Education and Evolution

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by MaTTo, Aug 17, 1999.

  1. Blower Registered Member

    Messages:
    12
    So the question still remains: does one have a greater probability than the other. I believe there is ample evidence that one DOES have a greater probability than the other. --heh heh Socrates would be proud of you (Socratic truth).


    Interesting idea, though. How would we tally the evidence?? Number of points won or depth of the point?? I assume arguments from the creationalist side would have to be backed by proven theries? What amount of evidence would it take to consider something a Fact on the evolutional side?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. MaTTo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    54
    Lori--

    My apologies from that last message. My personal feelings got in the way with the real reason I'm here, but as I look back on messages in the past, I see that I am not the only one guilty of this atrosity.

    I'm here to make you question reality, not just accept it like everyone else believing that there is a God and everything is just going to be peachy for the rest of humanity's existance (which most religions believe is going to be "forever").

    I, unlike many, combine the qualities of emotion with logic -- indeed call it error if you like, you could be right, but none the less I remain what I am.

    It is my own personal believe that logic is pointless if it is just to be made for it to stand alone, and for this I appologize because this is how it is sometimes.

    But, Ody is very wrong. I do have the ability to rationalize and think logically.

    And I'm not in favortism of repeating ... everything written in the past with the similiar context of debate should have been read and I don't feel like typing anything over again, whether the argument had been one of my postings, or someone elses. I refuse to take part in the continual nonsense of cutting and pasting old arguments.

    I at least have the ability to skepticize what is before my eyes and question what people try to teach me day in and day out.

    To simply put it ...

    I take a rational and logical look at everything that surrounds myself, and I don't see a God, or anything of the sorts that I could call "logical explanations."

    When I say God -- by this I mean the modern day monotheistical veiwpoint of a God. The idea that we are his "children" to serve him and do his bidding and become his servants in heaven. This I find illogical and rediculas, in all respects, of course..

    MaTTo
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MaTTo,

    You are proving the very thing I proposed was the problem with these posts. You claim that your beliefs(knowledge) is founded in logic and based upon facts.

    You are mistaken - and the very logic you defend is missing.

    You have accepted evolution without any basis in fact, in the same way most theists believe what they believe without fundamental understanding.

    This is a foundational argument - let's find a foundation!!

    This is reminiscent of a post by BORIS in which he laid out several "facts" concerning evolution - I believe the entirety of which was based on debunked theory. Perhaps my next post should highlight some examples . . .
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Plato Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    366
    Say, Int Party,

    all very nice and noble of you but we are communicating here with a medium who doesn't really allow any 'hard' evidence that you are talking about. The Net doesn't allow us to exchange e.g. a skull of a Homo Habilis or something.
    We just have to use the tools we have : our own words and references to other peoples work who we trust to be experts in their fields.
    Ay there's the rub for ultimatly everything is based on faith !

    ------------------
    we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
    Plato
     
  8. Lori Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,065
    Matto,

    I appreciate your "toned down" response, and agree that these debates can get unnecessarily heated. It's just because these are BIG questions that we are asking each other, and the answers carry a lot of weight. But it is a good thing to challenge what is accepted, and different viewpoints, as that is how we all learn new things. I must say though, that you MUST get out of the hyper-arrogant mindset that you are in. Do you HONESTLY believe that I would commit my entire life to Christ without questioning anything about Christianity first? Don't be so naive and arrogant. Please understand what I'm saying, because THAT assumption that you are making about me pisses me off more than anything else you could possibly say. And it does for a reason. That reason is that I am an extremely intelligent person, with the education and accolades to back that up, and my journey to faith was a LONG one, filled with MANY learning experiences. Those which I AM SURE, by listening to you, that you have yet to experience. That is if you can get over yourself enough to be able to. Let me show you what I mean...

