NationStates Jolt Archive

Very simply, explain in reasonable and rationable terms, what your argument for creationism is. I don't want criticisms of creationism or evolutionism (although that will probably be a vain hope), I just want a simple, clear and rational explanation of your beliefs.

get ready for a hundred pages of "why evolution is wrong." Creationists don't actually try to support their own theory, they just labor under the misconception that disproving evolution (which they are unable to do) would prove their own personal myth must be right.

get ready for a hundred pages of "why evolution is wrong." Creationists don't actually try to support their own theory, they just labor under the misconception that disproving evolution (which they are unable to do) would prove their own personal myth must be right.
According to their beliefs, that's all they need to do. The Catholics, for example, believe science and the Bible should nver contradict. So, if science contradicts the Bible, then science is wrong.

They can accept creationism as true, without scientific proof, because it's accepted on faith. But if someone puts forth a scientific theory which contradicts their beliefs, it's their obligation to prove it wrong.

According to their beliefs, that's all they need to do. The Catholics, for example, believe science and the Bible should nver contradict. So, if science contradicts the Bible, then science is wrong.

They can accept creationism as true, without scientific proof, because it's accepted on faith. But if someone puts forth a scientific theory which contradicts their beliefs, it's their obligation to prove it wrong.
and, naturally, they never feel the need to establish why their particular Creation myth is more believable than the hundreds of other myths that have been generated.

such lazy, cowardly minds...it makes me so sad.

and, naturally, they never feel the need to establish why their particular Creation myth is more believable than the hundreds of other myths that have been generated.

such lazy, cowardly minds...it makes me so sad.
They don't need to. It's faith. You're judging them based on your own assumptions, from your own point-of-view. In life, we all are forced to make assumptions. You assume that the truth comes from objective scientific study. They assume that the Bible is infallibly true, and that all science should be done from that standpoint.

It's not going to happen, and here's why:
Creationism stems from Religion
Religion is based on believing half-thruths and generations old legends of people with super powers.
Another problem is that evolution's ideals require a bit of trust in the scientific community. It isn't set in stone, just like all scientific theories are. However, in order for creationists to stop believing in their respective stories of creationism, they are going to need something better than a flimsy theory that seems to disprove itself as much as it proves itself.
I believe in evolution, as an ideal. However there aren't explanations about how the actual evolving comes about (random mutation is rubbish, I'm sorry...), so until then we're just going to have to keep analysing archealogical finds until we find some more solid reasonings behind our theory. And until then, creationists are going to stick with their theories, and frankly I dont blame them.

Seriously though, who gives a crap who thinks what about how we came about... I think there are more pressing issues of environmental sustainability and finding solutions to the problems in society. Give it up, dude.

They don't need to. It's faith.

they do if they want to engage in adult discussions. if they don't, that's fine...they can go sit at the kiddy table and tell fairy tales as much as they like.

You're judging them based on your own assumptions, from your own point-of-view. In life, we all are forced to make assumptions. You assume that the truth comes from objective scientific study.

i do? wow, how amazing that you would know that about me, when i myself was under the mistaken impression that i was agnostic and therefore fully aware of the limitations of scientific materialism.


They assume that the Bible is infallibly true, and that all science should be done from that standpoint.
i don't care about that. what i care about is that they insist their "theory" is scientific when it simply is not; it can be their myth, they can believe in it, and they can think it's Right with a capital "R," but until they present and defend it as a scientific theory they are lying when they claim that's what it is.

they do if they want to engage in adult discussions. if they don't, that's fine...they can go sit at the kiddy table and tell fairy tales as much as they like.
...From.. your point-of-view.

i do? wow, how amazing that you would know that about me, when i myself was under the mistaken impression that i was agnostic and therefore fully aware of the limitations of scientific materialism.
Okay, then. You assume that some truth comes from objective scientific study.

Besides, there is no such thing as a true agnostic or nihilist unless you're insane.

For example, Descartes' famous proof for existence was, "I think, therefore I am." But in that statement, he assumes his thoughts exist in reality and that they aren't an illusion or what he doesn't percieve them to be. In other words, to clarify it, he said, "I think I think, therefore I am." That's not a valid argument.

You have no 'objective' proof of reality. You have no 'objective' proof that truth or objectivity even exists. But, for sake of understanding the world, you assume they do. Christians make assumptions too, just as Jews and Muslims do. They make different assumptions. Although, to you or me, they seem ridiculous, it's important to examine them from their own point-of-view, than yours.

i don't care about that. what i care about is that they insist their "theory" is scientific when it simply is not; it can be their myth, they can believe in it, and they can think it's Right with a capital "R," but until they present and defend it as a scientific theory they are lying when they claim that's what it is.
And reality is your myth. Can you prove it? No. Can you disprove all the other myths, about what reality might be? This could be a dream, or a demon making us see things which aren't true. You don't know. You can't prove it, and you can't disprove all the other myths, either. But you make reasonable assumptions. To them, their assumptions are just as reasonable.

WHO GIVES A FRUCTOSE FROSTED, FLYING FUCK?

Nobody!

It doesn't effect anybody, in any way, how one group of people think the Earth's species came into being.
You're all debating over stupid little insignificant technicalities to try and find a solution to a 'problem' that doesn't matter, which is never going to happen. There will always be conflicing ideas until something is found that is completely concrete and hole-proof. Yes, it is wrong when christian governments start meddling with scientific findings that aim to get such a concrete and hole-proof answer, but that's another thing.

Again, there are much more pressing issues to worry about.

If you think, you think, therefore you do exist, since you can't think and not exist since that's illogical. The Cogito only serves to prove that you alone exist, because you cannot think without also existing. Nothing else.

WHO GIVES A FRUCTOSE FROSTED, FLYING FUCK?

Nobody!

It doesn't effect anybody, in any way, how one group of people think the Earth's species came into being.
You're all debating over stupid little insignificant technicalities to try and find a solution to a 'problem' that doesn't matter, which is never going to happen. There will always be conflicing ideas until something is found that is completely concrete and hole-proof. Yes, it is wrong when christian governments start meddling with scientific findings that aim to get such a concrete and hole-proof answer, but that's another thing.

Again, there are much more pressing issues to worry about.

If you aren't interested in this discussion, you're free to leave and go discuss those "more pressing issues".

If you think, you think, therefore you do exist, since you can't think and not exist since that's illogical. The Cogito only serves to prove that you alone exist, because you cannot think without also existing. Nothing else.
Yes, but it only proves that your "thinking" exists. ;)

Let's say you have a sentient computer network which runs across the internet. It thinks, but does it exist? Well, yes, it exists as software through computers, but it has no physical form, even if it was programmed to think that! (Although, you could consider the electrical impulses, representing 1's and 0's, running throughout different computers, to be its "physical form.")

Descartes, and all philosophers, make the assumption that: #1. Logic (rationalism) brings truth. #2. Observation (empiricism) brings truth.

What if neither were true? There is no logical proof to prove logic, and there is no observation to prove observation!

Therefore, we all make assumptions, even Descartes. What separates the agnostic scientist from the Christian is the type of assumptions they make.

But you're attributing things to the Cogito which are not true. The Cogito is very limited in its value. You're saying that a sentient program could think it has a physical form, but may not, and so therefore may not exist. The Cogito isn't supposed to prove physical forums. Decartes tried to do that with the Beeswax (and failed). The Cogito is only able to prove that you think, and so must exist, in some form or another. A machine that can think exists, somewhere, as software. Doesn't need a physical form.

WHO GIVES A FRUCTOSE FROSTED, FLYING FUCK?

Nobody!

It doesn't effect anybody, in any way, how one group of people think the Earth's species came into being.
You're all debating over stupid little insignificant technicalities to try and find a solution to a 'problem' that doesn't matter, which is never going to happen. There will always be conflicing ideas until something is found that is completely concrete and hole-proof. Yes, it is wrong when christian governments start meddling with scientific findings that aim to get such a concrete and hole-proof answer, but that's another thing.

Again, there are much more pressing issues to worry about.
Mind your manners, Mac user. The only reason I don't flame you is that you're from Sydney and like s*p :D

Very simply, explain in reasonable and rationable terms, what your argument for creationism is. I don't want criticisms of creationism or evolutionism (although that will probably be a vain hope), I just want a simple, clear and rational explanation of your beliefs.
I believe in Creationism through Evolutionism. I believe God controls the randomness inherent in the universal physical laws that set Evolution on this path.

But you're attributing things to the Cogito which are not true. The Cogito is very limited in its value. You're saying that a sentient program could think it has a physical form, but may not, and so therefore may not exist. The Cogito isn't supposed to prove physical forums. Decartes tried to do that with the Beeswax (and failed). The Cogito is only able to prove that you think, and so must exist, in some form or another. A machine that can think exists, somewhere, as software. Doesn't need a physical form.
But even so, it's a logical argument and there's no logic to prove logic, or observation to prove observation.

For all we know, our logic is nonsense and our observations are illusions.

But that doesn't matter. Even if our observations are illusions, we must exist, somehow, in order to have those observations.

For example, Descartes' famous proof for existence was, "I think, therefore I am." But in that statement, he assumes his thoughts exist in reality and that they aren't an illusion or what he doesn't percieve them to be. In other words, to clarify it, he said, "I think I think, therefore I am." That's not a valid argument.


No no no no no, Cogito Erto Sum is no my thoughts exist is that my mind exists, the existence of thoughts could be doubted but the state of a concious mind simply cannot.

Edit: i should read on more, other people have made this point, i am teh stupid

But that doesn't matter. Even if our observations are illusions, we must exist, somehow, in order to have those observations.
Nope, because you're basing that statement on "logic." Logic cannot be logically proven, therefore using logic to prove anything, is illogical. You have to accept that we all make reasonable assumptions and, so far, there is no such thing as "objective truth." As the Dalai Lama said, "The only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth."

You can use logic to disprove logic's credibility and while you could consider that contradictory because it destroys your own argument as well, it could also be a paradox that we don't understand. And even so, there is no logical argument to prove logic, either, so it's still accepted to be true without proof. It's a "reasonable assumption."

Nope, because you're basing that statement on "logic." Logic cannot be logically proven, therefore using logic to prove anything, is illogical. You have to accept that we all make reasonable assumptions and, so far, there is no such thing as "objective truth." As the Dalai Lama said, "The only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth."

You can use logic to disprove logic's credibility and while you could consider that contradictory because it destroys your own argument as well, it could also be a paradox that we don't understand. And even so, there is no logical argument to prove logic, either, so it's still accepted to be true without proof. It's a "reasonable assumption."

That’s an oxymoron, logic being illogical, logic in its basic form is math, math such as 3+4= 7 is provable even in a completely rationalist sense, 3 concepts combined with 4 concepts will if seen independently be 7 concepts.

Plus who gives a crap about the Dalai lama, he’s not one millionth the philosopher Descartes was, just a Tibetan monk.

If I'm basing my statement on logic, you're basing all yours on illogic. The Cogito is a priori, meaning it proves itself. It's illogical, and therefore wrong, to say that "I can think, but I don't exist." Since this is false, the converse must be true.

That’s an oxymoron, logic being illogical, logic in its basic form is math, math such as 3+4= 7 is provable even in a completely rationalist sense, 3 concepts combined with 4 concepts will if seen independently be 7 concepts.
And there is no proof that "math" is true. Up until this point, what you have percieved is that reality and science go together, and that many others tell you that it has always been that way. But there is no firsthand, objective proof of that, or even that your current perceptions are true, or that it will stay that way in the future.

There is no proof for logic. You have to assume logic is true.

Plus who gives a crap about the Dalai lama, he’s not one millionth the philosopher Descartes was, just a Tibetan monk.
The Dalai Lama has won the nobel peace prize and his followers claim he is the return of Buddha.

If I'm basing my statement on logic, you're basing all yours on illogic. The Cogito is a priori, meaning it proves itself. It's illogical, and therefore wrong, to say that "I can think, but I don't exist." Since this is false, the converse must be true.
Just because something is false doesn't mean its opposite is true. And I'm not basing my opinion on illogic. I'm basing it on logic, which defeats logic, but while doing that, destroys itself because it defeats all arguments, including the one being used.

I'll write this out, if this'll simplify it for you:

1. I know logic to be true, because I percieve it to be true.
2. My perceptions may be false, therefore logic may be false.

I'll write this out, if this'll simplify it for you:

1. I know logic to be true, because I percieve it to be true.
2. My perceptions may be false, therefore logic may be false.
Sorry, you're using logic, and it may be false, so that might not be true.

Hooray for self-defeating arguments!
:D

Sorry, you're using logic, and it may be false.
Exactly. And not just mine, but theoretically all logic could be false. Got it?

And we determine what is true or false by making basic assumptions, then using reason to move from there.

Hooray for self-defeating arguments!
:D

Let me paste my quote, again.
You can use logic to disprove logic's credibility and while you could consider that contradictory because it destroys your own argument as well, it could also be a paradox that we don't understand. And even so, there is no logical argument to prove logic, either, so it's still accepted to be true without proof. It's a "reasonable assumption."
I am not truly proving all logic wrong, but simply proving that objective truth's existence is "undetermined." Logic may or may not be true. There's no proof for it or against it.

Whether you assume it's valid or not, it has no credibility (if it's false, it's false--if it's true, logic is false, therefore it's false). But it does bring up the uncertainty of logic. There's really no proof for logic. It's just assumed to be true!

...From.. your point-of-view.

um, of course. i am (so far) unable to inhabit other peoples' bodies, so my point of view is the only one i've got.

Okay, then. You assume that some truth comes from objective scientific study.

no, actually i don't.


Besides, there is no such thing as a true agnostic or nihilist unless you're insane.

i'm not a nihilist, but i am a true agnostic. no medical or psychological professional has ever found me to be insane, but if you--an annonymous stranger over the internet--diagnoses me as mentally ill then who am i to question?


For example, Descartes' famous proof for existence was, "I think, therefore I am." But in that statement, he assumes his thoughts exist in reality and that they aren't an illusion or what he doesn't percieve them to be. In other words, to clarify it, he said, "I think I think, therefore I am." That's not a valid argument.

i don't especially like Descartes' philosophical material, so i'm not about to waste time defending it.


You have no 'objective' proof of reality. You have no 'objective' proof that truth or objectivity even exists. But, for sake of understanding the world, you assume they do.

not quite. i assume certain "objective" realities because i realize that, as a human, i cannot function in my practical life unless i make those assumptions. however, i am always aware of the fact that they are ONLY assumptions, and that i have no True reason to believe that my assumed "reality" is actually the objective reality.


Christians make assumptions too, just as Jews and Muslims do. They make different assumptions. Although, to you or me, they seem ridiculous, it's important to examine them from their own point-of-view, than yours.

i consider all supernatural assumptions equally ridiculous, and most of them slightly more ridiculous than an empirical philosophy, for the single reason that empiricism may be evaluated on the terms it defines; religion and supersition cannot be evaluated at all, even on its own terms, so i believe it is less useful and less practical to believe in it. that's just my opinion, and i don't especially care if you disagree with it, because i am not at all interested in compelling you to agree with my perspective.


