Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Norsefire, Aug 20, 2008.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
the wisdom teeth worked perfectly for the giants but after the 'fall of man' we became smaller and dumber. kent hovind said so.
evolution is a fact but the theory of evolution is not.
The current theory of evolution is the bedrock theory of biological science, and has found wide employment in other fields.
If you don't teach it, you aren't teaching biology at all, and you are skimping on a dozen other fields of study - from anthropology to computer science.
btw: It's the first algorithm-based fundamental scientific theory, which links all kinds of modern mathematics to it and opens up some neglected areas of scientific investigation.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, not really..
Why do you think it is so ?
paleontology paleoanthropology and archeology. big differences. ive studied all three including anthropology.
i doubt that few would disput natural selection because we can also have human selection. that part is a proven fact. creature will evolve given the right circumstances. which leads to the bacteria claims in the video. we have seen bacteria evolve and become better and stronger. especialy in reaction to humans. bacteria have evolved to become resentant to human attempts to eradicate them. they have become resistant to drugs and chemicals that we use to try and stop them from living. so what it really grinds down to is one simple part. the part that we havent proven, that is the part that life evolved from nothing. that particular part is not required for any of the other sciences. at least not at this time. exempting the research that try and prove that life did evolve from nothing. even if we did coax life from nothing... did we prove life evolves from nothing or is it ID.
here is an interesting link that attempts to explain how our ape ancestors have 24 pairs of chromosomes and we humans only have 23 pairs - our chromosome #2 is made from two ape chromosomes which fused (via translocation) together. These "translocations" are apparently not too uncommon.
They thought it was a fact. They were proven wrong. Now, the chances of evolution being discredit are probably unlikely, however I'm sure eventually someone will come along and give a new view on it.
That idea isn't warranted; what logic are you using to come to the conclusion of a giant mashed potato and a giant sausage?
Regardless, that would fall under the "natural beginning" category; I'm thinking in terms of categories, not specifics.
No evidence, sure, but I have a logic behind it, that I've already explained
Modern day people are able to look at the world critically, first of all. Secondly, I am not speaking of any specific gods or magical beings; I'm speaking of the concept of a higher power. That's it. Just that. What is so ridiculous?
The universe having been created, intelligently, is not a ridiculous notion at all.
Franklin was religious, you know.
And religion is irrational; I'm speaking of concept, not religion. Also, although this isn't necessarily on topic, religon has also caused good things.
How is it idiocy?
I admit the problem with religious people is their inability to think critically. I, however, can think critically, and it is because I am thinking critically and analyze the possibilities that I come up with the two categories for the beginning of the universe.
Now, again, "god" doesn't have to be a giant magical being. I simply mean higher life, perhaps guided our evolution. It makes sense, after all, considering we are the only intelligent species on this planet. Apart from dolphins, I suppose.
The concept isn't irrational
Perhaps, but is it worth the happiness and hope?
Just more advanced life. I don't mean magic.
It makes perfect sense if an "alien" civ arrived in the past; indeed, the ancient men woud've thought their technology to be magic.
That isn't proof or evidence of anything, however
Again, this is evidence of nothing. It, perhaps, suggests that this "creator" is imperfect; aliens would also be imperfect.
Now, I'm not suggesting that an alien civ guided our evolution, but that it's a real possibility. And not just a possibility like pink unicorns, I mean, a real one.
We have somewhat evidence; the countless UFO sightings, not to mention the ancient drawings on caves of flying saucers and space men:shrug:
That is because in most religions, Humanity is special
Any "creator" would be "god". I'm not suggesting a perfect, magical being, however. Only a creator. It could be an alien civilization, it might not be. I don't know.
I'm an agnostic
There will certainly arise new views and ideas on how and why it happens, but it happens. Fact.
The same "logic" you are. Namely it's a fallacy of composition, (using observable parts of the universe and then applying them to the universe itself [intelligent people make things hence an intelligent entity made the universe]).
Sorry but you are being specific. You've already said "god" which denotes something specific and here you get more specific and imply that it must be something supernatural. Hence a supernatural god - which completely rules out any insistence that you just mean some advanced alien civ.
I think final clarification would be needed. Here you simply espouse "intelligence" but have clearly indicated to me earlier that you mean a supernatural intelligence and, in your own words, "god". The word god has assigned baggage, baggage that you can't just dismiss for the mere sake of it. So if you do mean 'god' then the baggage that accompanies it does indeed make the notion ridiculous.
Because evolution is only denied to uphold the idiotic notion that man was created by some invisible entity, placed in a garden where a talking snake gave them a fruit that endowed them with knowledge of good and evil - all of this a short 7,000 years ago.
Some recognise the idiocy from their very own book and so bend and distort it to fit their own version of that idiocy.
I am afraid it does. If you mean a mortal alien then say alien. If you mean a future scientist then say scientist. If you mean a god - understand the baggage that is attached to it.
It would be a clear indication that such designer isn't quite as "intelligent" as many would like to claim.
Incorrect. A more advanced alien from some other universe would not be classed as "god". If you say god then you are implying a perfect magical being.
I am very pleased for you. Are you an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist?
some interesting view points. they can be argued and im in no doubt that they will be argued.
One thing to keep in mind. Einstein and most of his contemporaries tried as hard as they could to have a static universe. a static universe, in many opinions, would disprove creation. Einstein even went as far to create his cosmological constant so that his equations would work with a static universe. it was mainly a priest by the name of Lemaître who argued against Einsteins static universe and provided mathematical evidence supporting this new theory. Einstein rebuked him. two years later, Hubble found observable evidence to support Lemaitre's theory.
quotes from our fellows.
In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.
What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates . . . In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.
I am, I hope, very thankful that in the withdrawal of the power and things of this life, the good hope is left with me, which makes the contemplation of death a comfort not a fear. Such peace is alone in the gift of God, and as it is He who gives it, why shall we be afraid? His unspeakable gift in His beloved Son is the ground of no doubtful hope; and there is the rest for those who like you and me are drawing near the latter end of our terms here below.
What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.
They've been argued many times before, fallaciously, I might add. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
OK.....and? This detracts absolutely nothing from the notion of ID; since we Humans have obviously evolved far, far more advanced than any other creature has even come close to, perhaps we were guided by a higher intelligence?
It isn't applying them, it's applying the possibility. Also, you are not using the same logic I am; nothing in my logic would ever make me come to the conclusion that a giant sausage and mashed potato slammed together to make the universe.
My logic will, however, make me come to the conclusion that our universe either began naturally (not caused to be intelligently) or created by a higher intelligence, both of which I find to be rational enough ideas. The next step is to try to find any sort of evidence, and unfortunately, neither have any sort of evidence. Evidence of the big bang isn't evidence of what caused the big bang.
There are two main problems with this. Firstly, it depends on your use of "supernatural"; supernatural simply means that something transcends nature. Anything, if anything, that exists outside the universe, is supernatural; it transcends our nature.
Secondly, by "god" I mean a higher force. This, of course, does not have to be supernatural, but simply higher. It could be an intelligent civilization that is very natural like we Humans. Regardless, to ancient man, such technology as such civilizations would posess would no doubt lead to the conclusion of gods.
Please show me where I specifically indicated a supernatural intelligence. I do not mean god in the traditional spiritual supernatural sense, but rather, simply an intelligence that is beyond human intelligence, that played some role in the development/creation of mankind.
I will not deny that I find traditional Creationism ridiculous; however, I often times wonder if it is true, and the actual supernatural God is real, and He simply is trying to mislead us with our material world and "rationality", so suddenly to strike later on.
Of course, that is a ridiculous thought, but then again, wouldn't that be the point? Ah well, we can never know.
I simply mean a higher intelligence; it could be anything. However, would my use of the word "alien" make it any more conclusive for you?
Perhaps, but then again, imperfections could also be intentional. Of course, this is assuming there even is a designer, which there is no evidence for. However, the mere fact that there are biological abnormalities is hardly any more compelling evidence than simply to say "god" is imperfect.
Perhaps to you, but again, I imply only a higher intelligence, and quite naturally, intelligence is power.
An agnostic atheist, but while I myself do not hold religious beliefs, I defend religion only because I think it is a rather valuable social tool.
I just looked in to see how things are going. As I expected, you still have learnt nothing.
As expected, you cannot comprehend that people have different opinoins and logcs
miracles are in the realm of religion Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Just wait fir his forthcoming book, " The New Logic". Then all will be be clear.
What exactly do you want me to be "educated" about?
Nothing, you know everything already, e,g., how to assign a probability to a certainty, two kinds of ID , us and the universe which shows we are not part of the universe, intelligent guidance of evolution which most of us believe has no goals in light of our (mis)understanding of natural selection, Creationism and ID are different disciplines because they both rest on Biblical "evidence".
You can find the above in your earlier posts. So you are ahead of the field,. No wonder we can't understand you.
Nothing is certain at the moment, in regards to the origin of the universe; we have not a clue, but we do know, for a fact, that it either came about naturally or was created intelligently. This is where probabilities come from
ID means intelligent design. Therefore, it can be applied to anything, but generally it is applied to the origin of the universe, or the origin of Humanity
Of course we are part of the universe, however we are parts of the universe which are self aware, intelligent, and have intent
natural selection would be only the process by which evolution occurs, it does not suggest guidance or the lack of guidance. Eugenics is implemented natural selection, or rather, guided natural selection, basically
And herein you demonstrate your inability to differentiate between concept and content
Firstly, ID does not rest on any "evidence"; it rests on logic, and circumstancial 'evidence'
Creationism, on the other hand, rests on neither evidence nor logic. Although I can use logic to conclude the possibility that we were created, there is absolutely no way to go further, because to go further relies solely on evidence; therefore, in the lack of such evidence, it is impossible to use either logic or evidence, at the moment, and likely forever, to come to the conclusion that we were created by a magical, perfect, omnipotent being with a long beard who rests in a heavenly palace. You have to understand the difference between content, and concept. Concepts always arise through observation, question, and logical conclusions. Content is simply added in later on, perhaps on a whim, or perhaps by other means.
where does all this mean in regards to the topic. ok ive been off topic and on. but, really all this bickering.....
so...back to more bickering
im sure ID should not be taught in a usa public school as science.
now evolution? is it necessary to know about evolution, and to what extent, to be able to make competent decissions in life? as a citizen. after all isnt that what public school is about. we dont want a bunch of numb nuts out there unable to count change at the 711. do they really need to be taught evolution? lets concentrate on counting change first.
btw public school failed me when it comes to spelling. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! no not really its my add
Separate names with a comma.