Artist Formerly Known as Big O 0 Posted April 12, 2007 You guys are thoroughly missing the point on the whole dinosaur angle. Can YOU tell the difference between a male T-Rex and a female? I didn't think so. Neither could Noah. Neither could the Cavemen! Thats what got them killed off, trying to check out the twigs and berries of their adorable dino pals! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rybo5 0 Posted April 12, 2007 At this point in humanity's existence, it's incredible to me that we're still debating over whether or not fully developed and complex organisms on this planet appeared out of thin air and anything in any religious text should be taken literally......but that's just me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D_House 0 Posted April 12, 2007 At this point in humanity's existence, it's incredible to me that we're still debating over whether or not fully developed and complex organisms on this planet appeared out of thin air and anything in any story in any religious text should be taken literally......but that's just me. yeah but you need faith to believe in evolution, so it's just as ridiculously implausible as man being created from dust and woman from the rib of man. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rybo5 0 Posted April 12, 2007 yeah but you need faith to believe in evolution, so it's just as ridiculously implausible as man being created from dust and woman from the rib of man. So are you saying that there is no evidence whatsoever for evolution? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D_House 0 Posted April 12, 2007 So are you saying that there is no evidence whatsoever for evolution? i'd be interested to see what evolution "facts" are completely indisputable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frank 2,278 Posted April 12, 2007 yeah but you need faith to believe in evolution, so it's just as ridiculously implausible as man being created from dust and woman from the rib of man. YOU ARE A FOCKING MORON! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D_House 0 Posted April 12, 2007 YOU ARE A FOCKING MORON! are you saying that b/c you took me seriously and disagree with me, or because you recognized that i was being sarcastic and disagree with me? also, my album list kicked your album list's azz. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rybo5 0 Posted April 12, 2007 i'd be interested to see what evolution "facts" are completely indisputable. All I'm saying is that there is evidence out there to support the theory of evolution, while the judeo-christianesque creation stories require absolute blind faith. If you personally think humans and other complex organisms appearing out of thin air is more plausible than life starting out in its most basic form and branching out over an extremely long period of time, than that's your opinion. I personally think that's insane, but again, that's just me. ETA: I guess my sarcasm radar is malfunctioning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frank 2,278 Posted April 12, 2007 i'd be interested to see what evolution "facts" are completely indisputable. So what? The best explanation we have is not 100% completely indisputable? That doesn't mean we resort to superstitions about a magic dude in the sky and all of us being decended from 2 people. You have NO evidence of any kind for a Creator. None. That doesn't prove you are wrong, but it proves your viewpoint is retarded. eat: I didn't realize you were being sarcastic. Also, my ablum list was the best. The voters all probably believe in jeebus. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,788 Posted April 12, 2007 Dont' know how many times we'll have this discussion, but I'm guessing this ain't the last fred. To me, evolution is a process of creation. No matter how far back you go with the evolution theories (Big Bang, cosmic goo, star dust - whatever), the disussion ends with "So where did the goo, the dust, the atoms - COME FROM?? If I write a program that creates beautiful works of art - did I create the art? That's how I look at creation. At some point, something had to create something. There is plenty of evidence of evolution, but evolution in and of itself really doesn't seem to cut it when you talk about 1) The aforemention 'genesis material' and 2) The mind-boggling complexity of the human body. Now, do I think that the Noah story and the Adam and Eve story are just plain silly? Absolutely. I guess you could say I believed in "Intelligent Design" long before the conservatives thought it up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rybo5 0 Posted April 12, 2007 That's how I look at creation. At some point, something had to create something. There is plenty of evidence of evolution, but evolution in and of itself really doesn't seem to cut it when you talk about 1) The aforemention 'genesis material' and 2) The mind-boggling complexity of the human body. This is not the issue, when we talk about creationism vs. evolution. Creationism in this sense means the stereotypical religious version where the complex organisms such as ourselves appeared out of nowhere. Obviously no one can seriously debate where the very initial "something" in the universe came from, and we'll most likely never be able to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,788 Posted April 12, 2007 This is not the issue, when we talk about creationism vs. evolution. Creationism in this sense means the stereotypical religious version where the complex organisms such as ourselves appeared out of nowhere. Obviously no one can seriously debate where the very initial "something" in the universe came from, and we'll most likely never be able to. And MY point is your 'stereotypical religous version' may be improperly characterized. When people say "God created the earth", it's not necessarily diametrically opposed to Evolution theory. Evolution may very well be the process whereby God did exactly that. More people of faith believe in the Bible as allegory and metaphor than the minority of whack-jobs who read the bible with the same interpretive skills as their Ipod users manual. In short, if you want to keep swinging wildly at a nonsensical strawman, hey keep at it, just understand that creationism ain't just the fairy tale version you abhor. You can't 'seriously debate' the merits of Evolution and then singlehandedly blow off the one essential argument that Evolution theory can't explain any more than Creationists can get by without explaining the things that weaken their argument - It's intellectually dishonest. The best argument to date is one that marries the proven evolutionary process with creation theories. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rybo5 0 Posted April 12, 2007 You can't 'seriously debate' the merits of Evolution and then singlehandedly blow off the one essential argument that Evolution theory can't explain The thing is evolution has never attempted to explain the origin of "stuff". Evolution only deals with how life on earth as we know it today has gotten to this point. Absolute creation is a completely different argument that I(or anyone else IMO) can't even comprehend. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,788 Posted April 12, 2007 The thing is evolution has never attempted to explain the origin of "stuff". Evolution only deals with how life on earth as we know it today has gotten to this point. Absolute creation is a completely different argument that I(or anyone else IMO) can't even comprehend. So then (according to you), we're talking two entirely different things: 1) The Origin of life and 2) How exactly we ended up with say, 5 fingers instead of flippers. I don't necessarily buy that. To quote you, if I might: evolution has never attempted to explain the origin of "stuff". Yet, was it not the very FATHER of Evolutionary Theory that wrote - what was it? THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES. [NOTE: This is the part where the jury would gasp, the judge would say "case dismissed" and music would swell] And we know Evolution Theory goes well beyond 'the species' we know that Evolution Theory attempts to explain all the way back to when the 1st Amoeba humped the 2nd Amoeba, but won't even ASK how the focking Amoebas came about in the first place?? Perhaps then we need to define ORIGIN - The operative term in Darwin's Thesis. To wit: Origin: The point at which something begins (m-w.com) So, Evolution - according to you - never tried to explain the origin of stuff, yet the very Father of - the creator of - the Theory of Evolution begs to differ. And, if you are to fall back on "I meant just "STUFF", how can any theory purport to define the ORIGIN of something - Yet NOT - I repeat NOT attempt to define The point at which something begins (heretefore known as "THE ORIGIN") ??? Perhaps (in your view) Mr. Darwin should have titled his seminal work "How we got to be how we are" - But instead, he and his theory plainly purported to define the methodology by which we explain the ORIGIN of the Species - The point at which it all began. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brinett9 0 Posted April 13, 2007 words like 'indisputable' are practically worthless in a debate. one can easily assert that black is white, day is night, and gravity pulls things up. you can prolly find 'expert' opinions supporting these ideas. so nearly nothing is indisputable or incontrovertible. if you don't like it, you can simply refuse to accept it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rybo5 0 Posted April 13, 2007 So then (according to you), we're talking two entirely different things: 1) The Origin of life and 2) How exactly we ended up with say, 5 fingers instead of flippers. Yes, I do think we're talking about two entirely different things, but you're number 1 isn't going near far enough. I don't mean the origin of "life", I mean the origin of the very first universal particles or what ever the word is. Perhaps (in your view) Mr. Darwin should have titled his seminal work "How we got to be how we are" Actually yes. I think the title is misleading, but it's not the title you should be focusing on, but his essential theory, which I don't think ever attempted to explain the change from total nothingness into something(if that's even how it works). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,788 Posted April 13, 2007 Yes, I do think we're talking about two entirely different things, but you're number 1 isn't going near far enough. I don't mean the origin of "life", I mean the origin of the very first universal particles or what ever the word is. Actually yes. I think the title is misleading, but it's not the title you should be focusing on, but his essential theory, which I don't think ever attempted to explain the change from total nothingness into something(if that's even how it works). Wow. Way to cherry pick my complete and utter ownage of you. Is Excellently a word? Because you did so excellently. :golfclap: Except for: Origin: The point at which something begins . That point would be the point where nothing became something (hence the expression "something begins" and evolved from there. Just messin with ya. I think you were framing the argument improperly - Only looking at the biblical literalists (and we agree on that stupidity) and in limiting that which Evolution claims to define. Secularists cling to evolution as THE key to how life came to be - and in doing so, fail to realize how incredibly flawed it is to think so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,601 Posted April 13, 2007 Wow, wiffle must have had a boring day in lawyer land. Basically I agree with him though, in part because he uses big lawyer werds, but mostly because... while I am not terribly religious, I really don't like the indignant attitude of people like EM etc., given that there is no explanation for the existance of "stuff." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Voice_Of_Reason 0 Posted April 13, 2007 Fact #1 Christians have faith that God created the earth. You must have faith to believe in God. Fact #2 Evolutions have faith that the world evolved out of something that just was there. Evolutionists must have faith to believe that stuff just was. Whether you like it or not. You have to have faith of some kind. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rybo5 0 Posted April 13, 2007 Except for: Origin: The point at which something begins . That point would be the point where nothing became something (hence the expression "something begins" and evolved from there. This all depends on your interpretation of the title of his book. You see it as him claiming to know how life in general appeared, while I see it as him only offering his theory on how we've gotten to this point. Again either way, the title is irrelevant. If he called the book "Nappy Headed Ho's and You", that doesn't change the content of the book. I think you were framing the argument improperly - Only looking at the biblical literalists (and we agree on that stupidity) and in limiting that which Evolution claims to define. When did the theory of evolution ever claim to define how all "stuff" came to be? All it does is explain how the most basic forms of life branch off with certain branches ceasing to grow and others continuing the cycle. It doesn't explain the beginning or the end, it explains the middle. Just because some people misrepresent the theory, doesn't mean the theory by itself is any less efficient in making its specific claim. To me your problem is with a certain group of people, not the theory of evolution. Secularists cling to evolution as THE key to how life came to be - and in doing so, fail to realize how incredibly flawed it is to think so. I don't think it's wise to paint everyone with the same brush. I'm a secularist or humanist or agnostic or whatever you want to call me, but I believe nothing of the sort. I subscribe to the theory of evolution only in the sense of how life on earth got from its most basic form to the year 2007 as we know it. That's it. I have absolutely no idea how those basic forms of life came to be or where exactly they came from, and I especially have no idea where atoms, sub atomic particles, or any other "stuff" came from. I very much doubt I ever will, and quite frankly it's not that relevant to me. Fact #2 Evolutions have faith that the world evolved out of something that just was there. That's not necessarily true. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
remote controller 143 Posted April 13, 2007 What God created has evolved beautifully! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D_House 0 Posted April 13, 2007 To clarify a misconception here, Darwin's "The Origin of Species" does not attempt to explain the origin of life (in fact the full name of the volume is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"). The book was an attempt to explain how the wonderful diversity and variation we see in organisms came to be, namely through natural selection of favorable traits. This is the closest Darwin comes to explaining the origin of life: Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths on the wild rose or oak-tree. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed. Again, he says "...into which life was first breathed." If Creationists weren't so hung up on the literalisms of the Bible and the man-from-monkey fallacy, they'd see that Darwin left room for a Creator to have been the Genesis of it all. This is the fundamental question that nobody has answered yet - what was that 'breath,' or spark, that started it all? Evolution does not and has never been an attempt to answer that question. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
remote controller 143 Posted April 13, 2007 Case solved Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GobbleDog 987 Posted April 13, 2007 Fact #1 Christians have faith that God created the earth. You must have faith to believe in God. Fact #2 Evolutions have faith that the world evolved out of something that just was there. Evolutionists must have faith to believe that stuff just was. Whether you like it or not. You have to have faith of some kind. Evolution doesn't require faith in the supernatural. Big difference. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Voice_Of_Reason 0 Posted April 13, 2007 Evolution doesn't require faith in the supernatural. Big difference. But it does require faith. That's not necessarily true. So how do you ever come up with a theory for how stuff came to be. Break it all down. Big bang, evolution, stuff/matter had to be there for it to happen. Eventually, you have to have faith that it got there somehow. How else can you explain it. Faith being defined as the belief in things not seen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GobbleDog 987 Posted April 13, 2007 But it does require faith. Yes... faith in the scientific community. Very smart people conducting scientific experiments with 21st century technology. If they said God created the universe by rubbing two frogs together... I'd believe them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rybo5 0 Posted April 13, 2007 So how do you ever come up with a theory for how stuff came to be. I don't think one can, but you're more than welcome to try. To clarify a misconception here, Darwin's "The Origin of Species" does not attempt to explain the origin of life (in fact the full name of the volume is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"). The book was an attempt to explain how the wonderful diversity and variation we see in organisms came to be, namely through natural selection of favorable traits. This is the closest Darwin comes to explaining the origin of life: Again, he says "...into which life was first breathed." If Creationists weren't so hung up on the literalisms of the Bible and the man-from-monkey fallacy, they'd see that Darwin left room for a Creator to have been the Genesis of it all. This is the fundamental question that nobody has answered yet - what was that 'breath,' or spark, that started it all? Evolution does not and has never been an attempt to answer that question. Thank you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZeroTolerance 584 Posted April 13, 2007 So..the millions of species of insects? Come on, literal belief of the Noah's Ark story is so far beyond absurd that it is mind-boggling anyone believes it. Does it work as a parable, sure, but you are off your rocker if you believe he collected 2 of every animal, including the countless animals that did NOT inhabit that small region of the world (so, did he hook up the polar bears or did they swim for 40 days?), let alone fitting them all in one ship of any sort. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brinett9 0 Posted April 13, 2007 by 'origin of species', darwin meant how one species emerges from another. the book is not about the origin of life. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GobbleDog 987 Posted April 13, 2007 So..the millions of species of insects? Come on... No matter how good your logic is, you'll never win. This discussion always ends with God used magic. I've tried. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Voice_Of_Reason 0 Posted April 13, 2007 Yes... faith in the scientific community. Very smart people conducting scientific experiments with 21st century technology. If they said God created the universe by rubbing two frogs together... I'd believe them. While I believe you were being sarcastic, I think you should always question the scientific community. While they have discovered a great many things. There is far more they have no clue about. They often change their way of thinking to fit the current scheme. But the trouble with that is they are only a step away from changing again. Which isn't a very stable way to believe. And in the end, it's still what you put your faith in. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D_House 0 Posted April 13, 2007 Thank you. you're welcome. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rybo5 0 Posted April 13, 2007 They often change their way of thinking to fit the current scheme. But the trouble with that is they are only a step away from changing again. Which isn't a very stable way to believe. I think that's a very grim way of looking at it. The scientific community forms their theories based on the current evidence, and if better evidence to the contrary comes along, the community will examine it and make their next determination. I find that far better then setting something in absolute stone and declaring it the absolute truth with no real evidence to back it up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blitzen 0 Posted April 13, 2007 yeah but you need faith to believe in evolution, so it's just as ridiculously implausible as man being created from dust and woman from the rib of man. Once again, the way science works is you have a theory that operates based on our best understanding of an issue. When that understanding changes, so does science. Why is that so hard to understand? Theories have been changing ever since science has been around. Having faith in science would be believing something when the best available info we have doesn't support it. Like cold fusion for instance. When someone comes up with a better theory to explain what we see in the fossil record, then the theories will change. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blitzen 0 Posted April 13, 2007 So how do you ever come up with a theory for how stuff came to be. Break it all down. Big bang, evolution, stuff/matter had to be there for it to happen. Eventually, you have to have faith that it got there somehow. How else can you explain it. Faith being defined as the belief in things not seen. People used to think that lightning bolts were Gods displaying their anger. HTH. They wouldn't even have been capable of understanding how they actually come about. To think that science has reached its limits is short-sighted. To think that science should have already answered every question known to man is dumb. Give science another 500-1000 years and I'm guessing we'll know an awful lot more. Science has already shown religion to be wrong so many times in the past that this shouldn't even be a debate. I can't believe how many people still think that to get a major scientific leap, all you need to do is throw a ton of money at it. What you might actually need is someone who thinks in a completely different way. About Noah: since all these animals got off the boat in the same region and must've slowly migrated back to their own regions over the years/animal generations, the fossil record should show a huge diversity of animals near where the Ark landed. To use a creationist's argument about the fossil record not providing interspecies evidence, I'm going to believe that since the fossil record has never shown a huge amount of fossil diversity (roos, llamas and polar bears for instance) in any one region of the world, then the Ark story can't possibly have happened. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sergeant Bri 0 Posted April 13, 2007 About Noah: since all these animals got off the boat in the same region and must've slowly migrated back to their own regions over the years/animal generations... God gave the animals motorcycles to migrate with. HTH. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blitzen 0 Posted April 13, 2007 God gave the animals motorcycles to migrate with. HTH. I haven't seen any motorcycles in the fossil record either. Don't mean to be technical here but how did they get the fossil fuel to power their bikes if there were in fact no fossils buried for millions of years to turn INTO fossil fuel? I guess they had H-powered engines then. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
surferskin 30 Posted April 13, 2007 lemme get this straight. it takes zero faith to believe in evolution BUT scientist's theories change all the time when they realize they were wrong? so you're not putting your faith in theories that might be proved wrong tomorrow because of new data? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blitzen 0 Posted April 13, 2007 lemme get this straight. it takes zero faith to believe in evolution BUT scientist's theories change all the time when they realize they were wrong? so you're not putting your faith in theories that might be proved wrong tomorrow because of new data? scientists understand that theories are only as good as the info they are based on. It's not "faith", it's "this is as good as we have at this time". Having faith in it would mean stopping all research and believing that all is now known as well as we are meant to know it. I would say that most scientists have, in fact, the exact opposite of faith since they keep challenging "knowledge". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sergeant Bri 0 Posted April 13, 2007 Don't mean to be technical here but how did they get the fossil fuel to power their bikes if there were in fact no fossils buried for millions of years to turn INTO fossil fuel? God gave them Super Premium. Maybe I should become a creationist. The God card makes everything so easy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites