Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 115

Thread: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

  1. #31
    Official Troll Array title="The Patriot is a name known to all"> The Patriot's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,306

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by venom View Post
    Did I offend you with the word God libby ??
    Plenty of bleeding-heart liberals believe in God.

    Jesus - for starters.

  2. #32
    Qui dall'inizio Array title="Vincent is on a distinguished road"> Vincent's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Crib
    Gender
    Posts
    699

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Patriot View Post
    Plenty of bleeding-heart liberals believe in God.
    satan believes in God.

  3. #33
    The Oncoming Storm Array title="Vis will become famous soon enough"> Vis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    1,487

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    satan believes in God.
    Donald Duck believes in Mickey Mouse.

  4. #34
    Reigning Black & Gold Array title="venom has a reputation beyond repute"> venom's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    N Y C / Chicago
    Gender
    Posts
    26,248

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    satan believes in God.

    So does Obama , I think

  5. #35
    The Oncoming Storm Array title="Vis will become famous soon enough"> Vis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    1,487

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by venom View Post

    So does Obama , I think
    Not according to Ann Coulter....

  6. #36
    Quest For Seven Array title="Mach1 has a reputation beyond repute"> Mach1's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Gender
    Posts
    5,161

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Obama believes in Allah.

    And 57 states.


    Give a lib a fish--he eats for a day

    Teach a lib to fish--he is back the next day asking for more free fish.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  7. #37
    Qui dall'inizio Array title="Vincent is on a distinguished road"> Vincent's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Crib
    Gender
    Posts
    699

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach1 View Post
    Obama believes in Allah.
    Evidently.

  8. #38
    Official Troll Array title="The Patriot is a name known to all"> The Patriot's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,306

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Allah is just the Arabic word for God. Muslims just believe that another prophet came after Jesus and Moses. But then so does Mit Romney...

  9. #39
    Senior Member Array title="pepsyman1 has much to be proud of"> pepsyman1's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Marlton, NJ
    Gender
    Posts
    3,671

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    I believe in the Big Spaghetti monster that Vis mentioned....lol This IS America, therefore you can believe anything you like. I think in school they should be expected to teach what science has discovered and believes is the most accurate info they have to date, if you want your children to believe in something else, simply have them learn that at home, church, mosque, synagogue etc.

  10. #40
    Quest For Seven Array title="Mach1 has a reputation beyond repute"> Mach1's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Gender
    Posts
    5,161

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Patriot View Post
    Allah is just the Arabic word for God. Muslims just believe that another prophet came after Jesus and Moses. But then so does Mit Romney...
    Yes I know. Bigfoot, Sasquatch same thing.

    Cept they've only been spotted in 50 states.


    Give a lib a fish--he eats for a day

    Teach a lib to fish--he is back the next day asking for more free fish.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  11. #41
    World Champion Array title="Just George is on a distinguished road"> Just George's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The World
    Gender
    Posts
    627

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vis View Post
    Atheism is a lack of belief. It doesn't require absolute certainty that there is no god just like it doesn't require certainty that the world wasn't created by the big spaghetti monster. You can't disprove that monster either.
    Quote Originally Posted by steeldawg View Post
    Atheists do not claim to know anything, they simply do not belive in the exsistence of gods. An atheist could have many theories on life and nature without god, not limited to evolution, however the evidence for evolution is overwhelming . Atheists do not follow any doctrine or set belief systems, they simply rely on the evidence proven tested and measured. Let me ask you this, what evidence would you require to disprove a god? How does one disprove something that can not be proven?
    ok have been avoiding this whole discussion as it typically never serves a point to get involved but I have to point out the fallacies in these statements. Atheism is about belief the belief that there is no God and CLAIM that they know there is no God. It just bothers me when people are trying to deny that Atheism is like any other belief system. There is doctine and articles of faith.
    atheism

    a·the·ism

    1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
    2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

  12. #42
    World Champion Array title="Just George is on a distinguished road"> Just George's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The World
    Gender
    Posts
    627

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by steeldawg View Post
    Difference being if there was evidence for a god atheists would accept it. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence for evolution and creationist still deny it.
    ok this is a big red herring too. There are many different thoughts on "Creation" while there are strict creationist (6 day creation of the world) there are also scientific Creationist/Intelligent Design.

    intelligent design
    noun

    the theory that the universe and living things were designed and created by the purposeful action of an intelligent agent.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...lligent+design

    when talking about evolution the problem is that most people (even people who claim they believe in Evolution) don't know what they are arguing about.

