Author Topic: How many here believe in evolution? (Read 14479 times)

-dead- · « **Reply #285 on:** December 02, 2002, 02:12:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
Better a man admit that he doesn't have all the answers than insist unjustifiably that he does.

- JNOV

Hehe - careful! Having that sort of attitude could get you in trouble down at the church.

LoneStarBuckeye · « **Reply #286 on:** December 02, 2002, 02:18:42 PM »

Not at my church.

Kieran · « **Reply #287 on:** December 02, 2002, 02:18:50 PM »

Mr. Fish-

My mistake. I had responded prior to the comment, and I thought I was lumped in with the rest. I apologize to you.

As for defending the literal translation of the Bible, I don't have an answer to that one. As I said before, the Bible has conflicting statements that make either a literal or figurative interpretation possible.

Why not just take the literal translation of the Word and call it a day? The teachers of Jesus' time tried this, and screwed it up royally. Jesus himself pointed out how though they followed the rules as written, they did not follow the spirit of the law. That would seem to suggest we are to read between the lines sometimes.

Of course I could just as easily point to precise statements where God instructed his people to a specific task, and they were expected to do exactly that. Moses was nearly killed for failing to circumcize his son before setting out to have a little talk with Pharoah, for instance.

In the end, I don't have a problem with science and religion co-existing. I don't have a problem with questioning aspects of religion for that matter. It would be totally ignorant to ignore the reality of science in our world, but I also think it is equally ignorant to dismiss the possibility of religion (as bounder so elequently stated).

Wotan · « **Reply #288 on:** December 02, 2002, 02:23:07 PM »

I am not Christian Mr Fish and I dont pretend to know better then them what their Bible tells them.

Seems to me your not discussing the topic but trying to bait a Christian into a defense of his faith. You do so by attempting to tell them what they should believe. If I were a Christian I would ignore you like the rest of umm have. I am sure if you really wanted to know what they believed they would tell you. I dont believe any of them are going argue with you over it on a bbs.

Just my guess though...............

Gunthr · « **Reply #289 on:** December 02, 2002, 02:41:32 PM »

One thing that differentiates humans from the animals is that we humans are not afraid of vacuum cleaners. Thats the best way to tell...

Apache · « **Reply #290 on:** December 02, 2002, 02:42:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wotan
I am not Christian Mr Fish and I dont pretend to know better then them what their Bible tells them.

Seems to me your not discussing the topic but trying to bait a Christian into a defense of his faith. You do so by attempting to tell them what they should believe. If I were a Christian I would ignore you like the rest of umm have. I am sure if you really wanted to know what they believed they would tell you. I dont believe any of them are going argue with you over it on a bbs.

Just my guess though...............

Good guess.

midnight Target · « **Reply #291 on:** December 02, 2002, 02:46:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wotan
snip..
Science and religion both take considerable "faith" to accept as is. Both have their own "dominations" each claiming to be right.

snip

Nope Nope Nope!!

Science by definition is the complete lack of "faith". Anything scientifically "proven" MUST be questioned or proved or replaced by a better hypothesis. No faith involved at all.

mrfish · « **Reply #292 on:** December 02, 2002, 02:48:12 PM »

this is a debate about evolution and creationism. i don't see any evolutionist feelings getting hurt because their views are MEANT to be questioned and expanded upon through consensus of the scientific community.

the creationists are screaming for proof and debating the data. doesn't it seem reasonable to ask what the foundation for the creationist argument is? what's your side then creationists? what should we teach in school?

if it's a debate then both sides should defend their positions no? - christians can only offer their belief as their proof and when inconsistencies appear in the only textual reference that defines their view they write it off as literary indulgence....

their only answer is "well we all see it different and we all interpret it different and it's all faith and a day might be a year and a rib might be a chromosone..... and blah blah blah"

what's more absurd is that they want us to teach this as an alternative to evolution in school! whose version should we teach?

should we ignore science altogether? science doesn't suggest that women emerged from a rib so how do they coexist? only in a world where your minds are stuck on the christian default settings lopped on you since birth and you are trying like hell to reconcile it with fact....i equate that to intellectual cowardice and can't see it any other way.

mrfish · « **Reply #293 on:** December 02, 2002, 02:51:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Apache
Good guess.

what do you have to offer other than little pouty snipes?

how did we get here then? genesis? put up a debatable argument or get out the kitchen....

midnight Target · « **Reply #294 on:** December 02, 2002, 02:51:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
But MT was wrong about 2nd law not applying in open systems.

I admit I worded that poorly in an effort to explain it in simpler terms. I was semantically incorrect, but the explaination stands as written, so deal with it.

As to the chances of oxygen and hydrogen getting together all by themselves.... two words

Pacific Ocean

LoneStarBuckeye · « **Reply #295 on:** December 02, 2002, 02:55:21 PM »

It is fine to teach evolution in school; it is, after all, to some degree an observable fact. We should draw the line, however, at teaching any sort of "religious" view of creation or anything else, and that includes the theory that man came to be by nothing more than unguided evolution. Notwithstanding MT's comment about the definition of "science," much of what passes for evolutionary thought today is no more than conjecture, loosely based on observable facts.

- JNOV

miko2d · « **Reply #296 on:** December 02, 2002, 03:02:37 PM »

Hortlund: But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or “build-up” rather than “break-down”). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).

Low-entropy solar energy comes to Earth and gets converted into higher-entropy energy of more stable chemical compounds or infrared radiation. This increase in entropy in Sun-Earth system more then compensates reduction of entropy resulting from developing of living organisms. So no second law is violated in developing of an individual living organisms.

The development of more complex genotypes is not a physical process and does not involve the Second Law at all. A human DNA has as much entropy as any random sequence of nucleotids of the same length or a "less evolved" DNA of the same size.

Thrawn: Only a complete imbecile wouldn't accept evolution as the most viable theory to explain were humans come from.

So what do you call a person who sticks his nose in a scientific discussion but does not know the meaning of a word "theory".
For a scientist "theory" means "fact" - and neither of those can be combined with a word "viable" in a semantically correct sentence.
Ignorants do use the word "theory" as a substitute for "hypothesis" or "speculation" or "guess" (which are all scientific terms specifying degrees of confidence).

miko

Kanth · « **Reply #297 on:** December 02, 2002, 03:04:08 PM »

well said, K.

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran

In the end, I don't have a problem with science and religion co-existing. I don't have a problem with questioning aspects of religion for that matter. It would be totally ignorant to ignore the reality of science in our world, but I also think it is equally ignorant to dismiss the possibility of religion (as bounder so elequently stated).

Thrawn · « **Reply #298 on:** December 02, 2002, 03:07:30 PM »

the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Enjoying your sanctimonious little diatribe?

Do you want some definitions for "viable" as well?

LoneStarBuckeye · « **Reply #299 on:** December 02, 2002, 03:14:16 PM »

Thrawn:

Assuming your questions were directed at me, here are my answers:

(1) Yes.

(2) No. I know very well what "viable" means. Thanks for the offer, though.

Edit: I see from reading one of the above posts that you probably weren't talking to me. I guess it was just wishful thinking, me being called sanctimonious.

- JNOV