And reality is your myth. Can you prove it? No. Can you disprove all the other myths, about what reality might be? This could be a dream, or a demon making us see things which aren't true. You don't know. You can't prove it, and you can't disprove all the other myths, either. But you make reasonable assumptions. To them, their assumptions are just as reasonable.
yes, and to a schizophrenic their halucinations are just as reasonable. to a child, belief in the Tooth Fairy is perfectly reasonable. i give religion the same regard i would give these other beliefs. why should i grant it special treatment? i grant non-superstitious beliefs slightly more credance because they can at least be tested or verified with methods other than human opinion and belief, but that doesn't mean i assume that these empirical or "objective" qualities are True or Real in the larger sense.

i'm sure most people fall into the black-or-white categories you envision, but i don't happen to fit them. you may not believe it is possible to be a true agnostic, but your belief does not unmake reality. :)

Very simply, explain in reasonable and rationable terms, what your argument for creationism is. I don't want criticisms of creationism or evolutionism (although that will probably be a vain hope), I just want a simple, clear and rational explanation of your beliefs.(posted on another thread... but why the heck not...)
Intelligent Design and the Human computer thread got me thinking one night... ok it was last night. The thread about the human body being a computer made me think about some similarities between us and the computer/technologies of today.

Let’s start with the power supply...
Computers & Robotics need electricity... without it, performance... well there is none.

Humans need food, water and oxygen to produce the 'bioelectric' energy needed to function properly... deny any of these and performance starts to go down.

Internal workings.
CPU:
Computers & Robotics have a processor that calculates and regulates the information given to the CPU.

Humans have brains... it's our CPU... our processor so to speak.

Circuitry:
Computers & Robotics wires, cables and integrated circuits are everywhere in the pc.

Humans have the Nervous system, a complex series of ‘wires’ that relay information to our CPU (Brain)

Cooling System:
Computers & Robotics have fans inside… some larger systems use water or temperature controlled Air Units. Should the system get to Hot, performance goes down.

Humans have sweat and our Respiratory systems… these are used to regulate heat keeping us in operational temperatures.

Input Devices.
Computers & Robotics Floppy Drives, Keyboards, Microphones, touch pads/screens, optical cameras/scanners…

Humans Taste, Touch, Sight, Hearing, Smell… Our Input Devices….

Memory
Computers & Robotics depends on how much we install.

Humans depends on how much we train ours…

Storage devices.
Computers & Robotics Hard drive, and external storage methods such as Diskettes, CD, Tapes, punch cards…

Humans our brain, and external Storage methods such as Paper and writing implement, Tapes, CD, Computers…

Output Devices
Computers & Robotics Monitors, Printers, Speakers and Disks (CD and otherwise.)

Humans Speech, writing, motions…

Protection
Computers & Robotics MacAfee… Norton’s…

Humans Immune system…

Structure
Computers & Robotics have their cases, their superstructure…

Humans have bones and skin.

Articulation.
Computers & Robotics joints and servos…

Humans muscles and Joints.

Programming
Computers & Robotics what ever the programmer puts in.

Humans school anyone?

Form
Computers & Robotics function biased form. Over the centuries, we design computers and Robots to perform specific duties… different ‘versions’ are being worked on each day. Robots designed to paint cars cannot do the same as robots designed for healthcare or for under sea exploration. Computers are getting faster and smaller with each new ‘generation’… also man is constantly trying to build Robots in a humanoid form. But first starting with animal/insect like bodies and are slowly working their way up the ladder.

Humans and other life on this planet are also function oriented. People who live in higher climates are physically different than people who live in valleys… for instance, their lung capacity is different. Each Generation of ‘Humans’ are living longer. Evolution can be said to be earlier versions of the current form. As each form fails in its trial… it becomes obsolete… or extinct. And in the case of Christians… are we not ‘made’ in God’s Image? For some of the others, Man is the highest form one can achieve on earth.

Reasoning.
Computers & Robotics every year we hear more and more of A.I. becoming reality. Video Games and Movies utilize computers that react in a more ‘human’ like method. Programmers are programming Robots to react to their environment… adapt and ‘learn’ through outside stimulus… Wi-Fi/remote allows the exchange of information without the need for cables… and each new ‘program’ teaches the Robot something new.

Humans *whistles*

We talk about Robots building/programming Robots… artificial Humans… Bio-ware… A.I. … how would the Ultimate Robot view us… as their creator? Or a foiled evolutionary path? We go through different Versions of computers… (TSR 80’s anyone?) And each new version is different than the last… what about the evolution of Life… could it not be said that each ‘version’ is a bench mark in the creation of life on Earth? We create Computers and Robots with a sophistication that almost rivals the human body, yet believe that we, ourselves are a product of chance?

get ready for a hundred pages of "why evolution is wrong." Creationists don't actually try to support their own theory, they just labor under the misconception that disproving evolution (which they are unable to do) would prove their own personal myth must be right.
Arrr, I see a shitstorm in the distance, 60 pages long! Arrr.

I'll write this out, if this'll simplify it for you:

1. I know logic to be true, because I percieve it to be true.

Thanks for that simplification, now we can see in simple terms why your viewpoint is so screwed up.

Perceiving something to be true is not a REASON to know it's true, it's a CONSEQUENCE of being exposed to such a reason.

And as for the rest of your statements they border on (if they are not simply outright) solipsism... the single most worthless exercise in philosophical thumb-twiddling ever dreamed up by someone with too much time on their hands who couldn't think of anything worthwhile to do. "Gee.. let's just imagine up the single most unfalsifiable scenario possible and then run around telling everyone that they can't prove it's wrong, therefore it undermines all other rational thought."

Hoorah. What an accomplishment.

Hey, I've got one! You can't prove there are no invisible undetectable fairies holding together all the atoms in your body who will just go on strike one day and cause you to disintegrate if you do something that makes them unhappy... and you also can't prove that they don't communicate their wishes to me and only me through magical telepathy. Therefore it's not irrational of you to do everything I say for the rest of your life to avoid the possibility of being reduced to your constituent atoms. My "viewpoint" is just as valid as any other and you can't say differently. I just have different "perceptions" than you do. Who cares if it can't be backed up by a shred of objective verifiable evidence anyway?

:rolleyes:

Thanks for that simplification, now we can see in simple terms why your viewpoint is so screwed up.

Perceiving something to be true is not a REASON to know it's true, it's a CONSEQUENCE of being exposed to such a reason.

And as for the rest of your statements they border on (if they are not simply outright) solipsism... the single most worthless exercise in philosophical thumb-twiddling ever dreamed up by someone with too much time on their hands who couldn't think of anything worthwhile to do. "Gee.. let's just imagine up the single most unfalsifiable scenario possible and then running around telling everyone that they can't prove it's wrong, therefore it undermines all other rational thought."

Hoorah. What an accomplishment.

Hey, I've got one! You can't prove there are no invisible undetectable fairies holding together all the atoms in your body who will just go on strike one day and cause you to disintegrate if you do something that makes them unhappy... and you also can't prove that they don't communicate their wishes to me and only me through magical telepathy. Therefore it's not irrational of you to do everything I say for the rest of your life to avoid the possibility of being reduced to your constituent atoms. My "viewpoint" is just as valid as any other and you can't say differently. I just have different "perceptions" than you do. Who cares if it can't be backed up by a shred of objective verifiable evidence anyway?

:rolleyes:ok... name something created by "evolution" and I'll back it up with creationism.

ok... name something created by "evolution" and I'll back it up with creationism.

Is that a joke?

Ok fine, for a recent example the brand new enzyme created by a frame shift mutation in Flavobacterium Sp. K172 that allows it to digest nylon.

For a less recent example... EVERY SPECIES ON THE PLANET.

fossils?

Is that a joke?

Ok fine, for a recent example the brand new enzyme created by a frame shift mutation in Flavobacterium Sp. K172 that allows it to digest nylon.

For a less recent example... EVERY SPECIES ON THE PLANET.mutation and evolution...
let's look at an example of intelligent design shall we.

Life. dinosaurs... big, dumb, not very adaptable to their enviornment.
the Automobile was a clunky slow object... barely faster than the horse.

As time moves on, Life evolves according to their enviroment... the Ice Age gave Mammals the advantage. Man, with their opposable Thumbs and larger craniums became the domninate life form.

As time goes on... cars became faster, more fuel efficent, during war, they were designed to go where there were no paved roads, to withstand hardships no vehicle should endure. the Evolution of the Car (or anything man makes) can run parallel to life. so why is the Idea of a "grand Engineer" or supreme being difficult to grasp?

look at a car today and the first horseless carrage and you'll see almost the same differences when you see prehistoric man and the modern 'Version'. the difference? we designed and improved on the Automobile. God (or whomever you wish) designed and improved on all Living Things. Every object you can claim to have 'evolved' has a path most man-made objects follow... the same for the creatures that haven't 'Evolved'

Mutations can be seen as a new version... a 'Beta' if you will... if it works, then the Mutation becomes the norm... if it doesn't, then it's scrapped. same with new innovations... if they work (and are desireable) then it stays... if not... well they go the way of Smell-O-Vision.

simplistic explination, childish concepts but isn't the concept that only man can create something abit... egotistic?

Creationlism is not excluding Evolution. it just says that someone did the designing... the creating... the improving.

To me, Science is explaining the "how"... not that God didn't do it... but How did God do it...

Life. dinosaurs... big, dumb, not very adaptable to their enviornment

Dinosaurs were well adapted to their environment, very intelligent (for non humans of course), and some were as only big as house cats. The only reason they died out (although it is very possible they evolved in to birds as well) was because of some kind of disaster/climate shift/disease etc. that killed them. The ascendance of mammals was due to sheer luck. Had the diosaurs not been removed from dominance by external forces, the mammals and therefore man would have never evolved, let alone rise to dominance.

According to their beliefs, that's all they need to do. The Catholics, for example, believe science and the Bible should nver contradict. So, if science contradicts the Bible, then science is wrong.

They can accept creationism as true, without scientific proof, because it's accepted on faith. But if someone puts forth a scientific theory which contradicts their beliefs, it's their obligation to prove it wrong.

You're wrong about the Catholic thing. Most Catholics accept Evolution is a tool of God, and that the Bible should not always be taken literally. I should know, I used to be one. It's Protestants that believe the words of the Bible are to be taken literally....that is, unless they contradict each other, and then they make some absurd rationalization.

Dinosaurs were well adapted to their environment, very intelligent (for non humans of course), and some were as only big as house cats. The only reason they died out (although it is very possible they evolved in to birds as well) was because of some kind of disaster/climate shift/disease etc. that killed them. The ascendance of mammals was due to sheer luck. Had the diosaurs not been removed from dominance by external forces, the mammals and therefore man would have never evolved, let alone rise to dominance.good opinion... but because the Dinosaurs died (they were killed off.... how, no one knows yet) means that in some aspects they failed... but from them, gave rise to the Reptiles and Birds and even the Mammals.

whether or not Man would still be the Dominate form, is open for debate. but I believe we still would be. we are not the largest life form, nor the strongest, or the fastest. heck, I'll admit we are not the most wise. but we are the dominate life form on this planet.

Funny how not one single person answered the origional topic


Actually, I guess the one about AI vs. human intellegance came closest, though that's really a whole nother topic

To recap, make sure I didn't miss anything:
1. We've established the question is flawed (asks for reasoning to explain blind faith)
2. We've established a fascinating discussion about paradoxes, logic, and the nature of reality which has absolutly nothing to do with creationism
3. We've got a nifty comparison between humans and AI
4. We've got someone doing exactly what the origional poster asked us not to do: defending creationism by attacking evolution

good opinion... but because the Dinosaurs could not adapt (they were killed off.... how, no one knows yet) means that in some aspects they failed... but from them, gave rise to the Reptiles and Birds and even the Mammals.

I still wonder if they did, or if they evolved in to birds. The debate seems to see-saw between yes and no, but I recently saw an article in discover that presented some new evidence, including a feathered dinosaur. I'll see if I can find it.

Funny how not one single person answered the origional topic


Actually, I guess the one about AI vs. human intellegance came closest, though that's really a whole nother topic

To recap, make sure I didn't miss anything:
1. We've established the question is flawed (asks for reasoning to explain blind faith)
2. We've established a fascinating discussion about paradoxes, logic, and the nature of reality which has absolutly nothing to do with creationism
3. We've got a nifty comparison between humans and AI
4. We've got someone doing exactly what the origional poster asked us not to do: defending creationism by attacking evolutionMy apologies if it seem that I was attacking Evolution... I was trying to show that Evolution proves how it was done, not that it happened without a guiding hand. I support Evolution and Creationism equally.
If point 4 was not about my arguments, then my apologies again.

Man, some of this shit is DEEP.

Yeah.

Just thought I had to get that out.

And I asked for a thread where the two beliefs didnt critise each other. So much for that...Go ahead tear each others throat out. Not that you need my permission. Happy hunting.

I still wonder if they did, or if they evolved in to birds. The debate seems to see-saw between yes and no, but I recently saw an article in discover that presented some new evidence, including a feathered dinosaur. I'll see if I can find it.I read those... interesting reading...
and boy did it turn the paleotolgy (sp) world on it's ear.

And I asked for a thread where the two beliefs didnt critise each other. So much for that...Go ahead tear each others throat out. Not that you need my permission. Happy hunting.Hard to do when the Fanatics on both sides calls the other 'Rubbish' :rolleyes:

My apologies if it seem that I was attacking Evolution... I was trying to show that Evolution proves how it was done, not that it happened without a guiding hand. I support Evolution and Creationism equally.
If point 4 was not about my arguments, then my apologies again.

I was actually being rather sarcastic. Thing is, it's a fascinating debate... but it's not what the thread was created to be about. Far as I can tell, they were looking for CREATIONISTS, not supporters of Guided Evolution, which is (in my view) similar but not the same. I think they wanted someone to explain how anyone still belives the 7-literal-day thing.

EDIT: some may ask why I care. I was actually interested in that topic, and I click the thread to find...nothing on it at all.

good opinion... but because the Dinosaurs died (they were killed off.... how, no one knows yet) means that in some aspects they failed... but from them, gave rise to the Reptiles and Birds and even the Mammals.

whether or not Man would still be the Dominate form, is open for debate. but I believe we still would be. we are not the largest life form, nor the strongest, or the fastest. heck, I'll admit we are not the most wise. but we are the dominate life form on this planet.

mammals and dinosaurs came from a common anscestor, but mammals are not from dinosaurs. also, dinosaurs came from reptiles, not the other way around. the only thing you said that came from dinosaurs that actually did was the birds, except they're still dinosaurs(according to some variations of phylogeny). and with the huge amount of human species that there used to be, i think it was very unlikely for homo sapiens sapiens to be the one that survived.

mammals and dinosaurs came from a common anscestor, but mammals are not from dinosaurs. also, dinosaurs came from reptiles, not the other way around. the only thing you said that came from dinosaurs that actually did was the birds, except they're still dinosaurs(according to some variations of phylogeny). and with the huge amount of human species that there used to be, i think it was very unlikely for homo sapiens sapiens to be the one that survived.

Well when all the other homo sapiens and erectus and crap where eating berries and using stones to kill stuff homo sapiens sapiens, sat in his cave sharpening his stone headed spears

Watching....

Waiting....


No really we rule, we had the best tools, so we won.

I read those... interesting reading...

I agree. Paleontology will be changing a lot more now than it did before. With all of the advances in computers, DNA/RNA analysis, and new finds it will be volatile for a while.

