or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Still Stubbornly Refuse To Believe In Evolution?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Still Stubbornly Refuse To Believe In Evolution? - Page 3

post #81 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post

Speaking of more data, faster-than-light travel to neighbouring stars and galaxies will be cool, particularly meeting/ discovering other life-forms, then we can study *their* evolution. Or creation, whatevs.

...and that reminds me... really looking forward to James Cameron's "Avatar".

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #82 of 88
I can't believe I'm still wasting time with this (I'm beginning to have to wonder if you're only pretending not to understand at this point), but having nothing else better to do at the moment...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post

A theory is just what the dictionary says it is.

Then get a better dictionary. The scientific meaning of the word might not be definition number 1, but it's not that obscure either.

Quote:
Any scholar would tell you that we define our terms - that is what the dictionary is for.

Any scholar worth being called a scholar would laugh at your slavish insistence on one dictionary definition in the face of very obviously different usage of a word by people in the relevant field.

Quote:
There is not a 'secret evolution dictionary' that has the same words with alternate meanings in it. Just because it is a theory that has been thought up to try to explain a scientific conundrum, does not make it any less a theory. it is simply a theory applied to science. therefore, it is a theory and yes, a few folks here still need to invest in a good dictionary. it remains a theory becuase it has not and cannot be proven and is ot repeatable.

Don't you see you're only playing a word game? There are only two real possibilities here:

(1) You're wrong about the meaning of the word "theory" in the context "theory of evolution".

(2) Scientists the world over are guilty merely of bad word usage, and should have referred to the results of their studies as the "[fill in new word here] of evolution", where "[fill in new word here]" means precisely what we're telling you "theory" means.

What else is left? Are you telling us that scientists studying evolution from Darwin on actually meant nothing more than "hunch" or "educated guess", when you can easily find plenty written by scientists in the field of evolution to the contrary?

Quote:
A law will always be repeatable. that is why it is a law.

There's nothing "repeatable" about many laws, except that maybe you can repeatedly declare a law, repeatedly break it, repeated change it. Laws change all the time. Laws are broken all of the time... that's why we have police and a judicial system.

Damn, those stupid policemen and judges and lawyers better get a better dictionary!

Oh, wait! Perhaps you're referring to your own screwed-up version of the scientific sense of the word "law", instead of the legal sense of the word. But we all know now that different senses of words in different contexts aren't allowed. Shame on you!

Or perhaps we have to delve into the meaning of "repeatable"...

The theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution.

Look... it's repeatable! I've repeated it three times!

If you want to play stupid word games, this is what it comes down to.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #83 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post

Virulent. Wow. That sounds more like you toward any mention of creation or [*GASP*] God Himself.

Please show me where. Of the two of us, you're the only one who has insulted Christians. I've commended them for their support of evolution.

Quote:
I will say that I totally reject the Catholic belief system because it is so steeped in tradition that it disregards the authority of the bible and makes man (the pope) greater than God (in terms of altering the Word of God - which God says never to do) and has to change its beleifs to fit the times. IT is a religion of compromise, where the facts of science fly in direct contrast. I gave some examples earlier. that is why I and many other thinking people take what the pope says with a grain of salt. I am not here to defend the various denominations with their various problems. In fact, i will point out those problems where they exist. I am here in the defense of the Bible and the science of creation. And that is because I think it is the truth. I am a christian and I make no apologies for that. I am not bound to defend the pope, nor am I bound to remain silent when he says something so totally contrary to the Bible and to science (referring to evolution and the eucharist).

You keep obsessing about the evil Catholics. I mentioned them once in passing, among a group of Protestant denominations who don't deny biological evolution.

Quote:
And to take your view (you, person on the internet), then all scientists that see the evidence points to intelligent design also must have a conspiracy theory. The fact of the matter is, all people are biased. Even the scientists that you would like to beleive are correct. They have committed to a theory and will try to see it in what is before them. The problem with that is that there is ZERO evidence. The theory itself demands that there be many transitional forms, but there is not one. Not even ONE. thus, the search continues in the hope that something, anything, would validate evolutionism. Many of these supposedly unbiased scientists livelihoods depend on it, because they would no longer get paychecks if it was admitted to be wrong. I know personally a few scientists in various fields and this is how the industry works. If you want funding, you must come up with a compelling reason to secure it.

I have received research grants from NIH and NSF, and there's no more compelling reason to obtain funding than to have evidence that challenges prevailing opinion. All the greatest scientists were recognized for doing so. I venture that if some scientists disproved evolution, they would go down in history as the greatest scientists that ever lived, much bigger than Einstein, who only fiddled around the edges, in comparison to someone who could overturn evolution.

Quote:
After checking the link you give, it only proves my point of the denominations I said that back evolutionism. Catholics of course, episcopalians (read catholic) and methodist. Church of Christ. but I don't see any Baptists. And if there were, they would not remain such. again, that list is not surprise. it only proves my point who I said backs this stuff. So I don't really understand your point here. also, the web site is one that pushes this idea of Evolution Sunday and then shows the churches to show how successful it is. Kind of lame actually. The number of churches on that page is not even as many churches in my city and the next two cities, so I don't see how this is taking the world by storm. Just a few whose denominations were already known for this.

Hmm? Over 600 churches are listed as taking part in Evolution Sunday, and only 5 are Catholic. Over 99% are Protestant churches. There are more Baptist churches listed than Catholic, even if you say you "don't see any."

Look at the list of over 10,000 Christian clergy who have signed the letter, and you see the same thing. A small minority are the Catholics you loathe, close to 100% are Protestant, including hundreds of Baptist clergy, and just about every other denomination.

I want you to read the letter they endorsed:

Quote:
Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as one theory among others is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among Gods good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that Gods loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

It seems to me that you not only have something to learn from all the biological, earth, and life sciences who work with evolution, but you also have a lot to learn from all those theologians and clergy who have devoted their lives to Christianity.
post #84 of 88
(yay! BRussell)
"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 #85 of 88
Thread Starter 
More evolutionary evidence surfaces...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe....ap/index.html

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #86 of 88
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned Intelligent Falling yet.
post #87 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Skills View Post

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned Intelligent Falling yet.

wow.

unfortunatley, this Intelligent Falling theory is just nonsense. i cannot believe they would do this. but it has been done. just another example of overzealous faith while not understanding the truth of what is in front of us. This happens on both the creationist and evolutionist sides.

the whole part about sparks flying upward just reeks of a lack of thoughtfulness. Sure the sparks fly upward... for a time, but everything that goes up...

comes back down (unless of course, you are in a zero gravity environment - ie:outer space)
post #88 of 88
'wow' indeed.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AppleOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Still Stubbornly Refuse To Believe In Evolution?