Ancient Domains Of Mystery, forum overview / General / Darwinism
| Online users ( Unknown) |
| Application object not working properly at the moment, no clue who is online... * Numbers in parentheses are the number of minutes since the user last loaded a page. Logged-in users time out after 40 minutes (unless they manually log out), lurkers and anonymous posters after 20. |
This thread is 7 pages long.
| Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
|
Soirana Registered user Chaos Freak Last page view: 4142 days, 17 hours, 30 minutes and 7 seconds ago. |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5278028/ although i'm pretty sure it should have downside. http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm just remind me why you excluded bacteria resistance to antibiotics? in general. since organisms are quite complex, change in one protein are unlikely to create something beneficial without drawback. but if it appears to have overall positive value, species may undergo some extra mutations/genetic variation combianation to fix problems. A root is a flower that disdains fame. Kahlil Gibran(1883-1931) [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/22/2007 at 22:32 (GMT -5) by Soirana] |
||
|
Maelstrom Registered user The Knight of the Black Rose Last page view: 3110 days, 7 hours, 42 minutes and 28 seconds ago. |
Sorry, but genetic variance is archieved through mutations, that do not surface, but can be observed in the progeny of the mutated animal. That line of defense will get you nowhere. You stick to your "there are no good mutations", when 1 mutation in most cases does not matter to the organism - I thought you knew that. Since almost all traits are determined by a series of genes, that can be specifically turned on and off (Look up the work of last years Nobel Prize winners on genetics), ONE mutation will do usually next to nothing. Hence the "genetic variability" you refer to is a neat way of negating genetic progress through mutations, if you talk with uneducated simpletons. Not with someone on academic level. A pessimist sees a dark tunnel. An optimist sees a light at the end of that tunnel. A realist sees a train. And the train driver sees three idiots on the tracks. [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/23/2007 at 06:48 (GMT -5) by Maelstrom] |
||
|
F50 Registered user Last page view: 5469 days, 3 hours, 38 minutes and 44 seconds ago. |
"Mutations" is not the right word. Consider elementary genetics: Recessive genes, dominant genes, etc. You remember the two/sided eyes, one blue, one brown? Or base skin color? It is code that was already there in the beginning according to my beliefs. It has nothing to do with mutations. Also note that such variance tends to decrease (not increase) as people of like race (color, etc) gravitate together simply by means of relative isolation from other races. I believe that when horses were created in the beginning they had built in "genetic variance" that allowed them limited ability to adapt to their environment. Natural (and non-natural) selection breeding results in different "races" of horses just like with humans. Muscle growth was already discussed. It would not help an animal or even a human 500 years ago due to the strenuous energy requirements. HIV antibacterial resistance doesn't count because it doesn't advance the HIV. It (or rather the majority of it) returns to wild type immediately afterwards resulting in no net change as the special type likely existed in small number beforehand. The nylon bug is interesting though. I give up then on the bad mutation thing I guess. However, I still do not believe that it is probable, or even merely not likely, but I think it is ludicrous odds, even given a billion years (the other billions of years have to be put to creating the single-celled bacteria), to rearrange a bacteria into a lizard. In multi-cellular environments mutations can only work in a new generation. Recessive genes require two like mutations. Thirty of those you are stuck till the cows come home (which can't happen because cows don't exist yet). 1. It would take too long even given evolutionary earth age and a very lucky string of events. 2. You would need an improbability drive. 3. Even with the now existent beneficial example, the nylon enzyme is still less efficient than the other enzymes. If things get slightly less efficient every new thing then what will you be left with later on? If this mutation, which is nowhere near going to another organism, results in something less efficient, how is it that other, more efficient, structures exist? For the most part though, I must concede this argument to very "reasonable doubt". However, conceding that it is possible for mutations to do so is by no means conceding that mutations did, in fact, do so. But my other major problem with Evolution is the fossil record. My next question is, what is up with all the clams? 95% of fossils are clams. Clams populate every age of rock strata. for some arguments see here. Note that there are some arguments that I don't agree with. Especially the argument that older fossils should have changed. Evolution is so rare if it exists that at least one line of an animal should remain without serious changes. This actually is an argument that some "missing links" should not only be fossilized but still be around today. "If the bread weights that much in the draklor chain, then it's no wonder so many die of starvation. AND - what kind of IRON RATION weights as much as an iron shield?! A dinner for four, oven included? ;)" -Maelstrom [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/23/2007 at 15:18 (GMT -5) by F50] |
||
|
Maelstrom Registered user The Knight of the Black Rose Last page view: 3110 days, 7 hours, 42 minutes and 28 seconds ago. |
Sorry, but eye color is NOT determined by one gene, not to mention the simplistic recessive/dominant mechanism. That may have been "true" 100 years ago, where your creation theories belong. Same goes for skin color. Picking random examples, and mutilating them (or just not knowing the basics about them) won't make a convincing argument. A pessimist sees a dark tunnel. An optimist sees a light at the end of that tunnel. A realist sees a train. And the train driver sees three idiots on the tracks. |
||
|
F50 Registered user Last page view: 5469 days, 3 hours, 38 minutes and 44 seconds ago. |
eye color probably should have been left out. It was a too far simplified example. Simply saying that I believe animals were created with the ability to vary should've been all. "If the bread weights that much in the draklor chain, then it's no wonder so many die of starvation. AND - what kind of IRON RATION weights as much as an iron shield?! A dinner for four, oven included? ;)" -Maelstrom [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/23/2007 at 15:23 (GMT -5) by F50] |
||
|
Maelstrom Registered user The Knight of the Black Rose Last page view: 3110 days, 7 hours, 42 minutes and 28 seconds ago. |
It's not an "rival theory" and it's not better then "God created the universe in 6 days, and rested for one". In fact, it's much, much worse. If you believe that "animals were created with the ability to vary", what stops you from believing that "life was created with the ability to vary"? Because that's the base of the theory of evolution. Animals vary over time, it's called evolution. A pessimist sees a dark tunnel. An optimist sees a light at the end of that tunnel. A realist sees a train. And the train driver sees three idiots on the tracks. [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/23/2007 at 16:15 (GMT -5) by Maelstrom] |
||
|
Soirana Registered user Chaos Freak Last page view: 4142 days, 17 hours, 30 minutes and 7 seconds ago. |
HIV antibacterial resistance?.. funny idea. A root is a flower that disdains fame. Kahlil Gibran(1883-1931) |
||
|
F50 Registered user Last page view: 5469 days, 3 hours, 38 minutes and 44 seconds ago. |
Life was created to vary "According to its kind." ID *is* a rival theory. What is up with the clams? What about the "Cambrian explosion"? Why is 1*10^(-14) or whatever the odds are good enough odds for you? What is your purpose in life? Why do you appreciate the beauty of nature? All these are questions that can be answered with ID in mind. I recently read about the methods for determining distance from the earth to a star from a link the above article I linked to. Quite interesting. Perhaps things aren't as spread out as previously thought? >HIV antibacterial resistance?.. funny idea. don't get it...aren't/weren't antibiotics used? No one person can understand the complexity of modern science. Including yourself. If it is so "simple crap" please answer the above questions. I can by my world view. Or if you cannot answer, ask. I am sure that I will find an answer for you, even if I don't have complete understanding, I may be able to put a link for you to follow. "If the bread weights that much in the draklor chain, then it's no wonder so many die of starvation. AND - what kind of IRON RATION weights as much as an iron shield?! A dinner for four, oven included? ;)" -Maelstrom |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4232 days, 12 hours, 13 minutes and 16 seconds ago. |
"Evolution is so rare if it exists that at least one line of an animal should remain without serious changes. This actually is an argument that some "missing links" should not only be fossilized but still be around today." This is the biggest wrong presumption people arguing ID make. The simple fact is nothing stays around for long without changing. Interbreeding, genetic mutations and environmental pressures change everything over time. We see this happen in the modern day over small timescales, we even plenty of species go extinct all around us. Over a large timescale the effect is far more dramatic. Also as has been said before creatures don't just evolve in a line - they split off into branches, so that one single species becomes 5 similar species in different areas, and they branch off further into 25 very different species. The original species has become 25 new animals, many of which will die off because their cousins are better than them in some way. "I recently read about the methods for determining distance from the earth to a star from a link the above article I linked to. Quite interesting. Perhaps things aren't as spread out as previously thought?" Probably referring to a problem in physics about 40 years ago. Geologists had put an age on the Earth at about 4.5 billion years through atomic dating of rocks, but astronomers could only measure the age of the universe to about 5 billion. This didn't fit because it was impossible for the Earth to have formed so early in the universe - only hydrogen would have existed so early on, and it wasn't till the first stars had lived and died and eploded heavy elements across the galaxies that planets could form. It also didn't fit in with the Big Bang theory based on observations of the rate of expansion. However it was soon after discovered that the yardsticks we were using to measure distances (a specific type of star that are of a set brightness) came in two types, so the measurements we'd taken were all wrong. Recalculating with the new figures gave and age of around 15 billion, which fitted perfectly with records both from the age of the Earth and rates of expansion. Since then we've developed more techniques for measuring distances and ages of stars, as well as more predictions from others theories, and it all matches spot on. There is no doubt whatsoever in the scientific community about how we are measuring the size of the heavens. And to repeat a previous point - if there were any chance of real scientific doubt about evolution or the Big Bang then there are thousands upon thousands of people smarter than any of us here that would be researching it and bringing forth waves of information. Anyone who could bring significant proof against either theory would be practically guaranteed a Nobel Prize. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
Soirana Registered user Chaos Freak Last page view: 4142 days, 17 hours, 30 minutes and 7 seconds ago. |
antibiotics vs HIV http://www.google.lt/search?hl=lt&defl=en&q=define:Antibiotics&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title V in HIV stands for virus. in here i see example of most problems. so i will leave yuou with your doubts and believes. good luck. A root is a flower that disdains fame. Kahlil Gibran(1883-1931) |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4232 days, 12 hours, 13 minutes and 16 seconds ago. |
Some of you might find this interesting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6683261.stm What I love is that this is discovery in action - we are constnatly expanding our knowledge of evolution and furthering our understanding of how life evolved. It seems a major shame to me that people are actively working against this. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
Maelstrom Registered user The Knight of the Black Rose Last page view: 3110 days, 7 hours, 42 minutes and 28 seconds ago. |
Further discussion seems pointless. The 'Life was created to vary "According to its kind." ' sums it up. Life has no "kind". Or rather, has as many "kinds" as the observer thinks there are. Advanced zoology, lesson one. IMHO missing links are missing, because the process of preserving the remains of an animal is incredibly hard. Not everything can be found, because not everything had the chance to be fossilized. A pessimist sees a dark tunnel. An optimist sees a light at the end of that tunnel. A realist sees a train. And the train driver sees three idiots on the tracks. |
||
|
F50 Registered user Last page view: 5469 days, 3 hours, 38 minutes and 44 seconds ago. |
That's odd, my post is missing. Soirana: thanks. Misunderstanding on my part. Darren Grey: a: You have found one possible missing link. 1. You have found one *possible* missing link. 2. You have found *one* possible missing link. 3. It doesn't have to be a missing link. ID explains it just fine "What I love is that this is discovery in action - we are constnatly expanding our knowledge of evolution and furthering our understanding of how life evolved. It seems a major shame to me that people are actively working against this." Discovery, yes. However, understand that I am not working against "this" (referring to discovery). I am saying there is a different explanation for this. I am saying that your explanation is not as good as my explanation (at the risk of sounding naive). I am