RE: Evolution/Creation debate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Marc2b -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/20/2014 12:41:37 PM)

quote:

It is just plain silly and terribly misinformed to believe that Evolution requires cross species mating. Where did that notion come from? Did Noah allow giraffes to mate with hippopotami on the Ark? Not that I am aware. So, why would you presume such a fantasy for science?


Actually there is evidence that cross species mating occurred upon the ark but Noah put an end to that shit.




GotSteel -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/20/2014 2:35:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
...which Christianity isn't or at least shouldn't be.

Frankly I think you'll find that your denomination is in the minority there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
It's hard to hit the moving target that is Evolution as it's constantly evolving.

It is wonderous that we've discovered a process [science] which allows us to learn new things about our universe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
I keep getting the phrase, "Evolution doesn't work that way",

Yes, you do not understand how evolution works. I hope that all of us here have been able to make that much clear to you because coming to the understanding that you don't know is the first step to becoming informed about what evolution actually is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
that I'm beginning to think that Evolution doesn't work in any way.

No, you're not beginning anything, don't bother lying about that.

You came into this thread not believing in evolution. Through the course of the thread you've demonstrated that your opinion is the result of ignorance and lies which you've been fed, very likely as part of years of indoctrination (aka brainwashing) and I expect that it will take a significant amount of deprogramming to truly undo the damage that's been done.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
So now let's see if we can get rid of that of that "strawman", and let you explain Evolution to me.

Sure, keep in mind that this is a field of scientific inquiry, what you're asking is akin to saying explain physics to me or explain chemistry to me. There's A LOT there and this method of communication is rather limiting. But I can give you an overview and attempt to resolve some questions that you may have.

This post has already gotten rather cluttered so I'll start up on a new one.




Rule -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/20/2014 3:13:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
what you're asking is akin to saying explain physics to me or explain chemistry to me. There's A LOT there and this method of communication is rather limiting. But I can give you an overview and attempt to resolve some questions that you may have.

Why? He is not interested. Even if he was, it is like explaining to a tribesperson in New Guinea how to build a Boeing airplane. After your four year lecture the tribesman will be able to fold a paper plane and let it fly.




Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/21/2014 4:14:13 AM)

Whoa, I didn't know that Evolution was such a "sacred cow" for you guys, that the mere asking a few questions about it would stir up such reactions and no answers.

I didn't even react that way, when I was called a "serial" killer of homosexuals and just answered the questions.

Perhaps when you guys settle down from my questioning your "sacred cow", you can just answers the questions.
;-)




Moonhead -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/21/2014 4:18:42 AM)

Right, so they've rebutted everything you've had to say about Evolution's failures as a theory (in a fairly civil fashion), and now you have nothing to fall back on but whining like a schoolgirl and a false equivalence between a scientific theory and a form of idolatry practise by an Eastern religion that predates your own by several thousand years.
Cute!




eulero83 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/21/2014 4:22:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

Whoa, I didn't know that Evolution was such a "sacred cow" for you guys, that the mere asking a few questions about it would stir up such reactions and no answers.

I didn't even react that way, when I was called a "serial" killer of homosexuals and just answered the questions.

Perhaps when you guys settle down from my questioning your "sacred cow", you can just answers the questions.
;-)


if you want to understand the basics of how evolution works whatch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOfRN0KihOU

than if you have other more specific question ask




Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/21/2014 4:31:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
Interestingly, you completely ignored this; "Early Christian Church
During the early Church period, with some exceptions, most held a spherical view, for instance, Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose to name a few." but for you that is pretty much par for the course.
;-)


Nope you just failed at understanding things again, addressing that for you was the whole point of #3

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
3. Go read the rest of your link about how the Dark Ages flat earth scholarship was Bible based. You'll see Plato and Aristotle listed as sources for spherical earth theory. Flat earth theory, that came straight out of the Bible according to your source:


The science from the previous age was still around so scholars of the work of Plato, Aristotle, etc knew that the earth had been demonstrated to be spherical hundreds of years previous. Your link also points out that in the 1st century everyone had come to the point of accepting this.

