• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 200.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > Intelligent Design vs Evolution

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...1112131415...30
ben-ja-men
ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide
Member Since: 12th Jun 2003
Total posts: 2474
Posted:ok so first read this http://www.venganza.org/
i mean really!!!! wtf?!?!?!?! i just cant get over how censored censored censored censored censored censored censored censored this is.

*deep cleansing breath*

ok so how is it that any educated person (as one would assume the Kansas School Board would be required to have some level of education?) or even a mildly retarded chimp for that matter would even consider adding something like ID to a science curriculum?

Now if the ID group where to be taking a page or two from Cellular Automata (which evolution essentially is just in a much more complex environment with more complex survival/interaction rules) and add that the resulting now is possibly the result of design by choosing the rules such that it would evolve in such a way to have created the given now, or that the soul's link to the real world might be the apparently random quantum tunnelling effects that take place in the microtubules (yet another CA) in the brain then i wouldnt have such a big problem with their proposal. both of which are horribly speculative and cant be proven but both allow for the concept of "god" to be introduced to highlight that science doesnt have all the answers

i suppose next we will be using the fox network for our history classes? confused
/end vent


Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?

Delete Topic

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: jeff(fake)

Written by: UraniumChipOxidationFacility

"It is an evolutionary lie that white people are more "evolved" than others"
When was it suggested that white people are more evolved?
If anything, black people are not so much more evolved, rather differently evolved than white people?



Indeed. It was only a few hundred years ago that people were argueing that Africans were the descendants of Cain and thus deserved enslavement.



Which is directly contradicted by the Bible (all of Cain's children would have died in the flood). The Bible rejects any claim of racial superiority.

Not so with the theory of evolution. Social Darwinism is the foundation for modern eugenics, and provides a moral framework to support the idea that "superior races" have a right to eliminate "inferior" ones... like Hitler tried to do.


Delete

i8beefy2
i8beefy2

addict
Location: Ohio, USA
Member Since: 24th Mar 2003
Total posts: 674
Posted:Hmmm that's an interesting point. Natural selection is no longer a very big force in modern evolution. Rather, WE are the selective force. As a race we select for ourselves and all others are secondary. In fact some of them aren't even secondary, they are just "natural resources" now. We found a way around natural selection and use technology to become the selective force.

However you're blatently wrong. I don't mean that insultingly, just that your assessment of evolution is incorrect. Evolution as a theory is value free. Natural selection was simply better advancements being able to sustain life and reproduction better than others. Until we came along of course, but that's irrelivent to my point. There was no value assessment involved in this selection to base moral frameworks off of such as Social Darwinism. Rather that little term is an application of the principles of Darwinism to a value laden framework as a justification.

My point is any idea can be used to drive people to do some rather silly things. And "race" is simply another way to seperate people for these purposes. So is religion. If you're going to balk at evolution because it might distinguish differences between people, you're opening a can of worms that isn't going to be very pretty from a religious standpoint either...


Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:But isn't one poit FOR evolution, that humans in fact developed differently? That Africans and Aboriginals and so on DO have darker skin? That some genes (dark hair/ skin) are dominant, whilst others (blue eyes/ blonde hair, white skin) are recessive? That we do have an appendix?

Isn't the similarity of physique and habits and instincts (that we share with our nearest species) evidence enough?

If we are so much above the "creation", why do we still share a big part of the same struggle than the rest of it? (But I already hear the counter-arguments)... rolleyes

Yes, "survival of the fittest" has provided justification for humans killing humans (along with a number of other) - but this (to me) clearly shows that we are part of the entire system and not individually put in the middle of it.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Birgit
Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 27th Jan 2005
Total posts: 4145
Posted:Hi Patriarch!

Since you're quite good at explaining your points, can I ask you a question, too?

What is the reason for the existence of homosexuality? I'm asking cause, according to science and genetics, gay men have "more female" (= more fertile) sisters, and the logical consequence would be lesbians having "more male" (= successful in fights and of course breeding) brothers.

I'm not quite sure if there's any reason given for it in the bible, all I know is that it's not approved...