    There are plenty of Christians who believe in Micro evolution. the fact that there is evidence of evolutionary changes in nature among "kinds" You can see that dogs over time have evolved to seperate types of dogs but are still dogs not Birds, that birds have different types in its kind and that envionmental changes can lead to changes in say beak size (ala Darwin's observations).

    However what people in the ID community say they can't resolve is the idea of Macro evolution the idea in Evolutionary theory that natural selection, mutation etc explain ALL life.

    Well this theory is difficult to test scientifically.

    To begin you have to start with the evolution of "something from nothing" before the big bang there was literally NOTHING then there was. how do you test that ( but evolutionist gloss that over by saying since something exist and there is not outside influence that natural selection/nature etc caused this creation somehow we just have not found it yet maybe string theory will tell us how. this arguement is the same as the god of gaps fallacy that are leveled at creationist/ID/or anyone that does not subscribe to Evolutionary theory)

    then you have to explain how life came from non life. How did non living material combine and create life. this is called Abiogenesis

    "In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the hypothetical conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed by proteins. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis."


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

    ok well the Miller Urey experiment have been shown to have many problems that cast doubt on this theory.


    "These discoveries created a stir within the science community. Scientists became very optimistic that the questions about the origin of life would be solved within a few decades. This has not been the case, however. Instead, the investigation into life's origins seems only to have just begun.

    There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.

    Many of the compounds made in the Miller/Urey experiment are known to exist in outer space. On September 28, 1969, a meteorite fell over Murchison, Australia. While only 100 kilograms were recovered, analysis of the meteorite has shown that it is rich with amino acids. Over 90 amino acids have been identified by researchers to date. Nineteen of these amino acids are found on Earth. (table showing comparison of Murchison meteorite to Miller/Urey experiment) The early Earth is believed to be similar to many of the asteroids and comets still roaming the galaxy. If amino acids are able to survive in outer space under extreme conditions, then this might suggest that amino acids were present when the Earth was formed. More importantly, the Murchison meteorite has demonstrated that the Earth may have acquired some of its amino acids and other organic compounds by planetary infall.
    If these compounds were not created in a reducing atmosphere here on Earth as Miller suggested, then where did they come from? New theories have recently been offered as alternative sites for the origin of life."

    http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise...gy/miller.html

    one of these theories is that life came to this planet from outer space on a meteor

    "As scientific mysteries go, this is the big one. How did life on Earth begin? Not how did life evolve, but how did it start in the first place? What was the initial spark that lit the fire of evolution?
    Charles Darwin solved the mystery of life's wondrous diversity with his theory of natural selection. But even he was flummoxed by the ultimate mystery of mysteries: what led to the origin of life itself?

    In trying to answer the problem, scientists have turned to the stars, or at least the "builders' rubble" of meteorites and comets left over from the formation of our solar system some five billion years ago. These space rocks, they believe, could help to explain why life began here on Earth."
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...e-2228530.html

    HOWEVER this does NOT answer the question of HOW life started. the fact that arm chair evolutionist dont know or understand or except is that the THEORY of evolution DOES NOT have any answers for the MACRO evolution they just pretend it does or willfully put their blind faith in a theory they don't really understand.

    OK once you answer the question about the origion of life then you can start explaining how Macro evolution from simple to complex and individual kind to multiple kinds happened. Evolution can't even answer the first question but gloss over it and say no no evolution explains everything.

    Science for over 40 years have been looking for other ways of explaining the genesis of life, but the "militant" evolutionist never notice that the arguement has moved they just want to say "non evolutionist are stupid, inbreed ninny heads. HA HA look at those stupid religious folk." WELL that is a great arguement.

    SO please stop acting so superior to people that believe God is the creator of life and the Uncaused first cause of everything. If you want to disagree with me that is fine if you want to debate me that is fine, but don't act as if atheism and evolution don't take EVERY BIT AS MUCH FAITH AS faith in God.

