It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Creation/Intelligent Design vs Evolution/Science Your thoughts?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 08:17 PM
Charles Darwin “It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank clothed of many plants of many kinds, with birds singing in the bushes, and various insects flitting about, and worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and yet dependent on each other in so complex a manner have all been produced by laws acting around us thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals directly follows.” The first thought of Evolution.

Creation is taught in several schools in America. It is taught in secondary classes that teach religion to students who wish to learn about religion through an educative mean. But the creationists have also been getting creation taught in science classes. Several schools in Georgia teach creation as a science, not religion. This of course is wrong, for there is no scientific proof of creation. Creation is based on religion, not science.

A creationist has led a war on science for over 30 years, his name is Dwayne Gish. He has gotten creation taught as science in Georgia after losing in Louisiana, Kansas, Colorado, and Arkansas. Russell Brock led the war in Georgia. He believes it is right to teach that the earth is 6,000 years old, created in six days, flood happened explaining the Grand Canyon (more on this later) and that Evolution is as scientific as turning lead into gold. This of course is wrong, Evolution is a science. Yes it is the Theory of Evolution, but one must take note that Theory in science does not mean guess, shot in the dark, acid trip gone bad, or anything else creationists make it seem to be. The fact that the Earth revolves around the sun is a scientific theory. This was also discredited in the bible. Theory in science means a Hypothesis leading to tests, discussions, and debate.

There is nothing wrong with religion being taught at home or at church or even as a secondary class, but to teach it in a science class as fact, well, in the USA we pay taxes to fund things like schools. Now, the schools have to be run by a certain set of laws, also known as the constitution. Now in the constitution, it says that there shall be freedom of religion for state. Meaning, that something that is funded by the people through taxes shall not teach religion. Now this deal we made means we don’t have religion in school, church doesn’t have magic tricks during service.

Now Evolution has not been proven 100%. It has, but the creationists came up with a new arguement. "Ok, so Microevolution is correct, but not the rest." Why is that? They are shown prrof they are wrong so they twist the facts to "prove" they are right. It is a science. Science will prove something or other, but it takes time. How many centuries did it take for the Theory of Round Earth to be proved? The theory of sun in center to be proven? It took many years, was discredited by the bible, but we know those theories are correct for studies were done, tests done, discussion, debate, so forth. Of course, even if it is proven there will still be tests, experiments, and more debates. Gravity is a known fact. But they still study the effects of gravity on certain objects. Anti gravity tests, how strong it can be (black holes ring a bell?) and many other tests are done with gravity. All the laws and effects of gravity have not been proven or tested or realized. But does this mean gravity does not exist? One can not prove all of it 100%, and with the creationists argument, it would mean Gravity does not exist.

Creationists want Evolution to be proven, and until then they want creation to be taught in schools either with evolution or without it. In areas that creation is taught the biology books have little intros in the front of the book saying “Evolution is a theory, not fact. And should be critically considered.” They don’t include an intro stating the fact that intelligent design isn’t validated by any science, we just made it up. They throw out all the science behind it because it has not been proven 100%. They claim that the bible is an accurate historical book and that anyone with historical background believes this. This of course is not true. The main argument is that it defies all logic and probability that there was not a master plan. They have no proof of this, but this is one of the statements they make. They try to convince people that creation is a science, which it isn’t. So they repackage the name and change it to “intelligent design” to make it sound scientific. Well god isn’t a science. “I choose to use the term intelligent design because it takes out the philosophical and religious setting.” Creationist. They try to pass religion as science by creating a scientific sounding name. “Isn’t it a great idea to teach both and let the children decide? Let them and the parents consider both options and let them choose what they want to believe. Wouldn’t that be a wonderful thing?” Russell Brock. What this leaves out is the fact school is for teaching, not religion.

