[Stradlater]

Originally posted by adamk:
as far as evidence for "missing links", we may never find them, but without being able to link every dot, we can still see a progression, that is not outside the realm of possibility.

There you go, stupendousman...now please, tell us more convincingly than we've told you how this does not support evolution.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Your entire post is based upon the confusion of phenomenon of Evolution and the *mechanisms* by which it happens.

Allow a rather timely analogy: Up until the late 19th century, nobody understood *how* birds fly. We knew it happened, because we saw evidence of it everywhere. But we had no idea what mechanism it worked by.

Yet only complete fools would have claimed that birds didn't actually fly, because we didn't understand the details of *how* they do it.

To repeat what I wrote above: There are definitely exceptions in the fossil record where Darwin's mechanism of speciation by natural selection does not apply. However, evolution has *obviously* taken place (new species DID evolve), and others have come forth with alternate mechanisms that explain those situations.

To continue the analogy: We know how birds fly*). Dandelion seeds *also* fly. We can *see* them flying. But they don't use the same mechanism as birds.

You can do one of two things: stick your head in the sand and say it ain't so, and dandelions in fact fall straight to the ground - in the face of evidence to the contrary - or you can accept that they *do* fly, but that they must use a different sort of mechanism.

And before you attempt to change the definition of "fly" to "move through the air under own power using principles of airflow and pressure to achieve lift on wings", I can use that definition to prove, conclusively, that rockets DO NOT fly.


*) That is to say, we have THEORIES about air flow speeds and relative pressure, and the influence of wing shapes, and resulting lift, that serve as a model to explain the mechanism of winged flight. They *seem* to be accurate, because we've measured data to correlate theory, and because we've built machines according to theory that actually do work - the jumbo jet and the B-2 bomber being some of the later applications of theory.

-s*

Your analogy can't be applied to the fossil record. You can SEE both objects fly. That isn't up for debate. Whether or not certain fossils that contain similar attributes are the result of evolution, most certainly does not fall into the category of something that can be definitively proven. When I see both a dandelion and a bird "fly", I can definitively say that they are flying with 100% assuredness from observation, which is the method of determination in this situation. When I see two fossils which are similar, there simply isn't the same amount of evidence to make a similar comparison.

You can look at the evidence, and make claims based on what you BELIEVE might have occured, but in the end you are making a claim based on FAITH since you have no direct evidence to prove your theory.

If you can't prove it, you basing your claim on faith. Basic logic.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Honestly, how is it any more unlikely than a divine spirit creating the earth and man?

And let's retrace our steps back a little...there still hasn't been any rebuttals of the rebuttals against the 6000-year claims.

You've got a point. Evolution and Creationism both are pretty unbelievable and far fetched and unproven. You've convinced me.

ps. I"ve never claimed that the Earth is 6000 years old so I don't need to rebut it. Belief in such a claim isn't required of Christians anyways, if you are generally talking about others who believe in creationist. You don't have to believe in God to see that the belief in evolution requires a huge amount of faith.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Your analogy can't be applied to the fossil record. You can SEE both objects fly. That isn't up for debate. Whether or not certain fossils that contain similar attributes are the result of evolution, most certainly does not fall into the category of something that can be definitively proven. When I see both a dandelion and a bird "fly", I can definitively say that they are flying with 100% assuredness from observation, which is the method of determination in this situation. When I see two fossils which are similar, there simply isn't the same amount of evidence to make a similar comparison.

You can look at the evidence, and make claims based on what you BELIEVE might have occured, but in the end you are making a claim based on FAITH since you have no direct evidence to prove your theory.

If you can't prove it, you basing your claim on faith. Basic logic.

I am laughing so hard right now, because this chum is ridiculous. Honestly, what is "proof" to you? You want to see a gorilla give birth to a human? How do you show living proof right in front of you of evolution? Look, fossil evidence IS proof; before you mentioned that it didn't work because of missing links, well in some cases we fill in the gaps well enough that there basically are none!

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
ps. I"ve never claimed that the Earth is 6000 years old so I don't need to rebut it. Belief in such a claim isn't required of Christians anyways, if you are generally talking about others who believe in creationist. You don't have to believe in God to see that the belief in evolution requires a huge amount of faith.

the 6000-year claim was directed at those who claimed it earlier in the thread and obviously can't defend it. as for the faith equivalencies, i disagree. they are different kinds of faith.

