Can you prove never ending evolution vs. creationism threads are productive?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


If you have something being taught in schools that contradicts religion, then you have to teach religion as well - or neither.

You're trying to invoke a false dichotomy. If every conflicting viewpoint must be presented, regardless of context and validity, you would have to accept that all of the thousands of religions on this planet that exist and have ever existed would be taught side by side, given equal time, etc. Feel free to start a private school to do that.


Hey, where's the spirit of the fairness doctrine when you need it? I guess liberals like the fairness doctrine when it suits them.

I'm all about fairness. Feel free to bring a scientific theory backed by objective evidence to the table that explains biodiversity as well as modern evolutionary synthesis. The Discovery Institute has been working on that one for just shy of twenty years now. And before you start frothing at the mouth about his it's the "goshdurn libruls" that are keeping religion out of science classes, where it has no right being in the first place, the decision in the DI's flagship case was decided against them by a conservative judge appointed by the Bush administration.




posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
They are useless. It's pure dogma from both sides.. Although, the evolutionists will pretend that they are not, and then they will claim that the word evolutionist doesn't not exist blah blah..



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


Evolution is not science. It is speculation, based on the writings of ONE guy.

Someone doesn't understand the history of how modern evolutionary synthesis came to be. Darwin's theory wasn't even the dominant theory as the 19th century drew to a close, much less today. If you think the theory of evolution, as we know it today, is synonymous with Darwinian evolution then you haven't educated yourself enough about what you're arguing against to discuss it intelligently. Sounds more like someone's been asleep in New Mexico.


Nobody on the planet thought that humans evolved from monkeys until Darwin came along. Oh, you can find a few sources that suggest there were, but look at the sources. They are a good example of revisionist history.

So it's just human evolution that you take exception to?


Teach both, or teach neither.

Again, false dichotomy. Your religion isn't the only one out there. If you want one religion taught, be prepared to teach all of them. Including the ones that directly conflict with whatever yours says.
edit on 31/3/2012 by iterationzero because: biffed a quote tag



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by SaturnFX
 





fairy tails, religions, and other such tripe needs to be left at home.



So the Iliad shouldn't be studied?

No Doctor Seuss?

So studying ancient Egypt should strictly excluded mention of its gods?

How about the names of the planets?

Should we censor or rename them?


If its put in its place, I have no issue on it.
We need to learn about the crusades, the ancient egyptians, and literature..this is fine, its on the perspective of just that..history and literature.
The issue is religion is trying to get a spot in science class...that is a no-go. You can't get much more opposite than that.

Public school teaches of christianity, islam, etc. they do it for historical understandings of wars and structure of society...they don't go into details, if you want to learn more, go to bible study.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
They are useless. It's pure dogma from both sides.. Although, the evolutionists will pretend that they are not, and then they will claim that the word evolutionist doesn't not exist blah blah..


That's because the theory of evolution is backed up by OBJECTIVE evidence and facts...whereas religion isn't. So no, the theory of evolution isn't dogma


The only reason you call it dogma is because that's the only way you can still believe in whatever religion you believe. Pretending as if it's a real choice, when in reality there's only one choice based on rationality/logic...that's just dishonest.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Finally the world is waking up and opening its eyes to logic/rationality. Maybe we get lucky and in a few decades votes won't be based on irrational religious beliefs anymore


I think the turning point is people actually understanding what atheism is and stopped listening to the church as to what they say it is.

A person can be a atheist spiritualist, or atheist nihilist of they want. It simply means no belief in a deity..not a belief that there is no deities (there could be..hell, there could be billions of em)..but just a simple desire for proof before they believe..otherwise..no...no belief in one until then.

As far as ghost, aliens, bigfoot, etc etc etc...an atheist can have a whole wide variety of beliefs...from nothing to almost everything...could even believe in the quazi-deity style ancient aliens, ascended beings, etc..

The church did a successful job for a long time of making atheists seem like believers in nothing (assigning a belief) and painting them to be a bunch of arrogant fools.