After that there was a flat earth resurgence flying in the face of conclusive scientific evidence because of the Bible. That's right those who went with the Bible instead of science got demonstrable reality dead wrong. You know just like your creationism does now.

My understanding failed? Let's see who's understanding has failed.

""Myth of the Flat Earth" in modern historiography
Main article: Myth of the Flat Earth
Martin Behaim's Erdapfel, the oldest surviving terrestrial globe and finished before the news of the discovery of the Americas had reached Europe (1492), demonstrates that knowledge of the round Earth was common on the continent before.

During the 19th century, the Romantic conception of a European "Dark Age" gave much more prominence to the Flat Earth model than it ever possessed historically.

In 1945 the Historical Association listed "Columbus and the Flat Earth Conception" second of twenty in its first-published pamphlet on common errors in history.

This belief is even repeated in some widely read textbooks. Previous editions of Thomas Bailey's The American Pageant stated that "The superstitious sailors [of Columbus' crew] ... grew increasingly mutinous...because they were fearful of sailing over the edge of the world"; however, no such historical account is known. Actually, sailors were probably among the first to know of the curvature of Earth from everyday observations, for example seeing how mountains vanish below the horizon on sailing far from shore.

Some historians consider that the early advocates who projected flat Earth upon Christians of the Middle Ages were highly influential (19th-century view typified by Andrew Dickson White); current historians (late 20th-century view typified by historian and religious studies scholar Jeffrey Burton Russell) have asserted that White's and other writings projecting flat Earth belief upon Christians are inaccurate, citing centuries of theological writings, and suggested the motivations for the promotion of such inaccuracies.

According to Russell, the common misconception that people before the age of exploration believed that Earth was flat entered the popular imagination after Washington Irving's publication of A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828. Although some of the arguments attributed by Irving to Columbus's opponents had been recorded not long after the latter's death, here are only hints that any argued that the Earth was flat, in the argument that the ocean might be infinite in extent, repeated by later historians. Other arguments were based on the impossibility of the antipodes, the vast size of the Earth, the impossibility of going from one hemisphere to the others, and other arguments based on the sphericity of the Earth. Modern historians have dismissed the claim that they maintained the earth was flat as a fabrication of Irving's.

The only denial published at the time came from Zacharia Lilio, a canon of the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome in 1496. In a section entitled "That the earth is not round" he argues that "when they assert that the earth is round, Ptolemy and Pliny do not add to the evidence, collected on the spot, they simply make a conjecture based solely on reasoning". It is notable that Copernicus, writing only twenty years after Columbus in 1514, dismisses the idea of a flat Earth in two sentences and has to go back to the early Greeks to find a supporter, though he expends more effort on showing that other current ideas were fallacious and demonstrating the sphericity of the earth. In reality, the issue in the 1490s was not the shape but the size of the Earth, as well as the position of the east coast of Asia."

You seem to believe that the in the "dark ages" the belief of a flat earth was common and could be attributed to Christians, yet this portion of the article, plainly states that it is a myth, yet you still seem to believe it.
I even highlighted the salient point which says; "writings projecting flat Earth belief upon Christians are inaccurate", so it would seem your continuing to repeat this myth is "inaccurate", if not a down right lie.
;-)




Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/21/2014 4:33:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Right, so they've rebutted everything you've had to say about Evolution's failures as a theory (in a fairly civil fashion), and now you have nothing to fall back on but whining like a schoolgirl and a false equivalence between a scientific theory and a form of idolatry practise by an Eastern religion that predates your own by several thousand years.
Cute!
See what I mean, Evolution must be a true "sacred cow" to you.
;-)




GoddessManko -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/21/2014 4:51:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Right, so they've rebutted everything you've had to say about Evolution's failures as a theory (in a fairly civil fashion), and now you have nothing to fall back on but whining like a schoolgirl and a false equivalence between a scientific theory and a form of idolatry practise by an Eastern religion that predates your own by several thousand years.
Cute!
See what I mean, Evolution must be a true "sacred cow" to you.
;-)

Forgive me for chiming into this discussion a bit late but how is evolution even questioned at this point since the "theory" has evolved in the scientific realm from the Hardy-Weinberg theory to the understanding of the epigenome, mitochondrial and fossilized evidence and RNAi technology? :)






GoddessManko -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/21/2014 4:52:42 AM)

Another fun read might be the Oxford papers on Biometrics. :)




Zonie63 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/21/2014 5:57:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

Whoa, I didn't know that Evolution was such a "sacred cow" for you guys, that the mere asking a few questions about it would stir up such reactions and no answers.