working against that *explanation* of "this". The preserving of animals is hard. That is one reason to believe the flood story. We have lots of fossils. However, I would be startled (according to evolution) if there were not 100 such examples that *were* fossilized even given that there was no global flood to do so. "kind" has a meaning as defined by Genesis. It refers to a separation between the species. This gave rise to the "Immutability of the species" which is a wrong idea. However, that there is some kind of separation is evidenced (to Christians) by this verse. I have one point which I would like an answer to if just to understand the topic more completely: what's up with all the clams? "If the bread weights that much in the draklor chain, then it's no wonder so many die of starvation. AND - what kind of IRON RATION weights as much as an iron shield?! A dinner for four, oven included? ;)" -Maelstrom |
||
|
Maelstrom Registered user The Knight of the Black Rose Last page view: 3110 days, 7 hours, 42 minutes and 28 seconds ago. |
So you claim that ancient jewish religous scripts are a suitable base for a scientific theory? Good for you. I'd rather base my theories on acidic visions, and I'd bet that they'd be more sensible... That's it. I'm not even going to try and explain how stuff gets fossilized and why it does not involve a flood of any kind... A pessimist sees a dark tunnel. An optimist sees a light at the end of that tunnel. A realist sees a train. And the train driver sees three idiots on the tracks. |
||
|
Silfir Registered user Writer of Overly Long Guides Last page view: 4061 days, 12 hours, 55 minutes and 26 seconds ago. |
A global flood? Do we even have enough water in our ecosystem to ever technically be able to have one? I mean, to increase the height of the sea by even 3000 meters (The minimum, at lower values, it couldn't be called a global flood anymore) would require... God, I'm not a geometric mathematician... But I do not think there is enough water in the air to even do that. About the rest... Well, I like this cartoon: http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20050516.html You drop the golden ball. You kick the golden ball. It slides to the west. Suddenly Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, appears! "That's not how you play Quidditch! are you even listening?" Which direction? (123456789) 4 Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is hit by a bolt of acid! Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is annihilated. You hear the ecstatic cries of a large crowd! |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4232 days, 12 hours, 13 minutes and 16 seconds ago. |
Silfir: Hahahaha! That's brilliant, and it really does sum things up perfectly. F50: I dunno about clams, I'm not a biologist or archaeologist. My first guess would be that clam have hard shells that are easily fossilised, or that something about their environment helps them be preserved. Or that clams are very abundant and successful sea creatures that have been around for a very long time. There are quite a few different types of clam around the world today, it's not surprising if there were lots of types in history too. I don't see how ID somehow explains clams. As for the flood... well, a catastrophic flood would be possible if all the ice caps melted, but the Earth hasn't been that warm in a few million years. The last big floods we had were after the last ice age, when the glaciers were melting. One currently hotly debated one is the flooding of the Black Sea, thought to be around 7,600 years ago. Some say it was the source of many flood mythologies, such as Atlantis, the story of Gilgamesh, the story of Noah, etc. But the same way we date this flood is also used to date fossil records far older. Also, I really think you're weakening your argument by bringing in details from the Bible to support ID. People try to push ID as being separate from the Bible, and an independant argument for the existence of a creator. The fact that all of its supporters use it to link the Bible to reality is what makes it so obviously wrong as a scientific theory - it's a religious belief and nothing more. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/26/2007 at 07:53 (GMT -5) by Darren Grey] |
||
|
F50 Registered user Last page view: 5469 days, 3 hours, 38 minutes and 44 seconds ago. |
I am NOT using the bible as evidence. I am merely showing you why I interpret the evidence in the way I do. Science it tied to religion by its nature, requiring first principles. If you are an Atheist you will be an Evolutionist. Most Christians who are aware of the debate are ID guys. I am going to list what I said and why I am not using it as evidence (to do so would be circular reasoning, assuming the Bible, the basis for my beliefs, is true and then proving my beliefs). However the Bible far surpasses any ancient historian in terms of the bibliographic test and there are several things like the Hittites which science did not believe until the Bible proved to be right. I am getting off topic...that is really a new thread. 1. "according to its kind". First mentioned to explain where I thought the boundary was between the various kinds (for lack of another word to use). Defended as being defined by Genesis and though "kinds" can mean just about any level of separation, it was defined in Genisis and meant that there was some level of separation. I suggest common sense (if you can still call it a fly...) but these lines always will be blurred. "Also tonight, what do you get when you cross a whale and a dolphin? Yes, well, we were surprised too. You're looking at it. It's called a wolfin. We have the cross-breeding story ahead." -CNN 2. Flood story: an explanation for fossils. I was explaining why I have no trouble with explaining the abundance of fossils. Also explains why there are lots of fossils in sedimentary rock. The grand canyon has fossils in it. It is sedimentary rock. -> flood of some sort (must of been enormous considering the size of the canyon). I watched a show on dinosaurs a few days ago. Most of the finds suggested flooding of some sort. As for flood mythologies, they are a bit more widespread than that. The Americas...everywhere. About the clams, I am mostly talking about Clam fossils before we are supposed to have organisms that are macroscopic on their own. I believe many of the mountains we see today (I think the one-island theory is quite possible) were created as a result of the flood. So not quite that much water. Also, water came from below (hydro-thermal vents) and then receded (I don't know quite where, but I assume into/behind the the Earth's surface below the oceans). As to the "intelligent faller", it doesn't compare. No evidence for intelligent faller theory. The current theory of gravity may well have some problems (depending on dark matter etc.), but these problems are small compared to Evolution's inability to explain Clams, missing links (The ratio of possible links/other fossils is not what we should be seeing. In fact "punctuated equilibrium theory" was invented for both increased speed of Evolution and the glaring lack of links), Cambrian explosion (you really expect me to believe that most current animal species evolved in a few odd thousand years when I think its unreasonable to say it happened in a billion years!?), Human footprints in odd (according to evolution) places (like inside a dino print and at the bottom of the grand canyon). There are no such problems with ID. The only places you can take me are evidence for an old earth (including light years, which is already argued according to problems with parallax distance measuring, Carbon dating (unreliable) and Argon dating (unreliable)) and arguments for the existence of matter being more reasonable than the existence of God (infinite recursion is bad on the brain, please don't). Anything else is arguing the validity of the Bible (another thread as I said before). "If the bread weights that much in the draklor chain, then it's no wonder so many die of starvation. AND - what kind of IRON RATION weights as much as an iron shield?! A dinner for four, oven included? ;)" -Maelstrom [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/28/2007 at 16:15 (GMT -5) by F50] |
||
|
Silfir Registered user Writer of Overly Long Guides Last page view: 4061 days, 12 hours, 55 minutes and 26 seconds ago. |
This is ridiculous. If a flood were able to change landscapes this completely in only a matter of some thousand years, we would witness that speed of erosion in today's world as well. Only we don't. It is much slower. Because the landscapes were shaped in a matter of several million, not a couple thousand years. "If you are an Atheist you will be an Evolutionist. Most Christians who are aware of the debate are ID guys." Words cannot describe how wrong you are. Intelligent Design is a phenomenon that has a majority in the USA and the USA only, and this only within certain groups of protestant christians. We catholics want nothing to do with Intelligent Design. We've come a long way to accept that evolution is, in fact, a valid and the most plausible theory of how life came to be. Now I am surprised to find that the catholic church is *more progressive* than big parts of the USA protestants. A bad sign, if you ask me. Also, if Intelligent Design were worth a buck as a scientific theory, wouldn't it be accepted by some atheists as well? A lot of christians - the majority - are able to accept the theory of evolution, not finding any collision of their beliefs and the theory, even becoming scientists themselves. But as good as all Intelligent Designers are christian. In the end, it boils down to this: Comparing Evolution and Intelligent Design, there's a likeliness of 99.999999% that Evolution is right, and a likeliness of 0.000001% that Intelligent Design is true. Or how else should I interpret the fact that evolution is plausible, well founded in evidence, and widely accepted by people who aren't following any religious agenda, while Intelligent Design is advocated only by US-american christian protestants, whose only effort in the discussion of the two theories is to try and disprove a few of the many hints at Evolution, while struggling to find explanations why their theory is possible, when it is, quite frankly, as scientific as it would be to claim that "Jupiter is sitting in that cloud over there"? You drop the golden ball. You kick the golden ball. It slides to the west. Suddenly Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, appears! "That's not how you play Quidditch! are you even listening?" Which direction? (123456789) 4 Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is hit by a bolt of acid! Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is annihilated. You hear the ecstatic cries of a large crowd! |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4232 days, 12 hours, 13 minutes and 16 seconds ago. |
F50: I'm rather tired of this debate I must say, and I can see you're not going to change your opinion (and I'm certainly not going to change mine). I have no problem with that really - your beliefs are your own personal choice. However you are very wrong when you say "Most Christians who are aware of the debate are ID guys." ID is an extreme minority movement, with almost no support outside the US. The Roman Catholic Church, by far the biggest Christian faith, has officially accepted the theory of evolution as the correct explanation for how life came to be (as well as canonising the Big Bang). Most Christian schools teach early Bible stories as metaphors rather than literal truth. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
F50 Registered user Last page view: 5469 days, 3 hours, 38 minutes and 44 seconds ago. |
"This is ridiculous. If a flood were able to change landscapes this completely in only a matter of some thousand years, we would witness that speed of erosion in today's world as well. Only we don't. It is much slower. Because the landscapes were shaped in a matter of several million, not a couple thousand years." A flood that happened in a matter of weeks has no effect on *uniform* erosion today. Ridiculous indeed...Also a flood often "lays down" sediment from material found earlier. Erode is less than half of it. "Also, if Intelligent Design were worth a buck as a scientific theory, wouldn't it be accepted by some atheists as well?" Hilarious. ID requires the presence of a God! Intelligent design -> God created (whatever God it was). Therefore Atheists cannot believe in ID by definition. "A lot of christians - the majority - are able to accept the theory of evolution, not finding any collision of their beliefs and the theory, even becoming scientists themselves. But as good as all Intelligent Designers are christian." see bottom. I find collision. Seven day creation. I am not saying that it could not be construed that way but I find ID to be the more reasonable approach. Show me evidence that does not fit with my theory... "there's a likeliness of 99.999999% that Evolution is right, and a likeliness of 0.000001% that Intelligent Design is true." Funny you should mention odds...To create a protein by randomly placing amino acids...need I say more? (I think its something on the oder of 10^-14) "Or how else should I interpret the fact that evolution is plausible, well founded in evidence, and widely accepted by people who aren't following any religious agenda, while Intelligent Design is advocated only by US-american christian protestants, whose only effort in the discussion of the two theories is to try and disprove a few of the many hints at Evolution, while struggling to find explanations why their theory is possible, when it is, quite frankly, as scientific as it would be to claim that "Jupiter is sitting in that cloud over there"?" This is not argument, just unsupported statements. Roman Catholic Church. They believe (or say they believe) in several un-biblical (papacy, purgatory, at least five of the sacraments) and anti-biblical (works -> salvation instead of salvation -> works). "Not by works lest anyone should boast." (salvation does not come through works) "You shall know them by their fruit" (works should be a result of salvation or at least discipleship). I don't really consider them Christian anymore but they were at the beginning. USA -> North America more like. And I do apologize for my sweeping generalization. I do live over here so it isn't that hard to make a generalization from a couple of countries (which is a fair bit more than most sweeping generalizations) and believe its the world. "If the bread weights that much in the draklor chain, then it's no wonder so many die of starvation. AND - what kind of IRON RATION weights as much as an iron shield?! A dinner for four, oven included? ;)" -Maelstrom [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/29/2007 at 20:35 (GMT -5) by F50] |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4232 days, 12 hours, 13 minutes and 16 seconds ago. |
Re: Roman Catholic Church "I don't really consider them Christian anymore" That's a ridiculous comment, and a grave insult to any Catholics. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/30/2007 at 12:15 (GMT -5) by Darren Grey] |
||
|
Maelstrom Registered user The Knight of the Black Rose Last page view: 3110 days, 7 hours, 42 minutes and 28 seconds ago. |
"ID requires the presence of a God!" <- therefore it is not a scientific theory. The existance of God cannot be proven or disproven. A pessimist sees a dark tunnel. An optimist sees a light at the end of that tunnel. A realist sees a train. And the train driver sees three idiots on the tracks. |
||
|
F50 Registered user Last page view: 5469 days, 3 hours, 38 minutes and 44 seconds ago. |
Re: Roman Catholic Church: Let me rephrase that then: Protestantism and Catholisism shouldn't be classified together in any way. I consider Catholicism to contradict the bible in similar ways to the Jehovah's Witnesses. Protestants and Catholics try to convert each other. This verse seems to say that both are 'saved' but... Romans 10:9 "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." --ON TOPIC-- "ID requires the presence of a God!" <- therefore it is not a scientific theory. The existance of God cannot be proven or disproven." Wrong. It can be both proven and disproven. Disproven by proving Evolution, Proven by the reverse (there are only two theories, either God created the animals and man in a short period of time, or he did not (this case includes God not existing)). Consider: 1. If it is proven the Earth is old/young. 2. If it is proven that complex proteins cannot have formed out of amino acids (or amino acids couldn't have been formed) without divine intervention given the conditions that would have existed at the time then ID is true. 3. If it can be proven that a chicken can indeed become a species of dog without human intervention. "If the bread weights that much in the draklor chain, then it's no wonder so many die of starvation. AND - what kind of IRON RATION weights as much as an iron shield?! A dinner for four, oven included? ;)" -Maelstrom [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/30/2007 at 16:58 (GMT -5) by F50] |
||
|
Soirana Registered user Chaos Freak Last page view: 4142 days, 17 hours, 30 minutes and 7 seconds ago. |
re: catholics i will take this as insult, but anyway... how comes protestantism to appear only in nmiddle ages? there were no christians before it? and rest asured: catholics are NOT trying to convert protestants nowadays. read about ecumenic movement at least. ID vs evolution. ain't that simple as it looks. panspermia, strong antpopic theories and at least hypotetical model that we are just a part of someone's dream. they are on same level as ID. you'll have to disprove all of them to make some points. personally i'd like to see part about proving this world is not a Maya, a sick dream. A root is a flower that disdains fame. Kahlil Gibran(1883-1931) |
||
|
Gozer Unregistered user |
Wow . . . this thread is almost as insane as some of Echo's old Bible Code rantings. |
||
|
Maelstrom Registered user The Knight of the Black Rose Last page view: 3110 days, 7 hours, 42 minutes and 28 seconds ago. |
Evolution does not disprove the existance of God in any way. Let me rephrase that - The existance of God CANNOT be disproven by any scientific means. A scientist that tells you diffrently is not a scientist. But the existance of god(s) also cannot be proven in a scientific manner. A pessimist sees a dark tunnel. An optimist sees a light at the end of that tunnel. A realist sees a train. And the train driver sees three idiots on the tracks. |
||
|
Silfir Registered user Writer of Overly Long Guides Last page view: 4061 days, 12 hours, 55 minutes and 26 seconds ago. |
I'm satisfied in that Immanuel Kant is on my side of this discussion (and on Maelstrom's, and pretty much on everyone else's except F50). If it's your belief that the world was actually created in seven days, then be happy believing that, F50. But please refrain from calling it a scientific theory. And frankly, if you think you have to believe the bible word by word, why didn't you become a Jehovah's witness? That's one thing I like about my catholic church. Progress may be mind-numbingly slow, but at least the catholic church has to my knowledge never backed away from the progresses it did make. While non-catholic christians... Well, the German protestants are pretty okay. As for Northern American protestants... (You're right, we shouldn't have excluded Canada... Even though the majority of those who have a religion are catholic there) Well, there are those who have some common sense left. You drop the golden ball. You kick the golden ball. It slides to the west. Suddenly Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, appears! "That's not how you play Quidditch! are you even listening?" Which direction? (123456789) 4 Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is hit by a bolt of acid! Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is annihilated. You hear the ecstatic cries of a large crowd! |
||
|
F50 Registered user Last page view: 5469 days, 3 hours, 38 minutes and 44 seconds ago. |
Re: Jehovah's witness Because they don't believe the Bible word by word. John 1:1 poses a couple problems for them. Re: God Unprovable A being that does not or did not interact with this world is unprovable and useless. Uselessness is my argument against Maya. There wouldn't be many of these mystics left if they looked at a street, realized it did not exist, realized the traffic did not exist, realized they did not exist, and crossed the street...and left this world. The existence of a God who interacts/interacted with this planet cannot be proved the same way the existence of the atom cannot be proved. Prove by the interaction that happens. If he interacts with the Earth at its inception, then he moves from the unprovable to the disprovable, and from the disprovable to the conceivably provable. (to you Catholics) The integrity of the Bible rests on the Earth being young (genealogies, seven day creation...). Also, these people have not seen evidence for evolution. Where is that convincing mountain of evidence you speak of? Go to the bottom of that page and send them a link! At least ID doesn't contradict the evidence. Show me evidence for an old Earth. Is there something of significance there? The amount and type of fossils (I like my clams on mountains 3000ft high, don't you?), modern human skulls and bones have been discovered in Pliocene layers, there is a human footprint inside a dino one, there are footprints at the bottom of the grand canyon. Man was there when the first animals (members of kingdom animilia) were there. I do consider my belief to be scientific, if I thought it wasn't I wouldn't believe it because blind faith is for idiots. Panspermia to me seems like people are starting to concede that between the links, and the Cambrian explosion (mentioned specifically on wikipedia) make things too difficult to swallow. And there is a little something about Chinese writing... For instance: mankind + one + mouth = united (mankind originally had one language before the tower of babel) vessel + eight + mouths = boat (Noah had eight people aboard the ark including himself) heaven + covering + water = rain rain + mouths x3, + miracle worker = Spirit ("God hovered over the waters" three mouths = trinity.) tree x2 + woman = desire tree x2 + God commands = forbid (This tells a story, doesn't it?) speak + dust + life + walk = to create (as in, perhaps, man?) Is the catholic debate worth starting a new thread for? "If the bread weights that much in the draklor chain, then it's no wonder so many die of starvation. AND - what kind of IRON RATION weights as much as an iron shield?! A dinner for four, oven included? ;)" -Maelstrom [Edited 1 time, last edit on 6/2/2007 at 19:33 (GMT -5) by F50] |
||
|
Maelstrom Registered user The Knight of the Black Rose Last page view: 3110 days, 7 hours, 42 minutes and 28 seconds ago. |
Consider the words I scratched out on may 23, to be unscratched and directed at you. You're apparently too limited to understand even the basics of evolution. I'd write what I think of your "proof" and "evidence" but that'll get be a warning from a mod, at the very best. A pessimist sees a dark tunnel. An optimist sees a light at the end of that tunnel. A realist sees a train. And the train driver sees three idiots on the tracks. [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/31/2007 at 15:57 (GMT -5) by Maelstrom] |
||
|
Z Unregistered user |
Maelstrom, I think you are a bit wrong. Science cannot prove unexistence of God, as any possible Godless world can be also interpreted as a world with God who does not affect it. (By Ockham's razor we probably prefer the Godless world in this case.) Today science cannot prove existence of God, but if we find some message from God, or some kind of complexity which really cannot be explained otherwise, then it would be a scientific argument for existence of God. Of course, only mathematical facts like pi > 3.14 (assuming some axioms) can be actually scientifically proven. For others we can only accumulate evidence. |
| Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |