PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evolution vs Creationism

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, you read Genesis.  Not interpret (I'm not interpreting).  Read it.  How does evolution fit with what Genesis SAYS.  Everyone keeps saying interpretation, interpretation. I'm not interpreting.  If I say "The sky is blue", and you tell someone that I said "the sky is blue" you are not INTERPRETING what I said.  :P

The people who wrote genesis were totally ignorant of science!  They interpreted the creation of the world through their primitive myths.  I got a real chuckle out of your thread
"Were the Jews...."  because, like all creationists you try to twist the facts to fit your silly stories.  The ancients who wrote the bible had no idea how the world worked, they had no idea what made up the universe, they had no idea what DNA was and they had no idea how to investigate these things.  The Bible, as a book of science, is totally flawed.  It was written by primitive people who didn't understand nature.  They interpreted what they saw through their primitive religious beliefs.  And it's unbelievable that someone in the 21st century would cling to these ancient interpretations in light of how much we've learned since then, how far we've come scientifically.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:25 PM on September 11, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Once again, thank you Demon for illustrating my point.  You have no idea how any of my points in "Were the Jews" could possibly be true.  So rather than say so you start on some rant about the Bible being a scientific book.  You completely ignore my point.  The point is that there are multiple references in the Bible to things that scientists did not discover for thousands of years.  My one and only question was, how did they know these things?  You have no answer.  Therefore you rant and rave.  The thing I find interesting is that you don't believe in demons, yet use this as your monicker.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 9:02 PM on September 11, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Once again, thank you Demon for illustrating my point.  You have no idea how any of my points in "Were the Jews" could possibly be true.  So rather than say so you start on some rant about the Bible being a scientific book.  You completely ignore my point.  The point is that there are multiple references in the Bible to things that scientists did not discover for thousands of years.  My one and only question was, how did they know these things?

They didn't, all your post illustrates is how desperate creatinists are.  There are no scientific discoveries in your list of nonsense, just you trying to twist vague, primitive ramblings into modern scientific thought.  Utter nonsense and in no way demonstrates the ancient jews having any understanding of modern science or natural processes.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 09:48 AM on September 12, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Again, you ignore the facts.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:02 PM on September 12, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are no facts in art and philosophy. Your assertion is potentially as fallacious as the equally absurd notion that Da Vinci was trying to tell us through his painting of the Supper that Jesus committed adultry.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:08 AM on September 13, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't get what is confusing you.  I assume you actually read the post before coming to this conclusion.  I did post facts.  I listed what was written.  I listed when those "facts" were confirmed by science.  My question is how they were aware of those things so much earlier than the scientific community.  If you don't know, just say so.  Sheesh.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:40 AM on September 13, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't get what is confusing you.  I assume you actually read the post before coming to this conclusion.  I did post facts.  I listed what was written.  I listed when those "facts" were confirmed by science.

Don't be ridiculous!  You listed no such thing.  Once again you are using special pleading and twisting reality to prop up your myths.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:00 PM on September 13, 2005 | IP
camaroracer214

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Questions for Evolutionists:

  1.  Where did the space for the universe come from?
  2. Where did matter come from?
  3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
  4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
  5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
  6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
  7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
  8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
  9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to surviv e, or the species? How do you explain this?)
 10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
 11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
 12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occ urred if evolution were true?
 13. When, where, why, and how did:
         * Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
         * Single-celled animals evolve?
         * Fish change to amphibians?
         * Amphibians change to reptiles?
         * Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
         * How did the intermediate forms live?
 14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
         * Whales evolve?
         * Sea horses evolve?
         * Bats evolve?
         * Eyes evolve?
         * Ears evolve?
         * Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
 15. Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
         * The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
         * The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
         * The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
         * DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
         * The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
         * The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
         * The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
         * The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
         * The immune system or the need for it?
 16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
 17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
 18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
 19. *How did photosynthesis evolve?
 20. *How did thought evolve?
 21. *How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
 22. *What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
 23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
 24. *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
 25. *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
 26. *Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

  1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
  2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
  3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
  4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
  5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
  6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
         * It is all they have been taught.
         * They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
         * They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
         * They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
         * Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
  7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
  8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
  9. What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
 10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
 11. Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn’t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?
 12. Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to Heaven? If so, call me.

See www.creationscience.com for more tough questions for evolutionist
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 8:10 PM on September 13, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh dear, quoting Hovind.

Well, Camaroracer214, since you fortunately didn't actually write these questions, am I right in hoping you actually know the difference between Cosmology and Biology, unlike the author?

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 9/13/2005 at 8:57 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 8:56 PM on September 13, 2005 | IP
Bandit

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Theory of evolution
If the theory of evolution is based on "facts" as evolutionists claim then these "theories" should be renamed to The Facts of Evolution!
because the deffinition of a "Theory" is this NO matter how you slice or dice it.


Definitions
Theory
noun theories

     1. A series of ideas and general principles which seek to explain some aspect of the world.
           Example: theory of relativity2. An idea or explanation which has not yet been proved; a conjecture
           Example: Well, my theory is he's jealous!
           Thesaurus: assumption, hypothesis, conjecture, speculation.3. The general and usually abstract principles or ideas of a subject.
           Example: theory of music
           Thesaurus: foundations, principles, postulates, data, conditions, basis, plan, ideas, method, approach, rationale.4a. An ideal, hypothetical or abstract situation;
     4b. Ideal, hypothetical or abstract reasoning.
           Example: a good idea in theory

Etymology: 16c: from Greek theoria, from theoreein to view.

Here is the link

http://www.allwords.com/query.php?SearchType=3&Keyword=theory&goquery=Find+it!&Language=ENG

Points to ponder:

Rational logical thinking can seldome go wrong.
However, ones Rational or logical thinking may not be anothers cup of tea.
Ones opinion, assumption, hypothesis, conjecture, speculation is just that! Opinions, assumptions, hypothesis, conjecture and speculation  Not backed up by facts or data!

A closed mind is a shame, that is to say if you close your mind to any ideal or hypothesis you may be the one on the loosing side of intelect.

Further diffinations
hypothesis
NOUN:
pl. hy·poth·e·ses  

  1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
  2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
  3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

ETYMOLOGY:
Latin, subject for a speech, from Greek hupothesis, proposal, supposition, from hupotithenai , hupothe-, to suppose : hupo-, hypo- + tithenai, to place; see dh- in Indo-European roots

assumption  
as·sump·tion      

NOUN:

  1. The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation.
  2. The act of taking possession or asserting a claim: assumption of command.
  3. The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
  4. Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.
  5. Presumption; arrogance.
  6. Logic A minor premise.
  7. example of an Assumption
        1. Christianity The taking up of the Virgin Mary into heaven in body and soul after her death.
        2. A feast celebrating this event.
        3. August 15, the day on which this feast is observed.

ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English assumpcion, from Latin assmpti , assmptin-, adoption, from assmptus, past participle of assmere, to adopt ; see assume

conjecture
 con·jec·ture      (kn-jkchr)  

NOUN:

  1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
  2. A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: The commentators made various conjectures about the outcome of the next election.

VERB:
con·jec·tured , con·jec·tur·ing , con·jec·tures
VERB:
tr.

   To infer from inconclusive evidence; guess.

VERB:
intr.

   To make a conjecture.

ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, from Old French, from Latin coniectra, from coniectus, past participle of conicere, to infer : com-, com- + iacere, to throw; see y- in Indo-European roots

speculation
 spec·u·la·tion      (spky-lshn)  

NOUN:

  1.
        1. Contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation.
        2. A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.
        3. Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.
 
Example
        1. Engagement in risky business transactions on the chance of quick or considerable profit.
         A commercial or financial transaction involving speculation.


-------
The Bandit
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 3:35 PM on October 14, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

  1.  Where did the space for the universe come from?
space is space.  it is not matter, it is the distance between matter.  therefore space has always been here.

  2. Where did matter come from?
matter is differing organisations of energy

  3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
they came from nowhere, thats just how the universe works.  perhaps god created them, but it doesnt matter because they still determine what happens in the universe.

  4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
i dont see it as perfectly organized, i see it as being an effect of a cause.  things are the way they are because of the nature of energy.  everything in the universe is made of energy.

  5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
we dont know, thats what the big bang is supposed to tell us, but the theory is incomplete.  although, based on the math of physics, every particle has an opposite, and all energy is balanced by negative energy.  so the sum of everything in the universe is equal to zero.

  6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
there are only hypotheses to explain this.  the theory of evolution does not concern the origin of life, it just concerns how life differentiated from that origin.

  7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
evolution.  there is no learning.  there is no consciousness.  it just happens.  causality.

  8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
single cells did not sexually reproduce.  that occured in complex multicellular organisms.  if you look hard you will probably find theories on how this came to be.

  9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to surviv e, or the species? How do you explain this?)
on the contrary, reproduction greatly increases the chance to survive.  the more of a particular organism there is, the more probability that its kind will survive.  the drive to reproduce is based in instinct.  instinct is based in the ability for an organism to survive.  there is no reason for why living things have evolved the way they did, except for the fact that the best adapted will survive and reproduce.  thats it.

 10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
language is hardly an analogy for evolution.  mutations give rise to characteristics that are new to the species.  most of the time these characteristics are detrimental, and so the organism dies.  but sometimes the mutation helps the organism survive better, and so it has more of a chance to reproduce, passing on this positive mutation.

 11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
only if you believe that this common creater created the first life and then set evolution in motion to create the rest (knowing what would be created, for god is omniscient).

 12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occ urred if evolution were true?
i dont see how you can make a statement that natural selection only works with the genetic information available.  mutations have the ability to make the genes more complex, they also have the ability to make them simpler.  whatever survives passes those genes on.  don't try to make it any harder to understand that it really is.

 13. When, where, why, and how did:
         * Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
they became multicellular for the same reason humans have developed civilization.  for a better chance to survive.  a mutation in the genes of single celled organisms caused them to start working together (reproduction is fast with single celled organisms, so the mutation was quickly followed by reproduction and within hours there were thousands of these cells).  this is how algae evolved.  i have not seen much information on 2 or 3-celled organisms probably because single cells multiplied so fast, there was no chance for only a couple cells to form on their own and then stay that way.

        * Single-celled animals evolve?
there are no single-celled animals.  if you mean single celled organisms, then science really cant give you anything but hypotheses.  RNA is the most probable first living organism.  its components are chemicals that existed in the oceans of a primodial earth.

         * Fish change to amphibians?
survival.  mutations gave some fish the ability to walk, others the ability to breath air, and still others the ability to do both.  this was in order to go places and do things that helped them evade predation, or helped them survive longer in order to reproduce [more].

         * Amphibians change to reptiles?
survival.
         * Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
actually you forgot dinosaurs.  new studies are finding that the anatomy of dinosaurs has similar characteristics of both reptiles and birds, especially in the later species.

         * How did the intermediate forms live?
their mutations were only kept because they helped the organism survive.  the ones with mutations that were not advantageous, or were detrimental, died out.

 14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
         * Whales evolve?
theoretically, large land mammals (vestigial bones in the fins indicate phalanges)
         * Sea horses evolve?
fish.
         * Bats evolve?
rodents
         * Eyes evolve?
there are some single celled organisms that have  molecular structures that are able to detect light and dark.  eyes are extremely advantageous, so it is no wonder that so many organisms have them.
         * Ears evolve?
same as eyes (except that there arent any single celled organisms with them, ears are too complex)
         * Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
everything evolves because it is somehow advantageous to the organism.

 15. Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
         * The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
single celled organisms have molecular 'digestive systems' or parts of the cell that turn matter into usable energy.  this still occurs in our cells too, that matter is transferred by blood cells.  appetite is just a instinct in our brains that causes us to eat when we need it.  a living organism cannot exist without an ability to find and eat food.  if you want to know in-depth answers to these questions, take a high school biology class.

         * The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
this is inherent in all living things.  it was always there in organisms.

         * The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
the lungs are a product of the need to process the chemicals in the air in order to get energy from them.  the mucus is a product of having to clean that air in order to decrease the amount of foreign (unwanted) matter that enters the lungs.

         * DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
RNA was first.  it is actually theorized that RNA was the first organism on the planet.

         * The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
flagella were present in many different single celled organims, so it is theorized that termites were once ants that adapted this flagella in order to process the cellulose and therefore have a greater chance to survive (not having to compete with other ants).

         * The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
they have evolved together.  originally, they evolved serperately, until some insects gained a mutation that caused them to collect pollen from different plants.  the plants then evolved because this cross-pollination increased the amount of gene differentiation.

         * The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
the transition from invertibrate to vertibrate happened very slowly.  an example of this transition are sharks and other boneless fish.  the ligaments and tendons connected muscle to cartilage.  as fish evolved the cartilage turned into something stronger, bone.  out of all of them, blood supply was the first to develop.  this is shown in insects, which have no bones, no ligaments, tendons, or muscles.  tendons and ligaments then formed to aid in limb movement, then muscles which furthered this movement and enabled more strength.  and finally bones.

         * The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
the DNA repair system (if this is what you are talking about) evolved after nerve cells (if i remember correctly).  this was mainly to prevent error in the division of cells within a single organism.  the enzymes in control of this are mainly there to prevent diseases such as cancer (but obviously dont always work)  they are not as prevalent in the reproductive system as in the rest of the body.  the hormone system is exclusive to very complex organisms and evolved last of the three.

         * The immune system or the need for it?
obviously the need for it arose before the immune system did.

 16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
show me examples of these symbioses and how they defy evolution.

 17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
yes, more or less, by chance.  those that happened to develop mutations that caused similar characteristics as a species that  is dangerous obviously had a much greater chance of survival.  it works much the same way as the hare that sheds its dark brown summer fur in the fall for a pure white coat for the winter.

 18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
you are quick to judge what should and should not happen in the theory of evolution without actually knowing much about it.  tsk tsk.
feelings are emotion.  love is an emotion and an extremely important one for survival.  now what have we learned about evolution and survival so far?  they go hand in hand like a boy and a girl.
emotions have evolved in more complex animals, especially ourselves, in order to keep the more imortant things tied to survival.  all these complex emotions have evolved so that humans will always reproduce, will always build communities, will do all these things in order to survive and procreate more successfully.

 19. *How did photosynthesis evolve?
some single celled organisms mutated to develop a part of the cell to turn sunlight and carbon dioxide into usable energy.  these singled celled organisms are called phytoplankton.  as evolution progressed, they formed algae, and then more complex organisms which we now refer to as plants.

 20. *How did thought evolve?
thought is an interesting concept.  it evolved as a byproduct of the increasing complexity of the brain.  thought can be described thus:
we are constantly relating input from our 5 senses to input gathered in the past (memories).  the relation of the past and present causes thought.  we are able to relate something to what we have witnessed in the past.

 21. *How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
flowering plants evolved as a reaction to the symbiotic relationship between plants and insects.  the insects would sometimes take pollen as a food source.  since they went from plant to plant doing this, the plants with mutations that caused them to sprout extravagant colors around thier pollen were more likely to attract insects, therefore spreading their pollen.  because of this, flowers there were more and more extravagant or colorfull would survive better.

 22. *What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
i have a greater desire to learn what makes the world turn

 23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
i would have asked you if i could see it.

 24. *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
predictions of 'macroevolution' (does not exist in real biology, rather, evolution is just a bunch of small mutations that, over a long period of time, produce a species largely different than its ancestor from thousands of years past) cannot be validated in the sense you are talking about because it occurs over such long periods of time (thousands to millions of years).

 25. *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
what?

 26. *Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
no.  evolution doesnt posit that either.  was there nothing before there was life? no, there were chemicals, energy, forces of nature.

After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

  1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
yes.

  2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
faith is another word for trust.  my trust in science is that humans will continue to question how the world works and continue to modify flawed laws, knowing that we will never satisfy our hunger for knowledge and that we will alwasy be doing this till our extinction.  in that, i have as much 'faith' in science as the most devoted christian does in his god.

  3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
i don't rule out the existance of god, or that he created the universe.  but he would have to act with the laws of the universe, or perhaps he is those laws.  our understanding of the fundamental physical laws is not those actual laws.  our understanding is flawed, and will be continually modified to decrease those flaws.  i dont believe that any human understanding can be without inaccuracy, including religion.

  4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
no, but it is not presented that way.  the evidence for evolution is presented as fact, while the theory of evolution is presented as just that, a theory.

  5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
there is no end result.  evolution, like all theories, will continue to be modified.  it has no affect on lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, except for the people who are ignorant to its true implications.

  6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
         * It is all they have been taught.
         * They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
         * They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
         * They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
         * Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
there are those who believe in evolution for those reasons, but they are the wrong reasons.  the majority of people who agree with the theory of evolution believe in it for a reason that you didn't list.  because it is logical.  because it explains more than the bible does.  because it is a theory that we are still working on, and always will be; it is not laid down as definite fact.  i am among that majority.

  7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
it is not outdated if it has yet to be proven wrong.  if it is disproven, it is generally not used.  there are those in the scientific community who disregard outdated evidence to support their own agenda, but these people are not true scientists, no matter how many credentials they have.

  8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
no.  divine creation is not a scientific study.  evolution is.  if they don't agree with science, have them teach their own kids.  i think it is ignorant and selfish for parents to try to take evolution out of the course just because they dont agree with it.

  9. What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
i am risking nothing.  i am eager to learn anything.  the more i know, the better i able to extract knowledge from anything.

 10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
why are creationists so afraid of the idea of evolution being taught in school?  what if scientists started to protest that evolution should be taught in sunday school?  that exactly what christians are doing when they try to get creationism taught in science classes.  its exactly that a science class.  not a christian class.  not a creationism class.  science.  evolution is science.  creationism is not.  simple as that.