Oh, and in regard to this thread:

I support evolution, both macro and micro, but can not discount the possibility of intelligent design, since it is impossible to either prove or disprove. Still, the one question I have is: how did life begin if there was no intelligent design? Spontaeneous generation has been proven to be impossible, but to fully discredit ID I would have to assume that this is precisely what caused the development of the first life, since the nonliving elements had to come together somehow.

gah....

thats one of the problems with the whole creation/evolution argument.

each side is arguing its own beliefs on its own terms, and they dont quite mesh.

as was said before, creation is argued on religion and faith, and evolution is argued on science.

also, most people have at least a passing familiarity with the bible, while considerably less people have an adequate background in biology to be able to understand many of the evolution counter-counter arguments.

cant remember any of the details, but there have been some experiments done where simple organic monomers can be produced from inorganic compounds, and then the monomers go on to form polymers, etc., etc.

also, as was said above, intelligent design can neither be proven or disproven, and i think a lot of people(myself included) tend to equate creationism with the 7 days thing that supposedly happened, what was it? about 10,000 years ago?

also, as was said above, intelligent design can neither be proven or disproven, and i think a lot of people(myself included) tend to equate creationism with the 7 days thing that supposedly happened, what was it? about 10,000 years ago?

No, it was 4004 BC at 9:00 AM on a Tuesday :rolleyes:

No, it was 4004 BC at 9:00 AM on a Tuesday :rolleyes:September 15th I believe... :D

September 15th I believe...

Oh yeah, I forgot that. :)

According to their beliefs, that's all they need to do. The Catholics, for example, believe science and the Bible should nver contradict. So, if science contradicts the Bible, then science is wrong.

They can accept creationism as true, without scientific proof, because it's accepted on faith. But if someone puts forth a scientific theory which contradicts their beliefs, it's their obligation to prove it wrong.

And is that why they accept evelotution and the big bang theory and i am pretty sure that the pope said that eveloution is right

September 15th I believe... :D
It should be an annual holiday. We could hold a birthday party for the world.

Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday dear wo-orld,
Happy birthday to you

:D

It should be an annual holiday. We could hold a birthday party for the world.



I'd hate to be the person who has to find 4,004 candles, let alone 4.5 billion candles.

Creationists have their own beliefs, and I don't mind. However, their bullshit attempts at destroying scientific facts make me sad.

They say crap like "humans are too complicated to have evolved." What in God's name does that mean? No matter what, religion has no proof whatsoever. It never will, unless 'God' comes up to all the atheists, etc., and says "Hey there! I exist!" :headbang:

I'm sorry about that.

I'd hate to be the person who has to find 4.5 billion candles, let alone lighting them.

4.6 billion.
Although i say the exact age of the earth should be
4,607,732,771 years 34 days 22 hours 1 minute 3 seconds and 5 jiffy's after i post this

I'd hate to be the person who has to find 4,004 candles, let alone 4.5 billion candles.
6,010 candles, surely? Plus, you've got to blow them out all in one breath.

They say crap like "humans are too complicated to have evolved." What in God's name does that mean?

I agree.

Furthermore, that argument is totally inaccurate. Take the virus for example.
It is the simplest "life" (if it can really be considered such), only a strand of genetic data, and yet is can kill the "complicated" human through the use of a complex reproductive process that involves cloning and takong over the RNA of cells. Even the simplest algae have a complex code of strands of DNA that is equally as complex as a human. This argument is both pretentious and inaccurate.

6,010 candles, surely? Plus, you've got to blow them out all in one breath.

The lot of you are wrong
First you have to find
i*e*pi candles, no more, no less
i=the square root of -1
e is the natural log and is irrational
pi is pi
then you have to take a big swig of beer
then you light the candles
take another swig
blow them out in one breath, no more, no less
then you give me all the presents and money
then ill give you the bill

that is how to celebrate the earth's birthday

6,010 candles, surely? Plus, you've got to blow them out all in one breath.

Yes. I mixed them up accidentaly.

According to their beliefs, that's all they need to do. The Catholics, for example, believe science and the Bible should nver contradict. So, if science contradicts the Bible, then science is wrong.

They can accept creationism as true, without scientific proof, because it's accepted on faith. But if someone puts forth a scientific theory which contradicts their beliefs, it's their obligation to prove it wrong.

You obviously arn't up on Catholic church teachings, the Catholic church does not demaned strict literal interpitations of the Bible and accepts that parts such as the creation stories are metaphorical. Its current stance on creation is that science shows the how, and religon the why and it supports evolution as the best explination so far for how it happened, the only real deviance is that the Church sees it as the method God used to creat life, which as far as I can see is neither here nor there.

6,010 candles, surely? Plus, you've got to blow them out all in one breath.Hurricanes... that what they're there for... to BLOW OUT THE CANDLES! :D

The lot of you are wrong
First you have to find
i*e*pi candles, no more, no less
i=the square root of -1
e is the natural log and is irrational
pi is pi
then you have to take a big swig of beer
then you light the candles
take another swig
blow them out in one breath, no more, no less
then you give me all the presents and money
then ill give you the bill

that is how to celebrate the earth's birthday
Beer flavoured cake icing? Eeuw!

I agree.

Furthermore, that argument is totally inaccurate. Take the virus for example.
It is the simplest "life" (if it can really be considered such), only a strand of genetic data, and yet is can kill the "complicated" human through the use of a complex reproductive process that involves cloning and takong over the RNA of cells. Even the simplest algae have a complex code of strands of DNA that is equally as complex as a human. This argument is both pretentious and inaccurate.

Viruses arent alive.
They probably mean that humans sense of reasoning is to hard to occur naturally
I think life is too complicated to occur naturally although i am an eveloutionist.
Where did the monkey come i ask thee. Well monkies come from humans. Where did humans come from? Well when a mommy human and a daddy human really like each other they blow out the candles on their birthday cake in one breath, no more, no less, then the stork brings a pig. The pig lays an egg that hatches into another birthday cake and they blow out the candles in no more then one breath and no less then one breath. That time iff they keep the wish the stork shalt give them a handgrenade. The couple must pull the pin out and throw it killing at least one tree no more maybe one less. The stork shalt get mad and give them a child so the child ruins their life. The stork then comes again and poops on all three of their heaeds.

Okay, so I'm a technical agnostic-with-Christian-leanings. I have completely insane beliefs, but we won't go into them. Here's a way to reconcile 'seven days' with evolution. Ask yourself this question:

How long is a galactic day?

I'm defining that as 'the time it takes our galaxy to spin once'. As I recall, it's somewhere on the order of 20,000 to 100,000 years. Now, if you read the Bible as a corrupted story (It's been translated through /how/ many languages and minds now?) of a Creation spanning seven (or six, if you want to get picky) Galactic Days. Now, working from memory, life didn't appear on earth, according to science, until about two billion years ago. These numbers are getting fairly close together.

Add in the fact that, for it to qualify as a Creation, God has to be actively involved in the process. Assume he sped up the process of random variations aiming towards what we currently have. As I don't /think/ they have accurately-dated billion-year-old fossils -- I could be wrong -- there's no way we can say that /isn't/ true. There's no way to prove it, of course, but a lot of science can't be proven. It's not that hard to make models that will give the same results as what we get here, but then, sometimes they're wrong. Look up the differences between the VSEPR and Molecular Orbital models of atomic bonding to see a classic example.

Of course, it's all a lot more complex than that. To give a short summary: Assume a different definition of 'day', linked with mistranslated Biblical stories. Assume God took the easy route of letting Life do most of the work by itself, and just gave it a kick to get started and a few nudges in the right direction. Then take a look at Genesis again and see that there's actually a few links with current scientific theories. Like, the first animals mentioned are fish. Guess what? Life's supposed to have begun in the seas.

Yeah. I guess that wasn't very clear after all. Ah, well.

Beer flavoured cake icing? Eeuw!
NO not beer flavored icing. Vanilla icing with chocolate cake.

They probably mean that humans sense of reasoning is to hard to occur naturally

Likely, but you can never be sure.

I think life is too complicated to occur naturally although i am an eveloutionist.

I lean to this but cant be 100%. Again, the origins of life raise the question of spontaeneous generation, since this is the only way life could appear without ID from the hydrocarbons of early earth.

Likely, but you can never be sure.



I lean to this but cant be 100%. Again, the origins of life raise the question of spontaeneous generation, since this is the only way life could appear without ID from the hydrocarbons of early earth.

You could at least put my name somewhere in their since you quoted me. Now i am going to cry.

:mad: damn they dont have a crying smiley

mutation and evolution...
let's look at an example of intelligent design shall we.

Oh please, let's.

Life. dinosaurs... big, dumb, not very adaptable to their enviornment.

You don't know a whole lot about dinosaurs do you? some were big... some were small, it's rather difficult to say how intelligent they were... and they were VERY well adapted to their environment.

As time moves on, Life evolves according to their enviroment... the Ice Age gave Mammals the advantage. Man, with their opposable Thumbs and larger craniums became the domninate life form.

As time goes on... cars became faster, more fuel efficent, during war, they were designed to go where there were no paved roads, to withstand hardships no vehicle should endure. the Evolution of the Car (or anything man makes) can run parallel to life. so why is the Idea of a "grand Engineer" or supreme being difficult to grasp?

Nothing about the development of living things over time remotely resembles a design process.

look at a car today and the first horseless carrage and you'll see almost the same differences when you see prehistoric man and the modern 'Version'. the difference? we designed and improved on the Automobile. God (or whomever you wish) designed and improved on all Living Things.

Are you suggesting he screwed up the design the first time then and had to go back to the drawing board over, and over, and OVER for BILLIONS of years trying to figure out what the heck it was he wanted to be doing? AND, instead of learning from his designs and applying fixes to systems across the board like any ACTUAL designer would do he just kind of randomly mixed stuff around to see if it would work or not? For example... our eyes suck. There are animals with FAR better vision than we have so if we were all "designed" then the designer knew how to do it better in a different model. Why didn't he apply that knowledge in our design?

Every object you can claim to have 'evolved' has a path most man-made objects follow

Not even CLOSE. Any object designed by man will over time reflect advances made in WIDELY DISPARATE fields being translated across into other fields. Someone working on one gadget somewhere figures out how to make a more efficient energy source... and then someone making a completely different gadget somewhere else employs those principles to improve his own design... and this happens constantly. But that doesn't happen at all in the development of living things. We only see advances applied WITHIN LINEAGES. If you don't directly inherit a genetic "improvement" from an ancestor you don't have it. Period. The evolution of living things and the progressive design modification of human made objects are completely different processes.

Mutations can be seen as a new version... a 'Beta' if you will... if it works, then the Mutation becomes the norm... if it doesn't, then it's scrapped. same with new innovations... if they work (and are desireable) then it stays... if not... well they go the way of Smell-O-Vision.

I'm sorry, but your suggestion that a supremely powerful and knowledgeable being requires some kind of trial and error RANDOM prototype design and testing procedure to figure out how to make something is pretty absurd.

And what's with the arms race against himself if everything is designed? Why keep "designing" animals with better evasion/camouflage/defense mechanisms... just to turn around and design other animals with better predatory skills... just to turn around and improve the evasion mechanisms again... just to turn around and remodify the predatory mechanisms AGAIN to get past the new and improved defense mechanism HE put there... just to turn around... and on, and on, and on...

What a ridiculously futile exercise that would be.

And what's with the arms race against himself if everything is designed? Why keep "designing" animals with better evasion/camouflage/defense mechanisms... just to turn around and design other animals with better predatory skills... just to turn around and improve the evasion mechanisms again... just to turn around and remodify the predatory mechanisms AGAIN to get past the new and improved defense mechanism HE put there... just to turn around... and on, and on, and on...

What a ridiculously futile exercise that would be.

Maybe he's bored and its all just a game like SIMLife :D (That was an awsome game, smite kicked ass)

Oh please, let's.



You don't know a whole lot about dinosaurs do you? some were big... some were small, it's rather difficult to say how intelligent they were... and they were VERY well adapted to their environment.



Nothing about the development of living things over time remotely resembles a design process.



Are you suggesting he screwed up the design the first time then and had to go back to the drawing board over, and over, and OVER for BILLIONS of years trying to figure out what the heck it was he wanted to be doing? AND, instead of learning from his designs and applying fixes to systems across the board like any ACTUAL designer would do he just kind of randomly mixed stuff around to see if it would work or not? For example... our eyes suck. There are animals with FAR better vision than we have so if we were all "designed" then the designer knew how to do it better in a different model. Why didn't he apply that knowledge in our design?



Not even CLOSE. Any object designed by man will over time reflect advances made in WIDELY DISPARATE fields being translated across into other fields. Someone working on one gadget somewhere figures out how to make a more efficient energy source... and then someone making a completely different gadget somewhere else employs those principles to improve his own design... and this happens constantly. But that doesn't happen at all in the development of living things. We only see advances applied WITHIN LINEAGES. If you don't directly inherit a genetic "improvement" from an ancestor you don't have it. Period. The evolution of living things and the progressive design modification of human made objects are completely different processes.



I'm sorry, but your suggestion that a supremely powerful and knowledgeable being requires some kind of trial and error RANDOM prototype design and testing procedure to figure out how to make something is pretty absurd.

And what's with the arms race against himself if everything is designed? Why keep "designing" animals with better evasion/camouflage/defense mechanisms... just to turn around and design other animals with better predatory skills... just to turn around and improve the evasion mechanisms again... just to turn around and remodify the predatory mechanisms AGAIN to get past the new and improved defense mechanism HE put there... just to turn around... and on, and on, and on...

What a ridiculously futile exercise that would be.

For the last part, it would be pretty funny.
No other reason although a creationalist would have a better answer

Oh please, let's.



You don't know a whole lot about dinosaurs do you? some were big... some were small, it's rather difficult to say how intelligent they were... and they were VERY well adapted to their environment.



Nothing about the development of living things over time remotely resembles a design process.



Are you suggesting he screwed up the design the first time then and had to go back to the drawing board over, and over, and OVER for BILLIONS of years trying to figure out what the heck it was he wanted to be doing? AND, instead of learning from his designs and applying fixes to systems across the board like any ACTUAL designer would do he just kind of randomly mixed stuff around to see if it would work or not? For example... our eyes suck. There are animals with FAR better vision than we have so if we were all "designed" then the designer knew how to do it better in a different model. Why didn't he apply that knowledge in our design?



Not even CLOSE. Any object designed by man will over time reflect advances made in WIDELY DISPARATE fields being translated across into other fields. Someone working on one gadget somewhere figures out how to make a more efficient energy source... and then someone making a completely different gadget somewhere else employs those principles to improve his own design... and this happens constantly. But that doesn't happen at all in the development of living things. We only see advances applied WITHIN LINEAGES. If you don't directly inherit a genetic "improvement" from an ancestor you don't have it. Period. The evolution of living things and the progressive design modification of human made objects are completely different processes.



I'm sorry, but your suggestion that a supremely powerful and knowledgeable being requires some kind of trial and error RANDOM prototype design and testing procedure to figure out how to make something is pretty absurd.

And what's with the arms race against himself if everything is designed? Why keep "designing" animals with better evasion/camouflage/defense mechanisms... just to turn around and design other animals with better predatory skills... just to turn around and improve the evasion mechanisms again... just to turn around and remodify the predatory mechanisms AGAIN to get past the new and improved defense mechanism HE put there... just to turn around... and on, and on, and on...

What a ridiculously futile exercise that would be.


There's an argument for paganism if I ever saw one!

*goes off to play the demo of Evolution (actual game!)...drat that Darwin, always evolves faster than me*

Now, working from memory, life didn't appear on earth, according to science, until about two billion years ago. These numbers are getting fairly close together.

Add in the fact that, for it to qualify as a Creation, God has to be actively involved in the process. Assume he sped up the process of random variations aiming towards what we currently have. As I don't /think/ they have accurately-dated billion-year-old fossils -- I could be wrong -- there's no way we can say that /isn't/ true.


figured i should stop being lazy, and roll over and grab my biology book that i should be studying today (but im not)

anyways, current estimate on beginning of life is 3.5-4.0 billion years ago.
its not much, like deep-sea vent bacteria or some such.

there are fossils of bacteria and stromatolites(a sediment-trapping cyano-bacterial colony, they form 'bump'-like formations in shallow water. not too common nowadays, but used to be more common back before multi-cellular life evolved:) )
-fossils of bacteria and stromatolites about 3.5 billion years ago.

as for the dating of the fossils, i cant provide the specifics of any given fossil, but usually they can come up with fairly accurate dates.
they measure isotope levels from igneous minerals(mebbe metamorphic as well, im not too sure) and can determine the (approximate) date of formation for that mineral.
only thing is, fossils are found in sedimentary rocks, so they have to bracket the sedimentary layer betwixt two different igneous events, and get the approximate dating that way.

its been a long time since i studied geology, and i wasnt a good student, so i am probablly wrong on the details, but i think the general concept is pretty accurate, and if someone has a better grasp of it, please correct any inaccuracies.

figured i should stop being lazy, and roll over and grab my biology book that i should be studying today (but im not)

anyways, current estimate on beginning of life is 3.5-4.0 billion years ago.
its not much, like deep-sea vent bacteria or some such.

there are fossils of bacteria and stromatolites(a sediment-trapping cyano-bacterial colony, they form 'bump'-like formations in shallow water. not too common nowadays, but used to be more common back before multi-cellular life evolved:) )
-fossils of bacteria and stromatolites about 3.5 billion years ago.

as for the dating of the fossils, i cant provide the specifics of any given fossil, but usually they can come up with fairly accurate dates.
they measure isotope levels from igneous minerals(mebbe metamorphic as well, im not too sure) and can determine the (approximate) date of formation for that mineral.
only thing is, fossils are found in sedimentary rocks, so they have to bracket the sedimentary layer betwixt two different igneous events, and get the approximate dating that way.

its been a long time since i studied geology, and i wasnt a good student, so i am probablly wrong on the details, but i think the general concept is pretty accurate, and if someone has a better grasp of it, please correct any inaccuracies.


Isn't there also something to do with the amount of carbon left and how much has decayed, using the long half-life of carbon atoms?

Isn't there also something to do with the amount of carbon left and how much has decayed, using the long half-life of carbon atoms?
Carbon dating only takes you back about 50,000 years. (And I'm not sure I'd classify it as a geological method.)

Oh please, let's.
You don't know a whole lot about dinosaurs do you? some were big... some were small, it's rather difficult to say how intelligent they were... and they were VERY well adapted to their environment.given that most of the theories were drastic changes in their environment... not that adaptable...Nothing about the development of living things over time remotely resembles a design process. proof... where is the differences...Are you suggesting he screwed up the design the first time then and had to go back to the drawing board over, and over, and OVER for BILLIONS of years trying to figure out what the heck it was he wanted to be doing? AND, instead of learning from his designs and applying fixes to systems across the board like any ACTUAL designer would do he just kind of randomly mixed stuff around to see if it would work or not? For example... our eyes suck. There are animals with FAR better vision than we have so if we were all "designed" then the designer knew how to do it better in a different model. Why didn't he apply that knowledge in our design? we were all designed to be self repicating (giving birth) self improving (genetics) and self programming (instinct and ability to learn.)
Not even CLOSE. Any object designed by man will over time reflect advances made in WIDELY DISPARATE fields being translated across into other fields. Someone working on one gadget somewhere figures out how to make a more efficient energy source... and then someone making a completely different gadget somewhere else employs those principles to improve his own design... and this happens constantly. But that doesn't happen at all in the development of living things. We only see advances applied WITHIN LINEAGES. If you don't directly inherit a genetic "improvement" from an ancestor you don't have it. Period. The evolution of living things and the progressive design modification of human made objects are completely different processes.do you know the importance of the 'rouge' animal? their purpose is to take the genetic traits from one 'herd' and pass them to another herd. if what they bring cannot improve the herd, then it's not passed on. I'm sorry, but your suggestion that a supremely powerful and knowledgeable being requires some kind of trial and error RANDOM prototype design and testing procedure to figure out how to make something is pretty absurd.1) it only seems random to us, because we do not know what he has planned.
2) we are self replicating and self adapting/improving... the 'random testing procedure' may not be so random

And what's with the arms race against himself if everything is designed? Why keep "designing" animals with better evasion/camouflage/defense mechanisms... just to turn around and design other animals with better predatory skills... just to turn around and improve the evasion mechanisms again... just to turn around and remodify the predatory mechanisms AGAIN to get past the new and improved defense mechanism HE put there... just to turn around... and on, and on, and on...The arms race as you so call it, is not for Him but for us.

What a ridiculously futile exercise that would be.maybe for you...

Carbon dating only takes you back about 50,000 years. (And I'm not sure I'd classify it as a geological method.)
But radio carbon dating is not the only form of absolute dating

But radio carbon dating is not the only form of absolute dating
Of course.

Of course.
:) I figured you would know that
Kind of pisses me off that some creationists like to ignore that little bit of fact ... like carbon dating is the ONLY absolute dating method out there ... then I always have to dig up the ages covered by each data lol

we were all designed to be self repicating (giving birth) self improving (genetics) and self programming (instinct and ability to learn.) ...
2) we are self replicating and self adapting/improving...



I see, so..... what you're saying is...God designed a world where... things...evolve.

And he constantly updates this world... and it only seems "random" like "evolution" because... it's evolving.

And he's directly controlling... our self-run evolution

:eek:

I see, so..... what you're saying is...God designed a world where... things...evolve.

And he constantly updates this world... and it only seems "random" like "evolution" because... it's evolving.

And he's directly controlling... our self-run evolution

:eek:and doing it in a way where we think we're doing it ourselves... crafty isn't he... ;)

tho... I wouldn't call it Directly controlling...

WHO GIVES A FRUCTOSE FROSTED, FLYING FUCK?

Nobody!

It doesn't effect anybody, in any way, how one group of people think the Earth's species came into being.
You're all debating over stupid little insignificant technicalities to try and find a solution to a 'problem' that doesn't matter, which is never going to happen. There will always be conflicing ideas until something is found that is completely concrete and hole-proof. Yes, it is wrong when christian governments start meddling with scientific findings that aim to get such a concrete and hole-proof answer, but that's another thing.

Again, there are much more pressing issues to worry about.
sorry to jump in without anything constructive but i'd just like to say: please don't do that.

and doing it in a way where we think we're doing it ourselves... crafty isn't he... ;)

tho... I wouldn't call it Directly controlling...
And what would be the purpose of all this craftyness that is as far as I can tell not suported by any religous documents that I have ever read

And what would be the purpose of all this craftyness that is as far as I can tell not suported by any religous documents that I have ever readHe gives the clues to His exsitance... He gives us the Prophets and the rest is on faith... but he doen't force us to believe anything.

He is the Ultimate Invisible Government, He holds us accountable for our actions, gives us the clues for redemption and the code to live by, and allows us to live as we (humans) choose to live... and we will receive the consequences of our choices in the final reckoning.

I've seen way too many of these threads

:) I figured you would know that
Kind of pisses me off that some creationists like to ignore that little bit of fact ... like carbon dating is the ONLY absolute dating method out there ... then I always have to dig up the ages covered by each data lol
(My emphasis) I'm lazier than you - hence I confined my post to carbon dating only.

I've seen way too many of these threads
You've seen too many!? Spare a thought for us poor sods who been on NS for over a year!

He gives the clues to His exsitance... He gives us the Prophets and the rest is on faith... but he doen't force us to believe anything.

He is the Ultimate Invisible Government, He holds us accountable for our actions, gives us the clues for redemption and the code to live by, and allows us to live as we (humans) choose to live... and we will receive the consequences of our choices in the final reckoning.


Let me get this straight

you belive that God created everything AND controls its evolution in the way taht a carmaker designs a car.

So you belive that a carmaker designs a car to be self-improving, self-replicating, self-sustaining, and self-adapting, then holds the car accountable for its every action and leaves a hint in the owner's manual that it may have been created by someone else.

Then creates subsequent versions of a car where it LOOKS like the car adapted and changed, using it's self-adapting self-changing systems, but REALLY it's the carmaker. Really. Seriously.

The only part of that that isn't logically flawed is the part where God started the whole thing. If you want your belief to make logical sense (and be defensable), belive that God created us then stepped back to watch. That would fit in with most of your arguments you've presented. Evolution as God's tool, I can see that. I don't belive it, but I can see it.

But radio carbon dating is not the only form of absolute dating

Carbon 14 5730 years
Uranium-235 704 million years
Potassium 40 1.25 billion yrs
Thorium 232 14 billion years
Uranium-238 4.5 billion years
Rubidium-87 48.8 billion years
Samarium-147 106 billion years

Ok-
God gets bored.
God made earth and junk, started life. Gets bored of the bacteria (remember, he has infinate pateince)
he creates a lot of the animals quickly (Cabrian Boom) then watches them duke it out. If it gets too unbalanced, he sometimes fixes it up. Then Humans come along. There aren't many. But then they learn of tools. They then expand all over the world. God gets pissed off - they are ruining his game. Then he starts toying with everyone's life just to irritate them. Making it rain during spring break. Getting people sick during the summer. Ect.

Let me get this straight

you belive that God created everything AND controls its evolution in the way taht a carmaker designs a car.

So you belive that a carmaker designs a car to be self-improving, self-replicating, self-sustaining, and self-adapting, then holds the car accountable for its every action and leaves a hint in the owner's manual that it may have been created by someone else.

Then creates subsequent versions of a car where it LOOKS like the car adapted and changed, using it's self-adapting self-changing systems, but REALLY it's the carmaker. Really. Seriously.

The only part of that that isn't logically flawed is the part where God started the whole thing. If you want your belief to make logical sense (and be defensable), belive that God created us then stepped back to watch. That would fit in with most of your arguments you've presented. Evolution as God's tool, I can see that. I don't belive it, but I can see it.Nope, not at all. the car making thing was to show how something complex as the life on earth can't just be a random act of chance, but baised on designs and put together in a way that we are still unravaling. People who cry CREATION ONLY has to see that Evolution is the process that God uses while those that cry EVOLUTON ONLY might see an artist and a genus behind the design. I used computers and robotics earlier... the car thing was my attempt to simplify it by using something that eveyone is familiar with. I really do believe that he created everything and then, as you say, stepped back to watch, but because of certain miracles that occured, I think he's been influencing thing from time to time.

He gives the clues to His exsitance... He gives us the Prophets and the rest is on faith... but he doen't force us to believe anything.

He is the Ultimate Invisible Government, He holds us accountable for our actions, gives us the clues for redemption and the code to live by, and allows us to live as we (humans) choose to live... and we will receive the consequences of our choices in the final reckoning.
That's disgustingly deceitful.

Carbon 14 5730 years
Uranium-235 704 million years
Potassium 40 1.25 billion yrs
Thorium 232 14 billion years
Uranium-238 4.5 billion years
Rubidium-87 48.8 billion years
Samarium-147 106 billion years
You's gots two uraniums.

You could at least put my name somewhere in their since you quoted me. Now i am going to cry.

Sorry about that. :(

I can't believe it, I just did it again! :mad:

Nope, not at all. the car making thing was to show how something complex as the life on earth can't just be a random act of chance, but baised on designs and put together in a way that we are still unravaling. People who cry CREATION ONLY has to see that Evolution is the process that God uses while those that cry EVOLUTON ONLY might see an artist and a genus behind the design. I used computers and robotics earlier... the car thing was my attempt to simplify it by using something that eveyone is familiar with. I really do believe that he created everything and then, as you say, stepped back to watch, but because of certain miracles that occured, I think he's been influencing thing from time to time.
But cars don't occur in nature.

You's gots two uraniums.

He has the two isotopes listed because of the radioactive decay discrepancy between them.

But cars don't occur in nature. :p

You see, using as an analogy something actually made "by design" is not a valid indicator that all things are made by design. Some patterns occur naturally.

You see, using as an analogy something actually made "by design" is not a valid indicator that all things are made by design. Some patterns occur naturally.can you name something that is even remotely complex as man than we, as humans, created without some design work put in? now the design work is not limited to blueprints, it can be a concept or a thought. (Lord knows I write programs without flowcharting or documenting them first.)

we cannot, yet there are those that say random chance created us, and random chance worked in our favor all these years to give us the time to Evolve into the dominante life form...

yupaenu> thanx for posting those numbers.

personally, the thing i find most convincing about evolution is that everything has to be 'built' with equipment already possessed. organisms can't just sprout new limbs and such, they have to get by through modification of already present limbs.

its almost fascinating, how a creature can get so fine-tuned to its environment over the generations, yet it does it in such a 1/2-assed manner.

i cant think of any of the really good examples right now, but the human knee(and maybe ankle?) comes to mind, the panda's 'thumb', the eyes of the anableps(sp?)-fish.

ill try to sum up a couple of them, the human knee is a mess, really poorly made/'designed' for the weight and stresses it has to endure, yet it still does a remarkable job.

the panda has one of its? i think its a wrist bone, but im not certain, was years ago that i read it- that forms a 'nub' of some sort, kinda a thumb like appendage, that allows it to more efficiently strip leaves from bamboo.

anableps(i think thats the name) is a type of fish with a split-eye sorta deal, it can simultaneously see above and below the surface of the water. two pairs of eyeballs would be ideal for that sort of thing, but vertebrates are limited to one pair of eyeballs. so anableps has an eyeball that developed a dual vision sorta deal(ive never actually studied them, so im not sure if its a dual pupil/retina, or what, but its a really wierd looking critter)

given that most of the theories were drastic changes in their environment... not that adaptable...

The (edit: K-T... not K2... mind wandered) mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous wiped out something like 80% of the species on the planet... dinosaurs being "not that adaptable" had very little to do with their demise.

proof... where is the differences...

I already detailed the difference below.

we were all designed to be self repicating (giving birth) self improving (genetics)

Like I said... any new introduction of genetic code (caused by mutations) is random. There is no "programming" for self improvement in genetics! Every once in a while it just works out by sheer chance that a genetic mutation has a beneficial effect.

do you know the importance of the 'rouge' animal? their purpose is to take the genetic traits from one 'herd' and pass them to another herd. if what they bring cannot improve the herd, then it's not passed on.

Unless you're suggesting that an animal from another species with superior eyesight is going to go rogue and mate (successfully!) with Susan down the block, thus introducing the genetic code for that superior eyesight into the human gene pool how exactly did you think this answered my point?

1) it only seems random to us, because we do not know what he has planned.

No... it seems random to us because we've tested it and it's bloody random.

The arms race as you so call it, is not for Him but for us.

