RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

SirKenin -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 8:51:21 PM)
Eve was not a person, first of all. Eve was a tribe, the same as Adam (settlement on the plains in cuneiform). Second, there is only one story of Creation, not two. Third, you are not supposed to take Genesis literally. If you do not, it describes in simple terms the initial steps of the evolutionary process. This is what people fail to see because either they are too blind or they do not want to. The two theories coincide. They compliment each other. This stupid battle over Creation vs. Evolution is just that. Unbelievably stupid.

cuddleheart50 -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 8:53:17 PM)
I don't believe in Evolution

Kedikat -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 8:56:54 PM)
Maybe Kansas is just the exception to the rule of survival of the fittest. That proves the rule. Pick it up Kansas, the abyss looms.

Kedikat -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 10:03:04 PM)
hehe Because I'm in the mood.... maybe nothing has evolved in Kansas, so why should the believe it. [:D]

BrutalAntipathy -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 10:19:44 PM)
Someone mentioned earlier that evolution theory lacks predictive ability. This really isn't the case. Intermediate morphology is a good example of this. It predicts a continuity betweem groupings. Thus we may find transitions from bird to reptile, but not from bird to mammal. And sure enough, when fossils are uncovered, this prediction is revealed to be the case. By the same light, common descent predicticts a relatedness of protien matches along related species. Genetic sequence analysis shows us that this prediction holds firm. Germ resistance to antibiotics and insect resistance to pesticides is also predictable because of the theory. Predictions such as these are seldom noticed by laypeople because they aren't glamorous, but they are still there. SirKenin, Adam is a Semitic pun. Adam ( man ) created from Adamah ( earth ). I'm not sure which cuneiform script you are mentioning here though, Babylonian, Assyrian, Akkadian, Canaanite, Elamite, ...? The closest I know of to something along these lines are the writings that mention Dilmun. *And for the record, a theory is not a wild guess.* *Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.*

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 10:38:32 PM)
News Flash! Anthropologists have recently ventured into that remote region of the US known as Kansas, and have discovered what appears to be a primitive species of hominids, living in caves in the darkness. Clutching their talismans in fear at the approach of the strange-appearing modern investigators and blinking in the bright light they are unaccustomed to, the hominids, dubbed "Kansas Man" (see figure), grunted repeatedly a sound like "Cree-ay-shun"... Kansas Man: http://members.aol.com/houseoffx/cavetree.JPG

BrutalAntipathy -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 10:39:48 PM)
*ROFLMAO!*

Kedikat -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 10:51:45 PM)
But shouldn't you have to score a hundred percent on a pretest that a supreme being exists before entering a course on the supreme beings doings? If your going to be hard on college quarterbacks taking humanities and such...... Oh wait.....maybe they should get a pass for making hail mary passes. Does knowing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin count? Is the pin metric? Oh hey! If there is a great designer, he must have made me smart enough to know this is all a load of crap. And I guess those that don't realise it are retarded or lesser in the eyes of god. I best believe it then. Or..... Oh the Simpsons is on...........

subdreamerboy -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 10:55:34 PM)
This is just a demonstration of the pointlessness of this kind of debate: here we have a mathematical argument that works perfectly but doesn't make logical sense, a logical statement based on assumptions that are valid for the topic being discussed but doesn't make philosophical sense. --------- mathematic/logical proof God (does/doesn't) exist: a=1 b=1 a^2-b^2=ab-b^2 (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) a+b=b a=0 1=0 I have just created something from nothing. Assuming that only God can create something from nothing, I have therefore proven that I am God (stop here to prove the existence of God: yourself). Clearly, I am not God. Therefore: God doesn't exist. ----------- but would anyone actually take this to mean anything? of course not no one is going to change anyone's mind unless they are open to their mind being changed. Personally, I don't subscribe to Christianity. I have studied the religion, and know more about it than most of my Christian friends. I am a scientist by trade, microbiology specifically, and I use evolutionary theory every single day in my work. One thing many people don't understand is that with the scientific method: nothing can be proven. Scientists do not use that word in our actual work (although we may when communicating with laymen). The scientific method is designed to test theories and hypotheses, which have specific statements in which prediction is a key element. What a scientist does is to disprove what is called 'the null hypothesis.' For example, if you were to test the theory of gravity, your hypothesis would be "this object will fall to the floor at 9.8m/s/s," while your null hypothesis would be "this object will not fall to the floor at 9.8m/s/s." If your experiment shows that the object falls with that accelleration, then the null hypothesis is disproven, and the hypothesis is supported. If there would be no possible way for a theory to be disproven, then it could not be a scientific theory. The fact is that there has been so much data accumulated that has supported the theory of evolution that almost all scientists, in their own minds, accept it as proven and factual. but, like i said, me saying this is not going to change anyone's mind, and this whole debate is pointless

Kedikat -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 11:08:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subdreamerboy This is just a demonstration of the pointlessness of this kind of debate: here we have a mathematical argument that works perfectly but doesn't make logical sense, a logical statement based on assumptions that are valid for the topic being discussed but doesn't make philosophical sense. --------- mathematic/logical proof God (does/doesn't) exist: a=1 b=1 a^2-b^2=ab-b^2 (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) a+b=b a=0 1=0 I have just created something from nothing. Assuming that only God can create something from nothing, I have therefore proven that I am God (stop here to prove the existence of God: yourself). Clearly, I am not God. Therefore: God doesn't exist. ----------- but would anyone actually take this to mean anything? of course not no one is going to change anyone's mind unless they are open to their mind being changed. Personally, I don't subscribe to Christianity. I have studied the religion, and know more about it than most of my Christian friends. I am a scientist by trade, microbiology specifically, and I use evolutionary theory every single day in my work. One thing many people don't understand is that with the scientific method: nothing can be proven. Scientists do not use that word in our actual work (although we may when communicating with laymen). The scientific method is designed to test theories and hypotheses, which have specific statements in which prediction is a key element. What a scientist does is to disprove what is called 'the null hypothesis.' For example, if you were to test the theory of gravity, your hypothesis would be "this object will fall to the floor at 9.8m/s/s," while your null hypothesis would be "this object will not fall to the floor at 9.8m/s/s." If your experiment shows that the object falls with that accelleration, then the null hypothesis is disproven, and the hypothesis is supported. If there would be no possible way for a theory to be disproven, then it could not be a scientific theory. The fact is that there has been so much data accumulated that has supported the theory of evolution that almost all scientists, in their own minds, accept it as proven and factual. but, like i said, me saying this is not going to change anyone's mind, and this whole debate is pointless But frustratingly and self gratifyingly fun. Masturbation yes, but rightful, scientificly proven, masturbation in the face of ignorance. hehe [8D]

Kedikat -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 11:12:12 PM)
I really wanted the red faced winking smiley devil to end the last post, but he doesn't seem to work. Twice now in different posts. Anyone else having that problem? Even antievolutionists?

philosophy -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/6/2006 5:27:56 AM)
"We have proof of Creation too, if we do not take it to be a literal six days. Either way you have no point."............ a correlation between six days and classifications of prehistory is not proof........please tell me how belief in the 'theory' of creation can be used to predict anything. "Evolution is a theory, that is all."..........however, its a theory that makes predictions about the future. Thus it can be used scientifically. "Please note that I am not stating My beliefs, I am only stating the facts.".......the facts as you understand them. Given that you don't really seem to understand what science is, this explains your confusion.

philosophy -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/6/2006 5:32:13 AM)
"The 'theory' that the earth revolves around the sun has been right countless times, and hasn't been wrong yet. But it is worthless for its predictive value as to whether ot not the sun will rise on any given morning in the future..should an outside factor such as the sun going nova, or the earth disintegrating come to pass, then there would be no sunrise." surely this is just a semantic confusion. The theory that allows us to understand how the earth goes round the sun isn't called the earth-going-rouind-the-sun theory. It's just a specific application of celestial mechanics. The sun going nova et al are just other parts of the same body of knowledge which gives rise to the working theory.