    There are many intelligent, educated, articulate Christians who have researched, studied, prayed and decided Belief in God makes more sense then Belief in NOTHING.

    as always the above is my opinion only and not a reflection on the beliefs or views of this board, the admins or mods.
    Last edited by Just George; 08-29-2011 at 11:06 PM.

  13. #43

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Patriot View Post
    Allah is just the Arabic word for God....
    Yes and no. It reality, it depends on who you speak with. There are many who have meshed Allah as the generic word for god with the idea of the Muslim God, so that Allah is now the name of God in the Muslim religion.

    There are others who recognize the distinction and will speak of Allah as god, recognizing that the Allah of the Muslim religion is different than the Allah(s) of other religions. It is the same way that some Christians belief the English word god=Jesus or YHWH, while others understand god simple is a word designating the concept of a greater being.


  14. #44

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by pepsyman1 View Post
    I believe in the Big Spaghetti monster that Vis mentioned....lol This IS America, therefore you can believe anything you like. I think in school they should be expected to teach what science has discovered and believes is the most accurate info they have to date, if you want your children to believe in something else, simply have them learn that at home, church, mosque, synagogue etc.
    The problem with that however, is that many Christians including myself doubt the philosophical underpinnings of the metanarratives which modernist science produces. If science truly taught "this is a cell." "This is DNA" "THis is how they all interact." There wouldn't be a problem. But when they venture into philosophy by utilizing positivist argumentation (a phase of philosophy that's been rejected for over a century), foundationalism (a phase of philosophy coming under fire more and more, recently discarded by more and more historians), and then use Hegelian philosophy (rejected by pretty much every other branch of the scientia in the academies) to produce unreplicable theories (violating the basic element of science, which is observed, replicable data) to state "this is how man came into existence" then I have a problem. Because they have moved away from science into philosophy, which is exactly what creationists argue. So why should one philosophy about origins be taught and another not?

    And no, it's not because, "Evolution is not a philosophy, it's based on science." Creationist arguments are also based on science. The entire debate is based on science. Both creationists and Evolutionists will point to reproducible observations to locate their arguments.

    I believe that in the next 40-100 years, evolution will fall away as a belief, treated as passe' by most. Why? Because every other system of argumentation based on the philosophical foundations Evolution is based on has done, or is in the process of doing the same thing now.

    Once we get past that, and biologists start observing without preset "this must fit like this because evolution says so" understandings, I think there will be a major jump in biology, virology, infectious disease specialties, etc. etc.


  15. #45
    The Oncoming Storm Array title="Vis will become famous soon enough"> Vis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    1,487

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Just George View Post
    ok this is a big red herring too. There are many different thoughts on "Creation" while there are strict creationist (6 day creation of the world) there are also scientific Creationist/Intelligent Design.

    intelligent design
    noun

    the theory that the universe and living things were designed and created by the purposeful action of an intelligent agent.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...lligent+design

    when talking about evolution the problem is that most people (even people who claim they believe in Evolution) don't know what they are arguing about.

    There are plenty of Christians who believe in Micro evolution. the fact that there is evidence of evolutionary changes in nature among "kinds" You can see that dogs over time have evolved to seperate types of dogs but are still dogs not Birds, that birds have different types in its kind and that envionmental changes can lead to changes in say beak size (ala Darwin's observations).

    However what people in the ID community say they can't resolve is the idea of Macro evolution the idea in Evolutionary theory that natural selection, mutation etc explain ALL life.

    Well this theory is difficult to test scientifically.

    To begin you have to start with the evolution of "something from nothing" before the big bang there was literally NOTHING then there was. how do you test that ( but evolutionist gloss that over by saying since something exist and there is not outside influence that natural selection/nature etc caused this creation somehow we just have not found it yet maybe string theory will tell us how. this arguement is the same as the god of gaps fallacy that are leveled at creationist/ID/or anyone that does not subscribe to Evolutionary theory)

    then you have to explain how life came from non life. How did non living material combine and create life. this is called Abiogenesis

    "In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the hypothetical conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed by proteins. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis."


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

    ok well the Miller Urey experiment have been shown to have many problems that cast doubt on this theory.


    "These discoveries created a stir within the science community. Scientists became very optimistic that the questions about the origin of life would be solved within a few decades. This has not been the case, however. Instead, the investigation into life's origins seems only to have just begun.

    There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.

    Many of the compounds made in the Miller/Urey experiment are known to exist in outer space. On September 28, 1969, a meteorite fell over Murchison, Australia. While only 100 kilograms were recovered, analysis of the meteorite has shown that it is rich with amino acids. Over 90 amino acids have been identified by researchers to date. Nineteen of these amino acids are found on Earth. (table showing comparison of Murchison meteorite to Miller/Urey experiment) The early Earth is believed to be similar to many of the asteroids and comets still roaming the galaxy. If amino acids are able to survive in outer space under extreme conditions, then this might suggest that amino acids were present when the Earth was formed. More importantly, the Murchison meteorite has demonstrated that the Earth may have acquired some of its amino acids and other organic compounds by planetary infall.
    If these compounds were not created in a reducing atmosphere here on Earth as Miller suggested, then where did they come from? New theories have recently been offered as alternative sites for the origin of life."

    http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise...gy/miller.html

    one of these theories is that life came to this planet from outer space on a meteor

    "As scientific mysteries go, this is the big one. How did life on Earth begin? Not how did life evolve, but how did it start in the first place? What was the initial spark that lit the fire of evolution?
    Charles Darwin solved the mystery of life's wondrous diversity with his theory of natural selection. But even he was flummoxed by the ultimate mystery of mysteries: what led to the origin of life itself?

    In trying to answer the problem, scientists have turned to the stars, or at least the "builders' rubble" of meteorites and comets left over from the formation of our solar system some five billion years ago. These space rocks, they believe, could help to explain why life began here on Earth."
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...e-2228530.html

    HOWEVER this does NOT answer the question of HOW life started. the fact that arm chair evolutionist dont know or understand or except is that the THEORY of evolution DOES NOT have any answers for the MACRO evolution they just pretend it does or willfully put their blind faith in a theory they don't really understand.

    OK once you answer the question about the origion of life then you can start explaining how Macro evolution from simple to complex and individual kind to multiple kinds happened. Evolution can't even answer the first question but gloss over it and say no no evolution explains everything.

    Science for over 40 years have been looking for other ways of explaining the genesis of life, but the "militant" evolutionist never notice that the arguement has moved they just want to say "non evolutionist are stupid, inbreed ninny heads. HA HA look at those stupid religious folk." WELL that is a great arguement.

    SO please stop acting so superior to people that believe God is the creator of life and the Uncaused first cause of everything. If you want to disagree with me that is fine if you want to debate me that is fine, but don't act as if atheism and evolution don't take EVERY BIT AS MUCH FAITH AS faith in God.

    There are many intelligent, educated, articulate Christians who have researched, studied, prayed and decided Belief in God makes more sense then Belief in NOTHING.

    as always the above is my opinion only and not a reflection on the beliefs or views of this board, the admins or mods.
    That was quite a long God of the Gaps argument.

  16. #46
    The Oncoming Storm Array title="Vis will become famous soon enough"> Vis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    1,487

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Preacher View Post
    The problem with that however, is that many Christians including myself doubt the philosophical underpinnings of the metanarratives which modernist science produces. If science truly taught "this is a cell." "This is DNA" "THis is how they all interact." There wouldn't be a problem. But when they venture into philosophy by utilizing positivist argumentation (a phase of philosophy that's been rejected for over a century), foundationalism (a phase of philosophy coming under fire more and more, recently discarded by more and more historians), and then use Hegelian philosophy (rejected by pretty much every other branch of the scientia in the academies) to produce unreplicable theories (violating the basic element of science, which is observed, replicable data) to state "this is how man came into existence" then I have a problem. Because they have moved away from science into philosophy, which is exactly what creationists argue. So why should one philosophy about origins be taught and another not?

    And no, it's not because, "Evolution is not a philosophy, it's based on science." Creationist arguments are also based on science. The entire debate is based on science. Both creationists and Evolutionists will point to reproducible observations to locate their arguments.

    I believe that in the next 40-100 years, evolution will fall away as a belief, treated as passe' by most. Why? Because every other system of argumentation based on the philosophical foundations Evolution is based on has done, or is in the process of doing the same thing now.

