Forums - Topic Index

Skip Navigation
You are viewing this website with either CSS support turned off, or are not using a CSS compliant browser. This will significantly reduce your Colonies.com experience.

Snowboard.com Forums

Home »

General Section »

Politiks »

Let's be clear: In the 21st Century, Nonreligion is superior to relgion

Search only in this forum

Let's be clear: In the 21st Century, Nonreligion is superior to relgion

Recieve Email Updates.
Verify your email to receive email notifications.

101-125 of 156 posts
Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 ... 7 Next

paolosmythe "Unemployed sulker" Posts : 7120 ONLINE	Posted on Jul 17, 2009 Posted by tooscoops sorry i don't really add much to the debate either from the scientific OR the religious side... i'm just your normal average, every day guy. scoopy - your post kinda echoed my own conclusion up to this point. i find it contradictory, that people might accept things such as genetic inheritance, and yet fail to appreciate how this facilitates and thus proves evolutionary theory and promotes it to fact. it all seems to hinge upon the human construct of nomenclature and what defines a distinct speices from one another. from being a marine bilogist, i am left to marvel at the slightest difference between one fish and another, which makes them different species. but such differences are far more slight than say, those differences between different dog breeds, or humans of differing heritage and yet..... ultimately, this is all bullshit baffling brains. Lakia i suspect is using physical laws which are ultimately only applicable within the environment they are tested (ie on this planet and this planet alone) and then extrapolates them to involve everything in the universe (even tho they never can be tested there) to illustrate the limitation and thus presumption of even the most complex scientific reasoning. however when we consider things such as biological thoery, it is with regard to ONLY those organisms here on this earth and thus we have all and everything we would ever need. meanwhile god fearers, cite the existence of a creator as being an explanation for those question that not even science can answer, without it seems, comprehending the fact that rather than answer said questions, it merely raises even more: so god made the universe...? so who made god?
	STICK OPPOSITION MOVEMENT If you want to act 'serious', then become a skier!

lakia "PC Partyman" Posts : 3989 ONLINE	Posted on Jul 17, 2009 Paolo: Crick and Watson arrived and discovered this thing called DNA and hey presto! Suddenly evolutionary processes had a means…. A smoking gun! And thus theory no more. Show me where evolution is taking place. I know im going to get the "it takes hundreds of millions of years" story. I want to see it. Just like you want proof of seeing God to know that a god does exsist! As i said, i do not believe that adaptation equates to evolution. You take a human and put him in a cold environment and over time his tolerance for cold will build, his body adapts to his environment. Same if you were to put him into a warm sunny climate. His skin becomes more resiliant and his body adjusts itself to its environment. If you wanted proof of god i could simply say take a look around. But certainly a sophist such as yourself wouldnt see anything worth while in such a statement. If evolution is just wishy washy ‘faith’….. then how is it that we see selective breeding and gene therapies being wholesale in this day and age? Wait.....so because men are controlling breeding and such things means this is proof of evolution? I hardly think so. It just means we are taking control of nature. Doesnt give proof of evolution. The simplicity of the question attempts to undermine the scale of what you are referring to. This energy you speak of, was enough to form and propel all that we know exists thru the heavens and then in addition all that we do not know exists (yet). That is a quite a lot! My answer to you tho, is admittedly theoretical: a singularity. You need a factual, steadfastly certain answer? Well I do not have one. But does this compel me to suggest it all falls to some bearded dude in a robes….? I cant wait till you read what i say. and here im going to put it in big colorful letters for you my friend: I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. AND NO WHERE DID I SAY THAT I THINK A DUDE IN ROBES IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR BEING HERE. Where did the singularity come from paolo? The singularity in nothingness that spawned an entire universe? Nutrients from the soup (Heinz I think it was) provide energy….. just as the decaying bodies of organisms reintroduce said energy back into the soup. In addition to this, there is the ‘free energy’ provided by the sun. I always thought the process of cellular division used energy but did not expell energy into its surroundings. And it must have been some pretty serious heinz soup in order for it to be able to also harness some rendition of photosynthesis. The process of evolution takes many many generations. Freak mutations arise from the combinations of genetic information. By fluke, some of these mutations actually proffer benefit to their host. This benefit, in the form of ‘fitness’ means that they can fuck more, to ensure that this and other pieces of DNA pass on to subsequent generations. Thats my point. Sounds like you have some serious faith in these giant leaps these species could accomplish in such a harsh world with a harsh climate with no intelligence and then also have the know how before the first generation of a species was created to make both male and female so they could procreate. Seems like alot of freak occurances to me and alot of chance in this scientific "fact" that youre saying is truth.
	You know youre getting old when your ol lady says "honey lets run up stairs and make love" and you say "sorry i cant do both!" For True Since 1984

paolosmythe "Unemployed sulker" Posts : 7120 ONLINE	Posted on Jul 17, 2009 Posted by lakia Show me where evolution is taking place. I know im going to get the "it takes hundreds of millions of years" story. I want to see it. it happens constantly; daily. the manifestation of it however does indeed require a timescale that you find too long. there is nothing i can do about this. As i said, i do not believe that adaptation equates to evolution. well then that is very much central in your lack of comprehension. and so i am inclined to simply ask, why not? You take a human and put him in a cold environment and over time his tolerance for cold will build, his body adapts to his environment. Same if you were to put him into a warm sunny climate. His skin becomes more resiliant and his body adjusts itself to its environment. okay and so then what about the off spring of this permafrosted / tropical human? if this human gave rise to two offspring, there is a 50% chance of genetic divergence. thru fluke, part of this divergence might make the offspring more tolerant of the climate in which they live. what if one of these offspring were able to produce more young than their brother / sister, so as to contribute a greater proportion of subsequent generations? you would see child A (for eg) have more kids then child B.... there would therefore be more A genes than B genes. this is simply due to the adaptation afforded by genetic inheritence. more A genes equate to a greater probability that one day A genes will exist when B genes no longer do. the distinction between these two genetic types, is admittedly an oversimplification, of adaptive radiation facilitating natural selection, and thus evolution. by your example. If you wanted proof of god i could simply say take a look around. But certainly a sophist such as yourself wouldnt see anything worth while in such a statement. but where is the evidence that a god was responsible for any of this? Wait.....so because men are controlling breeding and such things means this is proof of evolution? I hardly think so. It just means we are taking control of nature. Doesnt give proof of evolution. we exert pressure upon a genetic type by deciding we do not like it. we apply fitness to a genetic type by deciding that we do like it. we are 'selective'. such pressures and fitnesses are applied by natural variables, such as tolerance to an environment, ability to find food, maintain health, mate prolifically..... all of which makes for genetic winners and losers thru subsequent generations. the comparison to human determined breeding and natural selection remains sound. I cant wait till you read what i say. and here im going to put it in big colorful letters for you my friend: I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. AND NO WHERE DID I SAY THAT I THINK A DUDE IN ROBES IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR BEING HERE. i repsonded to you in the manner which you first raised Where did the singularity come from paolo? The singularity in nothingness that spawned an entire universe? you say in nothingness as if this were claimed to be true. an inability to suggest a something, doesn't automatically equate to a nothing. clearly we both agree that something cannot come from nothing. the claim of a singularity is based upon the fact that all celestial bodies are moving on a trajectory which illustrates a SINGLE point of origin. what came before this, i do not know. obviously there was something, but my ignorance of what that is, does nothing to negate my POV regarding what most certainly came afterwards. Thats my point. Sounds like you have some serious faith in these giant leaps these species could accomplish in such a harsh world with a harsh climate with no intelligence and then also have the know how before the first generation of a species was created to make both male and female so they could procreate. Seems like alot of freak occurances to me and alot of chance in this scientific "fact" that youre saying is truth. here we stray close to denouncing evolutionary theory, by suggesting the lunancy of claiming that you could bomb a pile of bricks to make a house. nothing ever set out to become a freak, a mutant, a 'male' or a 'female'. all that had to occur, was that some kind of change, no matter how big or how small, enabled an individual to benefit over its competitors for food, shelter, mates. when considering the variablility of genetic mixing during the massive time scales being considered, it is not at all an unlikely proposition. if however you are uncomfortable with this entire process being down to chance, then you are never going to feel content. there is no long term plan. no over sight. no objective. no intelligent design. nothing. just organisms eating, fighting and fucking.
	STICK OPPOSITION MOVEMENT If you want to act 'serious', then become a skier!

lakia "PC Partyman" Posts : 3989 ONLINE	Posted on Jul 17, 2009 Paolo: condescending kiddo's aside, your highlighting the use of long words merely suggests a jock has decided to bully a nerd. well good for you tough guy. maybe you should have thought before entering this debate. get back to the track and / or field. Youre certainly one to point fingers about being condescending. Never was in track and field. I did play football and soccer, i mountain bike, snowboard and hike. I also play music as part of my living. Maybe you need to go back, and re-read my posts so you can see where i am coming from. I think any person who preaches something to be a fact about our creation is quite off the mark. To say you know where we come from and how we are made is, quite frankly, arrogant and ridiculous. No one knows. Thats my point. Maybe if you werent so set in this mind set of being an intellectual superior to eveyone on this board and would read the points of view for what they are, rather than puting words in peoples mouths you would be able to see where i am coming from and im not sticking up for either side. Im saying why the hell do you care what someone believes since you are an enlightened individual and believe in tolerance and acceptance of other people. Yet you spend and inordinant amount of time putting them down. And he is a kid. So the fuck what. Jesus (whoops sorry...SCIENCE). Uh oh....called him kid! Just as i was when i joined this site and i actually flamed, brutally. Get a pair. point is, evolutionary biologists are not ignorant of the fundamental physical laws and the fact that their field of study persists, illustrates how both evolution and your sanctified laws of physics not only can co-exist, but compliment. Ok paolo...so tell me. I do not think evolutionary biologists are ignorant. So tell me, all knowing paolosmythe, how can evolution and even the basic laws of physics exsist together yet completel contradict each other? it is ironic that you attack pro-evo / anti-god arguements for having a lack of open mindedness.... whilst you spend time and time again telling us about the 'real universe' without once seeming to comprehend the very real possibility that we are but one of a multiverse, where any number of diverse laws can be applied and indeed, evolution within it. Haha are we talking about G particles now when atoms split (whoops sorry...we shouldnt talk about quantum mechanics here)? Im not telling you anything, other than to show open mindedness. I am open minded. Which is why i dont spend my time chastising and ridiculing christians and talking about how backwards they are. Yet you talk about tolerance and this is what YOU do.....................absolute hypocracy and completely contradictory to what you call your beliefs. What are you paolo? The kid who was picked on all the time? So now in your old age you feel the need to put everyone else down to feel superior? Are you that guy? Why dont you go become a cop. Thats most people do who had the problem growing up. but such is the thought processes of progressive science, as opposed to being for those inclined to think of one universe, made by one god for the sole purpose of a single animal called human kind. go back and in these 5 pages read what i have posted, and tell me where i said we were made by one god in one universe to look after us little humans. Then your arguement might hold some water. [quoteis it that you won't or cannot pay attention? I do....show me evolution in 9th grade science class. I want to fucking see it. I dont want see mitosis taking place. I want to see evolution. Not cellular division under a microscope. I want to see a cell turn into a freakin fish, then into a air breathing creature, then into a human, and go through the stages until right now. He did not see any of that happen in his 9th grade biology class. He saw mitosis....ooo.......... meanwhile, the existence of a creator is anything but a theory? after all, no wars or acts of descrimination have ever come from proponents of evolution have they? Where did i say that it wasnt? Where did i say that i believe it was a fact? Where did i say i believed in a creator? As a matter of fact what you are talking about as far as wars and acts of descrimination is one of the reasons i disdain religion. But please.....go back and quote me where i said i believe in a creator. Please, i'll wait. Lakia i suspect is using physical laws which are ultimately only applicable within the environment they are tested (ie on this planet and this planet alone) and then extrapolates them to involve everything in the universe (even tho they never can be tested there) to illustrate the limitation and thus presumption of even the most complex scientific reasoning Ugh..........thermodynamic laws are applicable in the universe. Such as....oh i dont know....the sun? Thats not our planet though. Kinetic physics you watch in action every day, on this planet, and in space. It is the universal binding law. Or can your scientific, enlightened mind not grasp such a concept? [Edited by lakia on 7/17/2009 at 1:26 PM]
	You know youre getting old when your ol lady says "honey lets run up stairs and make love" and you say "sorry i cant do both!" For True Since 1984

lakia "PC Partyman" Posts : 3989 ONLINE	Posted on Jul 17, 2009 Posted by paolosmythe Posted by tooscoops sorry i don't really add much to the debate either from the scientific OR the religious side... i'm just your normal average, every day guy. scoopy - your post kinda echoed my own conclusion up to this point. i find it contradictory, that people might accept things such as genetic inheritance, and yet fail to appreciate how this facilitates and thus proves evolutionary theory and promotes it to fact. it all seems to hinge upon the human construct of nomenclature and what defines a distinct speices from one another. from being a marine bilogist, i am left to marvel at the slightest difference between one fish and another, which makes them different species. but such differences are far more slight than say, those differences between different dog breeds, or humans of differing heritage and yet..... ultimately, this is all bullshit baffling brains. Lakia i suspect is using physical laws which are ultimately only applicable within the environment they are tested (ie on this planet and this planet alone) and then extrapolates them to involve everything in the universe (even tho they never can be tested there) to illustrate the limitation and thus presumption of even the most complex scientific reasoning. however when we consider things such as biological thoery, it is with regard to ONLY those organisms here on this earth and thus we have all and everything we would ever need. meanwhile god fearers, cite the existence of a creator as being an explanation for those question that not even science can answer, without it seems, comprehending the fact that rather than answer said questions, it merely raises even more: so god made the universe...? so who made god? janet reno made god.
	You know youre getting old when your ol lady says "honey lets run up stairs and make love" and you say "sorry i cant do both!" For True Since 1984

davesc2 Posts : 102 ONLINE	Posted on Jul 17, 2009 well, the 'beings' on this planet would have been just a loose array of amino acids that somehow organized into single-cell organisms that used asexual reproduction to multiply, no male/female coitus necessary. you simply make a copy of your dna, give a little starter ooze and kick your clone out the side door. that's the presumption at least and evolution is supposed to account for that giving rise to us after a billion years or so. just like the example of gravity...we can see the effects of gravity. you drop something, it falls....gravity. do we know the mechanism? sort of. things with density attract other things with density, we don't know why tho. there have been massive amounts of observations, and our findings have been reliable enough so that we can say that gravity is a law. gravity is a fact, too. it's there, everyone knows it's there, everyone can demonstrate the effects of gravity. gravity is also a theory because noone can tell you how it works, we can't define the mechanism although because the effect is an observable constant we can make predictions about gravity. can we say that evolution is a law? no, at least I don't think so. can we say evolution is a fact? I'm willing to throw my hat into that ring, but in reality no we can't. Noone has seen the process take place, we can't see the process take place we can only make educated assumptions based on things so old they've become fossilized. can we say that evolution is a theory? can we conduct observations spanning thousands if not millions of years, don't think so. Does evolution explain a lot things? yeah. but jethro the ghost explains why my aunt can never find her keys. but that's another story unto itself.
	Pain heals, chicks dig scars, glory lasts forever If someone asks you if you're a god, you say YES!!!

collisson Posts : 548 ONLINE	Posted on Jul 17, 2009 My goodness Lakia, all the trouble I go through to put up a "real argument" at your request, and I see not even one rebuttal dedicated to what I had to say. Rather rude, don't you think? Ahh well, upon further inspection I can see that you mentioned (hardly a rebuttal) my ninth grade biology class. I did NOT observe mitosis during that experiment (bacteria undergo what is known binary fission). However, what's important is that I observed a small scale (both in the sense of time and space) demonstration of evolution as the more efficient bacteria gradually grew in population and the less efficient bacteria gradually disappeared. The collective genetic material of the population of bacteria within the petri dish shifted over time as the result of natural selection. If you look it up, you'll find that the definition of evolution matches the results of my experiment. Of course, ninth grade biology class isn't the only place where evolution occurs. It happens everywhere, everyday. How do you think new diseases, such as the H1N1 strain of the flu, come into being? [Edited by collisson on 7/18/2009 at 3:57 AM]

tooscoops "Funny, but.. FIRED!" Posts : 5073 ONLINE	Posted on Jul 17, 2009 he and paolo have such a lovey dovey relationship, that he gets first response... heh... mr. smith finds a way to make his argument get first billing! i'm always impressed how he can awaken such tempers! lakia, i know you don't believe in god... and according to your debate, you don't believe in evolution (at least not until its proven)... its all well and good to not be rash and make hasty conclusions, but to not have a hypothesis is weak science. basically, since its not a guy in robes, or us dancing out of some campbells... what is your educated guess? thats what we're all arguing here... none of us are claiming to 100% know anything, but we are hypothesizing a conclusion based on what knowledge we do have... whether we prove to be right or wrong is not going to be figured out here.
	haikus are easy but sometimes they don't make sense refrigerator

lakia "PC Partyman" Posts : 3989 ONLINE	Posted on Jul 18, 2009 Posted by collisson My goodness Lakia, all the trouble I go through to put up a "real argument" at your request, and I see not even one rebuttal dedicated to what I had to say. Rather rude, don't you think? Ahh well, upon further inspection I can see that you mentioned (hardly a rebuttal) my ninth grade biology class. I did NOT observe mitosis during that experiment (bacteria undergo what is known binary fission). However, what's important is that I observed a small scale (both in the sense of time and space) demonstration of evolution as the more efficient bacteria gradually grew in population and the less efficient bacteria gradually disappeared. The collective genetic material of the population of bacteria within the petri dish shifted over time as the result of natural selection. If you look it up, you'll find that the definition of evolution matches the results of my experiment. Of course, ninth grade biology class isn't the only place where evolution occurs. It happens everywhere, everyday. How do you think new diseases, such as the H1N1 strain of the flu, come into being? [Edited by collisson on 7/18/2009 at 3:57 AM] I wasnt aware that survival of the fittest applied to evolution. Its simple nature. When a lion attacks its prey the more weak and slow get eaten. Is that evolution? When a baby is born with weak lungs and heart, and it dies, is that evolution? So you saw less efficient bacteria die while the stronger ones remained. How is that evolution? How is that cell evolving into something else when the more weak and less efficient cells simply die off? By your conclusion gestation is evolution. As you stated, thats simply natural selection. When we over fish or over hunt a species and its becomes extinct is that evolution? Natural selection is NOT evolution. Evolution is when a species evolves into something else that it never was in the first place! Such as seen in darwins theory of evolution. A strand of flu adapting due to the use of anti biotics and other such variables that we humans have created to combat a disease isnt evolution. Its adaptation. A species dying off is not evolution my young and fertile friend. [Edited by lakia on 7/18/2009 at 4:29 PM]
	You know youre getting old when your ol lady says "honey lets run up stairs and make love" and you say "sorry i cant do both!" For True Since 1984

lakia "PC Partyman" Posts : 3989 ONLINE	Posted on Jul 18, 2009 Posted by tooscoops he and paolo have such a lovey dovey relationship, that he gets first response... heh... mr. smith finds a way to make his argument get first billing! i'm always impressed how he can awaken such tempers! lakia, i know you don't believe in god... and according to your debate, you don't believe in evolution (at least not until its proven)... its all well and good to not be rash and make hasty conclusions, but to not have a hypothesis is weak science. basically, since its not a guy in robes, or us dancing out of some campbells... what is your educated guess? thats what we're all arguing here... none of us are claiming to 100% know anything, but we are hypothesizing a conclusion based on what knowledge we do have... whether we prove to be right or wrong is not going to be figured out here. I dont make educated guesses to be perfectly honest. Im content with admitting that i do not know. I believe that we as humans have an extremely limited and over all lilliputian understanding of the universe and where we come from. I believe we have a good hold on certain physical sciences that pertain to our planet. I feel to say that one belief is superior to the other, and to demonize (in the case of religion) and feel that the opposing views are weak minded and ignorant, quite frankly is just that. Its bigoted, intolerant, and dogmatic. What gets my blood boiling isnt who believes in what. Its when i see such things coming from people who claim to disdain such ways of thinking. Its when people who say that they are tolerant and believe can believe what they want, but do not live it. Words are weak. Actions speak louder than words. In every day life i cant stand people whose "beliefs" and words contradict their actions. This goes for both the religious and those who are sole believers in science. There is more to this than science. Over 4000 years of history and look at how long it took us to get to the point we are at. So what happened before we as a species had the knowledge to record our thoughts and the events of human life? Who knows how long we have really been here. So scoopy what im getting at is that im not bigger than myself, i do not know. Having that understanding and willingness to admit it, i do not feel i should preach one fact, look down on someone for thinking differently, or pretend to have all of the answers. No one does. Theories are nothing more than theories and shouldnt preached as fact. People can believe whatever they want, so long as they are not forcing me, or my family, to believe it, to push those beliefs on me. Both sides of this arguement have people who do just that. Its not just the religious, its also the secular. So who knows? Maybe evolution is real. Maybe the 7 days of creation are really billions of years of evolution. Maybe when we die there is a god. Maybe there is not. Maybe its all tied together and its one big laughing joke by a higher power. The beauty of death, is we get to find out.
	You know youre getting old when your ol lady says "honey lets run up stairs and make love" and you say "sorry i cant do both!" For True Since 1984

paolosmythe "Unemployed sulker" Posts : 7120 ONLINE	Posted on Jul 20, 2009 Posted by lakia I wasnt aware that survival of the fittest applied to evolution. Its simple nature. well there you go! we all hope to learn something new every day! however this metaphorical term is a little misleading, as 'survival' regards the opportunity to reproduce and 'fittest' or fitness, regards the capacity to produce offspring who are themselves, viable in the act procreation. being that this is intrinsic to the ongoing passage of genetic info from one generation to the next.... this is the fundamental 'building block' of evolution. When a lion attacks its prey the more weak and slow get eaten. Is that evolution? yes. this is why the preservation of apex predators is so vital. the weaker die younger, thus reproduce less, thus pass less DNA to the next generation, thus is less likely to survive and becomes extinct as a 'victim' of evolution. When a baby is born with weak lungs and heart, and it dies, is that evolution? whether a gazelle ailing to run fast enuff, a virus being intolerant of heat, cold or medication, or a baby with weak lungs and giblets..... this is all natural selection and thus evolution. When we over fish or over hunt a species and its becomes extinct is that evolution? of course! we are fitter thru our technologies and thus in prolonging our lives, than our food resources are in dealing with the pressure of us eating them! but foresight sees that this is ultimately a bad thing for us, because of its lack of sustainability. A strand of flu adapting due to the use of anti biotics and other such variables that we humans have created to combat a disease isnt evolution. Its adaptation. you couldn't be more wrong old chap! A species dying off is not evolution my young and fertile friend. again, you are completely incorrect. but if not evolution, i would be interested to hear how you would term it.
	STICK OPPOSITION MOVEMENT If you want to act 'serious', then become a skier!

tooscoops "Funny, but.. FIRED!" Posts : 5073 ONLINE	Posted on Jul 20, 2009 i don't know here lakia... there is not all that much that we know 100%... you HAVE to sometimes make decisions for yourself based only on whats available to you. saying you aren't willing to pick a side therefore thinking that puts you on higher ground than anyone else is doing exactally what you are chastising against... you can't be 100% sure either side of our argument are wrong, so how can you be pushing your (non)beliefs on us and claim we are the bigots? are you 100% based on FACT sure about gun control? are you 100% sure about the war in iraq? are you 100% sure elvis is dead? i'm sure you have strong opinions on at least some of that stuff... and i can tell you that its impossible to be 100% correct on it. why suddenly the fear to have an opinion?
	haikus are easy but sometimes they don't make sense refrigerator

toddm "Represent!" Posts : 2781 ONLINE	Posted on Jul 20, 2009 Wow. This thread picked up and went into a new direction. Surprise, surprise. Just a few comments from gleaning over the rather lengthy posts. First, I think a definition of terms needs to be established. Evolution is a slippery word w/ multiple applications and I think this needs to be treated for clearer communication. Microevolution is what many of your "fruit fly" experiments demonstrate. This where we take several generations of breeding different breeds of dogs to produce a new breed. That is fact. We can observe this happening all the time within a species. Macroevolution, however, has not been observed nor proven. This is where one specie evolves into another (ie, reptile to bird). There is no fossil evidence for this nor has it been observed. To state this as fact is just silly and as Lakia pointed out is a "faith-based" theory. Secondly, this refers mostly to scoops' post on the last page about how Christians have to believe in a literal 6-day creation and that the earth is not older than 10,000 yrs or so. This is simply not true. There are plenty of conservative Christians who hold to an "old earth" view - I personally subscribe to the evidence that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion yrs old while maintaining the viability of the Genesis account. Thirdly, I find the arguments for no evidence of intelligent design somewhat puzzling. What if an archaeologist unearths an ancient bronze sword w/ intrinsic detail in the blade and handle, and then tosses it aside assuming that it just appeared over time? Wouldn't his first thought be "who made this?" Are we just supposed to take even greater complexities that we see in nature and assume there was no designer at all? Do we apply this same kind of logic to anything else??
	Would you like to buy a vowel? Nope. I'm heading over to colonies.com!

collisson Posts : 548 ONLINE	Posted on Jul 21, 2009 I would argue that the difference between micro and macro-evolution is a trivial one. While it is true (to my knowledge) that we have never observed the evolution of one species into another, it is also true that a difference of species is merely an arbitrary, human defined one. If evolution is possible on a small scale, why is it not on a larger one? Sure, it probably cannot be proven that evolution was the phenomenon by which life on Earth got to where it is today, but the theory of evolution provides the most reasonable explanation we have. Secondly, to your point about intelligent design, I would still say that there is no evidence that a supreme being created our universe. I don't really get your sword analogy because a sword is obviously something that has been created by a human, while our universe isn't something that has obviously been created by a supreme being. Also, I don't think, generally speaking, that the people who don't believe in intelligent design naturally assume there was no designer at all. They, myself included, simply see no evidence of intelligent design and therefore choose not to believe in such an idea. If you do, however, have evidence of intelligent design, please share it.

paolosmythe "Unemployed sulker" Posts : 7120 ONLINE	Posted on Jul 21, 2009 Posted by toddm First, I think a definition of terms needs to be established. Evolution is a slippery word w/ multiple applications and I think this needs to be treated for clearer communication. 'evolution' is a process whose definition is very clear. your inuendo that it has been deliberately ambiguous (ie slippery) is symptomatic not of what it genuinely means, but how its meaning (along with that of battle of the fittest and naturual selection) have been corrupted by biased interpretation. Microevolution is what many of your "fruit fly" experiments demonstrate. this is merely an illustration of genetic inhertence, creating phenotypic variation. this variation can be either a positive or a negative within the context of the environment in which it occurs. i do not see it to be a troublesome concept, to say that positive variations will benefit more and thus become emphasised over the negative traits. with this variation becoming dominant within a species, you would therefore SEE the evolution of s distinct species over its ancestor which started the mutation in the first place. Macroevolution, however, has not been observed nor proven. There is no fossil evidence for this nor has it been observed. To state this as fact is just silly Two main points come to mind. The first, is that evolution affects far more than any skeletal tissues deposited as fossils. That is like presuming that a snail shell is a mere trinket and not the once home of a gastropod, as no sign of the snail exists. Are you trying to suggest that snail shells simply appear out of thin air? And in any event, the fossil record does indeed prove without doubt that evolutionary connections exist. Such connections allow us to recognise the connection between us and 'cavemen' and indeed, show the connection between hippopotomi and whales! I personally subscribe to the evidence that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion yrs old while maintaining the viability of the Genesis account. and here is the perfect example of religious text being cherry picked to suit a preferred personal opinion. and yet you would maintain that such selectivity never existed to create this seminal work of fiction in the first place? surely, the choices you make when deciding which biblical sections to believe or dismiss, are methaphors for evolution where the 'fitter' sections live on in your mind and attitudes, and the runts merely fall by the way side? Thirdly, I find the arguments for no evidence of intelligent design somewhat puzzling. What if an archaeologist unearths an ancient bronze sword w/ intrinsic detail in the blade and handle, and then tosses it aside assuming that it just appeared over time? Wouldn't his first thought be "who made this?" Are we just supposed to take even greater complexities that we see in nature and assume there was no designer at all? Do we apply this same kind of logic to anything else?? we would conclude that an intricate sword was made by a skilled individual. we have evidence that such individuals once lived and indeed, made such swords. we could conclude that the world of wonder in which we lived was made my a skilled creator or god. but we have no such evidence of such a god and merely assume (for want of a more comforting explanation) that it made anything. meanwhile, we see in high school biology classes, how DNA can recombine to change the bodies of organisms virtually in no time at all..... and we acknowledge that the planet is over 4.5 billion years old. these last two elements of life are true and yet you cannot see how when combined, they resulted in the rich diversity of what this planet has to offer us today?
	STICK OPPOSITION MOVEMENT If you want to act 'serious', then become a skier!

toddm "Represent!" Posts : 2781 ONLINE	Posted on Jul 21, 2009 Posted by collisson I would argue that the difference between micro and macro-evolution is a trivial one. While it is true (to my knowledge) that we have never observed the evolution of one species into another, it is also true that a difference of species is merely an arbitrary, human defined one. If evolution is possible on a small scale, why is it not on a larger one? Sure, it probably cannot be proven that evolution was the phenomenon by which life on Earth got to where it is today, but the theory of evolution provides the most reasonable explanation we have. I would say it's a bit more than a "trivial" difference. One is observed, one is not. One has proof, the other has no evidence. Secondly, to your point about intelligent design, I would still say that there is no evidence that a supreme being created our universe. I don't really get your sword analogy because a sword is obviously something that has been created by a human, while our universe isn't something that has obviously been created by a supreme being. Also, I don't think, generally speaking, that the people who don't believe in intelligent design naturally assume there was no designer at all. They, myself included, simply see no evidence of intelligent design and therefore choose not to believe in such an idea. If you do, however, have evidence of intelligent design, please share it. Let's take your logic that suggests "evolution provides the most reasonable explanation" and apply that to everything else. Is a sword obviously something that was created by a human?? How do you know? How do you know that mineral ores under the right pressure and heat, over time didn't produce this sword? My point is when we see design, we assume that there was a designer. Do we see design in the world? Does information require design? If we just had a bunch of letters on a paper, would that convey information? No, they would need to have an order and design. DNA conveys immense amounts of information - that's design. If DNA displays far greater design than a sword found in a desert, then why would assume that with the greater design did not have a designer but that of lesser design did? To me, the logic doesn't make sense. So, my evidence for intelligent design is the fact that I see design that is far more complex than what a human being can design and I have never seen design come out of randomness or chaos.
	Would you like to buy a vowel? Nope. I'm heading over to colonies.com!

toddm "Represent!" Posts : 2781 ONLINE	Posted on Jul 21, 2009 Posted by paolosmythe and here is the perfect example of religious text being cherry picked to suit a preferred personal opinion. and yet you would maintain that such selectivity never existed to create this seminal work of fiction in the first place? surely, the choices you make when deciding which biblical sections to believe or dismiss, are methaphors for evolution where the 'fitter' sections live on in your mind and attitudes, and the runts merely fall by the way side? Assumptions never get you far and you have successfully managed to put words in my mouth which I did not say. There is no cherry picking going on here. No where did I say that I choose not to believe Genesis 1, but other parts of the Bible are true. The word that is translated as "day" in Genesis 1 has a multitude of meaning in the Hebrew language. It can mean 24 hours, but it can also mean an age - we use day this way in the English too, such as: "what day are you going to the park?" or "back in the day when we were kids". The Hebrew word "yom" is translated as day and many have assumed that it must mean a 24-hr period. So, I have not cherry picked anything, but rather looked at the text for what it is and the message it attempts to convey. The Bible is not a science book and contrary to what many Christians have tried to do with it, it does not explain the process by which things came or time frames in which they occurred.
	Would you like to buy a vowel? Nope. I'm heading over to colonies.com!

paolosmythe "Unemployed sulker" Posts : 7120 ONLINE	Posted on Jul 21, 2009 Posted by toddm I would say it's a bit more than a "trivial" difference. One is observed, one is not. One has proof, the other has no evidence. both are identical in all respects, other than the time frame involved. here you seem to display a lack of patience, or what less generous people might suggest to be, a demand for instant gratification; whereas science offers no guarnatee in enlightenment, even after a lifetime of study, religion offers instant answers with a mere opening of one single book.... Is a sword obviously something that was created by a human?? precedence found thru proven fact. How do you know that mineral ores under the right pressure and heat, over time didn't produce this sword? because such has never been seen to occur and nor has any mechanism been discovered to make such a scenario plausible. meanwhile genetic recombination which produces adaptive radiation has been studied and continues with every birth of every organism (other than those asexual types). My point is when we see design, we assume that there was a designer. but when you invoke the concept of 'design' you indulge in the assumption that the end product was initially planned. the imagination to create lies within a creator. with no creator, there is no imagination to create, there is no creation. you are trying to make the ends prove the means. this is the fallacy of the entire nonsense that is 'intelligent design'. Do we see design in the world? in the natural world? no. we see the products of billions of years of trial and error, as organisms reproduce slight differences in their offspring, which allow them to either go extinct or pass their DNA to the next generation DNA conveys immense amounts of information - that's design. why is it? all that DNA is, which placed it above all other proteins swimming around in the primordial soup, was the ability to recognise its own kind and to self replicate due to it. If DNA displays far greater design than a sword found in a desert, then why would assume that with the greater design did not have a designer but that of lesser design did? To me, the logic doesn't make sense. it doesn't make sense for the reason of 'apples and oranges'. swords are made by those who wish to make a sword and know how to. this world evolves due to mutations making the best / dooming to failure, due to their environment. So, my evidence for intelligent design is the fact that I see design that is far more complex than what a human being can design and I have never seen design come out of randomness or chaos. and so you find yourself content with the explanation you have for how this complex world came to be. but to use your logic, the complexity of this world couldn't exceed the complexity of that which designed the creator of this planet. and so if god created this world who created god? surely an even more mighty creator? and so and so on until the penny drops that this answer is not an answer at all, but a wishful effort at bullshit baffles brains.
	STICK OPPOSITION MOVEMENT If you want to act 'serious', then become a skier!

paolosmythe "Unemployed sulker" Posts : 7120 ONLINE	Posted on Jul 21, 2009 Posted by toddm The word that is translated as "day" in Genesis 1 has a multitude of meaning in the Hebrew language. and so here is ambiguity in your preferred resource of knowledge.... So, I have not cherry picked anything, but rather looked at the text for what it is and the message it attempts to convey. and your justification for how you have chosen to interpret it. 'attempts to convey' can equally mean 'choose to understand'. The Bible is not a science book and contrary to what many Christians have tried to do with it, it does not explain the process by which things came or time frames in which they occurred. with the ever growing wealth of scientific opposition, based upon trialed and studied nuggets of fact, such revisionism as this, will only ever grow more numerous. don't be such an apologist. you will only undermine the arguement of those on 'your side of the fence'! afterall, it would not have been too long ago Mr Todd, that you would be murdered as a blasphemer as readily as I or the vilified Prof Dawkins would be!
	STICK OPPOSITION MOVEMENT If you want to act 'serious', then become a skier!

tooscoops "Funny, but.. FIRED!" Posts : 5073 ONLINE	Posted on Jul 21, 2009 i have to wonder todd... the 'day' could be years stuff... sure... i'll say ok to that even though i'm not with ya 100%. but i do have to ask, do you imagine when god made the beasts and all that creepeth upon the earth, did it just, poof happen, or was there some kind of timeline? so all this stuff that could have taken place over an 'age', not a 'day'... was it all poof type stuff or what? just asking... i am seriously curious as to your answer. i've always wondered that... also, why is there a limit on how long an 'experiment' can go on? i mean, if i said i needed to find a conclusion to whether humans pro-create and decided i only had a week to figure it out, nope... humans can't bear children. its the only conclusion possible unless you either a)look at it over a longer period of time, or b)look at what has happened in that week(fertilization, the growth of the egg and its contents) and make a conclusion based on what *could* or *should* happen.
	haikus are easy but sometimes they don't make sense refrigerator

lakia "PC Partyman" Posts : 3989 ONLINE	Posted on Jul 21, 2009 Posted by tooscoops i don't know here lakia... there is not all that much that we know 100%... you HAVE to sometimes make decisions for yourself based only on whats available to you. saying you aren't willing to pick a side therefore thinking that puts you on higher ground than anyone else is doing exactally what you are chastising against... you can't be 100% sure either side of our argument are wrong, so how can you be pushing your (non)beliefs on us and claim we are the bigots? are you 100% based on FACT sure about gun control? are you 100% sure about the war in iraq? are you 100% sure elvis is dead? i'm sure you have strong opinions on at least some of that stuff... and i can tell you that its impossible to be 100% correct on it. why suddenly the fear to have an opinion? I am not claiming you to be a bigot, and not necessarily anyone on this board. I look at things from many different ways, and when i hear people say one thing and do another it bugs the shit out of me. And thats not just on this subject, its in every day life my friend. I do have strong opinions about alot of things, thats no secret : ) On this particular subject for me its hard. Ive said this before, i think that we, and the universe, are too beautiful to be some massive cosmic happenstance. And the other part of me wants proof. Im not pushing my belief. Rather than tearing down the people who believe in a diety (im not accusing you of that scoops), im pointing out the holes in the theory by simply talking about science itself.
	You know youre getting old when your ol lady says "honey lets run up stairs and make love" and you say "sorry i cant do both!" For True Since 1984

davesc2 Posts : 102 ONLINE	Posted on Jul 22, 2009 Posted by tooscoops i have to wonder todd... the 'day' could be years stuff... sure... i'll say ok to that even though i'm not with ya 100%. but i do have to ask, do you imagine when god made the beasts and all that creepeth upon the earth, did it just, poof happen, or was there some kind of timeline? so all this stuff that could have taken place over an 'age', not a 'day'... was it all poof type stuff or what? just asking... i am seriously curious as to your answer. i've always wondered that... I've always wondered that too. the only scenario that makes any real sense to me would be god creates the universe out of whatever, for whatever reason he takes a special interest in earth, and gives the amino acid ooze a little spark to create the first single-cell lifeforms. for the most part he leaves earths lifeforms alone to do their thing, either he got tired of the dinosuars picking on his mammals or he just wasn't looking one day and BAM a cataclysmic impact takes out the majority of life and the mammals take advantage of the situation. another millenia or ten and we have the so-called 'missing link'...perhaps it was god just giving us a nudge. why do it this way when he could be so much more obvious about it? well, maybe we're not the only ones...maybe he has a whole universe of planets to tend to. Maybe he just likes getting a planet started and just checks in every so often and the results one such checking in on were jesus, mohammed, moses, so on and so forth. that's the only god-based scenario that makes any real sense to me. other than that we have to assume that this all 'just happened'
	Pain heals, chicks dig scars, glory lasts forever If someone asks you if you're a god, you say YES!!!

toddm "Represent!" Posts : 2781 ONLINE	Posted on Jul 22, 2009 Posted by tooscoops i have to wonder todd... the 'day' could be years stuff... sure... i'll say ok to that even though i'm not with ya 100%. but i do have to ask, do you imagine when god made the beasts and all that creepeth upon the earth, did it just, poof happen, or was there some kind of timeline? so all this stuff that could have taken place over an 'age', not a 'day'... was it all poof type stuff or what? just asking... i am seriously curious as to your answer. i've always wondered that... That's a great question, Mike. All I can say is "I don't know". Remember, the Bible is not a science book, so it doesn't seek to explain the process of how God works. When reading anything in the Bible it's always important to look at WHO the original audience was and HOW MUCH attention is given to a certain subject. The original audience are the Hebrew people who have just come out of Egypt (where they've been for the last 400 yrs). Egyptians worshiped all kinds of naturalistic gods like the sun, moon, etc. The thesis statement of Genesis 1 is found appropriately in verse 1 - "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". That was the point. The point was not to give a scientific explanation to the Hebrews, but rather to establish that the God of Israel was more powerful than the gods of Egypt (sun, moon, etc.) because the Hebrew God created all of it. Too many people get bogged down in the details of how God did it and that's not really the point the author of Genesis was trying to make. Secondly, Genesis is a rather large book making up about 50 chapters. Of those 50 chapters, only 11 are devoted to creation, the "Fall of Adam & Eve", and the Flood. The other 39 chapters are devoted to the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph). Like any book, the amount of time and space given to any subject should determine it's significance and importance. It is interesting though that the "order of creation" in Genesis 1 complies with the order of earth's formation according to scientists. also, why is there a limit on how long an 'experiment' can go on? i mean, if i said i needed to find a conclusion to whether humans pro-create and decided i only had a week to figure it out, nope... humans can't bear children. its the only conclusion possible unless you either a)look at it over a longer period of time, or b)look at what has happened in that week(fertilization, the growth of the egg and its contents) and make a conclusion based on what *could* or *should* happen. But doesn't this assume that everyone gets pregnant at the same time? Surely within a week's time, one would manage to see various women all at different stages in their pregnancy, and therefore one would be able to study 9 months of fetal development in only a week. This is where the fossil record is lacking. We're not looking at a "week's worth" of fossils and other observations of only one "pregnancy". The fact that we're looking at multiple "pregnancies" throughout several "weeks" should provide sufficient information from observing several different stages. BTW, Mike, I appreciate the courteous inquiries.
	Would you like to buy a vowel? Nope. I'm heading over to colonies.com!

paolosmythe "Unemployed sulker" Posts : 7120 ONLINE	Posted on Jul 23, 2009 Posted by toddm Remember, the Bible is not a science book, of course it isn't. scientific writings invite debate and challenge. religious text wish to impose belief and demand faith. it's always important to look at WHO the original audience was and HOW MUCH attention is given to a certain subject. are you making apologetics for why the text that was once deemed indisputable is now found to be fundamentally flawed? The point was not to give a scientific explanation to the Hebrews, but rather to establish that the God of Israel was more powerful than the gods of Egypt (sun, moon, etc.) because the Hebrew God created all of it. Too many people get bogged down in the details of how God did it and that's not really the point the author of Genesis was trying to make. its not so much 'bogged down in how' but more the simple and reasonable request for evidence. point is, the roman god was dismissed somehow and yet the same cannot be applied to the hebrew deity. and yet both are equally as implausible as the other. such is the influence of personal preference! It is interesting though that the "order of creation" in Genesis 1 complies with the order of earth's formation according to scientists. and here i was thinking that religion and science were exclusive entities. what i find interesting, is how scientists are derided whilst the wealth of effort to find religious evidence remains futile and seldom spoken of. the ability to cherry pick and skew an alleged 'holy text' to fit that, which is later found to be precise, is not evidence of being correct all the long. This is where the fossil record is lacking. wha?
	STICK OPPOSITION MOVEMENT If you want to act 'serious', then become a skier!

toddm "Represent!" Posts : 2781 ONLINE	Posted on Jul 23, 2009 Posted by paolosmythe are you making apologetics for why the text that was once deemed indisputable is now found to be fundamentally flawed? No, not all. What I'm saying is that the Bible, which is a piece of literature, should be read like other literature. If we were to read a poem, we would read it as a figurative piece. The Bible contains poetry and those pieces that are poetic should be read figuratively. Likewise, a novel that develops a main character devotes more time and space to that character than someone else who the author wishes to mention in passing but not develop them beyond a certain point. These are just basic literary rules, and for some reason everyone wants to abandon them when it comes to reading the Bible. This isn't making apologetics or excuses, but rather employing basic literary concepts.
	Would you like to buy a vowel? Nope. I'm heading over to colonies.com!

101-125 of 156 posts
Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 ... 7 Next

Username:

Password:

Logging In ...

Snowboard.com Forums

Let's be clear: In the 21st Century, Nonreligion is superior to relgion