I didn't even react that way, when I was called a "serial" killer of homosexuals and just answered the questions.

Perhaps when you guys settle down from my questioning your "sacred cow", you can just answers the questions.
;-)


I don't think Evolution is viewed as a Sacred Cow, although there might be those who view science and scholarship as something valuable and worthwhile for the advancement and progression of humanity.

It's true that science doesn't have all the answers. As an analogous example, there are scientists who study cancer and working to find a cure. They don't know everything that there is to know, but they know more than they did 40-50 years ago, and they're ostensibly making an honest effort of it (although every profession has its share of bad apples).

I don't think there are any Sacred Cows in science. It's a matter of observation, examination, and experimentation - trying to plow through tons of evidence and figuring out how shit works in this Universe. It's actually pretty hard work, and clearly takes a great deal of patience and perseverance.

Even if science did have any Sacred Cows, I think there would more likely be challenges from within the scientific community more than any other field of study or thought. A good scientist welcomes and encourages challenges, especially from other scientists. There might be a bit of academic confidence and even some arrogance involved, but it goes with the territory. But as long as there is freedom of thought and the right to challenge Sacred Cows, then I think scientists would be cool with that.

And no one is really required to believe what scientists say about Evolution or anything else. I don't know of anyone going to jail if they didn't believe in or worship the Sacred Cow. If anyone wants to challenge it, that's cool, but I think it's fair to ask that it be challenged on a scientific basis, using the scientific method.

I don't even see why there has to be any dispute between Evolution and Creationism anyway. Many Christians and believers in other religions subscribe to the Theory of Evolution and simply say "God did it" without questioning science's findings and observations about how the process takes place.







GotSteel -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/21/2014 8:35:18 PM)

So you keep talking about Columbus, do you understand that I'm talking about over a millennium earlier?





Marc2b -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/22/2014 4:00:05 AM)

quote:

I don't even see why there has to be any dispute between Evolution and Creationism anyway. Many Christians and believers in other religions subscribe to the Theory of Evolution and simply say "God did it" without questioning science's findings and observations about how the process takes place.


The problem with some people isn't that evolution (and science in general) disproves the concept of a creative intelligence (that, for lack of a better term we can label "God") because it doesn't. The problem, for some, is that evolution disproves a particular notion of "God."
Namely their god - Yahweh - the god of the Bible. Science has clearly demonstrated that he is a fiction (the idiot doesn't even understand the biology and geography that he supposedly created . . . and don't even get me started on his hypocrisy and sadism).
Some people just lack the courage and honesty to accept that. Faith is the willing use of blinders.




DaddySatyr -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/22/2014 5:34:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

I don't even see why there has to be any dispute between Evolution and Creationism anyway. Many Christians and believers in other religions subscribe to the Theory of Evolution and simply say "God did it" without questioning science's findings and observations about how the process takes place.



This is what I have believed for a long time (maybe as far back as the age of reason). In fact, I believe I said as much, earlier in this thread.

The issue is that you have people on both sides of the debate that seem to have such low esteem that if everyone doesn't agree with them, they need to get aggressive. They need to force the non-believer to believe they way they do. For all their bullshit and blustering, there is no "live and let live".

And it is on both sides. The God-mongers need to validate their belief in that higher power and the God-haters need to destroy it.







Kirata -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/22/2014 5:58:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

They need to force the non-believer to believe they way they do.

Which brings us back to the pissing contest between priests. This whole business of "believing" in evolution smacks of religion. We have a lot of data, and evolution currently offers the best interpretation of that data. But science doesn't stand still. The only thing about science that is historically certain is that what we will know in another ten or fifty years is going to surprise us, and you don't have to believe in a God to know that pride cometh before a fall.

K.





eulero83 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/22/2014 6:35:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

I don't even see why there has to be any dispute between Evolution and Creationism anyway. Many Christians and believers in other religions subscribe to the Theory of Evolution and simply say "God did it" without questioning science's findings and observations about how the process takes place.



This is what I have believed for a long time (maybe as far back as the age of reason). In fact, I believe I said as much, earlier in this thread.

The issue is that you have people on both sides of the debate that seem to have such low esteem that if everyone doesn't agree with them, they need to get aggressive. They need to force the non-believer to believe they way they do. For all their bullshit and blustering, there is no "live and let live".

And it is on both sides. The God-mongers need to validate their belief in that higher power and the God-haters need to destroy it.






The problem is science and religion are not on the same level, there is no need to belive in science you need to UNDERSTAND it, one is part of education the other is part of suprstition, just telling there is a dabate and not a group of people rejecting scientific discoveries because they are afraid of the moral corruption knowing the truth would start is crazy and dangerouse. If someone finds support in religion than fine, some of my friends are belivers and I don't think less of them because of this, but when a religious group lobbies and uses it's political support to control education is insane.




Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/22/2014 6:37:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
So you keep talking about Columbus, do you understand that I'm talking about over a millennium earlier?

Interesting, okay let's look at what you are talking about and even if you know what you are talking about;
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
2. The Dark Ages (which I was talking about) were over for hundreds of years by the time of Columbus.
The 'Dark Ages' is a term often used synonymously with the 'Middle Ages.' It refers to the period of time between the fall of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the Italian Renaissance and the Age of Discovery. Many textbooks list the 'Dark Ages' as extending from 500-1500 A.D., although it should be noted these are approximations.
http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/the-dark-ages-definition-history-timeline.html#lesson
Christopher Columbus - was born about October 30, 1451 and died 20 May 1506 and his first voyage was in 1492.

With this in mind let's look at your statements.
"The Dark Ages (which I was talking about) were over for hundreds of years by the time of Columbus."
The "Dark Ages" were from 500-1500 A.D., Columbus lived from 1451 to 1506 all but 6 years within the "Dark Ages", so no, the "Dark Ages" were not "over for hundreds of years by the time of Columbus." Six years is not "hundreds of years" by any stretch of the imagination.

Now let's look at, "So you keep talking about Columbus, do you understand that I'm talking about over a millennium earlier?"
The "Dark Ages" were from 500-1500 A.D., Columbus lived from 1451 to 1506, so if we subtract 1000 years from that you get, at best, the year 506 and voilĂ , you are barely talking about the "Dark Ages" and if you count from his voyages you are not talking about the "Dark Ages" at all.

Obviously, you have no idea what you are talking about.




Moonhead -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/22/2014 6:44:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
The 'Dark Ages' is a term often used synonymously with the 'Middle Ages.'

No it isn't. The middle ages is a blanket term for the period after the dark ages.




Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/22/2014 6:45:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko
Forgive me for chiming into this discussion a bit late but how is evolution even questioned at this point since the "theory" has evolved in the scientific realm from the Hardy-Weinberg theory to the understanding of the epigenome, mitochondrial and fossilized evidence and RNAi technology? :)
Well, the mere fact that the "theory" has evolved shows that someone has been questioning it.
;-)




Moonhead -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/22/2014 6:47:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles


quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko
Forgive me for chiming into this discussion a bit late but how is evolution even questioned at this point since the "theory" has evolved in the scientific realm from the Hardy-Weinberg theory to the understanding of the epigenome, mitochondrial and fossilized evidence and RNAi technology? :)
Well, the mere fact that the "theory" has evolved shows that someone has been questioning it.
;-)


You'll find that's the difference between science and superstition: science is based on research and evidence, rather than blind faith and "sacred cows".




Page: <<   < prev  27 28 [29] 30 31   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875