Arkansas and evolution :D

[Cabby]

Quote:

" evolution is more likely to resemble the truth behind our existence than creationism. "

In YOUR opinion.  And that's all it is, in FACT, your opinion.......

Cabby

[Maverick]

I ignored this thread for the longest time until tonight. I have to say I am impressed with some of the statements that have been espoused, on both sides of the argument.

The one thing about faith is that it is based on   faith. There is, by definition, no way to prove or disprove faith. If there was it wouldn't be faith. It would be something else.

Having said that, I am not against faith. I do not dispute the positions of those who are based on faith, unless that faith is misplaced. Like the faith in "luck", "chance" and tea leaves.

My position on the creation argument is I think both sides are right. I feel that neither side is an exclusionary position. I base this on the premise that science is simply a regimented method of examination. It does not necessarily start from scratch. It examines what "is" as observations, then postulates what "could be" and experiments to prove or disprove their postulation. The results of their experiments are additional "observations" as they perceive them.

The creation of life based on a faith position does not preclude the basis of a evolutionary existence.

Some fundamentalists argue that the world was created in 6 days. Since the earth was created as a part of that 6 days it was done before there was a 24 hour day. Who is to say how long the day "is" for God? perhaps a "day" for God is a long stretch of millennia in our human time. After all God does have eternity to deal with his existence.

Genesis indicates that man was created from clay in God's likeness. Sounds like creating life from inorganic matter to me. Similar to the evolution side where chemicals swirled and "spontaneously" became life when the conditions were right. Could that have not been God's handiwork? Same for the "big bang" theory of the start of the universe. If there was a big bang, who pulled the trigger?

I feel, and this IS my opinion, that God has created his wonders and they didn't have to follow exactly the specifications of a 2000 year old document that has suffered many revisions and translations. I do not see anything that says God didn't or couldn't use a "scientific" method in his creation. It was his position and he could do it any way he wanted. After all, who was there to tell him otherwise.

In examining several belief structures of other societies I find there are many creation stories. You supply the word fact, fiction or theory as you wish, as for me I cannot say they were not divinely inspired since I wasn't there. They mostly all indicate there was some kind of "divine" intervention. With all the similarities there just might be a grain of truth to them.

That choice to believe about which theory of how we came to be is your choice. You must have faith in something even if it is only in yourself. Eventually you will come to face the possible answers to all your questions as you leave this orbiting ball of matter. (minus your corporeal self) Whichever belief you have will be "proven" to you at that time. Enjoy.

Personally I think that God's "mysterious" ways could very well be the "scientific observations" we are seeing with the abilities our creator gave us to see them with. The universe had to start somewhere and no one here was there at the time to claim all certain knowledge.

Mav

PS I hope this made sense to you all. I grasp it but don't know if I explained what I grasped that well.  

[funked]

 

our professor stated that there were no longer any 'missing links,' and that the evolutionary chain was complete in discovered physical evidence.

He was lying.  

[StSanta]

Geesh Cabby, I've just, in plain English, shown you examples of how evolution is a fact AND a theory.

I've easily dispelled the creationist crap that states that all species were in place on earth from the get go and some just have been here longer than others.

the next time you have goose bumps; consider this. In furry animals (the best kind!), there are small tiny things that raise the fur so it stands straight up. This traps air, which is a great insulator. So, doing this keeps ya warm. if you have fur, that is.

If you're mainly fur-less, like humans are, it just looks funny and does little good.

but, i guess God put it there in humans to to a) make us make wrong deductions looking at naimla life around us and b) because he has a great sense og humour.

Next time you make great use of your appendix, let me know.

We got a lot of DORMANT grabage gens in us, and features that served, but does not serve, a purpose. The goose bumb thing and the appendix are the two most obvious, in your face ones.

But I'll accept the explanation that god has humour.

Oh, btw, perhaps you've watched too many dino movies when you were young. Humans and dinosaurs didn't coexist.

If you wish, i can provide you with references to *observed* cases of speciation. key word is observed. It can get pretty technical this, but if you want to have references, lemme know.

I will require the same of you, however.

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"

[funked]

Santa don't you know the appendix has a spiritual purpose that you can not measure in any way?  

[yaffle]

Funked is surely right, I was always taught that the appendix was the repository of the soul.

:-)

[Macchi]

The more i see the less i believe.

Cabby, beside your believings. What do you think how many things in your "book of facts" are originally from other religions. What do you think how many holy persons in the bible are originally gods of celtic religions. And so on.
The bible is nothing more than a mixture of history + well thought rules how a society should work.

Lem

[Maverick]

 

Originally posted by Macchi:
The more i see the less i believe.

Cabby, beside your believings. What do you think how many things in your "book of facts" are originally from other religions. What do you think how many holy persons in the bible are originally gods of celtic religions. And so on.
The bible is nothing more than a mixture of history + well thought rules how a society should work.

Lem

Machii,

I sure hope you got your asbestos undies on!!!!!!  

Mav

[Dune]

Ahh yes, what a lovely little name-calling fest.

I think I'll abstain.

Except to paraphrase Robert Heinlein a little.  "Who's right and who's wrong?  Eventually we'll all find out.".

I take great comfort from my beliefs.  Belittle them if it makes you feel better.  It certainly doesn't prove your enlightenment or your intelligence.  Greater men than I have both believed and disbelieved.  And in many things.  Airs of superiority wont change my mind.

But at the end of the day, there will be a way to prove who's right.  Call it my "toy" if you will.  But your disbelief is just as much a security blanket as my belief is.

"There is more things in heaven and earth Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy."

------------------
Col Dune
C.O. 352nd Fighter Group
"The Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney"

"Credo quia absurdum est." (I believe it because it is unreasonable)
- The motto of the Republic of Baja Arizona

[fd ski]

 

Originally posted by yaffle:
Funked is surely right, I was always taught that the appendix was the repository of the soul.

:-)

Oh shoot !!! Mine was removed !!! I'm doomed !!  


------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF

Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998

Northolt Wing Headquarters

[Tac]

A man once called out to the universe,

"Sir! I exist!"

"That fact however" replied the universe, "does not create in me a sense of obligation".

[wlfsbane]

Okay guys, forget about all this name calling and arguing.  I am definitely on the creationism side but I'm not going to attack anyone for having a belief.  I just have one question for the evolutionists out there:

"How did life begin?"

Ignoring all the questions that come up about evolving etc this is the heart of the debate.  I suggest that you all try reading up on this question and seeing how many facts you can actually find that answer this question.  No scientist has ever been able to prove any theory about the origin of life.

Simply put: creation answers the question, science cannot.

Okay, feel free to attack my reasoning now, personal attacks are not required   .

(edit ===> changed last sentence)



[This message has been edited by wlfsbane (edited 03-29-2001).]

[StSanta]

wlfsbane, that's an entirely different field known as abiogenesis.

The short answer to that one is "we don't know really but we got some ideas that have some support".

And that's as far as some go.

But you have to have a VERY big leap of faith if you want something complex being created; the creator is likely to be even more complex; even if it isn't, you still run into the problem of infinite regression, which is hard to get around if one applies the same rules of discussion to oneself as to the dude one is discussing with.

i.e someone could say "god created the universe", and be asked "who created god?"

An answer would be "god has always been" which is as satisfactory an answer as "The invisible pink unicorn has always been" or even better

"how do you know life has not always been?"

Theologians have tried very hard to deal with the problem of infinite regression; some explanations are better and more well thought out that others, but none are coherent enough to deal with the problem.

So, in the absence of information and data, the rational man would say "I do not know", not "God did it".

The latter adds a further problem; the onus of proof rests on the shoulders of the claimant. Scientists are working hard trying to understand abiogenesis, with mixed results. Nothing conclusive enough to be a proof in any way; hypothesises are abound.

Theists have their set answer, but aren't working on supporting it, especially those theists who consider faith in god or gods an essential part of their belief system.

I'd urge theists to examine why you have the particular faith you have. 95% will have a religious conviction very similar to their parents, meaning it's a "mind meme" as Dawkins put it or "culturally inherited trait" in less offensive terms.

I, for one, am certain that the environment in which someone grows up is a major factor in deciding what, if any, religious faith that someone ends up having.

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"

[wlfsbane]

 

Originally posted by StSanta:
But you have to have a VERY big leap of faith if you want something complex being created; the creator is likely to be even more complex; even if it isn't, you still run into the problem of infinite regression, which is hard to get around if one applies the same rules of discussion to oneself as to the dude one is discussing with.

You make a very good point, however I believe that it is just as big a leap of faith (if not bigger) to believe in theories put forward by scientists as it is to believe that there is a higher being than us humans that actually designed us.

How difficult is it to imagine any one of the simple things around us (house, car, watch) spotaneously appearing or evolving from the materials around it?  The universe (and especially the life here on Earth) is infinitely more complex than a house, car, watch etc but it's okay to think they just formed themselves??

I respect your point of view StSanta, you are entitled to your beliefs just as much as anyone else.  I think we will agree to disagree, yes?  

Interesting thread guys...pity about the name calling though.  Hope there aren't too many bruised opinions after this.  After all, this debate has been going on for some time now (about 6000 years?).  Just remember that both sides need to reason, not to attack each other personally heh?

That's my $0.02 (and then some).

wlfsbane

[StSanta]

wlfsbane  

Well, your argument is that of the Watchmaker; i.e if you saw a watch lying on an abandonded beach, would you not think it was designed and created by someone?

It works fine for non living entities, which essentially go from order to disorder (in general); i.e entrophy. It works less well for organic systems that have the ability to adapt to their surroundings and actively fight off entrophy (and earth isn't a closed system, so this does not violate the second law of thermodynamics).

To each his oown, to be sure. But with faith, you cannot validate your beliefs, whatever they are. With science, if you have the time and dedication, you can get very proficient and knowledgeable, and even conduct experiments of your own to support your justifiable belief.

There's the difference, I think.

I won't trash talk any point of view too severly  , but I feel I must intervene when someone states that science is merely faith. It isn't, and if it was, we sure wouldn't be playing Aces High on silicon thingies with gates on them that take a voltage between 0 and 5, decide whether it should be represented as a 0 or a 1, put them all together in some weird odd way most of us have no clue of works, and graphically present through a cathode ray tube.

Now THAT seems like FM (F*cking Magic) to me, but it ain't  

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"