twicehappy -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/6/2006 5:50:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin We have proof of Creation too, if we do not take it to be a literal six days. Either way you have no point. Evolution is a theory, that is all. Please note that I am not stating My beliefs, I am only stating the facts. You have proof of Creation? Amazing! Can you please tell the rest of us where you found this proof? Better yet why not call a news conference as all the Christian churches of the world would proclaim you a saint overnight for providing this proof. You are right evolution is a theory based on hard scientific evidence though we are at this time missing a few links to complete the chain of evidence.

sharainks -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/6/2006 6:07:46 AM)
Well I'm from Kansas and don't support the religious right imposing their views on all the students in the state. That's what separation of church and state is about to me. Luckily last week's Board of Education elections in the state tipped the balance so that the religious right no longer has a majority. I believe that both creationism and evolution are theories. Too much in science turns out to be disproven down the road. It used to be a "scientific fact" that people did not absorb things through their skin. Along came Rogaine and when men suddenly had medical problems due to their blood pressure falling dangerously that was revisited. I understand now that scientists have pretty much decided that Neandrathals were not part of man's evolution. I might believe a little more in evolutionary science if someone could provide an answer to a simple question. If men evolved from apes, then what were the creatures we now call apes before they evolved? If they are evolved creatures how can we know what our predecessors looked like? For myself I am content to live in a world where we don't have the answers to every question we might ask. It opens up life so that each person can develop their own theories based on the information they get. It keeps the world a much more interesting place for us all when we can discuss differing views.

philosophy -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/6/2006 7:30:09 AM)
"It used to be a "scientific fact" that people did not absorb things through their skin." ...since when?

subdreamerboy -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/6/2006 7:46:03 AM)
answer to your simple question: Men did not evolve from apes. Men and apes evolved from a common ancestor that was no more like an ape than it was like a man. Since we have a very tight distinction on what is a 'man' and what is an 'ape,' it is common to think of this ancestor as 'ape-like'. This ancestor is now exstinct. It is only laymen who say men evolved from apes, a common misperception of evolutionary theory. On a side note: we are more genetically similar to chimpanzees than hairless rats are similar to common rats. We still call both kinds of rats the same species. Interesting, isn't it? If we were not ourselves human, we would classify humans and chimpanzees as the same species. Perhaps it would be better if we did not say that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor, but that humans are, in fact, nothing more than hairless apes. After all, we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees more recently than we share one with Gorrilla. You might want to look into "The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal" by Jared Diamond, it's quite an interesting book on the topic. Edited for grammatical errors.

SirKenin -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/6/2006 7:50:50 AM)
Brutal: Like I have stated elsewhere, the Sumerians invented cuneiform in 3000 BC. In Sumerian ("Adam" was a Sumerian tribe) cuneiform Adam means settlement on the plains, and Eden (the garden of course) means fertile plain.

sharainks -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/6/2006 8:15:18 AM)
philosophy, that was a common notion up until the 80's. Before that in the earlier part of this century (20's 30's 40's) people believed that we did absorb things through our skin. Then "science" told them that wasn't true. Then "science" told them that people did absorb things through their skin.

SirKenin -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/6/2006 8:30:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: twicehappy quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin We have proof of Creation too, if we do not take it to be a literal six days. Either way you have no point. Evolution is a theory, that is all. Please note that I am not stating My beliefs, I am only stating the facts. You have proof of Creation? Amazing! Can you please tell the rest of us where you found this proof? Better yet why not call a news conference as all the Christian churches of the world would proclaim you a saint overnight for providing this proof. You are right evolution is a theory based on hard scientific evidence though we are at this time missing a few links to complete the chain of evidence. I just told you. Study your theology. The Creation story is not a literal "six day" story. That is where Creationists fall flat on their face. So, take the six days out of it and compare it to evolution. The two stack up together.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875