In saying that, and I am agnostic-atheist, I do like entertaining a sort of universal consciousness or point behind it all...a god if you will, and would like to see some sort of proof of this....but in saying that, finding a pixie or elf would also be pretty cool...and they are equally valid to contemplate and entertain...and who knows..they both may in fact exist..but no need to start a church on the chance that they may.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by vasaga
They are useless. It's pure dogma from both sides.. Although, the evolutionists will pretend that they are not, and then they will claim that the word evolutionist doesn't not exist blah blah..


That's because the theory of evolution is backed up by OBJECTIVE evidence and facts...whereas religion isn't. So no, the theory of evolution isn't dogma


The only reason you call it dogma is because that's the only way you can still believe in whatever religion you believe. Pretending as if it's a real choice, when in reality there's only one choice based on rationality/logic...that's just dishonest.
I'm not religious. See.. That's the point. You're one of the prime examples of a sheeple. You assume that just because I'm not on your side, I must be from the opposite side. I'm not on either side. I've said this to you a billion times already, and yet you keep repeating it like a broken record. You've lost your own ability to think a long time ago. I'm not a group thinker and I don't join a flock for pathetic reasons. And you are one of the most dogmatic people on here. Of course, you will never admit that since you refuse to look at yourself and only point fingers at others. If I had to pick one, I'd say your dogma is materialism..

And before you spout the nonsense of objective evidence and facts...


It is important to distinguish between (a) materialism as an empirical hypothesis about the nature of the world, which is amenable to evidence one way or the other (this is the hallmark of a scientific hypothesis -- that evidence is relevant for its truth or falsity) and (b) materialism as an ideology, or paradigm, about how things "must" be, which is impervious to evidence (this is the hallmark of an unscientific hypothesis -- that evidence is not relevant for its truth).


Your position is clearly the latter, and before you rage and claim that you are position (a)...


With respect to (b) materialism held as an ideology, evidence against it is logically impossible. A complicating factor is that the fundamaterialist (which means those who believe that materialism is a necessary truth, not amenable to empirical evidence) typically holds the metabelief that his belief in materialism is not ideological, but empirical. That is, he misclassifies himself under (a), while his behavior clearly falls under (b). The debunker and skeptic believes that he is being "scientific" in ignoring and rejecting the evidence against materialism. He claims that the evidence is weak, that it is not compelling, that it can be easily explained away by the materialist paradigm. But when asked what kind of evidence it would take to convince him that materialism is empirically false, he is usually at a loss for what to say. If he's not familiar with the data, he'll come up with a criterion of evidence which in fact has already been met. When it is pointed out to him that there exist many well-documented cases which satisfy his proposed criterion, he will simply make his criterion more stringent, and at some point he crosses the line between the reasonable demand for scientific evidence and the unreasonable (and unscientific) demand for logical proof.


That is the perfect description of you.
edit on 31-3-2012 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


First of all, I'm not sure why you quote stuff about materialism when we're talking about the scientific theory of evolution


Secondly, your stance doesn't really matter because you are STILL ignoring objective evidence and facts supporting the theory of evolution...all the while you pretend it's a total tossup between creationism (which has zero objective evidence behind it) and evolution which we are ACTIVELY APPLYING in modern medicine.

You are doing the same as a guy looking at a car saying "this car might run gas or pixie dust, we can't know"...but we DO know because objective evidence tells us how a car works, just like it tells us that evolution works



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Both of the threads you made had absolutely nothing to do with evolution, yet it was part of the title. That's exactly what I meant when I said people are attacking evolution for no reason. Leave evolution to the scientists. Focus on god.
edit on 31-3-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


You see the problem in this is a mirror for science. They leave God out. I choose both by reflecting on the excluded middle. Any time you see paradox between a reflection, both are correct. What you are missing is the excluded middle. For instance:

A train engineer and a friend argue that the train whistle changes. Who is correct? The friend hears it change. The engineer says it doesn't. Each has a frame of reference. Until they discover that the Doppler Effect is to blame, the can't see past their bias. Does the train cause the sound to change or does the friend sitting on the porch cause it to change? Neither. The law set into nature causes it to change. Evolution is change, is it not?

Evolution cannot be a cause of life. Life is in constant change. All things that change have a higher cause that is unrelated to the change. On this very reasoning, I have demonstrated to you that Evolution as a cause is a lie. It must be a result. We then determine by the nature of what happens around us that the cause is greater than the flow that emanates from it. Nothing is greater than its source in nature. Another point that can be observed.

If you dare to read a 400+ page book called The Cannon by William Sterling, you can handily see that all names in language have numbers. These numbers are matched to what they represent in nature and then reveal the geometry of nature and the design of the planets. All of this has been written into all our myth going back to the beginning. Adam to Moses is the impetus for this revelation by the numbers. There are no theories in evolution to explain how words signify the measure of the universe as compared to the measure of a man. All of these numbers are then tied directly to two symbols. The vesica piscis and the Cross.

In this short post, I have given you six demonstrations that Evolution as a cause is a lie.

1) Science
2) Geometry
3) Language
4) Myth
5) Logic
6) Reasoning

None of these can deny a Creator.

If you use pure reasoning and science, you cannot escape the other four as pointing you right back at God. He is literally in every atom of creation, right there pointing back to himself in the reflection.

Example:

The great year of the Earth's Precession is 2151X12=25812. Divide 25812 by 360 and you get 71.7, which is approx. 72 years. This is the generation of a man. Take 2515 and divide by 30. Since one month on the great year is 2151, you get 71.7. Again, the measure of the universe is set by the measure of a man.

Add 1948 to 72 and what do you get? 2018. Subtract 7 years for tribulation and you get 2012. Jesus said that this generation that sees Israel become a nation (Fig Tree) will not pass until all the things in Matthew 24 come to pass. Are they coming to pass in this day? Yes.

I have given you the most simple example possible that nature and man reflect together to create our history as prophetically outlined in the Bible. This is merely a glimmer off the edge of one ray of light given off by the entire whole. Evolution is not the cause of this.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
This problem will not disappear, until indoctrination (brainwashing) of children into religions is made illegal, as it should be, world wide. Other forms of child abuse are already criminalized basically everywhere, so there is a chance that this will happen eventually. That generation would then grow up into a better world, where religions are practiced not because of irrational beliefs, but because of traditions. Some day religions will be seen as what they truly are, i.e. early attempts to explain our existence.
edit on 31-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I prefer to be an abstract figure in the backgound, but the topic of evolution versus Inteligent Design does have a place in forums that invite open debate. Can it be done without mud slinging? Probably not, since the argument for evolution is derived from an inherent need to prove some sort of uber superiorority. Yet malfeasance of the superior mind has made it less than willing to except the much more plausible and provable theory of ID. For one side, the argument is about paying homage, while the other side insists that it is about knowledge- yet each is completely lacking in proof. What they have in common, though, is faith, because each side of the argument requires a significant amount of belief in something that is opened to personal interpretation and requires a great deal of reliance on secondhand information. The mere chance of swaying a mind one way or the other is why it is all worth while. To suggest that it has no bearing is similar to suggesting it does not matter who wins in the battle of good versus evil- it is a battle of minds, and the course of our nation is reliant on these battles, they will structure our future.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 





Evolution cannot be a cause of life.


This one sentence makes it ABUNDANTLY clear that you don't even understand the theory of evolution. Let me be perfectly clear: The theory of evolution makes NO statements regarding how life started. That's not what the theory proves, it only proves how biodiversity came to be once life started. It could have been abiogenesis, whatever religious hypothesis you believe in, or something else we haven't thought of...but in the end, objective evidence still supports that biodiversity came to be through evolution.

So PLEASE, at least learn about the theory before criticizing


I won't even get into your number games as a generation isn't even 72 years
edit on 31-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 





Evolution cannot be a cause of life.


This one sentence makes it ABUNDANTLY clear that you don't even understand the theory of evolution. Let me be perfectly clear: The theory of evolution makes NO statements regarding how life started. That's not what the theory proves, it only proves how biodiversity came to be once life started. It could have been abiogenesis, whatever religious hypothesis you believe in, or something else we haven't thought of...but in the end, objective evidence still supports that biodiversity came to be through evolution.

So PLEASE, at least learn about the theory before criticizing


I won't even get into your number games as a generation isn't even 72 years


Yes, exactly. He falls right the category I described earlier of people who criticize something without even reading the basics. I wouldn't criticize a neurosurgeon without taking extensive classes and learning the subject first. This is constantly what happens in this section. Evolution cannot exist without DNA. This guy is speculating about string theory, something that's not even close to being proven.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 





Evolution cannot be a cause of life.


This one sentence makes it ABUNDANTLY clear that you don't even understand the theory of evolution. Let me be perfectly clear: The theory of evolution makes NO statements regarding how life started. That's not what the theory proves, it only proves how biodiversity came to be once life started. It could have been abiogenesis, whatever religious hypothesis you believe in, or something else we haven't thought of...but in the end, objective evidence still supports that biodiversity came to be through evolution.

So PLEASE, at least learn about the theory before criticizing


I won't even get into your number games as a generation isn't even 72 years
edit on 31-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


Evolution is a result. The theory is a cause of the result. You can't conjoin the two somehow and say that the theory is proof. It's called the origins of man because it states that ALL life came through the process of simplest life to complex. This simply is not an implication that can be made. The theory points to other conclusions specifically, with design being the primary conclusion we can imply from the observation. The theory you speak of is simply a drawn implication that is much weaker than seeing the design. We then notice that there are clues left for us that point the direction of a Designer.

The mathematics and geometry of man is woven into the names of archetypal forms we observe in nature and in human nature. This is not possible apart from design. All names are equivalent to number sets by value in relation to nature on all levels. The thing described is then related to the number by implication of where that number corresponds in the universe by symbol. If you are talking about the circumference and diameter of the sun, you can then find key names from antiquity that correspond by that number. Those numbers then correspond to the story that is told by the archetype of the name. Our entire history is built on this hierarchy in relation to mankind. Evolution cannot explain. Men have noticed. Consult The Cannon by William Sterling. I am not a Freemason, but what is seen by observation shows us that the ancients in antiquity knew more than we know today about the significance of man's measure upon the total design of the universe.

Again, Evolution is a word that describes an aspect of Creation. It is not the cause. You can try to wiggle out of Science claiming that evolution is God, but you will fail. They have stamped their faith squarely on evolution representing the origin of a complex universe filled with meaning and purpose. They would have us believe that matter originates man and there is no God. They would be wrong. Our observation of the things around us screams design and a Creator with infinite potential, wisdom and knowledge beyond our reasoning of it.

edit on 31-3-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 

How does the monophyletic origin of mitochondria, as supported by genomic data, fit into your creator argument that as far as I can tell is not supported by any objective observations? It created everything living, and then it made it seem as if inside all eukaryotic cells there are highly derived marine alphaproteobacteria (that we call mitochondria) that were first acquired by the common ancestor of all extant eukarya. Why? It's of course the same story with the hosts themselves. Everything points to common ancestry. Why would a creator go through so much trouble just to make it seem as if there was no creator? In this context, how does it even make any sense to argue for a creator?

Further still, how does your creator argument counter my argument of Anti-Creator that cancels out every single action of the creator, including its very existence?

I don't mind people saying that God is in the laws of nature or something like that (even Einstein said something to this spirit). However, dismissal of the modern synthesis is refusal to accept reality, i.e. you're closing your eyes, ears and mind and going "lalala it's not true" although everything objective points to it being true and nothing to the contrary..
edit on 31-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by vasaga
 


First of all, I'm not sure why you quote stuff about materialism when we're talking about the scientific theory of evolution


Secondly, your stance doesn't really matter because you are STILL ignoring objective evidence and facts supporting the theory of evolution...all the while you pretend it's a total tossup between creationism (which has zero objective evidence behind it) and evolution which we are ACTIVELY APPLYING in modern medicine.

You are doing the same as a guy looking at a car saying "this car might run gas or pixie dust, we can't know"...but we DO know because objective evidence tells us how a car works, just like it tells us that evolution works
That is the only argument you every use, even when evidence against you is used. Then you just say "that's not evidence" and you just ignore it. And at the same time, even when people say they are not religious, and even argue against religions, you still keep using the religious position against them for some reason. But of course, when I pick materialism, then suddenly it's not warranted and I'm not discussing the subject. Mr hypocrite.. But.. Whatever. Believe what you want to. Keep sheeping out.
edit on 31-3-2012 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





So you think the Iliad should be taught as a literal account of history as it happened? Or that Egyptian creation stories should be taken as scientific fact?


No.

But I studied these topics extensively in school.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 





Evolution is a result.


No, it's a process...a process that explains biodiversity as we see it today. A process fully backed up by objective evidence.




It's called the origins of man because it states that ALL life came through the process of simplest life to complex. This simply is not an implication that can be made.


Of course you can if all the objective evidence supports it...just like we can fly planes based on thermodynamics.




The theory points to other conclusions specifically, with design being the primary conclusion we can imply from the observation. The theory you speak of is simply a drawn implication that is much weaker than seeing the design. We then notice that there are clues left for us that point the direction of a Designer.


What clues or evidence are you talking about? There's zero objective evidence suggesting there's a designer





The mathematics and geometry of man is woven into the names of archetypal forms we observe in nature and in human nature. This is not possible apart from design.


Except, the mathematical example you listed is complete and utter nonsense because a generation isn't even 72 years. Your math doesn't add up





If you are talking about the circumference and diameter of the sun, you can then find key names from antiquity that correspond by that number.


I'm gonna tell you a little secret: You can find ALL numbers and combinations of them all over the place. You're essentially doing something similar to saying "my kid turned 7, and there were 7 dwarfs, if you add up 7 and 7, you get 14....and in 7 years my sun will be 14, what a coincidence". It's hogwash, random combinations of numbers. And even if there were a pattern, how one earth is that proof for a designer? Patters happen in nature all the time, and that isn't automatically proof of a designer.

But like I said, your math example falls short form the start because you didn't even get the generation figure correct...and you can't anyway, because it's changing over time





Evolution cannot explain.


Except...it is. That's why it's classified as a scientific theory, because it is explained, tested, actively applied, and fully backed up by objective evidence. I'm sorry if facts disagree with your religious beliefs, but it's kinda ignorant to shut your eyes to reality just to preserve some fantasy world. You have the right to do it, but you look silly attacking evolution given your demonstrably weak understanding of it.




Again, Evolution is a word that describes an aspect of Creation. It is not the cause.


Evolution is a process that describes how biodiversity came to be, nothing more. It kicks in after life started...and they're still trying to figure out how that happened. You believe it was a god, some other people believe it was a different god, but it could just as well be a natural process like evolution. Fact is, we simply don't know...and you saying it was god is a prime example of god of the gaps. You are filling a gap in knowledge with magic (aka god).




You can try to wiggle out of Science claiming that evolution is God, but you will fail.


Why should scientists ever call evolution god? What about gravity? Why on earth would they do that?




They would have us believe that matter originates man and there is no God.


Science says there's no objective evidence for the existence of a god, or gods...and that's the truth.




Our observation of the things around us screams design and a Creator with infinite potential, wisdom and knowledge beyond our reasoning of it.


Only if you watch the world through rose tinted glasses





posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by vasaga
 


First of all, I'm not sure why you quote stuff about materialism when we're talking about the scientific theory of evolution


Secondly, your stance doesn't really matter because you are STILL ignoring objective evidence and facts supporting the theory of evolution...all the while you pretend it's a total tossup between creationism (which has zero objective evidence behind it) and evolution which we are ACTIVELY APPLYING in modern medicine.

You are doing the same as a guy looking at a car saying "this car might run gas or pixie dust, we can't know"...but we DO know because objective evidence tells us how a car works, just like it tells us that evolution works
That is the only argument you every use, even when evidence against you is used. Then you just say "that's not evidence" and you just ignore it. And at the same time, even when people say they are not religious, and even argue against religions, you still keep using the religious position against them for some reason. But of course, when I pick materialism, then suddenly it's not warranted and I'm not discussing the subject. Mr hypocrite.. But.. Whatever. Believe what you want to. Keep sheeping out.
edit on 31-3-2012 by vasaga because: (no reason given)


You talk about materialism in a thread about EVOLUTION


Do you realize why that's off topic and not an argument?



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 


No.

But I studied these topics extensively in school.

Argument from authority, using yourself as the authority. There are plenty of non-Christians who have made serious academic studies of the Bible their career and would still view it with the same validity as the Iliad or the Book of the Dead.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join