amazingly, i’m not embarrassed about it. we do the best we can with what we have. in science this happens all of the time. we are constantly earning nobel prizes for disproving previous nobel prize laureates.
Agree, but there’s a difference between promoting science by refuting an old discoverie, and promoting religion by using deformation of science. Like the argument about Light and Thermodynamic, there is nothing consistant in these pseudo-theory; it’s just make-up to caution the bible. I don’t say “all religious people” are against science, but some are making very strange dogmas that goes against science and logic.
many non-religious people do to. as do many scientists. W/ respect to the arguements about light and thermodynamics they are not so “illogical” or even misguided as they use some inappropriate assumptions and omissions. Happens in science all the time. Two wrongs often have made a “right” forming the basis for some scientific theory.
As mentioned, i’m not a young earth creationist, but there are many plausable theories that support it.
Like what ? .
no time or incentive.
[quote[quote]]it is enough to make us consider that there is too much mystery shrouding evolution to make us consider it to be an absolute.
It’s not about evolution, it’s about geology. Anyway i never said our conception of evolution was perfect, i think we should work to perfect it, as always religion will only slow us down.
as it bloody well should. so should science. Health Canada has some of the strictest drug laws in the world - they slow down the acceptance of pharmaceutical products intentionally - why? To make certain that all the studies are in. So that no one makes a mistake, a poor assumption. Just b/c a product will work well in lab rats does not make it safe for people etc. This goes for ethics boards, etc. Does ethics slow down science? You betcha’. Is that bad? Hopefully not.
3 - this is evidence of evolution, not proof against creation. both may support this. why? because it was a rational way to create things in God’s mind?
It’s a proof (at least a strong argument) against young earth creationist, not old earth creationist i admit, but anyway old earth creationist are just religious evolutionist. They are not blinded by faith, maybe they’ll even point out interesting problems from our conception of evolution (not that i think god is the answer…).
wow. I hope you didn’t hurt yourself :lol:
6 - scientists do not know this yet. surgeons contend that the removal of these is a very useful process in the purchases of nicer houses etc. the appendix does secrete material - enzymes, etc. and may be useful for some absorption
hmmmm… our appendice is’nt the vestige of the caecum ??
so it would appear. Are the tonsils not simply vestigial parts of the oropharynx? well, yes and no. No one ever really knows.
7 - much of this is micro-evolution, verifiable in a lab. Does not go against creation at all.
When you take fossils, the tree of animals, dna and micro-evolution; you get a pretty solid argument for evolution, and against young earth creationist (again, not against old earth creationist, you can only refute their claim by refuting god). Also when you take radioactive, carbone 14 and light dating, you get another good argument against young earth creationist.
well, wrt light dating and carbon14 dating, the young earth creationists can always pull out evidence of the flood, with special attention drawn to the fact that it says in the bible that the earth was covered in a canopy of water until the flood. The rest of your statement might also be dealt with by The Flood theory. DNA and micro-evolution do not argue vs. young earth either - they suggest that things may evolve, and the illustrate one of the possible ways for things to happen, but there are many ways to bake a cake my friend.
(and don’t ask why i’m supporting young earth theorists . . . blame it on my father . . . .)
@F_alk:
@city:
PETA has already explained where the dinosaurs went, even though they didn’t mean to. They constantly whine so that the next species won’t be made extinct by hunting.
Wa, What was that? Hunting? Are you saying that humans and their weapons were more powerful than giant beasts? Of course! We are taught as children that most dinosaurs had brains the size of an acorn, so why couldn’t we have simply killed them through over-hunting? The elephant would be dead today, too, if we didn’t care enough to protect it…
How comes that i can’t stay serious after reading city on a hills post?
be nice.
we all sounded like that when we were young.
some of us still do to some degree . . . .
@F_alk:
Well, if I recall correctly, the part where the king argues with the Jews is the longest part of the book. He manages to beat the atheist in his arguement with him.
Well, if written by a Rabbi, both of the above don’t surprise me!
The story was very well known before he wrote it down, he just did so. There were even expeditions to discover if it had actually happened and if the kingdom really existed but I have not read anything about whether they found anything or not.
You should read it F_alk, I think you might like it and the logical arguements would certainly be nice to read.
When you take fossils, the tree of animals, dna and micro-evolution; you get a pretty solid argument for evolution, and against young earth creationist (again, not against old earth creationist, you can only refute their claim by refuting god).
Microevolution does support my claim. Take the laws of thermodynamics. One of which says that everything is degenerating. Micro-evolution comes from mutations. Mutations in these bacteria lead to more virile forms of diseases, which is a degeneration of bacteria. How can millions of years of mutations not lead to complete degeneration, or close to it? How did the mutations keep forming better, more intelligent species? I still hold up the fact that older fossils were found under “younger” fossils. BTW, I’m looking for the info I had on that. Believe or not, I never thought I would be involved with debating like this, so I didn’t write down every reference I ever had. But I haven’t forgotten whoever’s request it was for a reference of where I got this info. As for the animal tree, all I can say is that someone’s mind was pretty creative. And since I know you’re expecting this, I’ll say it. “Maybe God just wanted to use similar parts on all His creations.” :) Hey, I don’t have answers for everything yet.
Oh, science is based on observation, right? Just clarifying.
A “Young Earth” is a sorry excuse for a theory. Via Half-life (Carbon 14) dating, we can easily show fossils to be 100+ Million years old. We know that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, almost to the dot. The reason that we do not have the complete and total fossil record of all pre-humans is simple. Fossils are not easy to come by. 99.9% of remains are simply destroyed. The others are hidden. It takes time and money to uncover these remains. Had the Christian church not been a roadblock in the 19th Century, our understanding of Human evolution would have increased tenfold.
A “Young Earth” is a sorry excuse for a theory. Via Half-life (Carbon 14) dating, we can easily show fossils to be 100+ Million years old. We know that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, almost to the dot. The reason that we do not have the complete and total fossil record of all pre-humans is simple. Fossils are not easy to come by. 99.9% of remains are simply destroyed. The others are hidden. It takes time and money to uncover these remains. Had the Christian church not been a roadblock in the 19th Century, our understanding of Human evolution would have increased tenfold.
please. it was not just the Christian church, however other scientists at the time as well.
w.r.t. the fossil record - could it not be covered by layers of sediment as a result from the flood? Carbon 14 was considered unreliable prior to 6000 years ago by the one who developed the testing.
Carbon 14 was considered unreliable within 6,000 years ago (probably more like 10,000) because the minute differences in radioactive decay are very hard to measure in the quanities that are required.
You should read it F_alk, I think you might like it and the logical arguements would certainly be nice to read.
I don’t know if it’s the case with that book, but most argument by Theist are based on the same pattern; first cause, morale, need a designer or the good old “believe or burn”.
@F_alk:
Microevolution does support my claim. Take the laws of thermodynamics. One of which says that everything is degenerating.
It does not say that.
How can millions of years of mutations not lead to complete degeneration, or close to it? How did the mutations keep forming better, more intelligent species?
Because the earth is not a closed system and the sun provides the energy that is needed for a non-closed system to decrease its entropy on cost of the sun.
Wow ! We got this deformation very often, i wonder… is the Evolutions vs Creations debate still going on in north america ? I don’t know about f_alk but i never heard about that here, the debate is finish. And if i consider how often we heard about deformation of thermodynamic here, i can only wonder how much money christians are putting into propaganda. Anyway, when i child is growing, he is’nt violating the law of thermodynamic ? (By Creanist standards)
Is their a scientist promoting this… thing ? I would gladly take a look to his mathematical proof (i doupt he have one).