In what manner is it for us?

can you name something that is even remotely complex as man than we, as humans, created without some design work put in? now the design work is not limited to blueprints, it can be a concept or a thought. (Lord knows I write programs without flowcharting or documenting them first.)

we cannot, yet there are those that say random chance created us, and random chance worked in our favor all these years to give us the time to Evolve into the dominante life form...
Ah-ha! but nothing we make by design is natural. Nature-made and Man-made are in opposition, as is evidenced by one of those terms being a synonym for artificial.

We *are* a part of nature, but things that are a product of our intelligence are artificial. Things we have no real control over are the exceptions, like babies ....and tumors.

um, of course. i am (so far) unable to inhabit other peoples' bodies, so my point of view is the only one i've got.
Openmindedness does not require psychic ability. Imagine yourself in someone else's shoes.

Ask yourself, "What if I assumed the Bible was infallibly true? What would I believe?"

Because that is who you are arguing with. These are people with different premises to their arguments.

You've listed your assumptions, but they assume the Bible is true as well. Unless you settle disputes between those, the rest is meaningless, like arguing with a colorblind person over what the color of the sky is.

i'm not a nihilist, but i am a true agnostic. no medical or psychological professional has ever found me to be insane, but if you--an annonymous stranger over the internet--diagnoses me as mentally ill then who am i to question?
I made an "If" statement, not an accusation. Seeing how you're so defensive, I see you're clearly in this thread to argue, but not reach an actual conclusion. And no, you aren't a 'true' agnostic, as I'll explain later.

i don't especially like Descartes' philosophical material, so i'm not about to waste time defending it.
Because you cannot. Nihilist philosophers criticized it as well. It isn't undefeatable. And no philosophy professor will tell you there is "objective truth", only reasonable assumptions.

You have no 'objective' proof of reality. You have no 'objective' proof that truth or objectivity even exists. But, for sake of understanding the world, you assume they do.

not quite. i assume certain "objective" realities because i realize that, as a human, i cannot function in my practical life unless i make those assumptions. however, i am always aware of the fact that they are ONLY assumptions, and that i have no True reason to believe that my assumed "reality" is actually the objective reality.
You just assumed you exist, that you're a human, that you're alive, that you function, and that you need to function. All assumptions. Reasonable, but still assumptions.

i consider all supernatural assumptions equally ridiculous, and most of them slightly more ridiculous than an empirical philosophy, for the single reason that empiricism may be evaluated on the terms it defines; religion and supersition cannot be evaluated at all, even on its own terms
Not true. Religion can be evaluated, but just as with science, only on its own terms. Science is based upon the principle that truth can only be determined by analysis of observation. Religion (western, anyway) is based upon the principle that truth can only be determined by faith. Many people have claimed to have powerful religious experiences, but only if they believed. In science, skepticism is required. In religion, it's impossible. From your point-of-view, this makes it "ridiculous."

But, for all you know, what Christians believe is the objective reality that you've assumed to be false. ;)

so i believe it is less useful and less practical to believe in it. that's just my opinion, and i don't especially care if you disagree with it, because i am not at all interested in compelling you to agree with my perspective.
It would be incorrect to say it's impractical to believe in religion. It offers hope, helps bring people together, support charity, as well as having enormous mental, physical, and emotional benefits. Scientifically, a religious person (regardless of religion) has overall better health than a non-religious person.

yes, and to a schizophrenic their halucinations are just as reasonable. to a child, belief in the Tooth Fairy is perfectly reasonable. i give religion the same regard i would give these other beliefs.
And who is to say God does not simply look down at us, with science being hallucinations, or the tooth fairy?

why should i grant it special treatment? i grant non-superstitious beliefs slightly more credance because they can at least be tested or verified with methods other than human opinion and belief
And what makes tests more valid that human opinion?

Especially when your system of beliefs is based upon the "human opinion" that only something which can be tested is valid (even if only within your assumed objective reality).

And lastly, if it is an assumed reality, where nothing can be proven or disproven, objectively, then nothing is true or false, and certainly not "ridiculous." Because, as said before, what any specific religion believes could be the objective reality you don't assume is true.

In response to creationism-scientifically, it's nonsense. When they criticize carbon-dating, they always criticize old methods. They'll attack the science of 30 years ago rather than the science of today.

The U.S. is the only country which considers creationism as possibly valid. A bunch of Fundamentalist Protestants are not more intelligent or educated than the scientists of the world.

Furthermore, it's also viewable in certain organisms with high mortality rates (bacterium, etc).

http://www.arn.org/idfaq/Can't%20we%20actually%20see%20evolution%20in%20action.htm

can you name something that is even remotely complex as man than we, as humans, created without some design work put in? now the design work is not limited to blueprints, it can be a concept or a thought. (Lord knows I write programs without flowcharting or documenting them first.)

we cannot, yet there are those that say random chance created us, and random chance worked in our favor all these years to give us the time to Evolve into the dominante life form...
(Emphasis mine) Umm, aren't you rather asking a redundant question here? Generally speaking, us humans don't go around randomly trying to create complex stuff by chance. Not to mention the relative time spans of human existence and the history of life on Earth?

The K2 mass extinction wiped out something like 80% of the species on the planet... dinosaurs being "not that adaptable" had very little to do with their demise.



I already detailed the difference below.



Like I said... any new introduction of genetic code (caused by mutations) is random. There is no "programming" for self improvement in genetics! Every once in a while it just works out by sheer chance that a genetic mutation has a beneficial effect.Prove that there is no "programming" for changes/mutations in the genetic code. as I understand Genetics, it's a mix and match of Dominate and Resessive genes... and every once in a while, a combination will occur and if that combo works, it's added to the 'Pool' or the new program accepted. if it doesn't work, it's not added because the organism dies.
however, nowdays, our medical knowledge corrects the "failures" giving rise to Genetic Defects that are passed from parent to child. we are in fact allowing the failures to pass their genetic codes on. Not saying it's a bad thing mind you.
A random number generator is still random... but a program nonetheless..

Unless you're suggesting that an animal from another species with superior eyesight is going to go rogue and mate (successfully!) with Susan down the block, thus introducing the genetic code for that superior eyesight into the human gene pool how exactly did you think this answered my point? no but in the Past... A very, very long time ago, Susan's choices of husbands were limited to her village and those neighboring hers... now days, new genetic coding can be introduced by someone from a different country. in the animal kingdom, one animal breaks away from the clan/pride/herd/whatever, and meets another. should he survive the introduction and mate, his genetic codes are then introduced into the Clan/Pride/Herd/whatever. now genetically, should those traits be usefull for survival, they will be passed on.No... it seems random to us because we've tested it and it's bloody random. really... what test were performed... and it covered 100% of ALL possibilities? I didn't think we discovered the origins of the Universe yet... thought it was still all in Theories.
In what manner is it for us?err... how about survival.

(Emphasis mine) Umm, aren't you rather asking a redundant question here? Generally speaking, us humans don't go around randomly trying to create complex stuff by chance. Not to mention the relative time spans of human existence and the history of life on Earth?But die hard EVOLUTION ONLY people claim that we are all chance... every living creature on this planet who were lucky enough at the dice roll.
Why couldn't we all have been created by a higher being like God and evolution is just the method He used?

But die hard EVOLUTION ONLY people claim that we are all chance... every living creature on this planet who were lucky enough at the dice roll.
Why couldn't we all have been created by a higher being like God and evolution is just the method He used?
No dice rolls were involved... that would imply some intelligence.

err... how about survival.


so our survival depends on God tinkering with genes by implementing a random program?

I'm still not getting this picture here. Not getting a single good argument why God HAS to be involved. If scientists started randomly pouring chemicals together and randomly snipping genes and putting them with other genes, we'd probably make something complex. Just because WE have a design for OUR creations doesn't mean everything that exists was designed- that's like saying, well, WE like to get drunk, so there must be a Baccus who goes around getting drunk all the time

No dice rolls were involved... that would imply some intelligence.but also implies no control... can't control dice... unless you be Jedi.

But die hard EVOLUTION ONLY people claim that we are all chance... every living creature on this planet who were lucky enough at the dice roll.
Why couldn't we all have been created by a higher being like God and evolution is just the method He used?

the answer to your question is simple-we all couldn't have been created by a higher being like god and evolution isn't the method used because there is no higher being like god or higher being at all.

But die hard EVOLUTION ONLY people claim that we are all chance... every living creature on this planet who were lucky enough at the dice roll.
Why couldn't we all have been created by a higher being like God and evolution is just the method He used?


now THERE'S a valid argument. We could have been. But you keep pushing it beyond that, making comparisons that are faulty, defending random positions here and there that don't add up to any cohesive viewpoint (far as I can tell)

Don't make it more complicated than you can defend

But die hard EVOLUTION ONLY people claim that we are all chance... every living creature on this planet who were lucky enough at the dice roll.
Why couldn't we all have been created by a higher being like God and evolution is just the method He used?
Scientifically, I don't see that the possibility suggested in your last sentance can be disproved.

However, IIRC there have been some limited, but succesful, experiments replicating the initial conditions for life and consequent spontaneous development of pre-cursors for life. If this is so (and I hope my terminology is not mangled beyond all recognition), the principle of parsimony could reasonably be deployed, and God dropped from the model as an unnecessary variable.

that's like saying, well, WE like to get drunk, so there must be a Baccus who goes around getting drunk all the time
Oh, but there is!!

Say it isn't so...

Oh, but there is!!

Say it isn't so...

Mehehe, personally I like Baccus, though I prefer Pan.
But that's a whole nother topic

but also implies no control... can't control dice... unless you be Jedi.
But a dice roll implies an observer, someone for whom the roll of the dice means something.

1 means something, 2 means something... 6 means something.

Mehehe, personally I like Baccus, though I prefer Pan.
But that's a whole nother topic

Yes! I'm not the only one!

so our survival depends on God tinkering with genes by implementing a random program?

I'm still not getting this picture here. Not getting a single good argument why God HAS to be involved. If scientists started randomly pouring chemicals together and randomly snipping genes and putting them with other genes, we'd probably make something complex. Just because WE have a design for OUR creations doesn't mean everything that exists was designed- that's like saying, well, WE like to get drunk, so there must be a Baccus who goes around getting drunk all the timethat was to an earlier comment about the 'arms race' I said that the arms race isn't for God... but for 'Us' he asked why for Us and my reply... survival.

the title of the thread is "Creationists, rationalise your argument!" not prove Creationism is true. can you provide a single good argument that we were not 'designed' that no greater hand was involved with our creation?

As it was pointed out earlier... Humans are not the fasted, strongest, nor the best designed. yet we endure. there must be a reason why?

But a dice roll implies an observer, someone for whom the roll of the dice means something.

1 means something, 2 means something... 6 means something.but there was someone... :D [jk]
If you're going to be nitpicky... then the scattering of various atoms.

that was to an earlier comment about the 'arms race' I said that the arms race isn't for God... but for 'Us' he asked why for Us and my reply... survival.

the title of the thread is "Creationists, rationalise your argument!" not prove Creationism is true. can you provide a single good argument that we were not 'designed' that no greater hand was involved with our creation?

As it was pointed out earlier... Humans are not the fasted, strongest, nor the best designed. yet we endure. there must be a reason why?

Yeah, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what your arguments are. You have an answer for everything, a lot of which seem absurd and faulty to me, but people belive things I find faulty all the time, that's your belief. But when you try to piece all the arguments together.... it's as though each post you make is by a different person with a slightly diffrernt belief. Are you changing your mind 15 times in one thread? Do you even have a coherant picture of how you believe it works?

Rationalize your arguments implies that you have a grand, sweeping Argument you're trying to rationalize, a picture which you then break into details and go over piece by piece. I'm getting pieces to different puzzles and I'm totally confused.

that was to an earlier comment about the 'arms race' I said that the arms race isn't for God... but for 'Us' he asked why for Us and my reply... survival.

the title of the thread is "Creationists, rationalise your argument!" not prove Creationism is true. can you provide a single good argument that we were not 'designed' that no greater hand was involved with our creation?

As it was pointed out earlier... Humans are not the fasted, strongest, nor the best designed. yet we endure. there must be a reason why?
Okay, "Us" isn't some sort of metaphor for "U.S." is it?

Scientifically, I don't see that the possibility suggested in your last sentance can be disproved.

However, IIRC there have been some limited, but succesful, experiments replicating the initial conditions for life and consequent spontaneous development of pre-cursors for life. If this is so (and I hope my terminology is not mangled beyond all recognition), the principle of parsimony could reasonably be deployed, and God dropped from the model as an unnecessary variable.
"parsimony" is a cool word.

Scientifically, I don't see that the possibility suggested in your last sentance can be disproved.

However, IIRC there have been some limited, but succesful, experiments replicating the initial conditions for life and consequent spontaneous development of pre-cursors for life. If this is so (and I hope my terminology is not mangled beyond all recognition), the principle of parsimony could reasonably be deployed, and God dropped from the model as an unnecessary variable.so... scientists recreated the initial conditions... they set up the envrionment for such development to occure yet you don't think that some greater being also didn't set up conditions to meet those exact needs to create life? remember, creation is creation...

btw... do you have a link to this experimentation? I would love to know what they did.

Prove that there is no "programming" for changes/mutations in the genetic code. as I understand Genetics, it's a mix and match of Dominate and Resessive genes... and every once in a while, a combination will occur and if that combo works, it's added to the 'Pool' or the new program accepted. if it doesn't work, it's not added because the organism dies.

Ummm, no. Genetic mutations are not the result of different combinations of dominant and recessive genes... they are the result of copying errors during the DNA replication process which create completely NEW genetic sequences, through anything from a point mutation of a single nucleotide, to a frame shift of thousands of nucleotides, to the inversion of entire sequences of the DNA code, etc...

And it's random.

no but in the Past... A very, very long time ago, Susan's choices of husbands were limited to her village and those neighboring hers... now days, new genetic coding can be introduced by someone from a different country. in the animal kingdom, one animal breaks away from the clan/pride/herd/whatever, and meets another.

But only within their own species. You don't get improvements from one transferred over and incorporated into another somewhere else... like an actual designer would do as opposed to a random genetic process.

really... what test were performed... and it covered 100% of ALL possibilities?

Every test ever run says genetic mutations occur randomly... there is not a shred of experimental data to support the idea of directed mutations, mutations 'direction' (beneficial, neutral, non beneficial, fatal) have been demonstrated to be completely uncorrelated to any environmental factors the population experiencing the mutations are exposed to. In decades of genetic research no mechanism has ever been even hinted at which would make directed mutations even possible. Mutations occur at random locations in the body where they won't even be inheritable rather than being resticted to germline mutations as they should be if the idea is for them to be a deliberate mechanism employed by some designer for altering the gene pool of a species... NOTHING about mutations even suggests they might be non random in any manner, but if you want to propose your own test that you think will show something different please feel free to do so.

I didn't think we discovered the origins of the Universe yet... thought it was still all in Theories.

Don't even get me started on people misusing the scientific terminology in regards to a "theory". You NEVER move beyond a theory in science. EVER. They don't somehow get graduated to "Certainties" or something as more evidence is gathered. Theories are the end-product of the scientific method, the most strongly evidentially supported explanatory models in existence. We are not "still" in theories as if suggesting that there is a level of certainty beyond "theory" in science... because there isn't. The Theory is the top of the scientific food chain.

err... how about survival.

If the competition wasn't constantly getting it's armnaments upgraded we wouldn't need to either... so... err... what's your reasoning?

btw... do you have a link to this experimentation? I would love to know what they did.

I think he was referring to the experiments conducted by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey during the 50's. If so, just Google "urey miller experiment" and it will provide plenty of info.

so... scientists recreated the initial conditions... they set up the envrionment for such development to occure yet you don't think that some greater being also didn't set up conditions to meet those exact needs to create life? remember, creation is creation...
As I say, your hypothesis is not disprovable, both IMHO and that of the Catholic church (amongst others). All I would say, from a purely theoretical perspective is that, if God is not required to make the theory work, then God should be removed from the theory. Doesn't mean to say he's not there, simply that there's not a rational need for Him to be there in that particular instance.
btw... do you have a link to this experimentation? I would love to know what they did.
Sorry, you'll need to ask someone who knows what they're talking about. ;) It's been referenced before in previous threads on this topic, though.

Can we go with the assumption that God, unlike Man, did not drop any variables from any model?

"parsimony" is a cool word.
I agree. It has a luxurious feel and sound to it, yet an austere meaning. I would like my life to be like that.

Yeah, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what your arguments are. You have an answer for everything, a lot of which seem absurd and faulty to me, but people belive things I find faulty all the time, that's your belief. But when you try to piece all the arguments together.... it's as though each post you make is by a different person with a slightly diffrernt belief. Are you changing your mind 15 times in one thread? Do you even have a coherant picture of how you believe it works?

Rationalize your arguments implies that you have a grand, sweeping Argument you're trying to rationalize, a picture which you then break into details and go over piece by piece. I'm getting pieces to different puzzles and I'm totally confused.actually trying to see the other person's point of view so in a way, my thoughts do shift from time to time. that way I don't close my mind to thier opinions. bad habit of mine really.

In a nutshell... I say Evolution shows the process for Creationism. all the science and whatnot is basically reverse engineering God's work. the complexity of Life is too well designed to be a random occurance. However, there are 'oddities,' things that really don't make sense in a scientific viewpoint at this point in time.

I don't take the bible literally... but I don't discount it enterely. Untill these oddities, like bees being able to fly when mathmatically they arn't suppose to... are figured out, they will remain mysteries that the scientific commuty will forever chase after. and the more answers that are uncovered, the more questions also appear.

How's this then:

God is outside time. Time has no meaning for Him. His definition of a "day" in reference to Genesis could have been 1,000 years or more, which would certainly explain the dinosaurs and whatnot.

Do I believe in evolution? Yes and no. I believe that species adapt over time and change to better their survival in a given environment. I DO NOT however believe that I evolved from a monkey.

"Well what about the proto-humans"? Bullshit. One that wasn't even Darwin, and two, here's my explaination.

Man was created by God and came out from the dust on the 6th "day", according to the Bible. Now, how do we know that nothing came before? We don't. God could have created a earlier form of human, called "Timmy" or whatnot. But Man was the form that worked, and so that is my reasoning as to why Man is the only one mentioned in the Bible. It would also explain that if humans evolving from apes is true then why are there still apes around? Did they not get the memo? Lol.

Going back to the day-length theory, this would also explain and account for regular evolution. Species evolving and adapting to a changing world. How do we know that God did not choose evolution as a means to an end? And as far as animals looking alike, i.e. fetal pigs looking like fetal humans, well for one they're fetuses, not really much too differentiate there, and two, "if it ain't broke don't bother fixing it", which is basically showing God continuing with a sucessful basic design.

Can we go with the assumption that God, unlike Man, did not drop any variables from any model?
I suspect that God, being all-knowing and such, has no need of (partial) models.

Sorry, you'll need to ask someone who knows what they're talking about. ;) It's been referenced before in previous threads on this topic, though.Damn... :(

gah, if i remember correctly, they made an 'atmosphere' based on what sorts of gasses are emitted from volcanoes and such, supposed to be pretty similar to primitive earth's atmosphere.

the famous one, and one of the firsts i believe, was the Miller-Urey experiment(sorry, im going off of my bio text, so i cant provide a link, but im sure you could google it)
used an atmosphere of water, hydrogen, methane, and amomonia. had a sparker to simulate lightning, and a boiler and condenser, all st up in a loop. after a week or so, they took out the water and tested it, and it contained a bunch of organic compounds, amino acids, etc.
this was done back in the 50's, and is now thought of as slightly flawed, scientists now believe the atmosphere was more carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water.
other experiments were done in a similar manner with the 'revised' atmospheric recipes, and yielded fairly similar results.

a group of indian scientists also used a computer model to simulate interstellar gas clouds, and supposedly they could possibly create adenine (one of the components of DNA) and other similar molecules.

the main reason this doesnt happen now is the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, as its pretty reactive:)
anyways, oxygen wasnt present in any great amount until about 2.7 billion years ago (first had to be produced by algae and such, and most of it was absorbed by various minerals, iron and such)

remember, creation is creation...
I have to disagree. Creation by humans does not begin to compare to creation by Nature.

Don't even get me started on people misusing the scientific terminology in regards to a "theory". You NEVER move beyond a theory in science. EVER. They don't somehow get graduated to "Certainties" or something as more evidence is gathered. Theories are the end-product of the scientific method, the most strongly evidentially supported explanatory models in existence. We are not "still" in theories as if suggesting that there is a level of certainty beyond "theory" in science... because there isn't. The Theory is the top of the scientific food chain.

Er... not strictly true... otherwise we'd have Newton's Third Theory instead of Newton's Third LAW.

It's just REALLY REALLY hard to become a law....

And nothing about evolution will because you can never rule out absurd rationalizations as to why God is secretly manipulating every cell in the body of every non-human and half of them in humans.

I have to disagree. Creation by humans does not begin to compare to creation by Nature.whoops... I guess I needed to specify... I was referring to the setting up of the conditions to create life. not man inventing things... sorry. :)

For example, Descartes' famous proof for existence was, "I think, therefore I am." But in that statement, he assumes his thoughts exist in reality and that they aren't an illusion or what he doesn't percieve them to be. In other words, to clarify it, he said, "I think I think, therefore I am." That's not a valid argument

Acutally, Descartes' argument is both valid and sound. What Descartes proved with his argument is that it is impossible to have any thought without existing (in some form or another). Even if you think to yourself "I don't really exist; this is all just in someone else's imagination," you are existing. YOU are having that thought. No one else can know with certainty that you are having that thought since it occures within yourself. While the rest of his proof that we can believe what our senses "tell" us is not that great (he does a rather wacky proof that god does indeed exist, that god is a good god, and therefore we can trust the senses that god gave us), "I think, therefore I am" is an incredibly simple, logically valid and sound argument.

Er... not strictly true... otherwise we'd have Newton's Third Theory instead of Newton's Third LAW.

It's just REALLY REALLY hard to become a law....

No.. it's really really EASY to become a law. Laws are just descriptions, that's relatively simple. Describe accurately, you've got yourself a law.

Theories EXPLAIN laws. THAT's hard.

Added in edit: For example... you observe two masses that appear to be attracted to each other with a certain force. Just mathematically describe that force and presto, you've got the law of gravity.

Now, tell WHY those two masses are attracted to each other with that force and you'll have the Theory of Gravity. That's taking it a big step up.

For example, Descartes' famous proof for existence was, "I think, therefore I am." But in that statement, he assumes his thoughts exist in reality and that they aren't an illusion or what he doesn't percieve them to be. In other words, to clarify it, he said, "I think I think, therefore I am." That's not a valid argument

Acutally, Descartes' argument is both valid and sound. What Descartes proved with his argument is that it is impossible to have any thought without existing (in some form or another). Even if you think to yourself "I don't really exist; this is all just in someone else's imagination," you are existing. YOU are having that thought. No one else can know with certainty that you are having that thought since it occures within yourself. While the rest of his proof that we can believe what our senses "tell" us is not that great (he does a rather wacky proof that god does indeed exist, that god is a good god, and therefore we can trust the senses that god gave us), "I think, therefore I am" is an incredibly simple, logically valid and sound argument.I always thought that was proof of Sentience. Being Self Aware.

God is outside time. Time has no meaning for Him.
If time has no meaning for God, how could he create the world in 6 days?

How's this then:

God is outside time.

Hold it right there. Kindly define "outside of time" before using it as an explanation. If you can't say what it means then you can't say it has the effect you want it to.

How exactly does anything exist "outside" of time? If it is existing there, how does it do anything without time in which to do it? This would include such basic tasks as experiencing a thought...

Pet peeve of mine... I see everybody and their cousin using "outside of time" as some kind of magic wand to wave away some problem or another they've encountered in an argument or discussion without ever explaining just what being "outside of time" is supposed to entail.

No.. it's really really EASY to become a law. Laws are just descriptions, that's relatively simple. Describe accurately, you've got yourself a law.

Theories EXPLAIN laws. THAT's hard.

So that's why I'm not doing so hot in physics

thanks, I was confused

Just curious -- anyone figure out why all of the references to "god" on here have been to "Him"?

That freaking drives me nuts!

I always thought that was proof of Sentience. Being Self Aware.

If you are self-aware, then you must exist. It is impossible to be self-aware and not exist. It might be possible to exist and not be self-aware.

Just curious -- anyone figure out why all of the references to "god" on here have been to "Him"?

That freaking drives me nuts!dunno really... I guess it's because alot of people freak when they see the word God. I use Him, His, He because of Scripture...

no offense ment to anyone. :)

If you are self-aware, then you must exist. It is impossible to be self-aware and not exist. It might be possible to exist and not be self-aware.yeah... it can be argued that most animals and plants are not self aware, yet they do exsist.

Interesting interpretation of that saying tho..

For example, Descartes' famous proof for existence was, "I think, therefore I am." But in that statement, he assumes his thoughts exist in reality and that they aren't an illusion or what he doesn't percieve them to be. In other words, to clarify it, he said, "I think I think, therefore I am." That's not a valid argument
Actually, no ...the opposite of assumption is required for this exercise. If one uses one's consciousness to deny the existence of one's consciousness, one is acting illogically.

Actually, no ...the opposite of assumption is required for this exercise. If one uses one's consciousness to deny the existence of one's consciousness, one is acting illogically.

What do you mean when you say that "the opposite of assumption is required for this exercise"?

I do agree with your conclusion (as Descartes would) -- it is illogical to use one's consciousness to deny one's existence. That's why the agrument is so brilliant.

:confused:
I don't think, therefore I am not... I think...

:confused:
I don't think, therefore I am not... I think...

I think I am following you.

The part that follows the "therefore" is the conclusion of the argument. The "I think" (or the "I don't think" in your above example) is the premise/assumption.

I have taken way too many logic classes in my life.

Just curious -- anyone figure out why all of the references to "god" on here have been to "Him"?

That freaking drives me nuts!

Because God is male. That's just how it is.

the Goddess is the female half, in my book. God is the "alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end.." but NOT the male and the female. The Christian Jehova is male. the Jewish Yaweh is male. Buddah (while not the same thing) was male. ect.

I belive in both as distinct halves of a whole, genderless being. When dealing with christians, I tend to talk about God, but the Goddess was there too, in my book. I just limit the scope of the argument to the religion being discussed, Christianity

:confused:
I don't think, therefore I am not... I think...
I think (the action of a consciousness) therefore I am (a consciousness).

It says that since the mind is active, it provides its own evidence of its existence.

Because God is male. That's just how it is.

the Goddess is the female half, in my book. God is the "alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end.." but NOT the male and the female. The Christian Jehova is male. the Jewish Yaweh is male. Buddah (while not the same thing) was male. ect.

I belive in both as distinct halves of a whole, genderless being. When dealing with christians, I tend to talk about God, but the Goddess was there too, in my book. I just limit the scope of the argument to the religion being discussed, Christianity

Think outside the box! (no pun intended) Why is the Jewish/Christian/Islamic god male? Why do gods in general have any gender at all?

Because God is male. That's just how it is.

the Goddess is the female half, in my book. God is the "alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end.." but NOT the male and the female. The Christian Jehova is male. the Jewish Yaweh is male. Buddah (while not the same thing) was male. ect.

I belive in both as distinct halves of a whole, genderless being. When dealing with christians, I tend to talk about God, but the Goddess was there too, in my book. I just limit the scope of the argument to the religion being discussed, Christianity
Yeah, because "the alpha and the omega" is not all that is.

I think (the action of a consciousness) therefore I am (a consciousness).

It says that since the mind is active, it provides its own evidence of its existence.

Great explaination! Can I borrow that when I am teaching Descartes?

Think outside the box! (no pun intended) Why is the Jewish/Christian/Islamic god male? Why do gods in general have any gender at all?

Because that's what their Holy Text says. That's what the religion is founded on. If you belive different, you're a heritic, or part of some sect or cult. That's how monotheism tends to work.

(that's who I forgot, Allah. Sorry!)

Meanwhile, I think the whole monotheism thing is self-rightous hooey, but that's just me. I don't hold it against anyone

(Sorry for going off on a tangent here! =p)

Acutally, Descartes' argument is both valid and sound. What Descartes proved with his argument is that it is impossible to have any thought without existing (in some form or another). Even if you think to yourself "I don't really exist; this is all just in someone else's imagination," you are existing. YOU are having that thought.
No, because he assumes logic leads to truth, and that reality even exists at all!

What if nothing is real and our conceptions of what would make something real are false? Then his argument falls apart. It's based on his own relative perceptions of what an individual is and what is reality.

He even assumes he thinks at all. For all we know, I am just someone else's thought, a daydream of God. He completely ignores the possibility that there may be things he does not understand which could give him the appearance of sentience and conscious individual thought, while actually being something else, something possibly non-existent. It is beyond comprehension, but possible, that we are in a void of nothingness, and that a void of nothingness can only exist as a fictional illusion, in which there is no material reality, but only dreams where there is no division, but rather, only arbitrary, relative comparisons, no different than direction or color.

Why is something up? Because you say it is, and that's the direction you've named as up. Why is something red? Because you say it is, and you've given its color an arbitrary number representing the frequency of its light given off. But even such a number is never exact, but rounded off. So, even mathematics is a poor reflection reality. It's seeing the world through a blurry lens, with rounded off numbers that work, but aren't perfect. And even so, what makes colors be that number on the electromagnetic scale? Arbitrary, relative comparisons. Visible colors are in the middle and it only goes as far as we can comprehend. But clearly, electromagnetic energy goes farther than that--how could there be a limit to the size of a wave's frequency or wavelength? Just as there cannot be a limit to the size of matter, there cannot be a limit to the size of energy. There can't be and if there is, WHAT IS IT? So, really, we're limited and our reality is nothing, but relative comparisons of what we percieve (or would like to percieve) as true or false.

Yeah, because "the alpha and the omega" is not all that is.

never said it was.

Allah, Yaweh, and Jahova are of a certain type of god, not all-encumpassing. They have a distinct flavor, which strikes me as being very like Ares, but that's just me.

and Jesus is a different god altogether, in my book

my Book of Shadows just doesn't get the respect the Bible, Koran, and Torah do.. *sighs* ^^

Great explaination! Can I borrow that when I am teaching Descartes?
I am more impressed by the fact of you being a (potential) teacher than of the subject you choose (or not).

What if nothing is real and our conceptions of what would make something real are false? Then his argument falls apart. It's based on his own relative perceptions of what an individual is and what is reality.