    Once we get past that, and biologists start observing without preset "this must fit like this because evolution says so" understandings, I think there will be a major jump in biology, virology, infectious disease specialties, etc. etc.
    What reproducible observations prove a creator?

  17. #47
    The Oncoming Storm Array title="Vis will become famous soon enough"> Vis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    1,487

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Preacher, have you seen this:

    http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957...f-adam-and-eve

    IS this bad science too because it doesn't fit the Adam and Eve parable? (It doen't help with Noah either)

  18. #48
    Klaatu barada nikto Array title="suitanim has a brilliant future"> suitanim's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Preacher View Post
    The problem with that however, is that many Christians including myself doubt the philosophical underpinnings of the metanarratives which modernist science produces. If science truly taught "this is a cell." "This is DNA" "THis is how they all interact." There wouldn't be a problem. But when they venture into philosophy by utilizing positivist argumentation (a phase of philosophy that's been rejected for over a century), foundationalism (a phase of philosophy coming under fire more and more, recently discarded by more and more historians), and then use Hegelian philosophy (rejected by pretty much every other branch of the scientia in the academies) to produce unreplicable theories (violating the basic element of science, which is observed, replicable data) to state "this is how man came into existence" then I have a problem. Because they have moved away from science into philosophy, which is exactly what creationists argue. So why should one philosophy about origins be taught and another not?

    And no, it's not because, "Evolution is not a philosophy, it's based on science." Creationist arguments are also based on science. The entire debate is based on science. Both creationists and Evolutionists will point to reproducible observations to locate their arguments.

    I believe that in the next 40-100 years, evolution will fall away as a belief, treated as passe' by most. Why? Because every other system of argumentation based on the philosophical foundations Evolution is based on has done, or is in the process of doing the same thing now.

    Once we get past that, and biologists start observing without preset "this must fit like this because evolution says so" understandings, I think there will be a major jump in biology, virology, infectious disease specialties, etc. etc.
    You know, Darwin was a christian who went to the Galapagos Islands to prove his existing beliefs that God created life on Earth. His empirical observations made him change his mind.

    The problem I have with the debate now is that both "sides" have let their agenda overshadow objectivity. Without unbiased study and research, this argument can go on forever, since both sides are easily willing to ignore and discard anything that doesn't fit with their own pre-drawn conclusions.

    We've gone round and round on this before. It's never going to change. I find myself in an interesting position in that I have no position other then knowing beyond a doubt that we as humans did NOT ride around on dinosaurs 6,000 years ago,
    Fire Goodell

  19. #49
    World Champion Array title="Just George is on a distinguished road"> Just George's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The World
    Gender
    Posts
    627

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vis View Post
    That was quite a long God of the Gaps argument.
    Vis no offense but if that is the totality of your retort it is lacking. I presented a quick overview of some thoughts that is all. So ok you believe in Evolution ok cite the research that shows how the universe was created and how life began on Earth. As I said the idea of the primordial soup has more and more come under fire as not having any basis in the scientific evidence that is found. Go and look at the Miller Urey experiements, look at the other theories and then tell me HOW did nothing become something and how did life begin in the universe.

    you say oh that is a long god of gaps arguement is incorrect what I am doing is instead of starting in the position of having to defend what ID or some other theory I am asking that you defend what you believe.

    Evolutionist always want to say "well evolutuion is true because its true" well ok if its true and there is TONS of evidence show me. Do you want me to except evolution based on fact or on blind faith?

    you are starting your arguement in the belief that evolution is true, proven and there is no room to even debate or question it but the sum of your arguement seems to be "Well of course it is true everyone knows that you have to be stupid to even question it." That seems kind of kind of "militant" and overly dogmatic

    Dogma
    3. prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group: the difficulty of resisting political dogma.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogma

    and as I said most people who are apoligist for evolution don't really understand the theory and know nothing about the debates and alternative theories being discussed in the scientific community.

  20. #50
    The Oncoming Storm Array title="Vis will become famous soon enough"> Vis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    1,487

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Just George View Post
    Vis no offense but if that is the totality of your retort it is lacking. I presented a quick overview of some thoughts that is all. So ok you believe in Evolution ok cite the research that shows how the universe was created and how life began on Earth. As I said the idea of the primordial soup has more and more come under fire as not having any basis in the scientific evidence that is found. Go and look at the Miller Urey experiements, look at the other theories and then tell me HOW did nothing become something and how did life begin in the universe.

    you say oh that is a long god of gaps arguement is incorrect what I am doing is instead of starting in the position of having to defend what ID or some other theory I am asking that you defend what you believe.

    Evolutionist always want to say "well evolutuion is true because its true" well ok if its true and there is TONS of evidence show me. Do you want me to except evolution based on fact or on blind faith?

    you are starting your arguement in the belief that evolution is true, proven and there is no room to even debate or question it but the sum of your arguement seems to be "Well of course it is true everyone knows that you have to be stupid to even question it." That seems kind of kind of "militant" and overly dogmatic

    Dogma
    3. prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group: the difficulty of resisting political dogma.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogma

    and as I said most people who are apoligist for evolution don't really understand the theory and know nothing about the debates and alternative theories being discussed in the scientific community.
    Evolution is a fact. No one doubts it unless it conflicts with a belief. No one. Find an atheist evolution doubter. You don't have to believe it or understand it but if you think the things man doesn't yet know proves God, don't you long for the days when we didn't know what the sun was and every dawn was a live giving miracle? God was really something back then.

    But proof... did you read the NPR link? Start there.

  21. #51
    World Champion Array title="Just George is on a distinguished road"> Just George's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The World
    Gender
    Posts
    627

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vis View Post
    Evolution is a fact. No one doubts it unless it conflicts with a belief. No one. Find an atheist evolution doubter. You don't have to believe it or understand it but if you think the things man doesn't yet know proves God, don't you long for the days when we didn't know what the sun was and every dawn was a live giving miracle? God was really something back then.

    But proof... did you read the NPR link? Start there.
    you are proving my point. If rational scientist are saying the commonly held belief of how life (spontaneous genesis) started on this planet is improbable and are looking for alternative theories
    "Earth is estimated to be about 4.5 billion years old, and for much of that history it has been home to life in one weird form or another.
    Indeed, some scientists think life appeared the moment our planet's environment was stable enough to support it.

    The earliest evidence for life on Earth comes from fossilized mats of cyanobacteria called stromatolites in Australia that are about 3.4 billion years old. Ancient as their origins are, these bacteria (which are still around today) are already biologically complex — they have cell walls protecting their protein-producing DNA, so scientists think life must have begun much earlier, perhaps as early as 3.8 billion years ago.

    But despite knowing approximately when life first appeared on Earth, scientists are still far from answering how it appeared.

    "Many theories of the origin of life have been proposed, but since it's hard to prove or disprove them, no fully accepted theory exists," said Diana Northup, a cave biologist at the University of New Mexico.

    The answer to this question would not only fill one of the largest gaps in scientists' understanding of nature, but also would have important implications for the likelihood of finding life elsewhere in the universe."
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20393495...e-earth-began/

    the fact that the best you can come up with is "Evolution is a fact. No one doubts it unless it conflicts with a belief" proves my observation that strict evolutionist are blind to the debates currenlty going on and have to rely soley on their adherence to an outdated theory. YOu want to state I am relying on the god of gaps SO again HOW DID NOTHING BECOME SOMETHING and HOW DID LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE BEGIN

    You say I am using the God of Gaps fallacy but I ask you what are you filling the Gaps in your theory with?

  22. #52
    The Oncoming Storm Array title="Vis will become famous soon enough"> Vis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    1,487

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Just George View Post
    you are proving my point. If rational scientist are saying the commonly held belief of how life (spontaneous genesis) started on this planet is improbable and are looking for alternative theories
    "Earth is estimated to be about 4.5 billion years old, and for much of that history it has been home to life in one weird form or another.
    Indeed, some scientists think life appeared the moment our planet's environment was stable enough to support it.

    The earliest evidence for life on Earth comes from fossilized mats of cyanobacteria called stromatolites in Australia that are about 3.4 billion years old. Ancient as their origins are, these bacteria (which are still around today) are already biologically complex — they have cell walls protecting their protein-producing DNA, so scientists think life must have begun much earlier, perhaps as early as 3.8 billion years ago.

    But despite knowing approximately when life first appeared on Earth, scientists are still far from answering how it appeared.