Wow ! We got this deformation very often, i wonder… is the Evolutions vs Creations debate still going on in north america ? I don’t know about f_alk but i never heard about that here, the debate is finish. And if i consider how often we heard about deformation of thermodynamic here, i can only wonder how much money christians are putting into propaganda. Anyway, when i child is growing, he is’nt violating the law of thermodynamic ? (By Creanist standards)
Is their a scientist promoting this… thing ? I would gladly take a look to his mathematical proof (i doupt he have one).
do they debate things in Europe? Do they consider all sides to an issue before going about with the latest “fad” in any respect? Is one study enough? Is some evidence law?
And this is not so much a deformation of thermodynamics rather than simply forgetting that we are not in a closed system. We do not try to “prove” creation by intentionally violating Newtonian laws, so much as test evolution by means and tools at our disposal. But i guess that since Europeans feel that there is no need to test and debate new theories once an arbitrarily determined amount of evidence has been revealled, then they are obviously more scientific than us, and obviously not as subjected to nearly as much “Christian propaganda”.
(naturally i feel the opposite - that we - at least in my circles - are extremely scientific in nearly all respects - particularly with regards to physics, chemistry and biological sciences, as well as their real-life applications, particularly in aerospace and medicine. Mind you, what do we know?)
@cystic:
do they debate things in Europe? Do they consider all sides to an issue before going about with the latest “fad” in any respect? Is one study enough? Is some evidence law?
And this is not so much a deformation of thermodynamics rather than simply forgetting that we are not in a closed system. We do not try to “prove” creation by intentionally violating Newtonian laws, so much as test evolution by means and tools at our disposal. But i guess that since Europeans feel that there is no need to test and debate new theories once an arbitrarily determined amount of evidence has been revealled, then they are obviously more scientific than us, and obviously not as subjected to nearly as much “Christian propaganda”.
(naturally i feel the opposite - that we - at least in my circles - are extremely scientific in nearly all respects - particularly with regards to physics, chemistry and biological sciences, as well as their real-life applications, particularly in aerospace and medicine. Mind you, what do we know?)
do they debate things in Europe ?
Sure we have debates, but no, I’ve never heard debate Evolutionism vs Creationism, nor debates about geocentrism vs heliocentrism, maybe those debates exist but I’m just not in the “right” place. I’ve heard debate about blacks holes, about how evolution occur (movement in the theory of complexity), the number 0, well, about lots of things, but about the flood or creationism ? wow ! But maybe as the bible said the earth is flat we should question that too, we could invite the President of the Flat Earth Society to a conference, no ? You said YOURSELF the bible was not a science book, religion and science should never cooperate as long as religion cannot make a solid argument for the existance of god, and not a little anthropomorphic argument, a deep and logical argument. Otherwise we have no reason to listen to every religious people, and their story about a virgin having a child, a god raping another god, zombie walking in the street or shaman casting curse. Fanatics that believe the bible is true because it’s true will probably not help science a lots by making “omissions” and deformation. Even in a science as far as religion as math I can give you exemple were christians and dogmatic people like Pythagoras (he think he was the son of a god, sound familiar) slow down science.
I see nothing to debate about the issue. I have yet to see a single non-religious arguement to deny evolution. I have not seen a single spec of proof showing a Young-Earth. Christian (And Jewish/Islaamic) Religious theory is no different from Norse, Hindu, Greek, Egyptian, Chineese, or Aztecian lore. Evolution is unbiased and proven by factual evidence.
Fisternis/Falk/Yanny?GeZe, why does evolution contradict creationism?
did I hear my name?
Quote:
Oh, science is based on observation, right? Just clarifying.
Yes, it is… while faith is based on believing… and i put my trust on seeing approaching cars or no approaching cars before i cross a street… and not on whether i believe there are any or none.
then please tell me who actually witnessed macro-evolution? has someone watched an ape turn into a human? or a fish turn into a frog? all your “facts” are based on geological evidence that can be interpreted either way.
and where did the first elements come from? do you assume that they were pre-existent like Creationists say God is? because the only difference between your elements and my God is that my God is supernatural.
so, in conclusion, your belief in evolution is only faith.
dIfrenT wrote:
Microevolution does support my claim. Take the laws of thermodynamics. One of which says that everything is degenerating.