He even assumes he thinks at all. For all we know, I am just someone else's thought, a daydream of God. He completely ignores the possibility that there may be things he does not understand which could give him the appearance of sentience and conscious individual thought, while actually being something else, something possibly non-existent. It is beyond comprehension, but possible, that we are in a void of nothingness, and that a void of nothingness can only exist as a fictional illusion, in which there is no material reality, but only dreams where there is no division, but rather, only arbitrary, relative comparisons, no different than direction or color.


Descartes is assuming that he is a figment of some evil creature's imagination. However, simply by having the ability to recognize that he is thinking (even if he is questioning his own existence), he had to exist in some manner. Yes, it is possible that his thoughts are being controled by someone/something else, but as soon as he realizes that he is having thoughts, he must exist. Yes, he could be in a void of nothingness, where everything around him is an illusion. But he knows he is thinking (as he puts it, he knows that he is a thinking thing), therefore he must exist in some manner -- even if he is just an amorphous cloud of consciousness.

Nothing about his argument conflicts with your examples of us simply defining "up" as towards the sky, or "red" as the opposite of green. It's the rest of his work that does that part.

What if nothing is real and our conceptions of what would make something real are false? Then his argument falls apart.
What is real?

never said it was.

Allah, Yaweh, and Jahova are of a certain type of god, not all-encumpassing. They have a distinct flavor, which strikes me as being very like Ares, but that's just me.

and Jesus is a different god altogether, in my book

my Book of Shadows just doesn't get the respect the Bible, Koran, and Torah do.. *sighs* ^^
You didn't have to... because it is. "The alpha and the omega" is the definition of "all that is".

I like your use of astrological symbolism, not to mention B5 symbolism.

Still, god referring to himself as "the alpha and the omega" means that he considers himself to be all that is, and at that point in his development, it is true. He is all that is.

Consciousness is not a real thing!

You didn't have to... because it is. "The alpha and the omega" is the definition of "all that is".

I like your use of astrological symbolism, not to mention B5 symbolism.

Still, god referring to himself as "the alpha and the omega" means that he considers himself to be all that is, and at that point in his development, it is true. He is all that is.

I haven't picked up a bible in years, but wasn't that God talking to a prophet?

He's the beginning, he's the end. Is he all that's inbetween? Hardly

EDIT: and that wasn't astrological symbolism. Ares was a god. FURTHER EDIT: the Greek god of war, known by the Romans as Mars

EVEN FURTHER EDIT: My sources say that God was talking to Adam, so my point about him having created everything before claming to be the Alpha and the Omega still is valid, though Adam was technically not a prophet.
My source could be wrong tho, as its not a bible

I haven't picked up a bible in years, but wasn't that God talking to a prophet?

He's the beginning, he's the end. Is he all that's inbetween? Hardly

EDIT: and that wasn't astrological symbolism. Ares was a god. FURTHER EDIT: the Greek god of war, known by the Romans as Mars
I know who Ares is. I am an astrologer. You have used the symbolism of Ares correctly, and in context. I guess that's your bad luck... (to be a natural astrologer.)
Originally Posted by Akusei
Because God is male. That's just how it is.

the Goddess is the female half, in my book. God is the "alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end.." but NOT the male and the female. The Christian Jehova is male. the Jewish Yaweh is male. Buddah (while not the same thing) was male. ect.

I belive in both as distinct halves of a whole, genderless being
The male is the one who penetrates: body, consciousness and soul. The female is the one who allows such penetration to alter reality.

The "alpha and the omega" is the beginning and the end, and all substance in between. It is active, and intrusive, and therefore male.

The female counterpart is "wholeness."

I know who Ares is. I am an astrologer. You have used the symbolism of Ares correctly, and in context. I guess that's your bad luck... (to be a natural astrologer.)

The male is the one who penetrates: body, consciousnes and soul. The female is the one who allows such penetration to alter reality.

The "alpha and the omega" is the beginning and the end, and all substance in between. It is active, and intrusive, and therefore male.

The female counterpart is "wholeness."

Yeah, but I wasn't talking astrology, I was talking Greek Mythology. If it holds true on multiple levels, well then, yay, I'm smart.

And where does it say all substance in between? It could be like a mobius strip, with God as the binding. Each pass takes you through God, but God isn't every single thing you encounter. Is this computer God? That table? My bed? Me? Some religions, granted, say yes. I didn't think Chrsitianity was one of them. As far I as know, it's a religion with a distinction between God and Not-God. Not-God being Creation, God being the Creator.

(Sorry for going off on a tangent here! =p)


No, because he assumes logic leads to truth, and that reality even exists at all!

What if nothing is real and our conceptions of what would make something real are false? Then his argument falls apart. It's based on his own relative perceptions of what an individual is and what is reality.

He even assumes he thinks at all. For all we know, I am just someone else's thought, a daydream of God. He completely ignores the possibility that there may be things he does not understand which could give him the appearance of sentience and conscious individual thought, while actually being something else, something possibly non-existent. It is beyond comprehension, but possible, that we are in a void of nothingness, and that a void of nothingness can only exist as a fictional illusion, in which there is no material reality, but only dreams where there is no division, but rather, only arbitrary, relative comparisons, no different than direction or color.

Why is something up? Because you say it is, and that's the direction you've named as up. Why is something red? Because you say it is, and you've given its color an arbitrary number representing the frequency of its light given off. But even such a number is never exact, but rounded off. So, even mathematics is a poor reflection reality. It's seeing the world through a blurry lens, with rounded off numbers that work, but aren't perfect. And even so, what makes colors be that number on the electromagnetic scale? Arbitrary, relative comparisons. Visible colors are in the middle and it only goes as far as we can comprehend. But clearly, electromagnetic energy goes farther than that--how could there be a limit to the size of a wave's frequency or wavelength? Just as there cannot be a limit to the size of matter, there cannot be a limit to the size of energy. There can't be and if there is, WHAT IS IT? So, really, we're limited and our reality is nothing, but relative comparisons of what we percieve (or would like to percieve) as true or false.

ARGH!! Berkelian philosophy!! turn back now, for it leads down a dark and disturbing path from which THERE IS NO RETURN!!!

no, seriuosly, Berkeley is just really interesting in my opinion, because there is absolutely no way to prove him wrong. he made me a skeptic!

Yeah, but I wasn't talking astrology, I was talking Greek Mythology. If it holds true on multiple levels, well then, yay, I'm smart.

And where does it say all substance in between? It could be like a mobius strip, with God as the binding. Each pass takes you through God, but God isn't every single thing you encounter. Is this computer God? That table? My bed? Me? Some religions, granted, say yes. I didn't think Chrsitianity was one of them. As far I as know, it's a religion with a distinction between God and Not-God. Not-God being Creation, God being the Creator.
Greek mythology parallels astrology.

You're smart. Go you!

Where does it not say everything inbetween? Why should we assume that "the beginning and the ending" doesn't include everything inbetween?

Mobius... isn't that a comic strip? God is in each of us, hence your description of "passes" is meaningless. God *is* everything I encounter. God is as much this computer has he is me. (Let me clarify: I have very much a deist attitude in this regard, though I am not a Deist.)

Greek mythology parallels astrology.

You're smart. Go you!

Where does it not say everything inbetween? Why should we assume that "the beginning and the ending" doesn't include everything inbetween?

Mobius... isn't that a comic strip? God is in each of us, hence your description of "passes" is meaningless. God *is* everything I encounter. God is as much this computer has he is me. (Let me clarify: I have very much a deist attitude in this regard, though I am not a Deist.)

That's a very heretical belief, then. I'm talking basic fundemental Christian beliefs; that's a deviation. Thus, outside my origional argument, as you worship a slightly different God than the one I hear about when I'm forced to go to Church. Similar, but different, more like the Dao.

Go you

meheh, probably, but it's a pun. Take a strip of paper, twist it one half-turn, tape the ends together. You have a one-sided strip- no inside or outside. A line drawn on it goes outside AND inside without changing sides. That's a Mobius strip

Astrology parallels Mythology, I think.

Again, I'm discussing Christianity. There are Christians who believe variations of Christianity that sit better with them, but Jehovah is technically not in this desk. Jehovah-Dao or something like that would be who you believe in... I think... I'm confusing myself. Variations are exceptions, not the rule

And where does it say all substance in between?
Well... there's a beginning and and ending, which assumes two states. And if you assume a "between" you assume a third state, but there is nothing in the scriptures that assumes this third state. Therefore (dot dot dot)

ARGH!! Berkelian philosophy!! turn back now, for it leads down a dark and disturbing path from which THERE IS NO RETURN!!!

no, seriuosly, Berkeley is just really interesting in my opinion, because there is absolutely no way to prove him wrong. he made me a skeptic!
Berkeley was, like, a person? and not just a University?

Well... there's a beginning and and ending, which assumes two states. And if you assume a "between" you assume a third state, but there is nothing in the scriptures that assumes this third state. Therefore (dot dot dot)

If there's a beginning, something begins. If there's an ending, something ends. That something must exist because it began, and it must exist for some length of time (an eyeblink even) for it to end. Actually, scratch that about time- the beginning and ending can happen at the same time, but that still leaves the SOMETHING, which is Not-God. That technically makes God either two points in spacetime or two actions, the act of beginning and the act of ending

Berkeley was, like, a person? and not just a University?

yep. john berkeley. too tired to show a link, just go to google and try "john berkeley"

Why the hell should a Christian try to rationalize their own religious beliefs towards people who are dead set on NOT BELIEVING?!??!?!

No matter how ironclad their arguments are, you will not believe them. No matter how logical their statements become, you will not buy them. No matter what they say or do to you people, you'll just tell them that they're full of crap.

So tell me, why the hell should they bother with you if you won't even listen? Won't even humour them? Won't even admit that even though their beliefs sound impossible... that they could still be plausible? What's the point?

The problem is not with Creationism... it's with the people who get a kick out of trying to prove them wrong. Evolution takes just as much faith, believe it or not. Though it is more rational, evolution also has holes in their theories (I.E. missing links). Yet nobody gives evolution believers any hell about it. Only Creationists.

So come off it. You people are just here to try to make Creationist look like fools, and in turn it makes you people look even more like zealots than you picture Creationists to be. So if you're not dead set on hearing them out and giving their theory a chance, I suggest you either shut up or not ask. Period.

Why the hell should a Christian try to rationalize their own religious beliefs towards people who are dead set on NOT BELIEVING?!??!?!

No matter how ironclad their arguments are, you will not believe them. No matter how logical their statements become, you will not buy them. No matter what they say or do to you people, you'll just tell them that they're full of crap.

So tell me, why the hell should they bother with you if you won't even listen? Won't even humour them? Won't even admit that even though their beliefs sound impossible... that they could still be plausible? What's the point?

The problem is not with Creationism... it's with the people who get a kick out of trying to prove them wrong. Evolution takes just as much faith, believe it or not. Though it is more rational, evolution also has holes in their theories (I.E. missing links). Yet nobody gives evolution believers any hell about it. Only Creationists.

So come off it. You people are just here to try to make Creationist look like fools, and in turn it makes you people look even more like zealots than you picture Creationists to be. So if you're not dead set on hearing them out and giving their theory a chance, I suggest you either shut up or not ask. Period.


murr?

I'm fascinated by intellegant, intellectual debate on topics involving Christianity. Nothing said will convert me, but since I'm neither a Christian nor an Athiest...
For me, it's interesting to discuss. It's a philosophy I can step back and look at and poke and prod and try to understand. I only turn on people when their arguments make no sense at all. That's just stupid. Why debate if you can't make rational sense?

For all I know, Creationism is correct and true. But I like messing around and examining it. Nobody can prove any religious belief true or false; one can only examine the validity of arguments in light of the facts. If all I do in a a debate is make someone belive in Creationism more strongly, fine. As long as they have valid arguments to back it up.

Valid: "There is a creator because we're too complex to have evolved." I don't belive it, but it's a valid belief

Invalid: "There's a creator because I say so, and anyone who says otherwise IS TEH SUXX0RZ."

That's a very heretical belief, then. I'm talking basic fundemental Christian beliefs; that's a deviation. Thus, outside my origional argument, as you worship a slightly different God than the one I hear about when I'm forced to go to Church. Similar, but different, more like the Dao.

Go you

meheh, probably, but it's a pun. Take a strip of paper, twist it one half-turn, tape the ends together. You have a one-sided strip- no inside or outside. A line drawn on it goes outside AND inside without changing sides. That's a Mobius strip

Astrology parallels Mythology, I think.

Again, I'm discussing Christianity. There are Christians who believe variations of Christianity that sit better with them, but Jehovah is technically not in this desk. Jehovah-Dao or something like that would be who you believe in... I think... I'm confusing myself. Variations are exceptions, not the ruleI'm sorry: "heretical" makes me laugh, as it assumes I'm some sort of ...Christian? I won't hold it against you, as the whole thread assumes some sort of Abrahamic Creation.

I'm sorry, I have to ask: you are forced to go to Church? Should I pity you?

What is the Dao? Is it similar to Zoe? Or that Jamaican song about "daaaaayoooo."
Actually, scratch that about time- the beginning and ending can happen at the same time, but that still leaves the SOMETHING, which is Not-God. That technically makes God either two points in spacetime or two actions, the act of beginning and the act of ending
So, there are things that are not created by God?

I'm sorry: "heretical" makes me laugh, as it assumes I'm some sort of ...Christian? I won't hold it against you, as the whole thread assumes some sort of Abrahamic Creation.

I'm sorry, I have to ask: you are forced to go to Church? Should I pity you?

What is the Dao? Is it similar to Zoe? Or that Jamaican song about "daaaaayoooo."

So, there are things that are not created by God?

Well we're discussing Christian beliefs (I thought?) so any point/counterpoint should be withen that frame of reference...

Yes, yes I am. Once in a while. I'm a Wiccan, but I'm underaged, and my parents are Christian. They force me to go to church on special occasions, such as, "so that your stepmom's mom can show off her grandkids." (and apparently "oh, ok, I'm not her grandkid, so I'm gonna go back to sleep now" isn't a valid response)

the Dao (sometimes spelled Tao) is the spirit behind Daoism or Taoism. Google it, I'm tired and I learned of it some 2 years ago, so would probably mangle it.

Yes: the theory is that God did not create Himself. He just always existed. So, anything that isn't him, He created, but He himself is not part of Creation, he's above it.

(I love how Christians randomly capitalize Things. It makes their Pamphlets so much more Holy sounding, don't you Think?)

EDIT: Dao is pronounced like Dow (as in the Jones Avarage), though Tao rhymes with Dow, not with Tow (as in the truck). The holy book is the Dao de Ching or Tao te Jiang. It's an eastern religion, hence the alternate spellings- was origionally in characters, probably

Evolution, the way I see it, is nothing more than another religion. How many evolutionists have you met that will defend their ideals with religious ferver? Almost, if not more, than Christians who defend their points of view.

The one theory of evolution that boils my blood the most is the Big Bang theory. Science disproves it, but scientists have decided that's the way it went, and a lie told often enough becomes teh truth.

The Big Bang is essentially the theory that states that matter started to attract to itself and gravitational force spun it around faster and faster until BOOM the universe was born. Makes perfect sense right? Well it would if it weren't for a little thing called the Theory of Angular Momentum. That states that once something is spinning and is released, it will remain spinning in the same direction. Tie a string to a ball and whirl it around your head and let go of it, you'll see what I mean. But if the Big Bang were true, then the Theory of Angular Momentum would be disproven. Why? Some planets and Solar Systems rotate in the opposite direction than most.