 11. Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn’t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?
religion cannot be true.  man created religion.  religion is outdated and does not try to modify its claims.  science is closer to the truth that religion because it modifies its theories and claims so that they match the observational universe more accurately.

 12. Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to Heaven? If so, call me.
every man has his own interpretation.  i'll put mine into words you will comprehend;
i believe a savior died for all of our sins.  i believe that god is a part of us all and that we can all reach out to him.  i believe in an eternity to which we go when we die to know complete knowledge and understanding.

(Edited by RoyLennigan 10/16/2005 at 04:58 AM).
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 7:11 PM on October 14, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Theory of evolution
If the theory of evolution is based on "facts" as evolutionists claim then these "theories" should be renamed to The Facts of Evolution!
because the deffinition of a "Theory" is this NO matter how you slice or dice it.


Well, your problem is you haven't posted the definition of a scientific theory.  It's distinctly different form the common usage of the word that you have posted.  If you want to debate science, you have use the meanings of words that scientists use.  You haven't done this.
Here's a definition of a scientific theory:
Scientific Theory
"In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from observable facts or supported by them (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, testable, and has never been falsified."

Other than demonstating your ignorance of what a scientific theory is, I don't understand the point of your post.  A theory is science NEVER becomes a fact, a theory explains  a set of related facts.  It's still the atomic theory, the heliocentric theory, the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution.  So evolution is an observed fact, the theory of evolution explains it.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:04 PM on October 15, 2005 | IP
hymole

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey, my name is Jayme. Im 17 and very interested in this topic. I want to be real upfront with you guys (very non gender related term), since this is a touchy topic, where I stand. My dad is a Baptist pastor and I have gone to church for my entire life. You can fill in the blanks, I'm sure! I love chemistry and science, though, and have spent tons of time in studying it. I will for the rest of my life be pursuing truth, creation or evolution.

In response to Mr. Demon, I completely agree with the definition of a scientific theory, but am still a little fuzzy on the facts the theory of evolution explains. Im sure that you've mentioned them, so if you could point me in the right direction .... (I really haven't taken the time to read all of the enties thus far)
Thanks


-------
God is good
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 11:49 PM on October 16, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello there. Well, Theobald's 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution is a good start.

If you're really astute and can stand reading hundreds of pages on the matter, you can also see Camp's Critique of the 29+ Evidences, as well as Theobald's Response to the Critique. Happy reading.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:17 AM on October 17, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from hymole at 11:49 PM on October 16, 2005 :
Hey, my name is Jayme. Im 17 and very interested in this topic. I want to be real upfront with you guys (very non gender related term), since this is a touchy topic, where I stand. My dad is a Baptist pastor and I have gone to church for my entire life. You can fill in the blanks, I'm sure! I love chemistry and science, though, and have spent tons of time in studying it. I will for the rest of my life be pursuing truth, creation or evolution.


Have you considered going to Baylor?

About Baylor

They have a very good science program.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:00 PM on October 17, 2005 | IP
justlogiclifescience

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TO BE OR NOT TO BE IS NO QUESTION AT ALL


NO GOD WOULD ASSOCIATE WITH MAN THE WORST ANIMAL IN NATURE'S WHOREHOUSE

null
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 11:34 PM on October 18, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dear Justice....

Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful dissertation on how much better the world would be if everyone exhibited TRUE Christianity instead of using it as an excuse for doing what they please.  However, as we are all just a random molecules that were mutated by chance then it really doesn't matter what we do to each other.  When was the last time someone was convicted for breaking a rock?








Now that that's out of the way, we now return you to your usual intelligent debating.  



-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 6:22 PM on October 19, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Now that that's out of the way, we now return you to your usual intelligent debating.


No. Continue and rip that moron apart for all I care. While I read that stupid website, I couldn't even figure out if it was satirical satire over Christians or satirical satire over evolutionists.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:38 PM on October 19, 2005 | IP
Huxley

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It seems to me that the theory of evolution and the faith of creationism  is exclusive.  I cannot see how anyone can accept Evolutionary theory and still find a place for a God or creator in their mind.  Equally, if you believe in a God who by his caprice created everything as is, then Evolutionary theory - any scientific theory has to be irrelevent and gratuitous.

There is no need to have any wonder about the way the biological world is.  It just is.  It cracks me up the way creationists seem to jump on one article of Evolution as if it is some refutation of the entire theory.  It is usually a display of their ignorance of the theory and offers nothing;  save vague and unfounded beliefs that remain unanswered.  
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 12:24 AM on November 2, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Huxley at 7:24 PM on November 1, 2005 :
It seems to me that the theory of evolution and the faith of creationism  is exclusive.  I cannot see how anyone can accept Evolutionary theory and still find a place for a God or creator in their mind.  Equally, if you believe in a God who by his caprice created everything as is, then Evolutionary theory - any scientific theory has to be irrelevent and gratuitous.

There is no need to have any wonder about the way the biological world is.  It just is.  It cracks me up the way creationists seem to jump on one article of Evolution as if it is some refutation of the entire theory.  It is usually a display of their ignorance of the theory and offers nothing;  save vague and unfounded beliefs that remain unanswered.  



while i agree with your second paragraph, i cannot rule out the possibility of a creator, due simply to a lack of evidence against.  though i also cannot say that a creator must exist.  i think it is logically possible that an entity set the universe in motion and left the rest to cause and effect within the universe (easily predicted by this creator).  there is no evidence that evolution precludes a creator.  
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 6:25 PM on November 2, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Precisely. To submit that there is evidence against a  deity that transcends our natural laws and science in the first place would be an insult to science, as well as declaration that evidence exists for such a being too.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:17 PM on November 2, 2005 | IP
Huxley

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

" I cannot rule out the possibility of a creator, due simply to a lack of evidence against. "

This bewilders me. Would you not rule out Fairies at the bottom of your garden on the basis of lack of evidence?  It is surely the correct, skeptical approach to infer that in the absence of evidence there is nothing to examine? After all; it is the demand of the creationist that evolutionary theory must produce evidence.  Even when it is produced it is often dismissed by them.

Whether they understand the evidence or no, it still remains a tangible, thing open to debate and interpretation.  I think it important to ask, if there be no evidence, on what basis can one 'suspect' there might be a creator?  
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 11:55 PM on November 2, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

" I cannot rule out the possibility of a creator, due simply to a lack of evidence against. "

This bewilders me. Would you not rule out Fairies at the bottom of your garden on the basis of lack of evidence?  It is surely the correct, skeptical approach to infer that in the absence of evidence there is nothing to examine? After all; it is the demand of the creationist that evolutionary theory must produce evidence.  Even when it is produced it is often dismissed by them.

Whether they understand the evidence or no, it still remains a tangible, thing open to debate and interpretation.  I think it important to ask, if there be no evidence, on what basis can one 'suspect' there might be a creator?


The difference between a deity that controls everything in the first place and fairies is that the deity could simply not make any evidence torward itself, or it could literally hide such evidence. Philosophically speaking, you cannot rule out the possibility that this entire wolrd was created last Thursday with every drop of evidence indicating that we've been around for several billion more years than that.

Religion is outside science. You can neither prove nor disprove it, and that's why Roy and I find it strange you would submit that it's just not feasible to believe Evolution could have occured under the eyes of a god. Then again, perhaps feasible isn't the right word. At any rate, there are many strong proponents for Theistic Evolution out there, Ken Miller (possibly Michael Behe's most effective critic) among them.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:13 AM on November 3, 2005 | IP
Huxley

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Religion is outside science"

Precisely.  Which is why I cannot accept that Creationism should be taught as an alternative notion to evolution.

Philosophically people can believe what they wish; the Cartesian argument is well debated.  God as a daemon on our shoulders? It's interesting.

Indeed the world might be seven days old and manufactured to look ancient. Indeed, a creative God might be covering his tracks and bewildering us to his amusement.  I am more interested in how I would arrive at that conclusion when he leaves no trace or clue.  

It has been apparently a perfect deception. I still cannot understand why I would have that notion; other than soemone telling me a God did it, I have nothing else to go on.  I shouldn't really even consider it.  Whilst many religions and philosophies will warn me that I must not trust my senses;  they will deceive me,  I cannot subscribe to that.

My senses,  shaped by millions of years of evolution have evolved to 'appreciate' the physical world in which we dwell.  So I find it satisfying to examine what goes on around me and learn why it does it.  That is what science sets out to do.  I could accept that a God made us; I could accept that Aliens made us and the Earth as a theme park.  I might even speculate that we are figments of a florid imagination. but I would not be happy to think anyone thought I was offering any serious alternative to reality.
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 4:07 PM on November 3, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Precisely.  Which is why I cannot accept that Creationism should be taught as an alternative notion to evolution.


I'm not advocating that in any way. You're talking about a completely different subject.


Indeed the world might be seven days old and manufactured to look ancient. Indeed, a creative God might be covering his tracks and bewildering us to his amusement.  I am more interested in how I would arrive at that conclusion when he leaves no trace or clue.  


It's irrelevant. That does not make Religion and Evolution exclusive.

It has been apparently a perfect deception. I still cannot understand why I would have that notion; other than soemone telling me a God did it, I have nothing else to go on.  I shouldn't really even consider it.  Whilst many religions and philosophies will warn me that I must not trust my senses;  they will deceive me,  I cannot subscribe to that.


I don't either. Again, you're arguing a different matter completely. As far as I know, there isn't any empirical evidence to suggest a deity created anything. But that doesn't make it impossible.

My senses,  shaped by millions of years of evolution have evolved to 'appreciate' the physical world in which we dwell.  So I find it satisfying to examine what goes on around me and learn why it does it.


You really don't have to get so defensive and come close to accusing me of 'failing to appreciate the way things are'. I already do.

That is what science sets out to do.  I could accept that a God made us; I could accept that Aliens made us and the Earth as a theme park.  I might even speculate that we are figments of a florid imagination. but I would not be happy to think anyone thought I was offering any serious alternative to reality.


Still a different subject. Explain to me what makes Evolution impossible through a basic concept of Deism.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 11/3/2005 at 4:49 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:48 PM on November 3, 2005 | IP
Huxley

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"I'm not advocating that in any way. You're talking about a completely different subject."

I thought I was addressing the central issue of whether creationism should be taught as an alternative view to evolution in schools.  I did not think you were either.

"That does not make Religion and Evolution exclusive."

That is the central issue; I say they are exclusive.  


"As far as I know, there isn't any empirical evidence to suggest a deity created anything. But that doesn't make it impossible."

Such a hypothesis I dare say would allow that anything is possible. There is no empirical evidence at all.


"You really don't have to get so defensive and come close to accusing me of 'failing to appreciate the way things are'. I already do."

Defensive? Hardly.  I accuse you of nothing. I don't even know you, although i suspect we'd get on famously.  I mean that our senses are fashioned by evolution to appreciate the physical world in it's true sense. We are all products of that; I exclude no-one.  I cannot therefore accept the premise that our senses deceive us; I do not, nor have not suggested that you are deceived either.


"Explain to me what makes Evolution impossible through a basic concept of Deism."

Can't help you there I'm afraid.  That would be a matter of your faith. I see no evidence of Deity or creative intelligence.  I have no terms of reference to argue otherwise.  
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 07:19 AM on November 4, 2005 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To the pro-evolutionalists:
It really appears to me that there is some sought of confusion between understanding fact and theory - intellectual imagination. Facts cannot be disproved as they remain absolute irregardless of time and place, not by general consesus. We all agree that Evolution is a theory; if it is not then it is a faith as it is not based on evidence. An amalgamation of uncorrelated random occurences by default remain random. Where does evolution come in? I don't understand, at least I believe I am not a result of a random occurance....


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 09:57 AM on April 28, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, the instrumentation of your English communication needs a bit of sanitation.


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 10:32 AM on April 28, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Cipher, first of all, "irregardless" is not a word (at least not anymore than fershizzle is).  Second of all, what in the world are you trying to say in your second post (perhaps it would help if we knew who you were addressing it to)?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:56 AM on April 28, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from CipherComplete at 04:57 AM on April 28, 2006 :
I don't understand, at least I believe I am not a result of a random occurance....

i don't see how the theory of evolution posits that it is random.  random does not exist.  there are probabilities on the quantum level, there are trends due to our inability to know every detail--but every action has a cause, it is not random.


(Edited by RoyLennigan 4/28/2006 at 11:28 AM).
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 11:26 AM on April 28, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where does evolution come in? I don't understand, at least I believe I am not a result of a random occurance...
 You can rest assured that you are not the product of a random occurance. For instance, If your DNA matches the DNA of the man you call "Dad" then you were the product of a "non-random occurance" since random fathers rarelystay around long enough to interact with their children.  The same goes if your DNA matches the DNA of the mailman, plumber or bartender your Mom was "using" at the time of your conception. In fact, even if you were consumated when your father randomly impregnated the first fertile female human that crossed his path when he randomly got an erection, you would still have to account for a myriad of other non-random variables.

(Edited by fredguff 4/28/2006 at 12:12 PM).
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 11:36 AM on April 28, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, the instrumentation of your English communication needs a bit of sanitation.


::groans:: Another Profundus Maximus in our midst...


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 1:44 PM on April 28, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks Ent, I needed the laugh.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:15 PM on April 28, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

why is murdur wrong? (i am spelling it wrong on purpose.  for some reason, whenever i type words like that, they get censored out)
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 2:53 PM on April 29, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

why is murdur wrong?


What does that have to do with the current discussion? If you're alluding to the claim that morals don't make sense without religion, explain further.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 5:08 PM on April 29, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what makes murdur worse than kiling any other animal?  if we are just evolved apes, than kiling an ape should be murdur.
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 03:25 AM on April 30, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what makes murdur worse than kiling any other animal?  if we are just evolved apes, than kiling an ape should be murdur.


First of all, killing apes is illegal, as most of them are on the endangered species list.

Further, the ToE doesn't say anything about what should be "right" or "wrong" within the animal kingdom. According simply to how all nature behaves, there's nothing wrong with killing in order to survive. It's the Law of the Jungle, as you've probably heard.

On a personal note, I don't believe hunting as a sport should be legal as is, but it's not a stance I defend quite so fiercely, nor is it related to whether Evolution is true or not.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 03:31 AM on April 30, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 03:31 AM on April 30, 2006 :

the ToE doesn't say anything about what should be "right" or "wrong" within the animal kingdom. According simply to how all nature behaves, there's nothing wrong with         in order to survive. It's the Law of the Jungle, as you've probably heard.


so murdur is acceptable?
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 06:50 AM on April 30, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

so murdur is acceptable?


I don't know exactly what you're pursuing, but it's looking pretty dumb. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but your attempt to paint an evil, satanistic picture of evolution is silly.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 09:31 AM on April 30, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

yeah, well, you still havent answered my question.
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 11:26 AM on April 30, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

im not trying to paint an evil, satanist view of evolution. im trying to understand why you think murdur is wrong and kiling animals is not.  im assuming you WONT justify murdur, i just had to ask.  do you think its morally wrong to kil an ape?
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 11:33 AM on April 30, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

do you think its morally wrong to kil an ape?


Yes, as I've already stated.

im trying to understand why you think murdur is wrong and kiling animals is not.


I've already said killing animals for sport shouldn't be acceptable. In my opinion, it isn't any different from someone using their hunting rifle on people at a mall or bank. Both cases involve the malicious, pre-determined act of killing something.

When you kill an animal, or even a person, so that you can survive, it's much more understandable. The Theory of Evolution 'condones' that kind of killing, you could say, because on the most basic levels of life, life feeds on other life in order to sustain itself.

On the other hand, the Theory of Evolution says nothing about murder anymore than the Theory of Gravity does.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:57 PM on April 30, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Killing when allowed in a random and uncontrolled fashion causes a drag on society.  The same goes for fighting. As human societies evolve, individuals who are more predisposed to work within the structure of the society are selected over individuals who are genetically predisposed to act selfishly. Whether by design or not, in most human societies today, overly agressive members are usually punished in a manner that results in their removal from the gene pool for an extended period of time if not permanently.  

One need only look at societal insects to see the direction we humans might be headed.  The more advanced ant and bee societies survive on the labor of workers and soldiers who have evolved to be so dedicated to the society that they abstain from sex .  
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 09:01 AM on May 1, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

im most ant and bee colonies, the workers and the soldiers are all females.  the only purpose of males (drones), is to mate with the queen.  i hope thats not where we're going.
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 3:35 PM on May 1, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what was before the ape in human evolution?
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 3:37 PM on May 1, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mythrandir at 3:37 PM on May 1, 2006 :
what was before the ape in human evolution?


primate

Definition of ape




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 4:24 PM on May 1, 2006 | IP
Douglass

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mythrandir at 3:37 PM on May 1, 2006 :
what was before the ape in human evolution?



Lemur-like creature.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 4:25 PM on May 1, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here are some links that cover primate evolution without getting too technical (even I can understand what the authors are writing!!!).

Early Primates

Nice information and links here

Outline for early primate evolution

null PDF file...Easy to understand.  Lots of information on early primates and fossil dating.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 10:49 AM on May 2, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

so is it wrong to kil a lemur?
is it wrong to kil any animal at all?
how about bacteria?
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 08:02 AM on May 3, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

so is it wrong to kil a lemur?


Without justificaiton, most definetely.

is it wrong to kil any animal at all?


Yes.

how about bacteria?


Bacteria are not animals, and they do not have brains. Bacteria cannot feel pain. It's rather difficult to be "cruel" towards something that cannot feel pain or think.

Nonetheless, it wouldn't be wise to kill bacteria in large quantities, because a great many of them support life. Washing your hands of bacteria is perfectly fine, however, because you're killing the bacteria so that you can live, which relates directly back to killing another animal in order to avoid starvation.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 1:34 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.