It does not say that.
then please enlighten (in slightly simpler terms than you may otherwise use because i always look at this forum when i’m tired from school) me on what it does say.
But maybe as the bible said the earth is flat we should question that too
please tell me where it says this, and don’t take the reference out of context.
Even in a science as far as religion as math I can give you exemple were christians and dogmatic people like Pythagoras (he think he was the son of a god, sound familiar) slow down science.
please, do give an example.
You said YOURSELF the bible was not a science book, religion and science should never cooperate as long as religion cannot make a solid argument for the existance of god, and not a little anthropomorphic argument, a deep and logical argument.
as long as we have to give a deep, logical argument for a pre-existent God, you’re obligated to give us a deep, logical argument for pre-existent elements or whatever it was that evolved into more and more complex organisms.
Christian (And Jewish/Islaamic) Religious theory is no different from Norse, Hindu, Greek, Egyptian, Chineese, or Aztecian lore. Evolution is unbiased and proven by factual evidence.
there is a difference. you could give some evidence for this instead of offering nothing but a dogmatic statement. you get into some doctrinal differences here, but i know you don’t want to talk about that.
Anyway, when i child is growing, he is’nt violating the law of thermodynamic ? (By Creanist standards)
no. from the time a child is conceived he/she is growing older. his/her system is already developing flaws that will show up sooner or later.
there is a difference. you could give some evidence for this instead of offering nothing but a dogmatic statement. you get into some doctrinal differences here, but i know you don’t want to talk about that.
Go ahead, explain
then please tell me who actually witnessed macro-evolution? has someone watched an ape turn into a human? or a fish turn into a frog? all your “facts” are based on geological evidence that can be interpreted either way.
Naked Mole Rat
please tell me where it says this, and don’t take the reference out of context.
Rev 7.1; Reference to the “four corners of the earth”. I don’t know if creationist have sphere with corners (not that i would be surprised), but i don’t. If the context is changing the way to interpret please say me why…
Luke 4:5 - Jesus sees “all the kingdoms of the worlds”.
Even in a science as far as religion as math I can give you exemple were christians and dogmatic people like Pythagoras (he think he was the son of a god, sound familiar) slow down science.
please, do give an example.
Kronecker, he believe all irrational numbers were abobination, he believe “god” was in natural number. He make several move to stop Cantor from being admit to the university of berlin, cantor finish his live in a mental hospital, he was one of the best mathematican. Time prove Cantor was right.
Aristotle (most christians philosopher base their philosophy on his); he believe infinity and zero were abomination, even if his logic was flawed he simply could’nt accept it. The christian church condem the 0 and the concept of infinity, so we, occidental, suffured from a big slowdown, while the arab and the indian were advancing.
there is a difference. you could give some evidence for this instead of offering nothing but a dogmatic statement. you get into some doctrinal differences here, but i know you don’t want to talk about that.
Anyway, even if creationism was real (and there’s nothing exept the bible to caution it), the finnish mythology would explain it better. Mountain were formed by the blood of the troll, and species too (it could explain why our DNA is so close).
no. from the time a child is conceived he/she is growing older. his/her system is already developing flaws that will show up sooner or later.
it’s not about flaws, it’s about entropy. We have some cells in a warm liquid, then tada, 9 month year later, we got a beautiful baby, but it’s not a closed system ! Thermodynamic is’nt magic, it’s a differential equation. Anyway, we are not a closed system, like f_alk said.
FinsterniS, it appears that your arguement against God is limited not to god himself, but to Christianity. If you successfully win the arguement against Christianity, and perhaps do a little research on some other religions, then you can attempt to argue agianst them. AS it stands, it appears you are attempting to paste Christian beliefs and ideals onto other religions.
then please tell me who actually witnessed macro-evolution? has someone watched an ape turn into a human? or a fish turn into a frog? all your “facts” are based on geological evidence that can be interpreted either way.