Thankfully, reason has come through in some areas of Georgia. In one county a man has gotten the ACLU in a lawsuit to try to keep religion out of public schools. Now the ACLU isn’t the best choice for this, I sure as hell wouldn’t have picked them. But for once in the past 10 years the ACLU are doing something right in my opinion. Religion is not allowed in public schools, and any attempts to allow it in should be fought. They are still in court last I heard. “To deny that this whole argument is not about religion is ludicrous to me. It is spin, when someone says intelligent design is science and is based on god, that’s religion.” Sellman, guy who brought the ACLU into the fight.

Now one can vote on whether or not intelligent design is science or religion. But it isn’t science no matter what you vote. We can all take a vote on whether or not Drew Carey is human or not. If the majority vote he is a mongoose, does it mean he is? No, just like voting intelligent design is a science, it doesn’t truly mean it is a science.

Now, back to the leader of the modern creation movement, Dwayne Gish. He is the senior vice president of the Institute of Creation Research. He believes… “To have all the scientific evidence that evolutionists believe that can prove evolution, have that presented to our students. Then take all the evidence creation scientist have that prove, that DEMANDS creation is fact, and let them decide.” Dwayne Gish. Gee, sounds like someone isn’t bias at all, does it? He has been fighting for creation and against evolution for almost as long as it has been around. But during this time we have founda million pieces of biological evidence including genetics. We have found millions of astronomical evidence that gives us the age of the Earth and the universe. Millions of pieces of geological evidence like transitional fossils and “missing link” fossils of past animals and animals of today, like dogs, cats, horses, bears, and so forth. Dwayne heads ICR, Institute of Creation Research, a California conservative religious group with a strict focus to prove what they believe with whatever amount of double talk and twisted evidence they can create. They state that Evolution is not science and neither is creation. “Neither creation or evolution are scientific. Evolution is no more scientific than creation and creation is no more religious than evolution.” Dwayne Gish. Only one little problem, evolution comes from science, creation comes from god, and god is not a science. Dr. Eugene Scott of the National Center for Science Education “ It would be unfair to tell students that there is a serious dispute among scientists about evolution took place for it isn’t. You see school districts all over this country wrestling with the problem of what to teach. Evolution, creation, both, or neither. It seems to come up when peoples religious views need to take the bible literally are offended when evolution is taught in the classroom.” Dwayne Gish explains that him and his people do not want to bring religion into the classroom but evidence that proves a theistic supernatural origin to humans, life, and the planet. One little problem, supernatural, like god, is not a science.

Creationists will try to sound scientific, but they fail. They will go through the journals and books and notes and nit-pick every single last detail. If they found one word in anything about evolution is misspelled or wrong, they say throw out everything. There is a problem with this. Unlike religion, science is always, shall we say, evolving. Science once believed the Earth was flat. But then they found evidence leaning towards a non-flat Earth. So they did tests, changed views, changed ideas, and after a few hundred years of research and being killed by the church, proved that the Earth was round. The same is true with Evolution. Creation was believed to be correct. Then scientists started seeing things wrong with it. For those who think Darwin was the first to think of evolution you are wrong. Greeks came up with the conclusion that some land animals and sea animals are related. They came up with a theory that had animals such as horses, lions, bears, rodents, so forth, as coming from species that lived in the water. In fact, the horse created a new legend of the Greek gods with the creation of the horse being that of Posident.

The theology of religion is that if one thing is wrong in the bible you have to throw the whole thing out. (Explains why several books are left out of the bible) But science does not work that way. If one little piece of the evolution puzzle doesn’t fit then throw the whole thing out. But science, as said, does not work like this. Dr. Ron Mattsen, Professor of Biology at Kenenthshaw State, Kennethshaw, Georgia “Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. We have to start with ideas that can to be tested. And there is always the possibility that conclusions we draw could be wrong. That is not the case with creation. They are saying that they are right and we are wrong but have no data to back this up.”

Bob Carroll, Professor of Philosophy, Sacramento City College. “Creation science is an Oxymoron. The real question is why are they trying to pretend they are a science when they aren’t. The real reason is they have a different agenda and that is to destroy science. They know they can’t do that from without but must do so from within. Basically terrorize it.” But Dwayne Gish says he has scientific evidence, the Grand Canyon. “The Grand Canyon is a very interesting geological object. Now if that canyon, possibly, was cut by the release of enormous amount of water from lakes to the north that were dammed and then broke through and cut the canyon in a matter of a few days.” We all know that is bs, but that is what he says is fact and wants taught, is being taught, in some schools and the public. But what he is referring to is the big flood of Noah that made him make a boat and get 2 of every animal on it. As anyone who knows about genetics will tell you that is impossible! Inbreeding would have killed off the population after about the 3rd-4th generation. Also, no boat built could hold two of every animal. It would also need aquariums to save all the fish, dolphins, and whales. Why? Well, if all the water mixed then saltwater would become too fresh and freshwater would become to salty meaning every fish/mammal that lives in fresh or salt water would be killed. But there are millions of fish and mammals in the waters to prove that they weren’t all killed off by a sudden mix of fresh and salt water. So no flood, no Noah, no proof. Gish believes a single flood made the Grand Canyon and a single boat saved every damn animal on Earth.

Back to Dr. Eugene Scott. “Scientists hear this and just go wow. This is just amazing! Nobody thinks these people could possibly hold these ideas seriously. The Grand Canyon is granite, shale, and really hard rock, about 5,000 feet of it. You won’t cut this very hard rock with just a single flood.” Another claim by creationists is that the depth of fossils is only deep enough to have existed for thousands of years. They say that if evolution is correct, then there should be evidence of older fossils in the rock. Also, if there was all this evolution, then were are the transitional fossils? There are none. But there are! Homo Erectus ring a bell? Or Lucy? Gish just doesn’t look at the facts that we have. Dwayne lives in the margin of science, but he keeps the margins as wide as possible. Dr. Eugene Scott again. “What we do in science is find an explanation that work. The idea that we had common ancestors works. That is why scientists accept evolution. Creationists will say evolution is about chance, and how can anything have happened due to chance. But evolution is farthest from chance possible. Evolution is the survival of the fittest and that means not chance, but survival ratio, is how evolution works.” Brock admits he doesn’t know what’s going on. “Let’s just make one thing clear, I’m not a scientist.” He also tries to quote Isaac Newton and that Isaac Newton said there had to be a god, but he lived in the days of tyranny by the church where if you said something against the bible, you were killed. I’d say there has to be a god if the opposite meant death by torture. Brock also says that Darwin in his later years said that evolution was wrong, he was wrong. There has been no proof, no reason, and no facts sustaining this myth. This myth is right up there with the exploding toilet and duck quack has no echo. Darwin was a very serious scientist. He was convinced that evolution had happened and that his theory explained it. Remember that the fact that the earth is round and it revolves around the sun is theories.

Why does Dwayne hate science? Him and his people believe science has brought on materialistic atheism. Dwayne Gish. “The kids are in the classrooms sitting before these PHD professors and are told that everything began with some hypothetical big bang and out of that everything has evolved. Now, they say Well, who needs god? He doesn’t exist and if there is no god then there is no one to whom I am responsible.” In other words, if someone thinks that the christian god doesn’t exist they will go out killing and raping and stealing and just doing whatever they want because they don’t fear the all mighty powerful people in the clouds. This of course is false, many people don’t believe in the christian god. They are called Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhist, Wiccans, Druids, and atheists. Except for the fundamentalist Moslems, no killing, raping, stealing, doing whatever they feel like because they don’t worry about punishment. “We would like to reverse the situation of today. Today there is legalized porn, legalized abortion, legalized gambling, tremendous drug problem, and much more.” Dwayne Gish. I know, no christian has ever looked at porn, gambled, or did a drug, it is all those heathens out there that do them. NOT!

Now, why is religion taught in schools? Why do people believe in creation? Why do people believe in something with no facts or proof? Why do you believe it?

Just one last thing. Here is how evolution compares to creation. This is a good way to tell the difference between good science and non-science. Good science changes, it begins with observation, as we learn more we can come up with Hypothesis, then move on to tests which eventually lead to discussion and debate. Creation is rigid, it begins with fiction that proceeds to asserting, insisting, twisting the facts, and sometimes torturing those who disagree. Whether or not creation or “intelligent design” sounds good doesn’t matter, it just isn’t science! Know what’s funny? There is a group that believes the exact same thing that Dwayne and Russell do, just one small twist, their higher being is an alien, not god. They are called Raelians. The creationists say the Raelians are nuts, but they believe the exact same thing.

So, your opinion on anything brought up here. Religion in school, creation a science or not, evolution, flood of Noah creating the Grand Canyon, age of the Earth.

Here is a link to Dwayne's site.

Edited: I made a threat to people who believe in the Darwin said he was wrong myth. Also have a few grammer/mispelled words fixed.

[edit on 7-7-2004 by James the Lesser]

posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 09:37 PM
Creation should really be renamed Intelligent Design just to allow it to appeal to the public more easily.

The problem with our educational system today is that evolution is more often taught as fact than theory. In reality Creation is just a theory as well and so to foster open and more creative though, both theories should be taught simultaneously. Many great scientific minds are stifled by everything being based on evolution.

Perhaps someday, someone will discover the truth and realize that we all live inside a giant whale's imagination. Now as for the whale being created or evolving... we'll leave that to God to decide.

posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 11:33 PM
Lockheed, creation is not a theory. God is not a science.

Evolution is a theory. As said, Evolution is a scientific theory. The FACT that the Earth is round is a scientific theory. The FACT that the Earth revolves around the sun is a scientific theory. Evolution is fact. They have proven it! But when they did the creationists came up with a new arguement. Micro evolution is real, Macroevolution isn't. Pretty conviniant. Where in the bible does it say "Creation is real and MicroEvolution is real but MacroEvolution is false."

BTW, you say creation should be renamed Intelligent Design you have to realize that creation is intelligent design. As I said, Creationists call creation intelligent design to make it sound scientific when it isn't. Read mt post, all of it.

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 12:03 AM
Very well expressed, James.

As you essentially note, 'theory' is not as is commonly thought, vis a vis its vernacular usage.

In fact, one professes only the most common ignorance by using the idiom, "just a theory."

Unbelievably, so few know that faith requires no proof, nor evidence.

Both are indispensible for science, however, as is repeatability

Apparently, many confuse "hypothesis" with "theory."

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 08:33 AM

well I was looking at Creation as a science because I believe it must be looked at that way up to a point

The reason I believe that is this, there are simply some things that cannot be explained by science (at least currently, if they do get explained I'll change my views) like what started the big bang, why humanity is conscious that they exist while every thing else that evolved from similar ancestors dosen't have a "soul" (by soul I mean that spark of stuff that makes us different from animals, you know like love and stuff, not the thing that goes to "heaven"), and why religion was developed in the first place. If someone says there might be a God and goes around trying to prove it, would that make it into a science? (Or well at least Hypothesis) I'm not saying they'd find any fact and maybe its a question better left to philosiphers.

The main problem with creation being taught as a science though is people like you mention in your first post, Dwayne Gish, most people like him are so horribly closed minded they automatically believe that the world was created without weighing in all the evidence themselves. Creationist scientists are just as bad as Evolutionists Scientists in that fact. You are always going to draw the conclusion you want if you know how your experiments will turn out.

If everyone would just be ready to admit they are totally wrong then we would be better off I guess, I'm ready...

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 09:35 AM

Evolution is fact. They have proven it!

Oh, "they" have , have they? Well, I guess we, like our forefathers 300 years ago just know it all now don't we? Nevermind the thousands of unanswered questions and inaccuracies, lets just call it fact long enough and it will eventually be accepted as such. Its called repetitive linquistic programming, and its a theory too.

The truth is, we have no more idea about the origin of man and beast now than we did 300 years ago. We've followed some good leads but we cannot come close to nailing it down.

Evolution will be defended until science has long since proven it false and then some. We, as a society have an especailly hard time releasing our conditioned beliefs and admitting what little we do know. Until then, we are content to wallow in our puddle of ignorance all the while fooling ourselves into thinking we're sailing on an ocean of knowledge.

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 04:35 PM
Astro, 300 years ago? Do you think Darwin signed the Declaration of Independence or something? Darwin is not that old. Evolution is older. Evolution is Greek in origin, just Darwin put it into words and scientific theory. And yes they proved evolution! But as said, the creationists said "Ok, so Microevolution is correct, but not Macroevolution." Know why the cold virus is always different every year? it evolves to become resiliant against whatever antidote we had the year before. You can't take the 1998 flu shot to stop the 2005 flu. 2005 and 1998 flu don't know each other, never met, never existed at the same time. Microevolution is easy to study for it doesn't take millions of years for it to happen. They do it in labs as easily as they grow a new hybrid of apples to resist cold. Yes, the apples of today and the apples of 1750 wouldn't recognize each other for they have also evolved. This was mainly through breeding by planters to make the best crops. If this tree and that tree survived a cold snap that killed 50 other apple trees, they would be bred with each other to make apples that cold resist cold more than the rest. Survival of the fittest is evolution, and in this case ability to survive the cold made the apples more fit to survive and so they were bred while the others were not.

Evolution is not just Humans or other large animals. It is insects, bacteria, viruses, plants, fungi, so forth. Now what gives humans that "spark"? I don't know, I am not a scientist. But I am sure a scientist if given enough time could figure it out.

And lockheed, thanks for the explanation on what you meant. But the problem with looking at creation as a science is the fact that god and religon are not science. Now if the Institute of Creation Research would spend the time proving creation and not trying to disprove evolution it could be brought in as a science. But the problem, as you stated, is that the ICR is ran by creationists who want to prove they are right, not maybe they are right. Quote "You are always going to draw the conclusion you want if you know how your experiments will turn out."

But there is no real evolutionist scientist. Anthropology comes close, but that is mainly the study of the ancestors of humans, not evolution. Now yes they kind of have to believe in evolution to believe we have ancestors, but they don't have to prove evolution. I went looking on google for some scientists that study evolution, but fact is, scientists believe in evolution. Unlike what the creationists say, there is no dispute or arguement amongst the scientists. They believe in evolution and believe they have already proven it ie Microevolution and fossils.

To Aeon10101110, thanks, I think. Quote "vis a vis its vernacular usage." I understand vernacular usage, but did you use vis a vis right? But yeah, thanks for the support. And true, people do think theory is a guess, when it is not. Quote "Unbelievably, so few know that faith requires no proof, nor evidence. Both are indispensible for science, however, as is repeatability." Yes, faith requires nothing but a book while science requires fact, proof, and repeatability. If you do it once, should be able to do it again. Like Microevolution in a lab, they did it once, and are able to do it again. They had facts, proof, and were able to repeat the results again and again.

Creationists do not try to prove creation, they try to disprove evolution. Science does not work like that. I am going to prove gravity by disproving your theory. That doesn't make sense for if you want your theory to be believed, you have to prove that theory, not disprove someone elses. And if you were able to disprove that persons theory, how does it prove yours? It could mean a third theory is needed. You don't prove world is round by disproving it is flat. For you do that, then maybe the world is neither, maybe it is a square? Or a cone! But the scientists proves the Earth is round and not the earth isn't flat.

Quote "Evolution will be defended until science has long since proven it false."
Astro, science has proven evolution, why would they prove it false? They have proven evolution in labs. And of course fossil records like that of canines, dolphins, and felines showing the evolution of canines, dolphins, and felines.

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 04:38 PM
just been doing this in Philosophy..
Look up the 'Argument from Design', which is pretty much creationism,
then look up 'Flaws of the Argument from Design'
more interesting things are the Teleological argument and flaws from as well... Read Richard Dorkin's, he'll kill off most anti-evolution arguments you can come up with

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 04:42 PM

Originally posted by lockheed
Perhaps someday, someone will discover the truth and realize that we all live inside a giant whale's imagination.

Strange!?! I thought that we were all on the back of a giant turtle. What's the turtle on you ask? The back of another turtle and so on and so forth.

Although I am much more for evolution then creation, I do agree that evolution should not be taught as fact in schools. I actually do not recall it being taught this way when I was in school, but I could see it happening.

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 04:53 PM
Browha, is it a book? I am at the library even as we speak! Hell, sounds like a good read.

Jonna, it is taught in school, but I think only a few teach it as fact. Maybe .2% of all the schools do. But evolution is fact, they have proven it. What most people think about is Macroevolution. But isn't a apple tree large enough to count? It isn't a virus or bacteria, it is a plant.

Ok, I am going to try to explain theory as well as I can. Not to the ones who have posted so far, but to make sure there is no more confusion.

Scientific theory is not a guess. The Earth being round is called the Theroy of a round Earth. The fact that gravity exists is called the Theory of Gravity. In science theory does not mean guess, it does not mean we got bored, did acid, and came up with this while on a bad acid trip, it means facts/proofs/study. If it is not proven yet but can be studied, then it is a theory. One can study evolution, and proven it in labs with microevolution. Creation you can't study for the creationists say the bible is their proof and it can't be denounced. ICR and other creationists research labs try to disprove evolution, they don't try to prove creation for according to them creation has already been proven by the bible. We are here, the bible says how we are here, proof! But they don't look into anything to prove the bible is right. They don't worry about inbreeding, genetics, DNA, anything.

God is not a science. The bible is not a science. Creation is not a science, yet. Creation could become a science if someone were to study it and prove any part of it. Microevolution has been proven, fossil records prove evolution of cats, dogs, dolphins, fish, sharks, so forth. Evolution has facts and proofs, creation does not.

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 04:55 PM
It's not a book, it's just a general argument, a couple pages long, on the internet
You could borrow 'Hume's Dialogue' from the library if they have it in stock.
Or go get some Richard Dorkin's books, they debunk most anti-evolution things really well

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 05:01 PM
Thanks Browha, BTW what is Gmail?

Anyways, anyone else have anything they wish to say on this subjuect?

So, your opinion on anything brought up here. Religion in school, creation a science or not, evolution, flood of Noah creating the Grand Canyon, age of the Earth.

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 05:02 PM
Google's version of hotmail, or yahoo mail, etc...

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 05:20 PM
Thanks again Browha. So, anyone? Come on, are we the only ones with opinions or thoughts about this? This topic is disputed, argued, and discussed in city hall, courtrooms, ICR, but no one here has an opinion? Strange.

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 05:23 PM
Really, I think the main thing that people miss is that Theory is different from Hypothesis (I know this has been said many times before)

God = Hypothesis
Evolution = Theory
Whale/Turtle = Insanity

I can't believe more people aren't getting in on this discussion though, this is one of the fundamental debates of modern times.

Lets shoot off some questions and have both sides give their answers:

Here is my first question:
Why are humans the only species that are conscious of their existence and are able to create?

[edit on 7-7-2004 by lockheed]

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 05:58 PM
Thank you lockheed. And good question, why aren't more people discussing this? Maybe I made my arguement to long.

Here is my first question:
Why are humans the only species that are conscious of their existence and are able to create?

A chimpanzee isn't aware of it self? Can you prove we are the only ones who are conscience of our existence? This is a problem. For I think a intelligent animal like the dolphin, whale, and chimpanzee do know they exist. Also, chimps, gorillas, other apes create tools to help themselves survive. And birds, they create homes called nests, and bears make dens, so forth. if you mean things like cars, planes, so forth. How many thousands of years did it take us to create a car, plane, gun, engine, so forth? Also, does a chimpanzee need a car? Why would it create a car if it isn't needed. We have created cars for we travel, we are everywhere we can go. We have even been to the moon! But does a dolphin feel the need to go to the moon? Chimpanzee's will adopt a baby chimpanzee if the parents are killed. Dolphins will have sex just for pleasure. A gorilla will and can use tools to get food that it normally couldn't with just it's hands. Sounds like they have a spark to me. Maybe just not the same kind of spark. That is why we "evolved" to have that spark. Humans are animals, many don't realize this. Humans are part of the Great Ape family. We are mammals. We evolve just like other animals do. Why do you think we no longer need the appendix? We have them, they don't do anything. Because we evolved into something that no longer needed a appendix. Maybe 50,000 years from now that to will be gone. or the spleen. I no longer have a spleen. I am alive, but no spleen. So what is the spleen needed for? Yes it helps with digestion and immune system, but I don't have one and I live a perfectly abnormal life.(Who the hell wants to be normal?)

Humans are thee species, today. 70 million years ago dinosaurs were thee species. They were a different species, maybe reptile, maybe warm blooded, not sure, but they were the sentinet(sp?) species, like we are now. We are prime examples of survival of the fittest. But unlike other species, we have stopped it. Before we would have grown long hair, blubber build up, whatever to live in cold areas. Now we have clothes, heater, so forth so we can live in the cold without needeing to evolve the long thick fur or blubber build up to live there. Of course, maybe that is how we evolve. We evolve by creating what we need instead of becoming what we need. A Hawk is great at soaring, going fast in a dive, and killing it's prey. But long distance? No good. A duck is great at long distance, can go hundreds of miles migrating. But a fast dive? Maybe 25-30mph, but not much faster.

I am rambling here, should stop. Lockheed, that question is hard to explain, and that is where god comes in. Before, like the greeks, there was a god for everything to explain everything. But then we learn this or that, so no longer is the god of say, rain needed for we know how/why rain is made. But for this question we do not know the answer, yet. So we keep the god to explain that.

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 06:40 PM
I actually think that Creationists are just misguided and misunderstood as well. These creationists who disregard scientific fact have no place first off.But, there are still some unaswered questions about evolution simply. We know evolution occurs, we know PART of why it occurs (survival of the fittest)..but its curious that weaker animals still do exist. Why, to provide the balance of nature, but we are largely still developing in understanding this balance. As well, as to how it occurs, there are still just theories of random mutation, which will take a lot of time to prove. Thus, I think the teaching of evolution should be taught as a skeletal framework.

Unlike religion, science is always, shall we say, evolving.

My problem is that students are being taught that scientists are omniscient. They do not realize there are still many things to be learned. And I believe they are essentially being closed off in respect to evolution by the DETAILS it provides. It is not complete by any means.

The theology of religion is that if one thing is wrong in the bible you have to throw the whole thing out. (Explains why several books are left out of the bible)

I didn't realize that myself although I am not a christian. My religion is constantly evolving such that science and religion have a place together and feed off each other.

Creation is rigid, it begins with fiction that proceeds to asserting, insisting, twisting the facts, and sometimes torturing those who disagree

I believe that the people you are referencing are absurd in this respect. But thats not say that science and religion do not hold a place together. Religion, especially some of the New Age ones feed off science and evolve to present theories for future experimentation.

maybe reptile

Yes, we do have an R-complex in our brains.

IMO, science is taught as too rigid of a subject in many respects as far as the details are concerned. Students should be able to express there imagination in respect to their science. It almost seems as if the way you presented your article, that the two sides have the same nature. Both science and religion seem too strict and science almost seems to abhor imagination. How far would we have come without imagination? If anything, science should be taught with more debate to allow students to come up with theories of their own that may be tested or presented with other evidence.

On the same token, as your opinion was, religion is also too rigid in some schools. It does close people off, but what it does provide for in some respect is imagination.

I think Albert Einstein had a good quote about science and religion to the effect that they should be taken with each. For you see, knowing the facts you do, if you had a self-made religion to make up for the rest your imagination will be spurred. You will most certainly come up with new theories because after all, science is NOT omniscient, as seems to be taught in schools these days. There is still much out there. One thing constantly overlooked is that matter reduces to energy.

I think what lockheed was trying to get at is why we have the nature of consciousness we do. Oh, you can say, random mutations, but that can't be proved until we observe such a process.

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 07:17 PM
Well, I never took scientists as all knowing. I know that science is always changing as they learn more. Watch Discovery, TLC, or even the History channel to realize that science is still changing.

But most kids hate school, hate learning, worship MTV and VH1, but they aren't paying attention in school anyways.

Quote "My problem is that students are being taught that scientists are omniscient. They do not realize there are still many things to be learned. And I believe they are essentially being closed off in respect to evolution by the DETAILS it provides. It is not complete by any means."

Evolution is not complete. They have facts that prove Microevolution and the evolution of fish, dolphins, dogs, so forth. How is this not complete? Unless you are looking for why they changed. A dog is weaker than a wolf(in most cases) but it came after the wolf. Why is that? We humans domesticated them. So yes, I agree, there are many things to learn. Like how, why, when, what, and who. How did a dog become a dog from a wolf? Why did it change? Why didn't just stay a wolf but tame? When did this happen? How long did it take? What exactly happened?

And of course, as lockheed asked, why are humans the ones with the "spark". Well, that is if chimps and dolphins and so forth don't also have this "spark".

Qoute "I didn't realize that myself although I am not a christian. My religion is constantly evolving such that science and religion have a place together and feed off each other."

Well, if you are not a christian then you do not beleieve in Creation as taught by creationists. So I guess my post doesn't technically include all religons, just a certain one. Sorry for the misunderstanding. And yes, some new age ones need science. Thank you for your thoughts on this, good to hear someone besides me and Bowha.(Not that there in't any problem with Bowha, lol)

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 10:25 PM
Good answer James! Feel free to ask me any tough questions about Creation. I also must agree with you, I believe that Dolphins are most likely sure they are alive and might even have thoughts.

If you've ever read the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy series the you know just how intelligent dophins are! ;-)

Anyways, very good points made. So I take it you are saying once a species evolves into something that works very well it eventually gains sentience?

This really is a tough question to answer because we don't know enough about what the "Self" really is.

As it is said above, we don't really know all the much. The more I learn the more I realize I don't know. It really is hard to explain somethings without filling in the holes of knowledge with GOD DID IT

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 11:01 PM
Yes, I read the fourth book in the trilogy.

And with the sentience idea I think might work. Yes, when a species becomes so advanced/capable of survival it reaches sentience. Dinosaurs had reached maximum capability of survival while all other animals were below them. No mouse or shrew or frog could mess with them. With humans, we have reached maximum capability to survive. We are able to live on any place on this planet. If we can't, we create something that allows us to. We can't swim to the bottom of the ocean, so we created something that allowed us to. We can't live in Alaska with just us, so we created clothing and homes to allow us to survive. Humans have reached sentience due to the fact that they have the best survivor rating. When we were eaten by tigers, we made weapons to kill the tigers. If we got cold, we made clothing and what not so we didn't freeze our assess off. But the question is why? Why did we of all animals become the ones who realized this? Well, the best ones anyways. Homo Erectus, Lucy, the Austropiculus(sp?) and what not all had weapons and things, but we were the best. We of all animals, ancestors, what not were able to realize that if cold, make clothing, if hungry and don't want to live like a vegen, then make hunting weapons for we are far to weak to actually catch anything.(imagine a human instead of a cheetah chasing down a Gazelle) That is probably why we still have god. We know how rain is made, but when we didn't there was a god of rain. When we didn't know how kids were made(the scientific parts anyways
) there was a goddess of fertility. But now the only real quetion we don't understand is why us? Maybe the dinosaurs thought this same thing.(some anyways, most likely the carnivores, never seen a smart herbivore) So to answer why us we still have god. Now if we ever figure out why us, maybe we will get rid of god. Well, organized religon god. Maybe there is an all powerful being, but why would they waste time with us? If I was all powerful I'd be having "fun" with an all submissive hot skinny blonde with 40dd breasts, not messing around with little powerless thin skin animals.

Anyways, only so few responses from only a couple of people. Why? This topic is huge! So many different beliefs, yet only heard from what? Lockheed, Astrocreep, Bowha, Aeon, Jonna, and Jamuhn. Oh well.

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in