Religious faith is BLIND faith.
Scientific faith is faith with concrete, rational EVIDENCE.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by stupendousman:


How can you have "no doubt" about something which you have no DIRECT evidence to support. "Missing models" is a nice euphemism for "lack of solid evidence". This is precisely what evolutionists complain about creationists. Doesn't sound very scientific to me. It was always my belief that a true scientist didn't accept things as "fact" unless it could be proven. In this case, you're forgoing the religious faith to explain something and instead relying on another faith based belief system. THAT isn't science. [/B]

In other words, birds can't fly. Nor can dandelions. Prove it to me. Empirically. Now. I *think* I saw one fly yesterday, but that just means that some bird was in the sky sometime yesterday. Right now, as far as EMPIRICAL PROOF is concerned, BIRDS CANNOT FLY. Because they aren't. It's dark out, and I see no flying birds. Sorry - no solid evidence. What do you mean, they flew yesterday? Can you prove that? Photographs maybe? Don't you have "direct, solid evidence"?

You still have no clue whatsoever what "scientific proof" actually means, or how it is used.

You didn't read - or at least didn't understand - what I wrote.

You also didn't read - or understand - what anybody else wrote.

Re: "Missing models"
There is PLENTY of evidence for evolution. For EVOLUTION. NOT NECESSARILY FOR NATURAL SELECTION. Those "missing models" I spoke of are NOT HOLES IN EVIDENCE OR LACK OF PROOF OF EVOLUTION.

A house that was pink three days ago is blue today. You don't know if the painter used a brush, a roller, or spraypaint. Obviously, the house cannot have been painted, since the mechanism by which it changed color is not clear to you.

You seriously claim that it didn't change color because you aren't at this moment sure how it would have.



As long as you're not even *trying* to understand, I can only assume that you really don't care (unless you're utterly stupid, which I won't assume).

I'm done wasting my time with someone who doesn't care.

-s*

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Have you been reading this thread thoroughly? There has been evolutionary evidence dispensed throughout.

I can also quote you evidence of "miracles". First hand observation even. Of course, I can't definitively prove those any more than someone can prove that a fish that is thought to have had lungs wasn't a single species that existed then simply became extict.

The difference between myself and those who claim either as fact is that I'm not going to discount either on their face. It's always possible that neither miracles, nor creation via evolution exists. Belief in both do rely on faith.

[adamk]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
A system with SOME evidential models that are missing but others in existence with logical reasoning seems more attractive than a system with NO evidence and the sole model being a book that can in no way be proven to be the word of God.

if science was in creations shoes, we would be able to show, that there was an arc (ie we got the wood, it's in the shape of a boat (some holes in it though), and we think some of these wooden boxes held animals because there are coprolites in them), we have evidence for a consistent global marker horizon that occured ~4000-5000 Ka with near-uniform thickness, which also contains a nice thick layer of bones of animals and all pre-existing humans (minus noah of course (though we can't prove that!)) and there are nice sets of dessication cracks that formed due to everything drying out after the flood along the top of this flood deposit.

oh yeah, we also found some of the original papers that the bible was written on floating in the oceans.

if creationists could demonstrate that, then maybe i would lend more credence to their ideas.

adam

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
I can also quote you evidence of "miracles". First hand observation even. Of course, I can't definitively prove those any more than someone can prove that a fish that is thought to have had lungs wasn't a single species that existed then simply became extict.

The difference between myself and those who claim either as fact is that I'm not going to discount either on their face. It's always possible that neither miracles, nor creation via evolution exists. Belief in both do rely on faith.

You show me a "miracle" and I'll show you a coincidence.

There are some things that are just ruled out, the earth couldn't possibly be 6,000 years old as we think of years to be. There's so much evidence against it, and no (good) evidence for it. And on the flip-side, there's so much evidence FOR evolution, and very little (good again, mind you) evidence against it. I'll discount things that have very little rational claim, but for something ambiguous like a higher presence, I'll play the agnostic card. However, I do not believe that there is a Christian God that looks like a man and created man and created the earth (6,000 years ago!).

[adamk]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
You want to see a gorilla give birth to a human?

roflmao!

[Nebrie]

Not gonna read thru 7 pages but have any of you read about the Scopes Monkey trial of 1925 where evolution is bashed heavily while creationism is bashed to bits.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
I am laughing so hard right now, because this chum is ridiculous. Honestly, what is "proof" to you? You want to see a gorilla give birth to a human?

An undeniable direct transitional fossil would be fine. You know..."missing models". Talk about things to make you laugh! Showing me a fish that may have had lungs, and then not being able to directly show what species it evolved into simply points out some really interesting ideas, based on the faith that species can develop into other species. It does not prove that fish evolved into something that walked on soil.

How do you show living proof right in front of you of evolution? Look, fossil evidence IS proof; before you mentioned that it didn't work because of missing links, well in some cases we fill in the gaps well enough that there basically are none!

Get back to me when those gaps are filled. Currently, there are no fossils records that DON'T have gaps in them. I do understand though that you take it as a matter of faith that this is because they just haven't been found yet, and not because they do not exist. Keep hope alive!

ps. I'm off to bed, and I've got a full day tomorrow. I tell you this as a courtesy to the "he's not posting, so surely we've won"ers. Feel free to create whatever conspiracies you'd like though, and keep on insulting people who don't agree with unproven hypothoses.

[amsalpemkcus]

A woman�s tongue,
Three inches long,
Rules over men,
Six feet tall.

A Compilation of Japanese Folk Zen Sayings
translated by Soiku Shigematsu

[Lerkfish]

Its a question of COMFORT.

The reason this debate is so inflexible is it approaches the adamantine node where fear and belief intersect for both groups.

For the strict creationist to accept the possiblity of the strict evolutionist's argument, he would have to overcome the intersection between their belief: That the universe was created by god according to the creationist interpretation of scripture, with their fear: that man is not the spiritual creature they think, and that all existence is without direction or purpose....serendipitious happenstance.
They fear that because they are not comfortable with the concept that there might not be a safety net for life.
If you look at it that way, its an understandable human desire: to want to be nurtured and protected and directed by that which is larger and wiser than oneself.

and likewise:

For the strict evolutionist to accept the possiblity of the strict creationist's argument, he would have to overcome the intersection between their belief: That the universe is ordered only by itself and its natural laws and that everything is ultimately knowable by the scientist themselves, with their fear: that man is the spiritual creature they deny, and that all existence is with direction or purpose....to some degree predestined or at least manipulated by a higher being.
They fear that because they are not comfortable with the concept that there might be things which are unknowable, or that they are not the ultimate beings in the universe, or that what is spiritual might supercede what is empirical. They are not confortable with what cannot be gleaned from their absolute senses:taste touch smell sight. They are uncomfortable with that which they cannot measure or predict.
If you look at it that way, its an understandable human desire: to want to be in control of their universe, or failing that, that no one else is in more control than they are. That no other being is potentially larger and wiser than oneself.

once you get past these basic human things: fear and belief, the details are meaningless. Is the shroud of turin real? is the universe from big bang? yadda yadda yadda.

ultimately neither side will ever (or at least rarely) be able to get past that synergistic intersection of their fear and their belief to see the other point of view clearly or fairly.

[Misanthrope]

Wow, what a dump.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Get back to me when those gaps are filled. Currently, there are no fossils records that DON'T have gaps in them. I do understand though that you take it as a matter of faith that this is because they just haven't been found yet, and not because they do not exist. Keep hope alive!

I don't have hope for that because I don't care. They may very well not exist, not everything that ever lived has become a fossil--most things don't! I'll live with believing in something with small gaps in them rather than just a large void of blind faith.

REMEMBER stupendousman:

BLIND faith versus faith with EVIDENCE.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
You want to see a gorilla give birth to a human?

Hehe, this is good stuff

[Cipher13]

Wow, seven pages... forget catching up on that.

All I have to say is this:

I bet there's a correlation between those taking certain sides in this argument, and those that have posted in the university degree thread. Heh.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Your analogy can't be applied to the fossil record. You can SEE both objects fly. That isn't up for debate. Whether or not certain fossils that contain similar attributes are the result of evolution, most certainly does not fall into the category of something that can be definitively proven. When I see both a dandelion and a bird "fly", I can definitively say that they are flying with 100% assuredness from observation, which is the method of determination in this situation. When I see two fossils which are similar, there simply isn't the same amount of evidence to make a similar comparison.

By your own argument against the scientific method and scientific theory (and one of the basic premises of sciences), there is NO SUCH THING AS 100% ASSUREDNESS.