Naked Mole Rat.
big non-hairy deal. that’s like “canola”
please tell me where it says this, and don’t take the reference out of context.
Rev 7.1; Reference to the “four corners of the earth”. I don’t know if creationist have sphere with corners (not that i would be surprised), but i don’t. If the context is changing the way to interpret please say me why…
Not fair. This was a way to make things simple and relevant to the people of that day - people who did not see the earth as a near-sphere, but people who dealt with what they saw and understood. This was not meant to be a geographical standard that people need to adhere to. Once again, the bible is not a scientific document. Much of it is written in metaphors and simple, occassionally poetic language. Refering to the “4 corners of the earth” as being a foolhardy statement is like trashing a poet for coining “to the ends of the earth”, “from the bottom of my heart” “to the pit of my stomach” (it’s not a pit, but more of a greater curviture).
Luke 4:5 - Jesus sees “all the kingdoms of the worlds”…
again metaphor. Jesus didn’t say that the world was flat, but the quote (which you took out of context) goes that the devil showed him “all the kingdoms of earth in a moment of time”. A “moment of time” implies that a special device was used to show Jesus this as otherwise it wouldn’t be possible.
Even in a science as far as religion as math I can give you exemple were christians and dogmatic people like Pythagoras (he think he was the son of a god, sound familiar) slow down science.
please, do give an example.
Kronecker, he believe all irrational numbers were abobination, he believe “god” was in natural number. He make several move to stop Cantor from being admit to the university of berlin, cantor finish his live in a mental hospital, he was one of the best mathematican. Time prove Cantor was right.
Aristotle (most christians philosopher base their philosophy on his); he believe infinity and zero were abomination, even if his logic was flawed he simply could’nt accept it. The christian church condem the 0 and the concept of infinity, so we, occidental, suffured from a big slowdown, while the arab and the indian were advancing…
Again FinsterniS? I don’t get it. this is more of your “A Christian acted like a jerk therefore there is no God” argument. Need i remind you that we may apply this “christians and dogmatic persons slow down science” thing to “Germans killed innocent people by the millions”, or “Communists killed innocent people by the millions”? really. this was pointless
no. from the time a child is conceived he/she is growing older. his/her system is already developing flaws that will show up sooner or later.
it’s not about flaws, it’s about entropy. We have some cells in a warm liquid, then tada, 9 month year later, we got a beautiful baby, but it’s not a closed system ! Thermodynamic is’nt magic, it’s a differential equation. Anyway, we are not a closed system, like f_alk said.
here i agree with you. Christians do not need to “prove” that God created the world. We couldn’t, and using a flawed argument like “thermodynamically it’s not possible” does not help the creationist argument.
Hi,
I came across this anonymous quote on another website, and it struck a chord with me, so I thought I would toss it into the discussion and see what others thought about it. I’m atheist BTW:
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours” - Anonymous
@Anonymous:
Hi,
I came across this anonymous quote on another website, and it struck a chord with me, so I thought I would toss it into the discussion and see what others thought about it. I’m atheist BTW:
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours” - Anonymous
The system logged me out for some reason when I posted this. :evil:
For the last 2000 years, Christianity has been the biggest burden upon science in Earth’s history. Judaism was never big enough to impede science. Islam greatly advanced all sciences as we know them today. Until the Christians took over, the Greeks were at the pinacle of science and philopsophy. The Chineese were able to develope countless things (Gunpowder) with the help of their religion.
However, the Christians have hampered science everywhere. It was the Christians who almost ended Western Science as a practice in the Dark Ages (except for Alchemists). Any new idea of science was immediately deemed herecy and the people behind it were punished. Anyone with the slightest experimental curiosity was accused of witchcraft.
Significant Scientific advances have only come when the Church fell from power.