    You say, "I'm here to make you question reality, not just accept it like everyone else believing that there is a God." Ok, and my sarcastic response is, Oh thank God I've finally found you! For without your world renown deductive abilities, I would surely never be able to make any decisions on my own whatsoever! My non-sarcastic response is, GET OVER YOURSELF!!!! Are you honestly soooo arrogant that you would possibly assume that I do and have not questioned reality???? HELLO??? Honey, I've been questioning reality longer than you have probably been alive. What do you think, that I'm some toothless holy-rollin' hillbilly that was spoon-fed religion by my grannie in some back-woods shack??? I would bet every cent I own that I have questioned MORE about this world and this life than you have ever even THOUGHT about questioning. Please, please, please, do not assume things about me which you do not know, and please stop being so f'ing arrogant, YOU'RE MAKING MY WANT TO PUKE!

    Oh, and I LOVE this one, "I UNLIKE MANY combine the qualities of emotion with logic." Oh, well aren't you just sooooo special. Maybe you should deserve a trophy or something for your exemplary efforts in the area of logic. LOL! Listen, I know that there are SOME people who do not use a hell of a lot of logic, or are not intelligent or motivated enough to question ideas, BUT I don't think you will find many of these people out here posting on this forum. Do you know what the key to "getting religion" is? Humility. Apply some of your logic to that.

    And lastly, you say, " I take a rational and logical look at everything that surrounds myself, and I don't see a God." And I say, "I take a rational and logical look at everything that surrounds myself, and I UNDOUBTEDLY DO see God. Everyday, and all around. Everywhere I look. God communicates with me directly through prayer as a matter of fact." So I guess the question to you is this...are you sure that you have looked hard enough? Are you sure that you've questioned everything that is relevant to this issue? Are you sure that you've looked in the right places, or in a wide variety of places? And have you searched with an OPEN mind? It seems that you may have not. Especially the open mind part, as you seem to be particularly blinded by arrogance, and the assumption that you know it all already. You know, sometimes it just takes some time and life experience. That's what it took for me, and you just can't argue with real life experience.

    ------------------
    God loves you and so do I!
     
  9. Blower Registered Member

    Messages:
    12
    IP,

    While I can't speak for Matto, I'd have to disagree that his knowledge has no basis in logic. Science has demonstrated its ability to accurately predict and describe certain phenomonon in the past. So to only look breifly at a notion that appears to have a large scientific backing and believe that it may harbor some truth does not seem to be illogical. I pretty much believe the orbit of the Pluto is elliptical, even though I have not personally seen the planet orbit, nor had the instruments to take measurements of its orbit, many other credible people who have demonstrated their ability to predict this information in the past have spent several hours on this problem. All else being equal if I were to choose something to believe I'd choose their studies over someone who has not demonstrated their abiliy(including myself). I think these people have a higher probability of being correct than myself or someone who has not demonstrated this skill or had knowledge in this area.

    What beliefs that you hold can you truly say you have addressed every possible question regarding them and have complete up to the second knowledge in every single argument and question put forth?? I seriously doubt anyone here can say that about any belief they hold, unless somehow they are all-knowing. Maybe, if one of us steps forth some of us will have a new deity to consider

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Sort of a catch 22, if we must be God in order to disprove him.
     
  10. ISDAMan Thank You Jesus! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    378
    I am of the belief that anything the public school touches, it works tirelessly to destroy. Our plummeting test scores, as relating to those of other countries, over the past decade, can attest to that. I could respect their desire not to pick sides if they were to teach that some belive A, some belive B, and some belive C. Of course, they could only take the time cover what is found in major ideals in America. If you are not aware, I am for creation. In actuality, this whole thing can be either a win or a loss for those that belive in creation. Sure, the story of creation may be told. The only catch is that it could be taught by someone, such as myself, whom it is that holds dear the story of God's creation. It might also be taught by the staunchest agnostic with even more destain in his heart for the Word of God than all of the agnostics here put together. Anyone having attended public school knows that there is no such thing as a set in stone curriculum. It is also known that a teacher, standing tall and in front of the classroom, wields incredible power as an authority figure. The emotion and zeal, the simple tone of voice, or perhaps, a flip comment here or there, or even, a role of the eye, can all have greater impact than the message being broadcast. I have rarely encountered an atheist or an agnostic without also having to engage with that person's hostile bravado. The aspect of allowing creation to be taught in this manner is something akin to how D.C. has a delegate with no power to vote. Therefore, I would place no faith in the decisions of any public school system. I will, though, I'm sure, foolishly in the eyes on many here, simply continue to pray for God's workings in individual hearts. Only from there will families, the single smallest building block of any nation, be properly built and re-built. Only from a nation of Godly families can towns, even trailer parks, have real success and security. From towns to cities to counties to states to a country. Yes, I know. That's just foolishness to most here. I just need something to cling to,... huh? I'm a former U.S. Marine. I know all about security and insecurity, how to cause and how it feels to be face to face with death. Like Peter, I have a violent streak in me that must be dealt with. There's little fear to be felt when you are face to face with death. To be truthful, I've always gotten curious at that point. It almost increased my odds on at least one occasion. Though self reliant I may be, I am not so arrogant as to think that I am the pinnacle of all there is and must answer to no one. Something I can tell you that I have learned in my time of practicing in the arts of death is that the things you don't see can hurt you. God, the thing you don't see, can also help you. He has done so for me on several occasions. Moreover, as I practice what is in His Word, I find the exact outcomes as they have ben promised. The same is true when I do sin. None of you have to accept His ways. You seem to spend an awful lot of time arguing against them though. Now, I wonder, who here isn't affirming a religion?

    May God Bless you all with His wisdom.

    ------------------
    Feel free to contact me privately at isda@gte.net . I'm a Christian Web Developer. I run Apostle Creed Online.
     
  11. By the way Blower,

    "Sort of a catch 22, if we must be God in order to disprove him."

    If you had any idea of what you just said you would be in complete awe . . .
     
  12. Plato,

    You say:

    "all very nice and noble of you but we are communicating here with a medium who doesn't really allow any 'hard' evidence that you are talking about. The Net doesn't allow us to exchange e.g. a skull of a Homo Habilis or something.
    We just have to use the tools we have : our own words and references to other peoples work who we trust to be experts in their fields."

    I say:

    I agree a hundred percent!! It's the references to which I speak - haven't seen much of that except as a third party who overheard somebody say something like that who was repeating what his hair-stylist said she overheard from a . . . .yadda, yadda, yadda . . . and I believe it!!

    Most of what is repeated in these posts is tripe, accepted as being fact without any justification. While I concede that we can't pass a real skull over this medium, we can pass information such as:
    "the archeological find commonly referred to as 'Lucy' is evidence of an evolutionary intermediate linking apes to man" and pinpoint the references to justify it.

    Then that notion can be countered by the references to the archeologist who discovered 'Lucy' later admitting to falsifying his findings.

    You said:

    "Ay there's the rub for ultimatly everything is based on faith !"

    What I spoke of above isn't faith it's fact. A useful faith can only rest on evidence that has some reality to it, not dreamt up or believed because "it's always been that way" or because "I heard it was true" or "because scientists told me so" or "because I read it in the Bible"

    Evolutionists in particular believe that science is protected from the abuses of egomania and emotionalism - To believe that is the most dangerous faith.


    Blower:

    You said:

    "Science has demonstrated its ability to accurately predict and describe certain phenomonon in the past."

    I say:

    Yes, but not about all things, particularly where evolution is concerned.

    You said:

    "So to only look briefly at a notion that appears to have a large scientific backing and believe that it may harbor some truth does not seem to be illogical."

    I say:

    But to believe that it harbors ALL truth is illogical. And to ignore the large scientific backing of the opposing view is denial. The most insipid aspect of a "white lie" is that it contains a hint of the truth.

    You say:

    I pretty much believe the orbit of the Pluto is elliptical, even though I have not personally seen the planet orbit, nor had the instruments to take measurements of its orbit, many other credible people who have demonstrated their ability to predict this information in the past have spent several hours on this problem."

    I say:

    Granted. Nothing wrong with that.

    You say:

    "All else being equal"

    I say:

    Ay, THERE'S the rub!
    All things are not equal. A plethora of information, known by reputable scientists (not of the theistic bent, by the way) has been completely ignored or passed over.

    You said:

    "if I were to choose something to believe I'd choose their studies over someone who has not demonstrated their abiliy(including myself).I think these people have a higher probability of being correct than myself or someone who has not demonstrated this skill or had knowledge in this area.
    "

    I say:

    Agreed, why mix into the fray the musings of the ignorant. But, at the same time don't throw out evidence you don't like that is proffered by the same men of science you revere.

    You said:

    "What beliefs that you hold can you truly say you have addressed every possible question regarding them and have complete up to the second knowledge in every single argument and question put forth??"

    I say:

    I never made the claim. However, I am NOT inclined to throw out evidence just because it doesn't happen to fit my prejudiced viewpoint - We call that being objective.

    You said:

    "Maybe, if one of us steps forth some of us will have a new deity to consider"

    I say:

    I am stepping forth. And you just may . . .
     
  13. Interested Party Registered Member

    Messages:
    10
    At the risk of repeating myself, how did that happen?

    ------------------
    The method employed I would gladly explain
    while I have it so clear in my head
    If I had but the time,
    and you had but the brain . . .
    yet much remains to be said
     
  14. MaTTo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    54
    Lori,

    what in the hell was that? just who exactly who is it that contained their maturity and dignity in that message after mine?

    I thought your religion preached about love and forgiveness and all that crap you're _supposed_ to follow? You really bring those elements into shine whenever someone disagrees with you whether it be directly, or even indirectly. Keep up the holyness...

    Now to clear something up -- I wasn't bragging at all. You've question why we come here, and it's because we want to make sure that you people aren't
    NUCKING FUTZ. I wasn't bragging.

    You question my ability to reason, and I tell you that I am human, and that my intelligence comes mixed with emotion, but somehow, you've been able to turn this fact into none-sense like everything else. Looks like you were born gifted afterall!!! Who knows maybe it was even God himself who blessed you with this wonderful annoying gift?

    I was hoping I'd resolve this feud that seems to have spawned between us, but I guess an apology just isn't good enough for a Godly women, now is it?

    ...as if I could give a care in the world.

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

    Lori writes: What do you think, that I'm some toothless holy-rollin' hillbilly that was spoon-fed religion by my grannie in some back-woods shack??

    My response : Everything but the part about living in the back-woods shack ... I don't think they have internet connections there.

    Lori writes : are you sure that you have looked hard enough?

    My answer : You'll always find what you are looking for when you look hard enough, even if it isn't really there at all.

    Isomov once wrote, that you can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason if you pick the proper postulates based on assumption and adhered by faith.

    Tell yourself something enough times, and you'll start believing it.

    Now Lori, it's my turn to ask a question...

    Have you ever gotten the idea that maybe people just don't want to be religious in fear of that they may become JUST LIKE YOU?


    MaTTo
    "God May Love You, But I Don't!"

    P.S. -- Does anyone else here find it humorous that Lori bitches out everyone with an opposing veiwpoint only then at the end of each message to put her nice little quote "God loves you, and so do I!" ?!?!?!?

    [This message has been edited by MaTTo (edited August 25, 1999).]
     
  15. Odysseus Registered Member

    Messages:
    18
    Congrats Plato!

    I FINALLY got to see someone else post the obvious...Science, as much as Religion, is fundamentally based on leaps of faith---faith that there is order to be observed, faith that our senses can tell us truths about what's "out there," etc., etc.

    And I repeat for the millionth time, it seems---there is nothing inherently more "logical" in the assumption the cosmos sprang into being and order out of nothing, a completely random happening, by dumb brute chance, than there is in assuming the existence of an extra-cosmic creator.In terms of human intelligence and psychology, perhaps even less. Either thesis MIGHT be true, or even some other totally unimaginable. But Science no more has a lock on the answers to this ultimate question than any shaman from a stone age society.
     
  16. Lori Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,065
    Matto,

    Please, please, please, get a clue, would you? I'm not bitching you out for your viewpoint, I'm bitching you out because you made the assumption that the only reason I am a Christian, is because I just haven't put enough thought into it, which is absolute hogwash. If you can't understand that, then I'm sorry, but your assumptions are unfair, unfounded, and extremely arrogant. Period. And another thing that you seem to be misguided about...Christians aren't perfect, honey, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! Being a Christian doesn't really have anything to do with your personality, it has to do with your beliefs. Did you really think I was just going to roll over like some submissive puppy-dog when you say things like the only reason I'm a Christian is because I just haven't applied any logic or thought to the issue? Please. And I do love you, as a human being and a child of God, and I am no better or worse than you. That doesn't mean I have to like everything that you say, silly.

    ------------------
    God loves you and so do I!
     
  17. Blower Registered Member

    Messages:
    12
    IP,

    You said:

    Yes, but not about all things, particularly where evolution is concerned.

    I'd Say:

    Agreed. I don't believe science has a complete definition about the process of evolution, no question. Most obviously, they have not found the "missing link" yet. There are many, many things that science does not hold a completely bulletproof theroy but IMO this does not mean an un-biased person can discount these theories without better evidence. I'm not quite sure what evidence you have shown in other posts as I am relatively new here, but the only evidence that I am aware of is from one chapter a book which, admitedly, was written by human hands. I can point to several books written by human hands that claim that evolution has is the most likely possible manner we came to be. Beyond that, I think we can visually observe species adapt to their surroundings and have their physical characteristics change in order to advance their chances of survival. Would it not seem plausable that this has happend in the past and that there would be greater variations proportional to the time involved? We seem to have a puzzle with at least some portion of it accounted for by fossils found in the ground. Have we found everything? Of course not, but I don't think anyone is calling it the Fact of Evolution just yet.


    You also said:

    But to believe that it harbors ALL truth is illogical. And to ignore the large scientific backing of the opposing view is denial. The most insipid aspect of a "white lie" is that it contains a hint of the truth.

    My personal belief is that it is only a THEORY at this time, not that it harbors all truth. I can't believe anyone who is logical could claim differently, and I don't believe I have seen anyone do this(again I am fairly new here). From the evidence I have seen(admittedly I am no expert, which is why I choose to debate so that I might have a chance to learn), evolution appears the most likely explaination to me at this point in time. I would like to see what evidence others have in support of creationalism.


    Judging (only) by the remainder of your post your view seems to be largely focused on pointing out holes in the theory we propose. I will remind you that it is your job to come up with a better theory if you wish to replace the current theory. One can visit a site where a crew is in the process of building a home and easily exclaim "hey, there aren't any windows in that house" or "no carpet has been laid. You call yoursleves house builders??". Hardly a fair assessment to make such comments when the crew is still in the process of building the house. Even after assembling many pieces the crew has not said, "there, finished." because there is still much building and truing to be done. I don't find this a fair practice, especially when the other side (to my knowledge, which I admit, has not had its finger on the pulse of the latest creationalist facts put forth) appears only to have the hole dug for the foundation on their site.


    You also said

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I am stepping forth. And you just may . . .


    I would answer:

    If you are all-knowing, I'd like to come meet you as I have many,many questions. But first could you give me the winning lotto numbers so I know you are for real

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Plato Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    366
    Philosofically the discussion between evolutionism and creationism is in fact the difference between empirism (the believe that there is an actual universe behind our senses) or idealism (the believe that our senses can make us believe all they want, we have no way of being sure)
    Countrary to my alias (I should have taken an other one, darn) I am more inclined to empirism because I think true idealism is the same thing as madness. A lunatic also lives in his own universe but that cuts him away from all the other persons that surround him in the other universe (that I like to call real).

    Idealism also has no real boundaries to what can and can't be true. For example one could believe in the bible and accept the fact that an absolutely powerfull being created the earth in seven (methaforical?) days. But you might as well believe that this same superbeing created everything we know, including ourself and the bible just one second ago. Suppose God created the universe as we see it at this instand with everything on it (believers, non-believers, earth, stars, aliens, ufo's, ufo-sightings, this messageboard, our memories of having all ready written something on this messageboard,...) as a static image and then just put it in motion (let time begin as it were) just a second ago. How are we supposed to know ?
    Truth is a very tangible thing if you think along idealistic lines therefor I prefer the somewhat more substantial thinking of empirism.

    ------------------
    we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
    Plato
     
  19. Blower Registered Member

    Messages:
    12
  20. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    Frankly, I do not understand what terrible harm it would cause children to learn that Homo Sapiens descended from some ape-like pre-cursor. It certainly did not inflict any incurable wounds on me, or on any other 'gullible' and 'vulnerable' child out there. Just ask all the hundreds of millions of children that went through public schools and nevertheless chose to cling to whatever their religion was.

    Actually, I think the gullible children are indoctrinated with religion by their caring parents so persistently and from such a young age, that by the time they grow up and can think independently, their minds are no longer flexible enough to absorb the 'blasphemous' scientific theories. Perhaps that is why America always had to import its scientists from all over the world -- because its own crop of God's lambs is much better suited for managing corporations or defending criminals, than for empirical forays into the unknown. Perhaps American math and science scores are plummeting because the Christian culture made math and science the domain of the nerds and the geeks, and enthroned football as the ultimate human achievement. Or maybe it's because our Christian overlords deem it more important to return our taxes to us rather than provide decent public funding for our schools. I personally graduated from a public school that couldn't afford to buy chalk for its blackboards, and teachers had to buy their own out of their meager salaries. Did you know that American teachers earn less than American truck drivers? Would you at all be surprised that all the talent in America is therefore not devoted to educating the next generation, but to making a quick buck on the corporate stock options, or to greedily participating in the health care mafia?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    One last thing. The biological similarities between humans and apes are so astounding, one would have to be very blind, or else very ignorant, not to acknowledge a blood relationship somewhere down the line.

    ------------------
    I am; therefore I think.
     
  21. Plato Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    366
    To all you Americans on the board:

    The division between religion and state is in America indeed a bit less severe compared to Europe. May be its because you guys never had the bloody religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth century. Your ancesters simply left the warring factions in the old continent and searched a new life where there was enough place to practice any kind of religion they liked.
    For example we couldn't imagine our Prime Minister or King saying something in the line of "...and may God bless Belgium !" while the American presidents and other statesmen plead on a regular bases for the divine blessing. I mean, religion was the reason most of your ancesters came to America in the first place, asking you guys now to give that up would be unthinkable.
    Therefor, I think you guys will keep on struggling with this fundamental christian heritage. It will be interesting to watch this growing discripancy between the technological wonders that you keep producing and makes America to the superpower that it is, and the religious longings of a people searching for their god.


    ------------------
    we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
    Plato
     
  22. Interested Party Registered Member

    Messages:
    10
    Blower,

    I appreciate your response but I do differ on a few key points:

    You say:
    I don't believe science has a complete definition about the process of evolution, no question. Most obviously, they have not found the "missing link" yet.

    Me: Not only that, but science has failed to find even ONE intermediary between ANY animal or plant family. There is NO mechanism for evolution to occur.

    You:
    There are many, many things that science does not hold a completely bulletproof theroy but IMO this does not mean an un-biased person can discount these theories without better evidence.

    Me: Exactly - better evidence exists but evolutionists refuse to look at it.

    You:
    I'm not quite sure what evidence you have shown in other posts as I am relatively new here, but the only evidence that I am aware of is from one chapter a book which, admitedly, was written by human hands.

    Me: I can enlighten you. Noted scientists are accepting the realization that since there is no mechanism for evolution, and since the environment thought to exist at the time life supposedly began was actually destructive to life, not nurturing to it, that a "special" creation is more likely than evolution.

    You:

    Beyond that, I think we can visually observe species adapt to their surroundings and have their physical characteristics change in order to advance their chances of survival.

    Me: There is a difference between MACROevolution and MICROevolution. Microevolution deals only with hereditary changes based on genetic recombinations - and scientists have long recognized that this is NOT a factor in the Macroevolutionary mechanism necessary to cause one animal family of phyla to transform into another.

    You:
    Would it not seem plausable that this has happend in the past and that there would be greater variations proportional to the time involved?

    Me: It was proven by Mendel that there were limits to the amount of variations possible -this has been born out by breeders and biologists around the world. Not to mention that at no time has new genetic information been created in these genetic reshufflings.

    You:
    We seem to have a puzzle with at least some portion of it accounted for by fossils found in the ground.

    Me: Not just some - ALL!

    You:
    Have we found everything? Of course not, but I don't think anyone is calling it the Fact of Evolution just yet.

    Me: You are mistaken. Carl Sagen, a highly respected Physicist/Cosmologist has stated so on more than one occasion, most notably, in front of millions of viewers on the Tonight Show several years ago. That alone is enough to show him to be a kook in the scientific world. But the greatest number of viewers wouldn't know any better.
    Not to mention, most of the posts here approach evolution as a fact that only an idiot could not see.

    You:
    My personal belief is that it is only a THEORY at this time, not that it harbors all truth. I can't believe anyone who is logical could claim differently, and I don't believe I have seen anyone do this(again I am fairly new here). From the evidence I have seen(admittedly I am no expert, which is why I choose to debate so that I might have a chance to learn), evolution appears the most likely explaination to me at this point in time. I would like to see what evidence others have in support of creationalism.

    Me: I have a great deal of evidence. You might have to get out a pencil and paper . . .


    You:
    Judging (only) by the remainder of your post your view seems to be largely focused on pointing out holes in the theory we propose. I will remind you that it is your job to come up with a better theory if you wish to replace the current theory.

    Me: All in good time . . .

    You:
    One can visit a site where a crew is in the process of building a home and easily exclaim "hey, there aren't any windows in that house" or "no carpet has been laid. You call yoursleves house builders??". Hardly a fair assessment to make such comments when the crew is still in the process of building the house. Even after assembling many pieces the crew has not said, "there, finished." because there is still much building and truing to be done. I don't find this a fair practice, especially when the other side (to my knowledge, which I admit, has not had its finger on the pulse of the latest creationalist facts put forth) appears only to have the hole dug for the foundation on their site.

    Me: I think a better analogy would be that a group of tailors say they are sewing the finest clothes, fit for a king. I'm merely pointing out that there are no clothes.

    Considering your analogy: I'm not pointing out flaws in the house - I'm saying there is no house.

    You:
    If you are all-knowing, I'd like to come meet you as I have many,many questions. But first could you give me the winning lotto numbers so I know you are for real

    Me: I never said I was stepping out as a diety, only as an information provider - but you may be lead to one!
     
  23. Blower Registered Member

    Messages:
    12
    IP,

    Thanks for the reply. I did not realize there was a whole movement out there regarding evolution. I am now more aware, thanks.


    So many points I think that the big one that you mentioned was that there is no mechanism for Macroevolution to occur. Are you saying there is no evidence of say (reaching back to elementary school

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) the evolution of Amphibians to first reptiles or species to species link or what? I was wondering if you would mind being more specific on that point (unless you feel another point is more damning of evolution). I am still admitedly ignorant on the subject and would like to hear more about this idea.


    Thanks
     

Share This Page