I cannot at this moment say with "100% assuredness" that birds can fly. Not 100%. I can pretty safely make the claim, since I pretty certainly saw one yesterday (though not 100% certainly, since I *could* have been hallucinating, or it *could* have been a trick of the light - in scientific experiments, this translates into uncertainty of measurement), and it would probably be pretty stupid to claim that birds can't fly, since there's enough evidence to support the claim that they can. I have faith in my senses, in the laws of physics - which allowed them to fly yesterday, and which, since they are unchangeable, should allow them to fly today, and I have faith in common sense.

In this I have FAITH.

Originally posted by stupendousman:
You can look at the evidence, and make claims based on what you BELIEVE might have occured, but in the end you are making a claim based on FAITH since you have no direct evidence to prove your theory.

If you can't prove it, you basing your claim on faith. Basic logic.

Congratulations. You have inadvertently unearthed the FUNDAMENTAL conundrum of human perception: You cannot know ANYTHING 100%.

This is why scientists speak of "evidence" to support their "theory".

"Proof" does not exist outside the theoretical realm of mathematics.

However, you are, once again, incorrect in one assertion: There IS plenty of evidence in support of the Theory (capital T) of evolution.

To a person familiar with scientific method, it is ludicrous to question that evolution *happens*. The evidence is simply overwhelmingly in favor.

The point about airplanes was that the true test of theory is how well it can be used to predict the unknown.

We built a theoretical model of the mechanism of winged flight upon physical theory and applied it to our own craft, without knowing whether it would work or not. It *should*, if theory is correct.

In the case of the 747 and the B-2, it does.

Evolution theory predicted a whole bunch of transitional fossils, "missing links", if you will, where no evidence had been found. "Lucy", the australpithecine found by Mary Leakey in Kenya in the 50s (?), was the sensation she was because she was exactly what evolution theory had predicted should exist.

Entrox listed a bunch of other such cases up above for you to ignore and discard.

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Sometimes I think that the Pilgrims leaving for America was the best thing that ever happened to Europe.

-spheric*

[adamk]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
I can also quote you evidence of "miracles". First hand observation even. Of course, I can't definitively prove those any more than someone can prove that a fish that is thought to have had lungs wasn't a single species that existed then simply became extict.

if you can show in what environment a miracle occured, create the same environment, and induce the miracle, repeatedly then yes, i would believe that you are on to something and be quite impressed. can you?

the process of evolution can be demonstrated in agriculture. for instance, if you eat chicken, those animals have been bred so that certain good traits appear. it is done by a somewhat different process, namely artificial selection rather than natural. but certain traits have been selected, those who produce more meat, those who grow to adult hood faster, those that have less feathers. these are all desireable traits if you sell chickens because turnover time is lower, meat output is higher and there are less feathers to be plucked. the chickens you see today are very different from chickens 100 years ago.

also, the appearance of mini-dogs. dogs have not always been that small, rather the smallest dogs were bred, passing on their characteristic traits, yielding smaller dogs, these in turn are bred and yield yet even more ridiculously smaller dogs.

breeding differs from evolution in that humans effectively are playing god (if i may borrow the term) and choosing characteristics, whereas evolution occurs by natural selection, that is to say, characteristics that are suited to the environment. humans are good at breeding, and yes, morphological changes from breeding occur in tens of years, rather than billions of years in the case of evolution.

still presented with the bones of a pincher from a hundred years ago (and even a picture for those things existed then) and the bones of a mini-pincher today (and a photo) do you think that a link could be made between them? oh yeah, the tail of the mini-pincher has been cut off, so the tails don't exactly match.

[Spheric Harlot]

Repeated for emphasis, and because I have yet to receive a reply:

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Sorry, but no one's reproduced any sort of mechanism which would cause one species to evolve into another.

Explain seedless grapes.

[stupendousman]

One more for the road...

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
A house that was pink three days ago is blue today. You don't know if the painter used a brush, a roller, or spraypaint. Obviously, the house cannot have been painted, since the mechanism by which it changed color is not clear to you.

You seriously claim that it didn't change color because you aren't at this moment sure how it would have.

You guys are really on a role with bad analogies!

A more suited analogy would be...

You have a picture of two houses. One is pink and the other is blue. Besides that, they look like the same house. You only have the pictures as evidence so it's just as likely that they are two houses that where designed alike but where in different locations and painted differently. You can speculate all you want about how a house could be painted, or what processes might have been appropriate for a single house to be painted another color. To argue that it might be possible for a house to be repainted via known mechanisms (haha), therefore there's no doubt that those two houses are the same is an example of really flawed logic.

That's not to say that it's not possible for those two houses to be the same house.

BUT...in order to make this closer to a valid analogy as far as evolution goes, it would need to be something more like this:

You have a picture of two houses. They are both Spanish style houses, but one has 2 stories and the other has only one. They are also a different color. It could be that the house with two stories was once the similar styled house with a single story, but a "known mechanism" was used (building construction) to evolve the house into the present two story house. It's just as possible that they were simply two different houses, which never shared any common structures. The only way to truthfully determine such a thing would be to have truely transitional photographs showing the house evolving, or actually being there to be able to observe this yourself.

What we currently are observing in this thread are lots of people insisting that because they believe it's possible to convert the single story house into a 2 story (without any scientfic examination...like a building inspection, which may well determine that the foundation couldn't hold a second story) via a "known mechanism", that the houses in the picture are defintely the same house just because they appear similar in design

INDEED!

As long as you're not even *trying* to understand, I can only assume that you really don't care (unless you're utterly stupid, which I won't assume).

I'm done wasting my time with someone who doesn't care.

Me too. Bubbye!

[adamk]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
[evolutionists] fear that because they are not comfortable with the concept that there might be things which are unknowable, or that they are not the ultimate beings in the universe, or that what is spiritual might supercede what is empirical.

i believe that there will always be things unknowable, it doesn't keep me awake at night that there is no good explanation (to me) at least about how we got here. i guess i don't require that all be explained.

i do agree that it is a comfort thing. religion easily explains away everything that is difficult and hard to face. "it is his will" - doesn't get much simpler than that.

i do believe in a spiritual side, though i don't think, it transcends individual minds. that being said, people's impressions do play a major part in shaping one's spiritual sides. i have had friends and family die, and though i don't believe that they exist in any supernatural sense, my experiences with them continue to shape who i am though they are no longer here.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
and likewise:

...They fear that because they are not comfortable with the concept that there might be things which are unknowable, or that they are not the ultimate beings in the universe, or that what is spiritual might supercede what is empirical. They are not confortable with what cannot be gleaned from their absolute senses:taste touch smell sight. They are uncomfortable with that which they cannot measure or predict.
If you look at it that way, its an understandable human desire: to want to be in control of their universe, or failing that, that no one else is in more control than they are. That no other being is potentially larger and wiser than oneself.

once you get past these basic human things: fear and belief, the details are meaningless. Is the shroud of turin real? is the universe from big bang? yadda yadda yadda.

ultimately neither side will ever (or at least rarely) be able to get past that synergistic intersection of their fear and their belief to see the other point of view clearly or fairly.

Good post, but I disagree with the latter half (it's a little generalized, but perhaps both are). I, for one, would be happy to live in a world where it was logical and some scrap of rational not-easily refutable evidence was available to the masses that there is life after death, et cetera. The evidence is lacking for a lot of things, though. I also could care less about some unknowns that aren't likely to be figured out (what exactly happens to us when we die), and probably are just incomprehensible to us. Birth was a great surprise, why shouldn't death be?

Now back to evolution, the age of the earth, and matters at hand that no longer have to do with a Scientist's short-lived relationship:

There's no (good) evidence against evolution and so much evidence for it.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by adamk:
i believe that there will always be things unknowable, it doesn't keep me awake at night that there is no good explanation (to me) at least about how we got here. i guess i don't require that all be explained.

i do agree that it is a comfort thing. religion easily explains away everything that is difficult and hard to face. "it is his will" - doesn't get much simpler than that.

i do believe in a spiritual side, though i don't think, it transcends individual minds. that being said, people's impressions do play a major part in shaping one's spiritual sides. i have had friends and family die, and though i don't believe that they exist in any supernatural sense, my experiences with them continue to shape who i am though they are no longer here.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
A more suited analogy would be...

You have a picture of two houses. One is pink and the other is blue. Besides that, they look like the same house. You only have the pictures as evidence so it's just as likely that they are two houses that where designed alike but where in different locations and painted differently. You can speculate all you want about how a house could be painted, or what processes might have been appropriate for a single house to be painted another color. To argue that it might be possible for a house to be repainted via known mechanisms (haha), therefore there's no doubt that those two houses are the same is an example of really flawed logic.

That's not to say that it's not possible for those two houses to be the same house.

Make that two pictures, in the same location, dated 3 days apart.

Changes it some, don't it?

[Face Ache]

Evolution isn't for everybody.

As we can see, the creationist female has failed to find a mate.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Evolution isn't for everybody.

As we can see, the creationist female has failed to find a mate.

Three cheers for natural selection!

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Sometimes I think that the Pilgrims leaving for America was the best thing that ever happened to Europe.

-spheric*

LOL. Thanks for sticking us with the Puritans (my family was a late arrival here). That's the reason we still don't have topless beaches here.

BTW, you don't need hosannas from me but you're doing a good job.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Evolution isn't for everybody.

As we can see, the creationist female has failed to find a mate.

LOL

[itai195]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
You have a picture of two houses. They are both Spanish style houses, but one has 2 stories and the other has only one. They are also a different color. It could be that the house with two stories was once the similar styled house with a single story, but a "known mechanism" was used (building construction) to evolve the house into the present two story house. It's just as possible that they were simply two different houses, which never shared any common structures. The only way to truthfully determine such a thing would be to have truely transitional photographs showing the house evolving, or actually being there to be able to observe this yourself.

What we currently are observing in this thread are lots of people insisting that because they believe it's possible to convert the single story house into a 2 story (without any scientfic examination...like a building inspection, which may well determine that the foundation couldn't hold a second story) via a "known mechanism", that the houses in the picture are defintely the same house just because they appear similar in design.

Actually you have scientists postulating that they may be the same house and acknowledging that more information is necessary, and you have creationists saying there's no possible explanation so it must be God at work, and furthermore God must be the only force capable of creating houses.

Now then, continuing with the ridiculous analogy, lets assume you have a photo of a street filled with houses, all of which are of one distinct style except for one unique house. You also have another photo of the same street 1000 years later with all the same houses except the unique one has been destroyed and replaced with one similar to the others.

What happened? Did God make a mistake and decide he didn't really want to build that house? If God had a master plan, why would he create that house and then change his mind?

Or does it seem more credible that some attribute of the old house caused its demolition? Maybe it was destroyed in an earthquake, maybe it burned down, maybe it contained a gateway to another [evil] dimension, maybe the tenants just liked the other style of house better and wanted one of those. The point is that we can postulate what might of happened in this case, whereas in the Creationist version we have to throw up our arms and declare "it must have been God!"

[chris v]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Evolution isn't for everybody.

As we can see, the creationist female has failed to find a mate.

Post. Of. Week.

CV

[theolein]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
One more for the road...



You guys are really on a role with bad analogies!

A more suited analogy would be...

You have a picture of two houses. One is pink and the other is blue. Besides that, they look like the same house. You only have the pictures as evidence so it's just as likely that they are two houses that where designed alike but where in different locations and painted differently. You can speculate all you want about how a house could be painted, or what processes might have been appropriate for a single house to be painted another color. To argue that it might be possible for a house to be repainted via known mechanisms (haha), therefore there's no doubt that those two houses are the same is an example of really flawed logic.

That's not to say that it's not possible for those two houses to be the same house.

BUT...in order to make this closer to a valid analogy as far as evolution goes, it would need to be something more like this:

You have a picture of two houses. They are both Spanish style houses, but one has 2 stories and the other has only one. They are also a different color. It could be that the house with two stories was once the similar styled house with a single story, but a "known mechanism" was used (building construction) to evolve the house into the present two story house. It's just as possible that they were simply two different houses, which never shared any common structures. The only way to truthfully determine such a thing would be to have truely transitional photographs showing the house evolving, or actually being there to be able to observe this yourself.

What we currently are observing in this thread are lots of people insisting that because they believe it's possible to convert the single story house into a 2 story (without any scientfic examination...like a building inspection, which may well determine that the foundation couldn't hold a second story) via a "known mechanism", that the houses in the picture are defintely the same house just because they appear similar in design

INDEED!



Me too. Bubbye!

I was going to get on my aggressive horse and slag you all the way back to stupidville, but then I realised something:

You certainly have a point, but you're incredibly bad at explaining what you mean.

If I were to take your Spanish house analogy (which is really pathetic btw.) I would simply say to look at the details to see if the 2 story house was once a single story house. The devil (pun intended) is in the details.

The scientific method would be to examine the house to see if there are any details in its construction to indicate that it was once a single story house. They may not find any and may go down a long dead end path of science believing that the 2 story house is a completely different type of house until, one day, someone uses an x-ray machine to study the inner structure of the house and then discovers it was indeed a single story house, in a previous life (pun also intended).

Your point (which you could have made two pages ago and spared us this misery) is that things that have not yet been or can't be proven with current methods, be they in evolution or astronomy or whereever could well be evidence of some divine entity's plan.

You talk about miracles and I'm pretty sure some miracles could well fit into that category. Fine by me. Why not? If science someday proves some physical phenomena as being responsable for the miracles, also fine by me. If you need to worship the agency you feel is creating those miracles, that's also ok. What is NOT ok is if you try to stop the scientific method from examining those miracles, and it is NOT ok because that is very much restricting the appetite of knowledge that has brought us, through much resistance from said worshippers of above mentioned agents, to the world where we now live and where we have foughten for the right to question those beliefs. Not destroy them, but question them.

If you are afraid of your belief system being questioned then you are afraid of life, and there are many evolutionary extinct paths littered with the corpses of beings and beliefs that resisted the changes that life and history brought upon them.

Would you like to be oggled in a glass case in a museum in the far future by giggling school children?

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by theolein:
If I were to take your Spanish house analogy (which is really pathetic btw.) I would simply say to look at the details to see if the 2 story house was once a single story house. The devil (pun intended) is in the details.

What "details" are you going to be able to derive from photos? The point is that the evidence that is being investigated (fossils in this instance) are not sufficient enough to prove the "details" in such a degree to show if one thing is linked to another, much as if you were only given photos alone to decide the relationships between the houses.

Originally posted by theolein:
Your point (which you could have made two pages ago and spared us this misery) is that things that have not yet been or can't be proven with current methods, be they in evolution or astronomy or whereever could well be evidence of some divine entity's plan.

I'd leave the explanation of MY point to an expert on the subject - me. You're still getting it wrong. My point wasn't that anything in particular was the cause of anything. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that creationism is what caused the genesis of man. I'm also not going to state as definitive fact that evolution was not the cause either. What I am stating is that people who take either to be fact are doing so based largely on FAITH since neither have yet to be proven, and there holes that you can drive trucks through concerning both theories. You can't believe in either creationism or evolution as fact without accepting on faith certain factors which are beyond our ability to prove definitively.

Someone above mentioned that scientists state that evolution may have caused the genesis of man. I have no problems with that statement. I also have no problems with a creationist saying that the power of God may have caused the creation of man. Neither statement can be proven false. When EITHER stop using the "may" in the phrase, they are then doing so based on a very unscientific method: FAITH. A creationist won't deny it. An evolutionist (as witnessed in this thread) will. I find that those who insist on envolution being the only possible way to explain man's genesis, most often are the most short sighted and ironically hypocritical in their opinions.

[itai195]

stupendousman: I still don't know if you're arguing about the origins of life or the evolution of man (two very different things) and I think throwing a term like faith around has led you into a circular argument. You're saying one must be unscientific, indeed that one must have faith, in order to find truth in a scientific theory? That doesn't make any sense to me. Faith is the belief in something for which there is no evidence, and yet there is ample data supporting evolution. Am I blind or are there not differences between Neandertal and Homo Sapien skulls, and indeed clear differences between skulls throughout the fossil record of human ancestry. Note that I'm not saying the theory and all its tenets and various sects of belief are proven correct and immutably true -- but the idea of a plausible theory is that it explains all the available scientific data, with no faith entering the equation at all.

Pointing to gaps in the fossil record as evidence against evolution is also an illegitimate point. For one thing, even ebuddy pointed out that fossils are quite a chancy business, so expecting to have every gap filled is unreasonable. Geographic barriers are also believed (and there is some evidence for that too) to be the main cause of speciation and, it follows, to cause gaps in the fossil record. The theory of evolution is thus perfectly compatible with the concept of 'gaps.'

If you're arguing about the origin of life on earth, that's a different question and frankly a different field: physics.