OK, so what. That's just the Big Bang Theory proved wrong.

Evolution, the way I see it, is nothing more than another religion. How many evolutionists have you met that will defend their ideals with religious ferver? Almost, if not more, than Christians who defend their points of view.

The one theory of evolution that boils my blood the most is the Big Bang theory. Science disproves it, but scientists have decided that's the way it went, and a lie told often enough becomes teh truth.

The Big Bang is essentially the theory that states that matter started to attract to itself and gravitational force spun it around faster and faster until BOOM the universe was born. Makes perfect sense right? Well it would if it weren't for a little thing called the Theory of Angular Momentum. That states that once something is spinning and is released, it will remain spinning in the same direction. Tie a string to a ball and whirl it around your head and let go of it, you'll see what I mean. But if the Big Bang were true, then the Theory of Angular Momentum would be disproven. Why? Some planets and Solar Systems rotate in the opposite direction than most.

OK, so what. That's just the Big Bang Theory proved wrong.

you missed seven little words: Unless Acted Upon By An Outside Force.

Something coulda messed with those planets/solar systems

If evolution is an ongoing process... then why aren't we seeing it happening?

Why aren't fish trying TODAY or in the relatively recent fossil record developing limbs to walk on land? Don't say 'They're being eaten, survival of the fittest!' because we at least ought to find their bones.

Same things for today's reptiles and birds.

If evolution is an ongoing process... then why aren't we seeing it happening?

Why aren't fish trying TODAY or in the relatively recent fossil record developing limbs to walk on land? Don't say 'They're being eaten, survival of the fittest!' because we at least ought to find their bones.

Same things for today's reptiles and birds.

Evolution IS hapeneing today. It's just so slow we can't see it. The domestic housecat is not the same as the African Wildcat our ancestors first tamed. They're different species now, and that's withen the realm of man. Fish arn't walking on land because there's already land animals, so there's no niche there that would be better than being a fish. But bugs are developing genetic resistances to man-made pesticides

Evolution, the way I see it, is nothing more than another religion. How many evolutionists have you met that will defend their ideals with religious ferver? Almost, if not more, than Christians who defend their points of view.

The one theory of evolution that boils my blood the most is the Big Bang theory. Science disproves it, but scientists have decided that's the way it went, and a lie told often enough becomes teh truth.

The Big Bang is essentially the theory that states that matter started to attract to itself and gravitational force spun it around faster and faster until BOOM the universe was born. Makes perfect sense right? Well it would if it weren't for a little thing called the Theory of Angular Momentum. That states that once something is spinning and is released, it will remain spinning in the same direction. Tie a string to a ball and whirl it around your head and let go of it, you'll see what I mean. But if the Big Bang were true, then the Theory of Angular Momentum would be disproven. Why? Some planets and Solar Systems rotate in the opposite direction than most.

OK, so what. That's just the Big Bang Theory proved wrong.


Oh good grief.. before you decide to go off on a rant about something you might want to try to learn the first thing about it.

1. The Big Bang not only is not a theory of evolution, it has nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution = Biology.
Big Bang = Cosmology.

Two completely unrelated fields!

2. "matter started to attract to itself and gravitational force spun it around faster and faster until BOOM the universe was born."???. Are you joking? You actually think that the Big Bang theory says anything like this? Did you get that from a cartoon or something?

3. While there is such a thing as angular momentum, there's no statement in science that says what you just typed.
---3a: When you release the ball it won't keep spinning at all, it'll fly off in a straight line absent the influence of any other forces changing it's path.
---3b: Pay especially close attention to the bolded part of 3a.

//If evolution is an ongoing process... then why aren't we seeing it happening?

//Why aren't fish trying TODAY or in the relatively recent fossil record developing //limbs to walk on land? Don't say 'They're being eaten, survival of the fittest!' //because we at least ought to find their bones.

//Same things for today's reptiles and birds.

Easy answer: Google "chinese walking catfish" and see what you find. No, don't talk until you do. Look at it yourself.
Next, species do evolve daily. Look at antibiotic resistaint bacteria; they evolve to counter drugs. If you can't see, say, cats evolving, that's because change can only happen every generation, when mutation can happen. It takes thousands of generations to see noticible differences usually. The faster the generation, the quicker the evolution.
Next, a species only evolves to fill a niche (not intentionally, obviously). Fish that were able to eat plants on land were able to reproduce more than other fish, and thus the species slowly evolved. Now there are already herbivores on land, and there is no niche to fill. This little to no evolution in that direction.

//If evolution is an ongoing process... then why aren't we seeing it happening?

//Why aren't fish trying TODAY or in the relatively recent fossil record developing //limbs to walk on land? Don't say 'They're being eaten, survival of the fittest!' //because we at least ought to find their bones.

//Same things for today's reptiles and birds.

Easy answer: Google "chinese walking catfish" and see what you find. No, don't talk until you do. Look at it yourself.
Next, species do evolve daily. Look at antibiotic resistaint bacteria; they evolve to counter drugs. If you can't see, say, cats evolving, that's because change can only happen every generation, when mutation can happen. It takes thousands of generations to see noticible differences usually. The faster the generation, the quicker the evolution.
Next, a species only evolves to fill a niche (not intentionally, obviously). Fish that were able to eat plants on land were able to reproduce more than other fish, and thus the species slowly evolved. Now there are already herbivores on land, and there is no niche to fill. This little to no evolution in that direction.


yay, everything I said, with better examples! Don't I feel smart.

If evolution is an ongoing process... then why aren't we seeing it happening?

We are.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Why aren't fish trying TODAY or in the relatively recent fossil record developing limbs to walk on land? Don't say 'They're being eaten, survival of the fittest!' because we at least ought to find their bones.

Same things for today's reptiles and birds.

Ummm... why aren't fish "trying" to develop limbs?

...

Just...

you...

what???...

I...

:headbang:

I can't take this. I just can't.

Where, oh where, did you EVER hear that ANYBODY in the scientific community theorized that an organism could rewrite it's own DNA to order through an act of will?

The one theory of evolution that boils my blood the most is the Big Bang theory. Science disproves it, but scientists have decided that's the way it went, and a lie told often enough becomes teh truth.

The Big Bang is essentially the theory that states that matter started to attract to itself and gravitational force spun it around faster and faster until BOOM the universe was born. Makes perfect sense right? Well it would if it weren't for a little thing called the Theory of Angular Momentum. That states that once something is spinning and is released, it will remain spinning in the same direction. Tie a string to a ball and whirl it around your head and let go of it, you'll see what I mean. But if the Big Bang were true, then the Theory of Angular Momentum would be disproven. Why? Some planets and Solar Systems rotate in the opposite direction than most.

gah!! wrong! first of all, the big bang theory is NOT related to evolution. whot the hell told you that?! one's physical, one's biological!!

moving on: the big bang theory is nothing like what you described. the big bang theory states that all matter in the universe was packed into an almost-infinitely (yes, that word makes no sense; think really, REALLY freaking dense) dense nugget the planck length long that exploded about 13 billion years ago. there was no previous matter to spin together; where the hell did you get this?? unless you believe our universe is the product of a previous big crunch, for which there is no evidence (there is little definitive evidence for the big bang theory, but at least we can observe its indirect effects; any evidence for the existence of a previous universe would have been annihilated in the big bang itself), you are making shit up.

If there's a beginning, something begins. If there's an ending, something ends. That something must exist because it began, and it must exist for some length of time (an eyeblink even) for it to end. Actually, scratch that about time- the beginning and ending can happen at the same time, but that still leaves the SOMETHING, which is Not-God. That technically makes God either two points in spacetime or two actions, the act of beginning and the act of ending
Okay, I couldn't agree more. So.. there's something in between.

murr?

I'm fascinated by intellegant, intellectual debate on topics involving Christianity. Nothing said will convert me, but since I'm neither a Christian nor an Athiest...
Haha!!! Myth...

Just you wait and see.

Well we're discussing Christian beliefs (I thought?) so any point/counterpoint should be withen that frame of reference...

Yes, yes I am. Once in a while. I'm a Wiccan, but I'm underaged, and my parents are Christian. They force me to go to church on special occasions, such as, "so that your stepmom's mom can show off her grandkids." (and apparently "oh, ok, I'm not her grandkid, so I'm gonna go back to sleep now" isn't a valid response)

the Dao (sometimes spelled Tao) is the spirit behind Daoism or Taoism. Google it, I'm tired and I learned of it some 2 years ago, so would probably mangle it.

Yes: the theory is that God did not create Himself. He just always existed. So, anything that isn't him, He created, but He himself is not part of Creation, he's above it.

(I love how Christians randomly capitalize Things. It makes their Pamphlets so much more Holy sounding, don't you Think?)

EDIT: Dao is pronounced like Dow (as in the Jones Avarage), though Tao rhymes with Dow, not with Tow (as in the truck). The holy book is the Dao de Ching or Tao te Jiang. It's an eastern religion, hence the alternate spellings- was origionally in characters, probably
Dow? D'oh!

I shan't argue against anymore, with this understanding of the perspective.

We are.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html



Ummm... why aren't fish "trying" to develop limbs?

...

Just...

you...

what???...

I...

:headbang:

I can't take this. I just can't.

Where, oh where, did you EVER hear that ANYBODY in the scientific community theorized that an organism could rewrite it's own DNA to order through an act of will?


Calm down, I think trying was just a poor word choice, I think it was meant int he same sense as "My computer's just being bitchy" technically a computer can't be bitchy because it's not really alive or attempting to do anything on its own.

I think

Haha!!! Myth...

Just you wait and see.

Meh, I already tried it and decided it wasn't for me, and that's a good enough reason for me not ot convert, no matter what anyone says

;P

Evolution, the way I see it, is nothing more than another religion. How many evolutionists have you met that will defend their ideals with religious ferver? Almost, if not more, than Christians who defend their points of view.
Evolution has little in common with religion. For one thing, evolutionists actually have a sound theory that does not rely on idealism of any sort.

Evolutionists have as much a solid grounding as astrologers, but hey, watch them protest that point. ;-)

I find the argument to be terribly moot. For every valid and arguable point that a Creationist makes about why Evolution is inferior, the Evolutionist has a point that makes the case for Creationism being silly.

Intelligent people can (and do) go back and forth for hours upon days upon years on this argument.

I can't take this. I just can't.

Where, oh where, did you EVER hear that ANYBODY in the scientific community theorized that an organism could rewrite it's own DNA to order through an act of will?
It's magic.

Meh, I already tried it and decided it wasn't for me, and that's a good enough reason for me not to convert, no matter what anyone says
May I?

Myth is not a "lie". Myth is metaphor. Myth does not provide an 'alternative' to science in order to 'explain' the world. Myth presents metaphors for concepts of "inner self" in a tropic language that is most appropriate to convey these ideas.

I find the argument to be terribly moot. For every valid and arguable point that a Creationist makes about why Evolution is inferior, the Evolutionist has a point that makes the case for Creationism being silly.

Intelligent people can (and do) go back and forth for hours upon days upon years on this argument.
Not for the true mythologist.

*shoots herself, because nobody really knows what she's talking about*

Why the hell should a Christian try to rationalize their own religious beliefs towards people who are dead set on NOT BELIEVING?!??!?!

No matter how ironclad their arguments are, you will not believe them. No matter how logical their statements become, you will not buy them. No matter what they say or do to you people, you'll just tell them that they're full of crap.

So tell me, why the hell should they bother with you if you won't even listen? Won't even humour them? Won't even admit that even though their beliefs sound impossible... that they could still be plausible? What's the point?

The problem is not with Creationism... it's with the people who get a kick out of trying to prove them wrong. Evolution takes just as much faith, believe it or not. Though it is more rational, evolution also has holes in their theories (I.E. missing links). Yet nobody gives evolution believers any hell about it. Only Creationists.

So come off it. You people are just here to try to make Creationist look like fools, and in turn it makes you people look even more like zealots than you picture Creationists to be. So if you're not dead set on hearing them out and giving their theory a chance, I suggest you either shut up or not ask. Period.

personally, my problem isnt with what someone wants to believe, thats up to the individual.

but when they wish to have their beliefs granted the same legitimacy in academia and other areas, then it is their responsibility to provide reasons why, i.e., to basically prove their beliefs have as much merit
(yes, im mostly talking about the creation/evolution thing in public schools in the us)

hmm... cant find the exact quote, or even who stated it, but something to the effect of:
"nothing in biology makes sense, except in light of evolution"

for the average person, this whole topic is a moot point, but for someone who is studying biology, medicine, ecology, paleontology, etc, i cant even imagine studying it without at least a basic knowledge of evolution.

i know this is bordering on circular logic, but most of the arguments i have heard put forth by creationists(or maybe anti-evolutionists, i believe their is a difference) are very easily attributable to a lack of knowledge about evolution, natural and sexual selection. I realize that saying this isnt very different from a religous person telling me i need to have faith to believe in creationism, but to understand some of the concepts in evolution(like the evolution of our eyeball) requires a fairly broad and thorough base in biology.

also, yes, the fossil record does have a lot of gaps, i think its estimated that only ?5%? of species ever even make it into the fossil record.

there have been some accounts of people 'witnessing' evolution, but its hard, because it happens over the cours of many generations. also, the theory of punctuated equilibrium has a pretty strong following.

basically, critters remain the same until something changes(environmental catastrophe, evolutionary novelty, introduction of new species/resource/etc) and then there is a short period of _rapid_ evolution as new niches are filled and then its back to the equilibrium bit

note-im not trying to offend anyone, nor am i hoping to change anyones beliefs, or have mine changed. im just sorta in this for the discussion, and ive kinda enjoyed most of it so far, i may be wrong, but i feel its remained remarkable civil considering the volatility of the subject matter.
nothing i say is intended as offensive, and if i post something that comes across as an insult, it was not intended that way, just point it out and i will try to explain my reasoning behind it.

Berkeley was, like, a person? and not just a University?
Willamena, I'm disappointed! ;) (Now it's me not able to tell if you're joking.)

Bishop Berkely: famous for four things.
1. Trying to prove Newton's calculus wrong
2. Being quite the celebrity socialite of his time
3. Doing excellent pastoral work in (IIRC) Ireland and Bermuda.
4. Coming up with observer created reality two hundred years or so before quantum mechanics.

That's a very heretical belief, then. I'm talking basic fundemental Christian beliefs; that's a deviation. Thus, outside my origional argument, as you worship a slightly different God than the one I hear about when I'm forced to go to Church. Similar, but different, more like the Dao.
<snip>

You should check out Orthodox Christianity (as in Greek/Russian Orthodox &c; not heretics). As I understand it, they believe that there is a spiritual component to all material things - hence their use of icons.

*shoots herself, because nobody really knows what she's talking about*
Hey, some of us do!




(We just have to sleep sometimes, is all.)

*shoots herself, because nobody really knows what she's talking about**Tackles and wrestles gun away... * enough life is wasted already why become another statistic? *empties bullets and tosses gun away.*

But even so, it's a logical argument and there's no logic to prove logic, or observation to prove observation.

For all we know, our logic is nonsense and our observations are illusions.

But you could prove logic with observation.

But you could prove logic with observation.

not nessicarily. what about someone with one of them desieses that makes them observe false things, or things that conflict with whateveryone else is seeing?