"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

spiralx
spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK
Member Since: 1st May 2002
Total posts: 1376
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917
Not so with the theory of evolution. Social Darwinism is the foundation for modern eugenics, and provides a moral framework to support the idea that "superior races" have a right to eliminate "inferior" ones... like Hitler tried to do.


No it doesn't. Evolution makes no claims that any creature is superior to any other - the only criteria you can go by is fitness for the environment it is in. By that definition all humans are approximately equal - we all have far, far more in common than the small differences between different people. Now you might be able to argue that evolutionarily speaking cockroaches are superior to humans, after all they're much better survivors than we are. And sharks and crocodiles have been around for millions of years practically unchanged!

Social Darwinism is a perversion of evolution based upon two faulty premises - firstly that any group of people is significantly genetically distinct from any other, and secondly that "survival of the fittest" is a moral doctrine and not a fairly obvious fact about nature. It is in no way a logical or inevitable consequence of the theory of evolution.


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: spiralx

Written by: Patriarch917
Not so with the theory of evolution. Social Darwinism is the foundation for modern eugenics, and provides a moral framework to support the idea that "superior races" have a right to eliminate "inferior" ones... like Hitler tried to do.


No it doesn't. Evolution makes no claims that any creature is superior to any other - the only criteria you can go by is fitness for the environment it is in. By that definition all humans are approximately equal - we all have far, far more in common than the small differences between different people. Now you might be able to argue that evolutionarily speaking cockroaches are superior to humans, after all they're much better survivors than we are. And sharks and crocodiles have been around for millions of years practically unchanged!

Social Darwinism is a perversion of evolution based upon two faulty premises - firstly that any group of people is significantly genetically distinct from any other, and secondly that "survival of the fittest" is a moral doctrine and not a fairly obvious fact about nature. It is in no way a logical or inevitable consequence of the theory of evolution.



I dispute that those premises are faulty. While I suggest that there is no significant genetic difference between people, others posts have tried to claim that some differences (such as skin color) ARE significant in allowing people to be more fit to survive an environment. The implication is that if these small differences are significant, over time larger significant differences will manifest. The human race will split, and the different races will compete. The winner be whoever is more fit for the environment.

This is a logical and inevitable consequence of evolution, unless the superior humans decide for some arbitrary reason to keep the inferior humans around. (Perhaps for food, as was done in The Time Machine). If a mutant portion of humanity that is better suited to rule earth evolves, it will be in direct competition with the older version of humanity. Evolution teaches that this has happened in the far past, history confirms (in Hitler) that people have attempted it in the recent past, and there is no moral basis for condemning humans that may try to do it in the future. Either we fight them and win, or we lose. We cannot call them evil for wanting to evolve.

Survival of the fittest is the only relevant moral basis that evolution provides by which an action can be judged. In evaluating anything such as murder, homosexuality, or being Jewish, evolution demands only that we ask whether these things contribute to the fitness of our species in our environment.

@Birgit: The reason for homosexuality, according to the Bible, is the same reason that causes people to be murderers, theives, adulterers, and every other evil thing.

Evil decisions, genetic problems, and suffering in general are the direct result of man's rebellion against God.


Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:Written by: Birgit

Hi Patriarch!

Since you're quite good at explaining your points, can I ask you a question, too?

What is the reason for the existence of homosexuality? I'm asking cause, according to science and genetics, gay men have "more female" (= more fertile) sisters, and the logical consequence would be lesbians having "more male" (= successful in fights and of course breeding) brothers.

I'm not quite sure if there's any reason given for it in the bible, all I know is that it's not approved...




he can correct me if i am a wrong...but from what i understand from my theology courses, it is just evidence of the pervading evil in the world...homosexuality is not evil

from the beginning all things were Good, many of the thoughts the pervade our mind now did not enter into the minds of the Originals and if it did, these thoughts bore little to no weight. After the first human sin, certian things and ideas were entered the world...some say that we weren't ready to deal with these yet, disease, death, lust, gluttony, vanity, jealousy...(things might have been alright, but the temptation is too much and we continue to sin)
one of the most deprave things evil cando is take something good(sex) and twist it into a perversion of itself (homosexuality, orgies, bdsm, swinging) all these things are considered some of the most horrid things because it affects what Christians see as the family core-most important next to God himself
i look at it this way though i know others dont...in the Bible it is said that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that you shouldn't have premarital sex...no one should be having sex out of marriage no matter their sexuality...is that reality-no
personally i think homosexuality is sometimes a genetic mutation and sometimes psychological. i had a friend who was so straight-his parents divorced and suddenly he's flaming...me i've always been attracted to men and women, my first crush was a cute girl in my girl scout troup, but if you met me you would never think she likes girls
but i think i got a little offtopic


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

spiralx
spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK
Member Since: 1st May 2002
Total posts: 1376
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917
I dispute that those premises are faulty. While I suggest that there is no significant genetic difference between people, others posts have tried to claim that some differences (such as skin color) ARE significant in allowing people to be more fit to survive an environment. The implication is that if these small differences are significant, over time larger significant differences will manifest. The human race will split, and the different races will compete. The winner be whoever is more fit for the environment.


Then those posters are wrong smile Modern genetics has shown that the classical idea of race doesn't exist - groups of people sharing similar characteristics should be considered to be nothing more than a (very) extended family, much as families share physical traits. Isolated groups of people of any kind who breed together often end up physically similar, it's just this on a larger scale.

Even if this weren't the case, the modern world leads to homogenisation, not growing apart. With the slow demise of racist attitudes and the huge increase in the mobility of people across the globe then any "race" would be increasingly diluted by increased number of mixed-race children being born. This trend would far, far outpace any evolutionary changes. Of course there wouldn't be any evolutionary differences - while you might claim that myself and a Kalahari bushman would face different evolutionary pressures what difference is there between myself and my Indian next-door neighbour?

Written by: Patriarch917
This is a logical and inevitable consequence of evolution, unless the superior humans decide for some arbitrary reason to keep the inferior humans around. (Perhaps for food, as was done in The Time Machine). If a mutant portion of humanity that is better suited to rule earth evolves, it will be in direct competition with the older version of humanity. Evolution teaches that this has happened in the far past, history confirms (in Hitler) that people have attempted it in the recent past, and there is no moral basis for condemning humans that may try to do it in the future. Either we fight them and win, or we lose. We cannot call them evil for wanting to evolve.


As even Wells understood in The Time Machine, you don't get one group evolving differently from everyone else unless both groups are separated and face different selection pressures i.e. the Eloi aboveground and the Morlocks belowground. Short of splitting humanity into several geographically distinct areas and forbidding any kind of contact between them this isn't going to happen.

Plus you're still talking about superior and inferior humans. This is a value judgement (and a bad one IMO) that does not follow from evolution.

You seem to be stuck in the naturalistic fallacy - the idea that because something is natural it is therefore "good". Even if evolution said that there were better and worse people (and it doesn't) then that in way no means that we're forced to assume this is how we should act - we are moral creatures and decide our own morality. The natural world is full of animals killing, raping and cannibalising each other, it does not therefore follow that we must accept these things as good!

Written by: Patriarch917
Survival of the fittest is the only relevant moral basis that evolution provides by which an action can be judged. In evaluating anything such as murder, homosexuality, or being Jewish, evolution demands only that we ask whether these things contribute to the fitness of our species in our environment.


Again the naturalistic fallacy. We decide our own morality. Evolution may help us understand the causes of our behaviour, but we are in no way obliged to accept those causes as being "good" or something we can't change.


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

Domino
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
Member Since: 26th May 2004
Total posts: 757
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917

Survival of the fittest is the only relevant moral basis that evolution provides...



You're confusing evolution for a religion or a creed rather than a process. It doesn't provide a moral basis.

Written by: Patriarch917

@Birgit: The reason for homosexuality, according to the Bible, is the same reason that causes people to be murderers, theives, adulterers, and every other evil thing.




Can. Worms. Open.


Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: spiralx




Then those posters are wrong smile Modern genetics has shown that the classical idea of race doesn't exist - groups of people sharing similar characteristics should be considered to be nothing more than a (very) extended family, much as families share physical traits. Isolated groups of people of any kind who breed together often end up physically similar, it's just this on a larger scale.







I agree, which is why I compared the concept of race to hair color.



Written by: spiralx




Plus you're still talking about superior and inferior humans. This is a value judgement (and a bad one IMO) that does not follow from evolution.







Evolution teaches that mutations will occur that will make an organism better suited to an environment. It follows that the new type of organism is superior to the previous one at surviving in its environment.



Written by: spiralx




You seem to be stuck in the naturalistic fallacy - the idea that because something is natural it is therefore "good". Even if evolution said that there were better and worse people (and it doesn't) then that in way no means that we're forced to assume this is how we should act - we are moral creatures and decide our own morality. The natural world is full of animals killing, raping and cannibalising each other, it does not therefore follow that we must accept these things as good!







Believe me, Im not stuck in the naturalistic fallacy. I reject Naturalistic Evolution and its philosophical and moral repercussions.



Written by: spiralx




Written by: Patriarch917
Survival of the fittest is the only relevant moral basis that evolution provides by which an action can be judged. In evaluating anything such as murder, homosexuality, or being Jewish, evolution demands only that we ask whether these things contribute to the fitness of our species in our environment.



Again the naturalistic fallacy. We decide our own morality. Evolution may help us understand the causes of our behaviour, but we are in no way obliged to accept those causes as being "good" or something we can't change.









You seem to be suggesting that a form of humanism should replace naturalism. That we are able to decide our own morality. If that is true, it still leaves to us the option to choose survival of the fittest as the basis for our morality. If one group of people chooses might makes right while another group chooses to turn the other cheek, natural selection would tend to favor one group over the other in the long run. Thus, some would say that a rational option is to choose the lowest common utilitarian denominator: fitness of the species.


Delete

spiralx
spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK
Member Since: 1st May 2002
Total posts: 1376
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917
Evolution teaches that mutations will occur that will make an organism better suited to an environment. It follows that the new type of organism is superior to the previous one at surviving in its environment.


Superior at surviving in its environment indeed, but that's a quantative concept. It has nothing to do with "superiority" which is a qualititive moral judgement.

Written by: Patriarch917
You seem to be suggesting that a form of humanism should replace naturalism. That we are able to decide our own morality. If that is true, it still leaves to us the option to choose survival of the fittest as the basis for our morality. If one group of people chooses might makes right while another group chooses to turn the other cheek, natural selection would tend to favor one group over the other in the long run. Thus, some would say that a rational option is to choose the lowest common utilitarian denominator: fitness of the species.


That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that we have evolved a sense of morality, that it is instinctive and inbuilt. We have a natural set of moral reactions to other people, which is why that when someone wants people to go to war they use propaganda to dehumanise their oppononents, to remove them from moral consideration.


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Patriarch917, evolution is a fact of life, and has been proved beyond doubt. Creatism is a story from the Bible that mainly American fundamentalist Christians have interpreted literally, and incorrectly. I would suggest that ideas of race superiority also come from said fundamentalists. If you dont believe me then take another look; read what the Prophet Mohammed says in the Koran.

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Patriarch 917, by way of explanation.. Evolution has been accepted by the scientific community for way over 100 years. I think the fundamentalist Christian creationists are confusing genealogy with evolution.

The modern understanding of evolution is based on the theory of natural selection, which was first proposed in a joint 1858 paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. In the 1930s scientists combined Darwinian natural selection with the theory of Mendelian heredity to create the modern evolutionary synthesis (often simply called the modern synthesis). The modern synthesis understands evolution to be a change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next. The mechanisms that produce these changes are the basic mechanisms of population genetics (wikipedia)


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:Written by: Stone

Patriarch917, evolution is a fact of life, and has been proved beyond doubt. Creatism is a story from the Bible that mainly American fundamentalist Christians have interpreted literally, and incorrectly. I would suggest that ideas of race superiority also come from said fundamentalists. If you dont believe me then take another look; read what the Prophet Mohammed says in the Koran.