    "Many theories of the origin of life have been proposed, but since it's hard to prove or disprove them, no fully accepted theory exists," said Diana Northup, a cave biologist at the University of New Mexico.

    The answer to this question would not only fill one of the largest gaps in scientists' understanding of nature, but also would have important implications for the likelihood of finding life elsewhere in the universe."
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20393495...e-earth-began/

    the fact that the best you can come up with is "Evolution is a fact. No one doubts it unless it conflicts with a belief" proves my observation that strict evolutionist are blind to the debates currenlty going on and have to rely soley on their adherence to an outdated theory. YOu want to state I am relying on the god of gaps SO again HOW DID NOTHING BECOME SOMETHING and HOW DID LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE BEGIN

    You say I am using the God of Gaps fallacy but I ask you what are you filling the Gaps in your theory with?
    If you believe ""Earth is estimated to be about 4.5 billion years old, and for much of that history it has been home to life in one weird form or another." and you believe "The earliest evidence for life on Earth comes from fossilized mats of cyanobacteria called stromatolites in Australia that are about 3.4 billion years old. " then you believe in evolution. You understand that if Pikaia Gracilens hadn't survived the Burgess decimation we wouldn't be here. If your issue isn't with the science of evolution but solely with abiogenesis then say so but there is no debate about whether evolution is a historical and biological fact.

    I'm filling the gaps with the continuing quest for knowledge.

    Ignoring the NPR article? Or do you just agree Genesis isn't literal?

  23. #53
    World Champion Array title="Just George is on a distinguished road"> Just George's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The World
    Gender
    Posts
    627

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vis View Post
    Evolution is a fact. No one doubts it unless it conflicts with a belief. No one. Find an atheist evolution doubter. You don't have to believe it or understand it but if you think the things man doesn't yet know proves God, don't you long for the days when we didn't know what the sun was and every dawn was a live giving miracle? God was really something back then.

    But proof... did you read the NPR link? Start there.
    yes but you still have not answered my questions, put up anything you want but explain how the universe began and how life in the universe began.


    and REALLY your arguement is I don't have to understand it for it to be true It just is? AND don't forget that the scientific community has believed wrong things for along time before they discovered the truth. Science is not infallable but shhh lets not talk about that.

  24. #54
    World Champion Array title="Just George is on a distinguished road"> Just George's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The World
    Gender
    Posts
    627

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vis View Post
    If you believe ""Earth is estimated to be about 4.5 billion years old, and for much of that history it has been home to life in one weird form or another." and you believe "The earliest evidence for life on Earth comes from fossilized mats of cyanobacteria called stromatolites in Australia that are about 3.4 billion years old. " then you believe in evolution. You understand that if Pikaia Gracilens hadn't survived the Burgess decimation we wouldn't be here. If your issue isn't with the science of evolution but solely with abiogenesis then say so but there is no debate about whether evolution is a historical and biological fact.

    I'm filling the gaps with the continuing quest for knowledge.

    Ignoring the NPR article? Or do you just agree Genesis isn't literal?
    I am getting articles that show that SCIENCE has some gaps in their general fund of knowledge. If we want to talk about ID/Creationism, Young Earth vs Old earth creationsim etc we can but right now I AM STILL WAITING to see the proof that Evolutionist theory can properly explain the creation of the universe and of life in the universe. you know something more than "well it just is true everyone knows that"

  25. #55
    The Oncoming Storm Array title="Vis will become famous soon enough"> Vis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    1,487

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Just George View Post
    yes but you still have not answered my questions, put up anything you want but explain how the universe began and how life in the universe began.


    and REALLY your arguement is I don't have to understand it for it to be true It just is? AND don't forget that the scientific community has believed wrong things for along time before they discovered the truth. Science is not infallable but shhh lets not talk about that.

    No, my answer for things i don't understand is that I haven't heard the answer yet, or the answer is to complex for me but some people get the physics I cannot grasp, or it has yet to be discovered. That science has made and corrected mistakes is the beauty of it. Science is the method. One new thing can alter the understanding of many things. That isn't true where you start with a book telling you what to believe and you try to find ways to fit the actual world into it. You can't fill the yet undiscovered and unknown with whatever faerie tale most appeals to you.

  26. #56
    The Oncoming Storm Array title="Vis will become famous soon enough"> Vis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    1,487

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    But lets say we can never discover how life began and we postulate that something created that life, what does that tell you about that creator? Which religion's creator did it? And why doesn't it bother you that you don't understand how that creator began or was created? All you did was take the unknown back one little step.

  27. #57
    World Champion Array title="Just George is on a distinguished road"> Just George's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The World
    Gender
    Posts
    627

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vis View Post
    No, my answer for things i don't understand is that I haven't heard the answer yet, or the answer is to complex for me but some people get the physics I cannot grasp, or it has yet to be discovered. That science has made and corrected mistakes is the beauty of it. Science is the method. One new thing can alter the understanding of many things. That isn't true where you start with a book telling you what to believe and you try to find ways to fit the actual world into it. You can't fill the yet undiscovered and unknown with whatever faerie tale most appeals to you.
    my friend when you have to go back to being smug and insulting of someone you don't agree with it goes back to my earlier point. evolutionist are dogmatic people who place thier blind faith in something others have told them. BUT you can mock my beliefs but expect nothing but respect for yours.

  28. #58
    World Champion Array title="Just George is on a distinguished road"> Just George's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The World
    Gender
    Posts
    627

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vis View Post
    No, my answer for things i don't understand is that I haven't heard the answer yet, or the answer is to complex for me but some people get the physics I cannot grasp, or it has yet to be discovered. That science has made and corrected mistakes is the beauty of it. Science is the method. One new thing can alter the understanding of many things. That isn't true where you start with a book telling you what to believe and you try to find ways to fit the actual world into it. You can't fill the yet undiscovered and unknown with whatever faerie tale most appeals to you.
    oh and you start with your book and try to fit your world view around your preset beliefs. No matter what you will on a prima facie level reject the possibility that there are other answers beyond what you want to be true.

  29. #59
    World Champion Array title="Just George is on a distinguished road"> Just George's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The World
    Gender
    Posts
    627

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vis View Post
    But lets say we can never discover how life began and we postulate that something created that life, what does that tell you about that creator? Which religion's creator did it? And why doesn't it bother you that you don't understand how that creator began or was created? All you did was take the unknown back one little step.
    I will say again those are questions we can discuss but FIRST as an evolutionist who knows that your theory is true show me.

    My experience is that when ever I am in this kind of discussion and I am asking for the proof from you that you demand of me, when I ask for the proof you "know" is there and want me to accept, evolutionist want to change the debate/discussion and deflect it back on me and my beliefs. Ok I will get into that with you but first prove yours.

  30. #60
    The Oncoming Storm Array title="Vis will become famous soon enough"> Vis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    1,487

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Just George View Post
    I will say again those are questions we can discuss but FIRST as an evolutionist who knows that your theory is true show me.

    My experience is that when ever I am in this kind of discussion and I am asking for the proof from you that you demand of me, when I ask for the proof you "know" is there and want me to accept, evolutionist want to change the debate/discussion and deflect it back on me and my beliefs. Ok I will get into that with you but first prove yours.
    You're an evolutionist too. Or do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

    But let's start your exercise:

    Terms

    Evolution:
    Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms.

    Adaptation:
    The adjustment or changes in behavior, physiology, and structure of an organism to become more suited to an environment. According to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, organisms that possess heritable traits that enable them to better adapt to their environment compared with other members of their species will be more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass more of their genes on to the next generation.



    Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

    It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

    In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

    The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.


    Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.


    One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.


    In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.


    Beyond this I don't know where to start. Are we in kindergarten, high school, undergrad, or post-grad? If I assume you have knowledge you don't, you will say I'm making unproven statements. If I assume you lack knowledge you do have and agree with, you will say I'm mocking you. I think you believe in evolution as a process but that you maintain the creation of life is a miracle for which there will be no scientific explanation. If it is ever explained, you will either fight the explanation or you will accept it and say that all of the rules of matter and energy were designed perfectly by god so there was no need for him to alter them to create life, it was all one plan from the beginning. There is no scientific argument against the belief that science is how we discover all the wonder of god's creation and that it is all discoverable. It's only the belief that there's some difference between physics and the work of god that is unsupported.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •