What evolution debate? (Page 4)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2005-08-05 1:19 PM in reply to: #217645 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: What evolution debate? Stacers - 2005-08-05 1:12 PM run4yrlif - 2005-08-05 11:02 AM I disagree. A lot of my faith is based on what I know about science. The more I learn about science, the more in awe I am of nature and it's workings. I choose to bridge the gap between what I understand about science and the parts of it that are unfathomable to me with faith in a higher being (intelligent design if you will). I think evolution occurs (I'm not trying to disprove it in the least), but I choose to believe it occurs because a higher being designed things that way. I think you are generalizing about people who have faith. Not everyone who has faith in a higher being (whatever religion) is completely anti-science. The two can mesh. It just seems to be the ones who are most extreme in their beliefs that are most verbal. This is why Christianity gets a bum rap. Same reason the only muslims we see in the news are the extremists who are blowing things up. It's too bad really. Your faith may be based on what you know about science: the wonderful complexity of the universe and all, but you can't say that you can prove your faith with science. It's a basic tennant of faith: it it could be proven, it wouldn't be called "faith." And that's a really, really good thing! I never said everyone with faith is anti-science. Guess what? I'm a Christian (by name and by faith). Of course science and faith can mesh, you just can't apply science to faith. And why would you want to? Do you need someone to prove God exists? Or do you just know it in your heart? And yes...extreme positions always get a (deserved, IMO) bad rap. Edited by run4yrlif 2005-08-05 1:22 PM |
|
2005-08-05 1:23 PM in reply to: #217659 |
Expert 666 St. Thomas, ON | Subject: RE: What evolution debate? run4yrlif - 2005-08-05 1:19 PM Of course science and faith can mesh, you just can't apply science to faith. And why would you want to? Do you need someone to prove God exists? Or do you just know it in your heart? Good point. |
2005-08-05 1:24 PM in reply to: #217591 |
Expert 1065 Montreal | Subject: RE: What evolution debate? Rennick - 2005-08-05 12:35 PM Sorry. Evolution ain't science either. The theory of evolution violates both the first and second law of thermodynamics. There are so many holes in the theory. There are many credible scientists that discount evolution but they don't get a hearing, because evolution has become "truth". Belief in the theory of evolution is a religion, just like belief in the theory of creation. Science = formulating theories based on observation and testing. There is no scientific basis that life can be created from nothing, or non-life. Evolutionists and creationists both have a right their own beliefs. If creationism shouldn't be taught in science class, neither should the thory of evolution. Evolution has been observed and is observable on the microevolutionary scale to anyone willing to give themselves the time and inclination to do so. Ask anyone involved in animal husbandry of any kind and tell them that evolution is only a theory. People who use the experession that something is "only a theory" generally do not have a sound understanding of how a scientific theory comes into existence. You are going to have to explain to me how evolution violates: The change in internal energy of a system is equal to teh heat added to the system minus teh work done by the system. As for the rather pedestrian observation that evolution violates the second law that can be lumped in with those who believe that all live violates the second law of thermodynamics therefore either the law is wrong or none of us are alive. Greater minds than mine (not a great leap to be certain) offer this: http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm Evolution is not a belief, creationism is a belief. One is factual and observable the other is a load of codswallop. |
2005-08-05 1:26 PM in reply to: #217657 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: What evolution debate? atl_runner - 2005-08-05 1:19 PM To not give serious thought to both schools of thought is narrow minded. It appears that quite a few anti ID people are narrow minded. It's not a school of thought - it's a matter of your faith. Why do you fear calling it what it is - a religious belief system? There is a narrowing of my mind to sift out fact from faith; leaving it wide opens also all manner of nonsense to come in. That does not make me narrow-minded; it makes me a logical thinker. Emotional appeals? Can't fit through the door. Unsound syllogisms? Door's locked. At least we got to page 3 of the thread before the name calling started. However, I'm still impressed at the level of discourse found on this site. |
2005-08-05 1:26 PM in reply to: #217379 |
Veteran 277 Spartanburg | Subject: RE: What evolution debate? According to my research...(albeit internet research) Only 35% of americans believe in Evolution... I think we have all of them here. |
2005-08-05 1:28 PM in reply to: #217671 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: What evolution debate? Jiggies - 2005-08-05 1:26 PM According to my research...(albeit internet research) Only 35% of americans believe in Evolution... I think we have all of them here. What does your research say about how many people believed in a flat earth centuries ago? |
|
2005-08-05 1:28 PM in reply to: #217671 |
Expert 1065 Montreal | Subject: RE: What evolution debate? Jiggies - 2005-08-05 1:26 PM According to my research...(albeit internet research) Only 35% of americans believe in Evolution... I think we have all of them here. Because we can all observe the evolution in ourselves as we start then finish training for a Tri |
2005-08-05 1:28 PM in reply to: #217671 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: What evolution debate? Jiggies - 2005-08-05 1:26 PM According to my research...(albeit internet research) Only 35% of americans believe in Evolution... I think we have all of them here. There was a time when 99% of people believed the world was flat... |
2005-08-05 1:29 PM in reply to: #217666 |
Expert 666 St. Thomas, ON | Subject: RE: What evolution debate? Wookiee - 2005-08-05 1:24 PM One is factual and observable the other is a load of codswallop. First of all, I admit, I jumped into the argument too soon. I was talking about abiogenesis (a new word for the day) as opposed to evolution on the micro scale. Codswallop, eh? Guess that's new word number two. |
2005-08-05 1:30 PM in reply to: #217659 |
Expert 852 Evergreen, Colorado | Subject: RE: What evolution debate? run4yrlif - 2005-08-05 11:19 AM [ Your faith may be based on what you know about science: the wonderful complexity of the universe and all, but you can't say that you can prove your faith with science. It's a basic tennant of faith: it it could be proven, it wouldn't be called "faith." And that's a really, really good thing! I never said everyone with faith is anti-science. Guess what? I'm a Christian (by name and by faith). Of course science and faith can mesh, you just can't apply science to faith. And why would you want to? Do you need someone to prove God exists? Or do you just know it in your heart? And yes...extreme positions always get a (deserved, IMO) bad rap. I agree - my faith is faith, and not backed by scientific evidence - it's about belief. What I disagreed with was your statement that, "This so-called scientific evidence is actually directed at disproving the theories they don't agree with. It's not evidence for creationism, but rather against evolution. " I mis-took that statement of yours to mean that you felt that anyone believing in a higher being could not believe in evolution, and is only trying to disprove science. I would hope that good science would substantiate my faith, rather than disprove it. |
2005-08-05 1:31 PM in reply to: #217379 |
Veteran 277 Spartanburg | Subject: RE: What evolution debate? someone want to explain evolution? we were all taught in our kiddie debate classes that conversations wont work without a definition in terms... Are we talking Macroevolution? Or Microevolution? The theory that we're cousins of fish and monkies? or The theory that moths make their wings darker over generations to blend with trees... |
|
2005-08-05 1:31 PM in reply to: #217670 |
Expert 666 St. Thomas, ON | Subject: RE: What evolution debate? Renee - 2005-08-05 1:26 PM However, I'm still impressed at the level of discourse found on this site. I agree, Renee. This has been an engaging discussion, and I have written some things down as food for thought, and learned some things, too. (Hope I haven't offended anyone.) |
2005-08-05 1:32 PM in reply to: #217548 |
Expert 783 South Bend, IN | Subject: RE: What evolution debate? run4yrlif - 2005-08-05 1:09 PM joeinco - 2005-08-05 12:07 PM cerveloP3 - 2005-08-05 10:03 AM How about a Madisonian Republic? Would you believe we're ACTUALLY in a Rovian Totalitarian country? We can only hope for a benevolent robocracy... I agree... my sentiments below..... (9575.jpg) Attachments ---------------- 9575.jpg (36KB - 21 downloads) |
2005-08-05 1:32 PM in reply to: #217379 |
Veteran 277 Spartanburg | Subject: RE: What evolution debate? 99% of people use the theory of humankind believing the world was flat as an argument against percentages. |
2005-08-05 1:33 PM in reply to: #217687 |
Expert 666 St. Thomas, ON | Subject: RE: What evolution debate? Okay cerveloP3, now that is a funny picture On that note, I'm outta here. Going to the cottage for the weekend. Talk amongst yourselves Edited by Rennick 2005-08-05 1:35 PM |
2005-08-05 1:37 PM in reply to: #217379 |
Expert 1065 Montreal | Subject: RE: What evolution debate? I'm cashing in my chips on this one too. I'll get too hot under the colar and I come here for fun. |
|
2005-08-05 1:37 PM in reply to: #217689 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: What evolution debate? Jiggies - 2005-08-05 1:32 PM 99% of people use the theory of humankind believing the world was flat as an argument against percentages. Because it's such a good argument! You can't fail with it. It's not argument against percentages. It's an argument against assuming that if enough people believe something it must be true. (Logical fallacy: appeal to popularity) |
2005-08-05 1:37 PM in reply to: #217687 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: What evolution debate? cerveloP3 - 2005-08-05 1:32 PM run4yrlif - 2005-08-05 1:09 PM I agree... my sentiments below.....joeinco - 2005-08-05 12:07 PM cerveloP3 - 2005-08-05 10:03 AM How about a Madisonian Republic? Would you believe we're ACTUALLY in a Rovian Totalitarian country? We can only hope for a benevolent robocracy... Not to hijack the thread (bwahahahaha), but my dad, when he announced they were moving to Ocean Springs, Mississippi bragged that the town had the highest per-capita income in the state. I told him that was like bragging that you were the fastest kid at the special olympics. |
2005-08-05 1:40 PM in reply to: #217673 |
Expert 783 South Bend, IN | Subject: RE: What evolution debate? Renee - 2005-08-05 2:28 PM Jiggies - 2005-08-05 1:26 PM According to my research...(albeit internet research) Only 35% of americans believe in Evolution... I think we have all of them here. What does your research say about how many people believed in a flat earth centuries ago? The catholic church only admitted the earth was a round object in the 20th century and still did not admit that we are heliocentri not geocentric solar system until 1993! So up until these times, most scientists who were catholic were heretics. |
2005-08-05 1:41 PM in reply to: #217689 |
Expert 783 South Bend, IN | Subject: RE: What evolution debate? Jiggies - 2005-08-05 2:32 PM 99% of people use the theory of humankind believing the world was flat as an argument against percentages. 75% of all statistics are made up |
2005-08-05 1:41 PM in reply to: #217705 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: What evolution debate? cerveloP3 - 2005-08-05 1:40 PM The catholic church only admitted the earth was a round object in the 20th century and still did not admit that we are heliocentri not geocentric solar system until 1993! So up until these times, most scientists who were catholic were heretics. I guess we should be thankful our scientists aren't put under house arrest or threatened with having their citizenship revoked (civil excommunication). |
|
2005-08-05 1:43 PM in reply to: #217709 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: What evolution debate? Renee - 2005-08-05 1:41 PM cerveloP3 - 2005-08-05 1:40 PM I guess we should be thankful our scientists aren't put under house arrest or threatened with having their citizenship revoked (civil excommunication). If we continue down our right-led road to theocracy.... |
2005-08-05 1:45 PM in reply to: #217379 |
Veteran 277 Spartanburg | Subject: RE: What evolution debate? Wow... Y'all are all fired up... did i say the statistic meant anything? Hmmmm???? 87% of people used to eat their own boogers. |
2005-08-05 1:47 PM in reply to: #217715 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: What evolution debate? Jiggies - 2005-08-05 1:45 PM Wow... Y'all are all fired up... did i say the statistic meant anything? Hmmmm???? 87% of people used to eat their own boogers. Used to? |
2005-08-05 1:47 PM in reply to: #217379 |
New user 9 Cincinnati OH | Subject: RE: What evolution debate? 3rd post and already into evolution on a tri board... oh well --------------------------------------------- These points have been made above: Evolution is a fact, the starting point is theorized. You can't argue that change takes place over time. In just the last hundred years, humans on average are something like 6 inches taller. Bacteria change at an even higher rate: they develop antibiotic-resistant strains as a survival strategy. There is empirical evidence for evolution that is subject to the scientific method --------------------------------------------------- Micro-evolution. yes. MAcro-evolution - though, i'd like more "facts" on macro-evolution - ie species evolving into another species... Thanks T |
|