first the moment you have no doubt, is the moment you stop thinking
second, i wouldn't say that american fundamentalists are the originators of the superior race idea as they saw dictated by the bible or holy book or some sort
(though social darwinism is a nice concept-i renew my stance to remove all safety labels. ex: on the tag of a superman costume "Wearing of this garment does not enable you to fly" on christmas lights "For indoor or outdoor use only" hairdryer "do not use while sleeping" and the list goes on http://www.mlaw.org/wwl/pastwinners.html
)


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Birgit
Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 27th Jan 2005
Total posts: 4145
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917


@Birgit: The reason for homosexuality, according to the Bible, is the same reason that causes people to be murderers, theives, adulterers, and every other evil thing.



Evil decisions, genetic problems, and suffering in general are the direct result of man's rebellion against God.





But... wink



Evil decisions: These, according to most beliefs, are your own, and you can change them (or can't, but that's more a scientific theory than a belief). Suffering can be relieved, too, by the charity of others.



But genetic "problems" that cannot be treated or relieved (illnesses mostly... I wouldn't call homosexuality a genetic problem, but a disposition, though I'm willing to accept the word "problem" for the sake of seeing this from the biblical point of view... though where genetic fit in with the Bible I don't really see) seem like something that's quite randomly distributed for being a result of rebellion. Most of these "problems" are an advantage somewhere else, like sickle cell anaemia, homosexuality, being colourblind or being left-handed (even God made use of that one with Ehud though I find that trick with the knife a bit mean...). Why would they be negative consequences if they help to survive?


"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:@Stone: I enjoy the discussion, but in order to avoid redundancy I will try to be succinct.



I disagree with the theory that all forms of life have developed through gradual, chance additions of useful new characteristics. While the idea of race superiority may be held by people you would call "fundamentalists," they hold this position despite what the Bible says. In other words, they are not truly adhering to the fundamental claim of the Bible which says that we are all one family and that racism is wrong. I don't particularly care what Mohammed thinks about it.



The fact that evolution is accepted in the scientific community is something to be considered, but is not authoritative. Many wrong views have been accepted by the scientific community, including some very persuasive yet ultimately wrong theories (such as the "ether" theory of light).



Science has sometimes come into conflict with the claims of the Bible, which has led people in the past to try to twist the Bible to fit man's theories. Consider this example taken from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/stars.asp
In the article, the author considers how science has sometime been thought to clearly contradict the Bible.



</font><blockquote><font class="small">Written by:</font><hr />



At that time, when men of learning were convinced that there were only about 3,000 stars, Jeremiah wrote that nobody would be able to count the stars. Let us consider an imaginary dialogue between Jeremiah (J) and a well known astronomer (A) of that day, about 600 years before Christ:



A: Jeremiah, you write about the number of stars as if you knew what you were saying. My colleagues and I have studied astronomy for a long time and daily concern ourselves with the stars. Our researches have made astronomy the most advanced science. Even kings appreciate and respect our findings.



J: You may have discovered many things, but you are mistaken about the number of stars.



A: How do you know that? You have not studied astronomy, not even for a single semester. So do not speak about matters which you do not understand!



J: Yes, of course my studies were in a totally different field. But I still maintain that nobody is able to count the stars, because they total such a large number, similar to the number of grains of sand on the beach.



A: We have recently completed a survey of the number of stars in the sky, employing our younger colleagues whose vision is sharp and unimpaired. They did not miss any stars, and their count was 3,000. Revise your biblical text; it has been disproved by our scientific findings.



J: I still maintain that I have written the truth. I am no expert, but I know Him Who created the stars. He has told me and I believe Him.







We know now, since the invention of the telescope, that it is impossible for a human to count the stars. But ou can see how long ago there would have been a lot of pressure to interpret Jeremiah's claim that we couldn't as being very "figurative," or downright wrong.



Such pressure was also present with the claim that the earth was made in six days. We can calculate the present speed of light, and estimate the approximate distances of the stars. If you assume that the speed of light was nearly the same back then as it was now, the question arises "how can we see distant stars." In the past, the only choice seemed to be to accept it as a miracle (God stretched the light to our planet when he created them, in violation of the present laws of physics) or to reject the claim that the world was really made in six days.



The theory of relativity, and subsequent discoveries, are making that neat little problem obsolete. We now know that time is not a constant, and can run at different speeds at different points in the universe depending on speed and gravity. If, during creation, the mass of the universe was concentrated in a small area and then blasted outward at incredible speed (as some evidence seems to suggest), the earth would have at some point passed through an "event horizon" where time (from the point of an observer on earth) would have slowed nearly to a pause. The claim that billions of years of stellar development could have taken place in a single day (as measured from earth) doesn't seem quite as ridiculous now as it would have a hundred years ago.



The claims of the Bible have withstood tests in the past, and it is not unreasonable (to some people) to have faith that as man's grasp of the nature of the universe grows the Bible will be found to be truthful. However, the Bible itself indicates that much of humanity will reject God and his claims. Thus, one who believes in the Bible should not be swayed by the opinions and theories of men.



On the other hand, it is appropriate to seek a better understanding of creation to the best of our ability, since "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork." However, if our current interpretation of evidence seems to contradict a fundamental claim of God, our first reaction should not be to discard God's word or to try to twist it to fit our theory. Instead, we should be more willing to question our own ability to comprehend how the universe is constructed. Even if a claim in the Bible seems at some point to clearly contradict what we "know" to be true beyond a doubt (such as our ability to count the stars), in the end it will be better to trust that God knows more than we do.



I suppose I didn't meet my goal of being succinct, but this post will probably help people better understand the viewpoint of someone that may think differently from them, rather simply dismissing their views with a label.


Delete

Sethis
Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University
Member Since: 16th May 2005
Total posts: 1762
Posted:Round and round it goes... where it stops... is when the mods lock it! ubblol

Seriously guys... it's all been said. Just read through the entire thread before posting, and see how novel the ideas are. rolleyes


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:Lock it? Why? Because it offends Liberal sensibilities?

The fact that people are still posting on it is proof in itself that it all hasn't all been said, why not just let it die a natural death?

IMO this is a great thread, yes it got a little emotional at times, but subjects like this always will. It's also been a real eye opener, I had no idea that the Creationists were that well organized, dinosaurs on the ark??...wow.

I'm thankful that we can have discussions like this ( even though I never posted on this thread) without fear of the Inquisition or Jihad, or Political Correctness silencing us.


Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Patriarch 917, I think you must have missed the bit about Mendelian genetics. When I said evolution has been accepted by the scientific community for way over 100 years. It means we have been using modern evolutionary synthesis for that time.

So how does Creatism produce food? The story of the loaves and the fishes probably has significance, but it doesnt put bread on the table. The bread you eat is a product of evolution, and the bread wheat grown now is a far cry from the wild relatives from which it originated. We would starve if not for modern evolutionary synthesis.

If you claim the Bible says that we are all one family and that racism is wrong. Then why dont you accept Mohammed and the Koran?


So how does life develop if not through the evolutionary process?


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Pele
Pele

the henna lady
Location: WNY, USA
Member Since: 15th Dec 2000
Total posts: 6193
Posted:Stout, Sethis was joking, hence the laughy face. wink

I am watching this...hurts my eyes to read it all but I manage wink

I think it's pretty nicely settled now, though I am inclined to agree with Sethis in that there is alot of redundancy on both parts...but that isn't a criminal offense.

I have found the view points of Social Darwinism to be interesting. I learned it as survival of the fittest society. For example, let's look at the encroachment of "modern" society upon tribal peoples, thus causing the tribals to adapt and "evolve" as a collective. That is social darwinism as I learned it. Which means that Patriarchs example of Hitler could very well be viable.

However, it seemed to me that Darwinism and Social Darwinism were being interchanged (maybe I read it wrong), but as I understand them, they are not.

And yet, I still don't believe in Intelligent Design because I simply don't believe that any single thing has that much power. I don't believe that any single thing could possibly control everything. I do not believe that anything as omnipotent as religion makes "God" out to be would allow things to be in the state they are without losing control and having evolution play a large part in it.

And isn't that what this all comes down to in the end? Belief? Faith in science or faith in religion...you still have to start somewhere.

(By the way, just as an aside to a waaaaaay earlier post..Gravity is not a theory. It was proven long ago.)
I


Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: Stone

Patriarch 917, I think you must have missed the bit about Mendelian genetics. When I said evolution has been accepted by the scientific community for way over 100 years. It means we have been using modern evolutionary synthesis for that time.




I didn't miss the part about Mendelian genetics. I'm no expert on it, but I know the difference between Mendelian genetics and the historical theory of evolution. I'm not sure what point your trying to make with it.

Written by: Stone

So how does Creatism produce food? The story of the loaves and the fishes probably has significance, but it doesnt put bread on the table. The bread you eat is a product of evolution, and the bread wheat grown now is a far cry from the wild relatives from which it originated. We would starve if not for modern evolutionary synthesis.




The bread I eat is a product of man's ingenuity applied to God's creation. The wheat did not "evolve" from wild wheat any more than the bread "evolved" from the flour. It's a clear cut case of intelligent design.

Written by: Stone


If you claim the Bible says that we are all one family and that racism is wrong. Then why dont you accept Mohammed and the Koran?




Are you implying that the second sentence is a logical necessity if I accept the first? What do you mean by "accept?"

Written by: Stone


So how does life develop if not through the evolutionary process?



God created the original kinds of plants, animals, and people. Everything living now descended from them.


Delete

Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:I keep forgetting that those emoticons actually mean somthing, I don't like the idea of making a statement, and then negating it with a symbol, compare it to that habit of stating something verbally and then following with "NOT".

IMO this is a thread that shouldn't be killed, it would be a grave disservice to those of us who are in the audience to shut it down just because the tone was becoming condescending, again, but mod intervention, and a cooling off period should fix it.

My eyes glazed over at the Social Darwinisim I tried, really, but at least now I know how to look them up again ubblol ( I'm learning ubblol) it all seemed to make sense when I read it, then came the contradictions.

I'm not sold on the ID idea either, but their arguments are entertaining , well thought out, and clearly presented, at least on that answers site.....Evolution may only be a theory here at this point in our history

For now, it can be considered as a faith based discussion. in the future.........???


Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Patriarch 917, I think you are confusing Darwinism with Evolution. Ill put the wikipedia quote in again:

The modern understanding of evolution is based on the theory of natural selection, which was first proposed in a joint 1858 paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. In the 1930s scientists combined Darwinian natural selection with the theory of Mendelian heredity to create the modern evolutionary synthesis (often simply called the modern synthesis). The modern synthesis understands evolution to be a change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next. The mechanisms that produce these changes are the basic mechanisms of population genetics (wikipedia)

What do I mean by accept? In If you claim the Bible says that we are all one family and that racism is wrong. Then why dont you accept Mohammed and the Koran? Accept as in the decedents of Abraham and Moses.

When you say God created the original kinds of plants, animals, and people. Everything living now descended from them. This is the evolutionary process.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Pele
Pele

the henna lady
Location: WNY, USA
Member Since: 15th Dec 2000
Total posts: 6193
Posted:Stout, the emoticons are not at all concidered negation. They are meant to put the tone to the statement that is otherwise missing because of the form of this communication being so impersonal. When we mean something in jest, we put a smilie after it to make our intentions clear, otherwise it causes issues.
We don't generally (I like to hope) say something nasty and then put up a smilie to take the sting from it. That isn't the way they are meant at all. Just keep that in mind when reading. smile (<= not being bitchy but helpful and happy to do it.)

Written by: Stone

When you say God created the original kinds of plants, animals, and people. Everything living now descended from them. This is the evolutionary process.



I was going to say the same thing Stone.
The whole idea of decendency is based upon progression...thing progress and develop with each generation. Resulting in evolution. This entire thing is really proven in the flora portion of the world, and the amazing rate of adaptability off-shoots (spawn) have to survive in areas that the parent plants can not...without scientific involvement.

That is, unless you care to retract that statement Patriarch and revise it with "God creates each generation." If this is the case, then poor God in your world. He must be very tired. wink

Well...except in the case of toothless hillbillies and many royals in history...then it isn't evolution...it's inbreeding. biggrin


Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK

Delete

spiralx
spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK
Member Since: 1st May 2002
Total posts: 1376
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917
The theory of relativity, and subsequent discoveries, are making that neat little problem obsolete. We now know that time is not a constant, and can run at different speeds at different points in the universe depending on speed and gravity. If, during creation, the mass of the universe was concentrated in a small area and then blasted outward at incredible speed (as some evidence seems to suggest), the earth would have at some point passed through an "event horizon" where time (from the point of an observer on earth) would have slowed nearly to a pause. The claim that billions of years of stellar development could have taken place in a single day (as measured from earth) doesn't seem quite as ridiculous now as it would have a hundred years ago.


This isn't right... The mass in the Universe has always been almost entirely evenly distributed - we can see this in the uniformity of the cosmic background radiation. There are small fluctatuations (in the order of 1 in 1000 or so I believe), which are thought to have given rise to local areas of higher gravity in which galaxies formed - but at no point was there any central lump of mass.

Plus the whole point of an event horizon is nothing can escape it once it's entered, even light.

I'm not sure why if you're not taking a 100% literalist interpretation of some parts of the Bible you feel the need to take the six days part so literally.


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

Sethis
Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University
Member Since: 16th May 2005
Total posts: 1762
Posted:Thanks Pele for saying what I would have if I'd been here. kiss

For the record, Stone: I wasn't seriously suggesting the mods lock the thread, it was a little joke on the phrase "Round and round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows!"

I was just getting a little irritated about people saying things that have already been repeated. smile


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:
Non-Https Image Link


Darwin is obviously the cause of school shooting. rolleyes Then why are atheists underrepresented in prison? Must be because we're too smart to get caught. wink



People can believe what they like, but faith being taught as science is simply wrong. Whilst evolution is rock solid fact, Christianity is a matter of faith. When it passes it'll most likely be replaced with Islam and the whole creationism battle will start again.



Ultimately I think that objective truth will win out in the end.

EDITED_BY: jeff(fake) (1140621642)


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Birgit
Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 27th Jan 2005
Total posts: 4145
Posted:Jeff...

... no matter how heated the debate, calling somebody's Gods "fairy tale monsters" is being insulting. I can't really be bothered to read back on all posts (gotta leave here in 5 mins anyways), but I don't think anyone has called science "deceitful worldly bullsh!t" or something like that tongue (<--- to make sure people know that's not what I'm saying, I'm a scientish myself... and to make sure Jeff knows I'm not having a go. Not that he would. But somebody else might and the debate might go through the roof again...)

Plus, there will never be objective truth as long as there are people, because people are NEVER objective. And least of all about things they care about...

see you tonight hug


"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:Jeff: You rudeness is the only reason I have not taken part in this thread.

I think you should think a bit more before you post.

sorry this is off topic, but I really though you would have stopped insulting people by now.

For those who are on the receving end of Jeff, please remember that not everyone who thinks you are wrong about evolution is so rude. Some people respect you, and woulnd't make fun of you just because you think something different.

Sorry Jeff, I've been waitint a long time to say this, and I though it would be better in public rather than PM.


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:Points taken, post changed. hug



It read worse than I meant it too, but I will still never respect a religion that preaches bigotry and irreason. The end of religion will be a tremendous boon to the world, in my opinion.



EDIT: I'd just like to make it clear that my ire only goes out fundementalist Christianity and Islam as they spread provable falsehoods and hatred towards homosexuals.

EDITED_BY: jeff(fake) (1140623746)


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Page: 1...1112131415...30

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [intelligent design v* evolution] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > Is Intelligent Design a Theory or a Critique? [60 replies]
2. Forums > Intelligent Design vs Evolution [874 replies]
3. Forums > need your help/opinion [14 replies]
4. Forums > Burning Man 09' Evolution [17 replies]
5. Forums > 5/19 The Next Evolution Sideshow

     Show more..