they haven't gotten anywhere . . .

I'll need to study these issues more before I reach a conclusion.

post #257 of 522
What other questions do you have? There are obviously people here who might be able to answer them.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #258 of 522
I have a question for the Creationists.

When you have succeeded in converting everyone, or eliminating the detractors, how do visualize the world being a better place because of it?
post #259 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK

I have a question for the Creationists.

When you have succeeded in converting everyone, or eliminating the detractors, how do visualize the world being a better place because of it?

Duh, unwavering faith in God, followed by the genocide of Muslims, gays, and Buddhists.

But not the Jews. They're needed for the Second Coming and the Rapture.
post #260 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

Duh, unwavering faith in God, followed by the genocide of Muslims, gays, and Buddhists.

But not the Jews. They're needed for the Second Coming and the Rapture.

uh, i actually mean after they've converted all the muslims, jews, buddhists and had the gays executed.

There must be a vision, what is it?
post #261 of 522
Rapture.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #262 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

Rapture.

no, seriously! - there is no need for rapture if everyone has been saved - infact it cant happen if everyone has been saved.
post #263 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK

no, seriously! - there is no need for rapture if everyone has been saved - infact it cant happen if everyone has been saved.

No, the Rapture is when all good Christians (the ones that believe in Jesus, and have never touched a football, eaten lobster, or touched a woman unnecessarily) go to heaven, and everyone else goes to hell. Right after the world ends. That's seriously the ultimate goal for a lot of Christianity.
post #264 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR

Man marvin- edit much?

Oh yeah. Prepare to be dazzled

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR

Humans are not the center of the universe.

So our lives are completely pointless then?

I believe to an extent in the Anthropic Principle:

"The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Imagine if the human race did not exist and there were no intelligent life forms. Why would there be a universe at all? It's like the tree in the forest saying. If the universe exists and no one is around to observe it, does it actually exist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK

because we have bought all the bullshit about what God is supposed to be, without questioning any of it or looking for the correct answer.

So we are our own god because of that or we aren't our own god because of that? If the idea of a god is so bullshit then why are we subjected to systems beyond our control? Everything is in a hierarchy and it's very clear we ain't at the top. Whatever is above us and everything else can be defined as a god and it doesn't need to have the definition mankind has placed on it. It probably couldn't because we exist in a closed system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

The same with evolution: there's plenty of evidence for it, and the only evidence against it is a book that's not even self-consistent.

The idea of intelligent design or creation is not limited to the Bible so because one is fallible doesn't mean the other is inconceivable. In a similar light, if you find a flaw in a part of the theory of evolution, you don't dismiss all of it. I agree religions don't like to change and that's why I don't support them but I won't dismiss the philosophies of intelligent men just because they have been linked to a narrow-minded culture because that would make me the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

Because there's no evidence to support those beliefs, we disregard them.

belief = the universe was created by a higher power, possibly intelligent
evidence = we exist and we have evidence to support we came from primitve entities, which formed in some sort of cataclysmic event. We were either always here in some form or we were created and our complexity suggests intelligent involvement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdraper

I said God is not useful in scientific theory, not that scientists who believe in a higher power are useless. Newton's passion may have been the Bible, but citing God isn't what made his scientific ideas plausible.

You said:

"The reason that God is not useful in scientific theory is that God would then be the immediate and correct answer to every unknown."

which is a false assumption. I agree that god doesn't necessarily progress scientific discovery but I was pointing out it doesn't hinder it, which you were suggesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdraper

Note that Einstein didn't believe in a personal God, the sort of God that shows up in religious teaching and engages in contact with its creations. He was born in a world that knew of evolution.

That says to me that an intelligent man found no problem with the idea of an intelligent creator. So why do so many other people have a problem with the idea?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeharhar

What does ID offer that is particularly insightful?

If nothing more than a incentive to thouroughly test the theory of evolution to breaking point if it has one and that is enough to justify it to me. People who fully believe the assumptions that evolution makes are no better than the religious people who do the same. Every theory needs a sceptic or we just become complacent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK

I have a question for the Creationists.

When you have succeeded in converting everyone, or eliminating the detractors, how do visualize the world being a better place because of it?

You mean you have an insult for creationists because your question has no more meaning than if you apply the same question to evolutionists. It is also misguided because you still fail to understand that both theories in various form can co-exist. The theory of evolution changes and will continue to change and like any scientific theory is not well-defined. One theory of creation refuses to change but many variants of the theory do change.

How about this for a theory:

* intelligent creator exists
* intelligent creator gets bored with internet porn and decides to make something
* universe is created
* intelligent creator doesn't want to do it quick because there's little entertainment value
* things are left to evolve slowly over billions of years
* here we are looking at internet porn getting bored and trying to create universes of our own with computers that try to simulate artificial intelligence and can create vast virtual universes

and don't say well who created the creator because that's just as same as saying who/what created everything in the first place. You only have three choices, everything was always here (and you'd still need to wonder about why it bothered to change and what caused it), everything was created by something or everything was created by nothing.
post #265 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin


You mean you have an insult for creationists because your question has no more meaning than if you apply the same question to evolutionists.

Not really, i just wanted to know what the creationist vision is for the world if everyone accepted creationism and rejected evolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin

It is also misguided because you still fail to understand that both theories in various form can co-exist.

Creationism doesn't fit with evolution however you spin it. The Bible stories can fit with evolution if you make an effort to understand them in the context of how they were written, but literalism rarely fits with anything, thinking about it. Jonah and the whale is a true story, but it really didn't happen 'literally'

Infact, the biggest oversight here is that Creationism DOES NOT FIT with the bible stories. These stories have a context and a meaning - which you can find out if youre search is genuine and you are not afraid of the truth. Creationism is for people afraid of the truth - looking for a quick bandage to stem the flow of blood from their fatally wounded spirituality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin

The theory of evolution changes and will continue to change and like any scientific theory is not well-defined. One theory of creation refuses to change but many variants of the theory do change.

which is utter stupidity. If youre going to claim creation is true by a literal reading of such stories, its utterly ridiculous to try to interpolate them to fit the natural evidence. Get a grip.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin

How about this for a theory:

* intelligent creator exists
* intelligent creator gets bored with internet porn and decides to make something
* universe is created
* intelligent creator doesn't want to do it quick because there's little entertainment value
* things are left to evolve slowly over billions of years
* here we are looking at internet porn getting bored and trying to create universes of our own with computers that try to simulate artificial intelligence and can create vast virtual universes

it sucks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin

and don't say well who created the creator because that's just as same as saying who/what created everything in the first place. You only have three choices, everything was always here (and you'd still need to wonder about why it bothered to change and what caused it), everything was created by something or everything was created by nothing.

well, 'who created the creator?' - why not, its a perfectly valid question.
post #266 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin

Majorly snip, snip, . . .



Dude, don't hurt yourself.

The Anthropic Principle? ROTFLMAO! Or as Cartman would say, WEAK! The correct interpretation of existence is The Misanthropic Principle!

Your tree riddle/analogy, Cartman would say LAME!

And stop trying to put the species homo sapiens at the centerpoint of whatever argument you're trying to make, that does not make sense!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #267 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

Rapture.

I'm disappointed Grove. I expect such nonsense from Marc and sargent, but you endorsing the idea that devout Christians want to kill people so that the Rapture will come is seriously disappointing.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #268 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin

If nothing more than a incentive to thouroughly test the theory of evolution to breaking point if it has one and that is enough to justify it to me. People who fully believe the assumptions that evolution makes are no better than the religious people who do the same. Every theory needs a sceptic or we just become complacent.

Oh, so there is no real reason. Come on, are you suggesting that science isn't progressive from internal forces?

If evolution is so wrong it will fall by the way side like Phlogiston; non-scientific challenges create unnecessary collision between certain faiths and secular approaches to exploring the world.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #269 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777

I'm disappointed Grove. I expect such nonsense from Marc and sargent, but you endorsing the idea that devout Christians want to kill people so that the Rapture will come is seriously disappointing.

Oh come on, we're just having a little fun. Although those Westboro Baptists... you never know about them
post #270 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777

I'm disappointed Grove. I expect such nonsense from Marc and sargent, but you endorsing the idea that devout Christians want to kill people so that the Rapture will come is seriously disappointing.

no one even remotely suggested that - except you

which leads me to think that this is a freudian slip - and a very telling one too.
post #271 of 522
post #272 of 522
^^^

Its Marvins theory illustrated.
post #273 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK

i just wanted to know what the creationist vision is for the world if everyone accepted creationism and rejected evolution.

Probably the same as the vision of the strict evolutionist. But since there doesn't have to be one or the other as I've explained, this vision will never be realised.

If the vision of the evolutionist winning were to somehow prevent religious wars, there would still be war, people would just fight about something else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK

Creationism doesn't fit with evolution however you spin it.

Ok, it depends what is meant by Creationism. I always use the word in the sense that it implies that at some point in time, everything came into existence and possibly by some higher force. That's as far as I take it and I don't see how that conflicts with any view about evolution.

What opinion do you have?

1. everything was always here
2. everything was created by something
3. everything was created by nothing

I would add 'don't know' but strictly speaking none of us know so it's your opinion only.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK

The Bible stories can fit with evolution

See here's where a major problem lies. The Bible presents a theory of how the world came about. In no way whatsoever is believing any of the other stories a requirement. If a work of genius happens to be scribbled in a child's book would you dismiss it based on where you find it or do you judge the work on it's own merit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK

Creationism is for people afraid of the truth

The truth being what? That we are here by accident and our lives have no meaning at all? I want an evolutionist to stand up and say their lives have absolutely no purpose whatsoever and yet the theory of evolution supports the survival of the species. To me that is a contradiction. Why does a purposeless society try to survive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK

well, 'who created the creator?' - why not, its a perfectly valid question.

Well, the creator may indeed have a creator but it's not necessary for us to know whether that is the case and as I said likely impossible for us to determine anyway because we are bound by the system that was created. You can make an analogy with a computer. It is a similar closed system that cannot go outside the boundaries we give it. The computer may be able to perform calculations and do tasks we set it to do and even learn tasks by building on basic blocks but if it asked what its creator was, how would it know? Unless it is given that information explicitly, it cannot know. However, it would be able to get some insight from its environment and itself.

CPU = intelligence
Ram = memory
input devices = sensory input
power source = food and water

I'd say that was a pretty good start. It could also see a form of evolution in the case of upgrades albeit far faster than we can. However, would there be any logical reason for it to consider that it appeared from nothing and nothing was involved in the upgrade process?

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent

stop trying to put the species homo sapiens at the centerpoint of whatever argument you're trying to make, that does not make sense!

It would be nice if people would stop just saying my theories are wrong and state why they don't make sense and what their own are. I take it from this post you don't consider the human race all that important right? We're just another species out of many. So why are we bothering to survive? What do we really hope to achieve? What do you personally hope to achieve?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeharhar

Oh, so there is no real reason. Come on, are you suggesting that science isn't progressive from internal forces?

No there are many reasons, which I and others have given and if you still think there are none then you either haven't read them or you disagree but they have been presented. I'm not suggesting science isn't internally progressive but that's not always the case and the more people blindly accept wild theories as fact when they are extrapolated from well supported theories the less progress science will make. By all means make the extrapolations but don't assume they are correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeharhar

If evolution is so wrong

I didn't suggest it was wrong in its entirety or at all for that matter. Just like I don't dismiss the idea of a creator simply because I find Biblical stories far fetched, I don't dismiss evolution as a whole when parts of it are well supported.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK

Its Marvins theory illustrated.

YES, I'm not alone in this. I'm going to start a new world order. One where we kill anyone who thinks about killing others in the name of their own belief and soon we will wipe out the human race. Then we'll see who was right.

And that brings me seamlessly onto another point. What do people really think happens when we die. Is that it? If it is then why is it the case we haven't figured out how to begin a life? I mean if it's a purely mechanical event and nothing is in control then what's the problem?
post #274 of 522
Quote:
I'm disappointed Grove. I expect such nonsense from Marc and sargent, but you endorsing the idea that devout Christians want to kill people so that the Rapture will come is seriously disappointing.

I did not know that Rapture included Christians killing people.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #275 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin

No there are many reasons, which I and others have given and if you still think there are none then you either haven't read them or you disagree but they have been presented. I'm not suggesting science isn't internally progressive but that's not always the case and the more people blindly accept wild theories as fact when they are extrapolated from well supported theories the less progress science will make. By all means make the extrapolations but don't assume they are correct.

All I have heard is that a challenge (it doesn't HAVE to be ID) causes people to think. ID offers nothing specific. Evolutionary theory itself has many internal debates, which IDers use to claim that evolution isn't supported as well as it really is.

I asked for specifics and people give me vague generalities... figures...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #276 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

I did not know that Rapture included Christians killing people.


That's all that rapture is...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #277 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin

Ok, it depends what is meant by Creationism. I always use the word in the sense that it implies that at some point in time, everything came into existence and possibly by some higher force. That's as far as I take it and I don't see how that conflicts with any view about evolution.

What opinion do you have?

1. everything was always here
2. everything was created by something
3. everything was created by nothing

I would add 'don't know' but strictly speaking none of us know so it's your opinion only.

well Creationism historically means a literal reading of Genesis and strict adherance to the black and white, while tying yourself in knots trying to take down evolutionary theory.
These are typically the religious right young-earthers, God created the world at 9am on Wednesday the 21'st October 4004BCE.

Your POV, is acutally more in line with the more esoteric eastern philosophies in that God is an abstract concept responsible for a one off creation event.

My opinion is that i dont know and im fine with not knowing, its the only honest answer - if i had to speculate, I would go for everything was always here.


Quote:
See here's where a major problem lies. The Bible presents a theory of how the world came about. In no way whatsoever is believing any of the other stories a requirement. If a work of genius happens to be scribbled in a child's book would you dismiss it based on where you find it or do you judge the work on it's own merit?

Genesis was written over a long period incorperating the stories and myths of many preceeding and adjacent civilizations who all have developed an oral tradition of mythmaking and parable story telling, it wasn't written my Moses - because he is a fictionary character to illustrate a concept. In this context, it would not be possible for the writers to write a physics book about the creation of the universe, because these things were not known to them, and they had no way of finding out. What was know to them - and is valid, is what we would now call philosophy, psychology and spirituality. These things really havn't changed much between the period of biblical creation and now. People are still people and want, desire and need the same as they did 2000,5000,10000 years ago, and people are conscious and have imaginations. Nothing has changed much. So they wrote about the things they did know about, psy,phi and spi...

If you want to understand the context of genesis, you have to make the effort to understand these things, because that is the context in which they were written, and you can see infact, that if you develop depth of thought, you can indeed see the truth, wisdom and understanding in Genesis, and it isn't an account of the bigbang.

Its really up to you, it takes alot of work, effort, sweat and tears - or you can just bury your head in the sand.

Quote:
The truth being what? That we are here by accident and our lives have no meaning at all? I want an evolutionist to stand up and say their lives have absolutely no purpose whatsoever and yet the theory of evolution supports the survival of the species. To me that is a contradiction. Why does a purposeless society try to survive?

The truth being that there is depth. Are you so shallow that if someone stands up and says you are a grand monkey, then you're life is pointless and worthless. What an insult to monkeys. Do you not love, feel, cry, laugh, want, need, give etc, that is not pointless or worthless - you must have a very bad contempt for yourself if your emotions and consciousness mean nothing, well the good news is, is that monkeys have all these same emotions too, and you are a grand monkey. Dont insult the monkeys with your self loathing pity for yourself.

Quote:
Well, the creator may indeed have a creator but it's not necessary for us to know whether that is the case and as I said likely impossible for us to determine anyway because we are bound by the system that was created. You can make an analogy with a computer. It is a similar closed system that cannot go outside the boundaries we give it. The computer may be able to perform calculations and do tasks we set it to do and even learn tasks by building on basic blocks but if it asked what its creator was, how would it know? Unless it is given that information explicitly, it cannot know. However, it would be able to get some insight from its environment and itself.

CPU = intelligence
Ram = memory
input devices = sensory input
power source = food and water

I'd say that was a pretty good start. It could also see a form of evolution in the case of upgrades albeit far faster than we can. However, would there be any logical reason for it to consider that it appeared from nothing and nothing was involved in the upgrade process?

well thats the difference isn't it, some people are told something and they believe it and never question it or its validity, and some people do.

If there was a creator, you need to explain how he was created, or how he came into being, or a mechanism where he could have been eternal - a creator solves nothing other than moving the goalposts back a notch.

Maybe, you are not inquiring enough to want to ask this question? maybe you dont care, or are happy to accept what someone you consider a higher status than you tells you.?

And if the creator has a creator, is there an infinite line of creators? who was the first - I want to know.

Quote:
It would be nice if people would stop just saying my theories are wrong and state why they don't make sense and what their own are. I take it from this post you don't consider the human race all that important right? We're just another species out of many. So why are we bothering to survive? What do we really hope to achieve? What do you personally hope to achieve?

I consider the human race to be very important, just because we are a nanospeck in the grand scheme of the universe doesn't make us any less important.

Conversely, because the Creationists and Biblicists have to invent these grand stories to shore up their doubts about self-worth, grandeur really is a reflection of how unimportant they really feel. It isn't the scientists going round saying that life is unimportant - its the fundies who are saying that unless you believe our delusion, you are a pile of shit.

Quote:
And that brings me seamlessly onto another point. What do people really think happens when we die. Is that it? If it is then why is it the case we haven't figured out how to begin a life? I mean if it's a purely mechanical event and nothing is in control then what's the problem?

it would be nice if what you believed in came to pass.
The creationists can go off to their strict, selfish, uncompromising God, who demands eternal gratification and adoration, and I can go off become a universe.
post #278 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

I did not know that Rapture included Christians killing people.

It doesn't. But when Marc asked what came after Christians killing gays, you said the Rapture.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #279 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777

It doesn't. But when Marc asked what came after Christians killing gays, you said the Rapture.

wouldn't it be better though, if instead of telling the scare stories of all the people being whisked off to paradise, like the Christian pilot of the plane whipped out his seatm to let the plane crash, killing the passengers, you TOLD THE TRUTH about what rapture really meant?
post #280 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK


My opinion is that i dont know and im fine with not knowing, its the only honest answer - if i had to speculate, I would go for everything was always here.

This just caught my eye. Are you saying you like Fred Hoyle's steady state model? I thought just about everyone in science now accepts the hot big bang model. Creation, if you will, occurred 14 billion years ago. Since then it has just been formation of thing by particles following natural laws, in the universe that is.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Don't Believe In Evolution? Read This.