With that, I think I'm through with this thread. Thanks for an entertaining time, all

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
-- Richard Dawkins

[Superchicken]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
And in those situations, until further evidence has been uncovered in the form of fossils, or a fitting model has been put forth, you COULD indeed claim the "Hand of God", insofar as He helped evolution along.

But I have never seen a Creationist argue that point.

Ironically you've lumped all creationists into one boat. You have those who are as you say very literal in how they understand the creation story. Then there are those who take an incredibly liberal point of view, then you have those like me who take it to mean hey God's taking credit for creation, and ultimately He has the right to use any method He desires, be it a combination of big bangs and evolution whatever, or something entirely different that we haven't even theorized.

Overall I don't believe in evolution not because microevolution doesn't happen sure it does, by really all we're looking at is random gene mutations, or not so random deppending on your view.

There are those who hold a theistic evolutionary view, that God did use evolution as His program for creating people.

Ultimately I like to think that my God is far more artistic than evolution gives credit for. Not to mention the evidence to actually state solidly this is has happened, is all educated guesses that COULD be wrong, and to me seem likely to be incorrect.

That said if I get to heaven and find out evolution is how God created life on earth, all probably shrug my shoulders and my world won't fall apart.

[A Single Second]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
Ironically you've lumped all creationists into one boat. You have those who are as you say very literal in how they understand the creation story. Then there are those who take an incredibly liberal point of view, then you have those like me who take it to mean hey God's taking credit for creation, and ultimately He has the right to use any method He desires, be it a combination of big bangs and evolution whatever, or something entirely different that we haven't even theorized.

Overall I don't believe in evolution not because microevolution doesn't happen sure it does, by really all we're looking at is random gene mutations, or not so random deppending on your view.

There are those who hold a theistic evolutionary view, that God did use evolution as His program for creating people.

Ultimately I like to think that my God is far more artistic than evolution gives credit for. Not to mention the evidence to actually state solidly this is has happened, is all educated guesses that COULD be wrong, and to me seem likely to be incorrect.

That said if I get to heaven and find out evolution is how God created life on earth, all probably shrug my shoulders and my world won't fall apart.

I'd just like to know, what evidence allows you to not believe in evolution?

[ism]

How come after 7 pages no one has mentioned the third option, ala 'Matrix' style or 'Sophies World' style? Maybe we haven't evolved nor been (physically) created.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
Ironically you've lumped all creationists into one boat. You have those who are as you say very literal in how they understand the creation story. Then there are those who take an incredibly liberal point of view, then you have those like me who take it to mean hey God's taking credit for creation, and ultimately He has the right to use any method He desires, be it a combination of big bangs and evolution whatever, or something entirely different that we haven't even theorized.

Yes. I was corrected about two pages ago, though.

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by ism:
How come after 7 pages no one has mentioned the third option, ala 'Matrix' style or 'Sophies World' style? Maybe we haven't evolved nor been (physically) created.

Because a) there's no evidence whatsoever that would be cause to believe that, and b) the only time a concept like that was eloquently put forth, the presentation was so terribly botched in the second and third testaments that it has no hope in hell of ever becoming a movement.



-s*

[deekay1]

okay,

a) there are many! fossil records that show how species "directly" evolved on a "macro" level! human beings is one of them.

and b) not only do we have these records, we can also tell by looking at them that

THE SAME MECHANISM FOR "MICRO" EVOLUTION ALSO SEEMS TO BE THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND "MACRO EVOLUTION".

that's what makes it such a strong argument!SURVIVAL OF THE MOST ADAPT! (not the biggest bullies, strongest or even fittest). it happens everywhere, all the time!

it's called "inference" and "cross referencing"!!! is that such a tough concept to grasp?????

now, ye of blind faith, show me one instance where devine beings create anything! either through direct recorded information, inference, repeatability or any other method!!!!!!!!!!!

or better, you show me, how "spiritual" matters belong into the realm as science and not mythology!

again: evolution=highly probable and plausible theory, creationism/religion=blind faith and myth! NOT ON THE SAME LEVEL/NOT IN THE SAME REALM!

[undotwa]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Doesn't matter if that day was an age of a billion years. This is all modern rhetoric used to defend something out of date. The 6 days of creation story was laid out to give validity to the Sabbath and power to the temples (and this wasn't just Jewish as many cultures had it. The word coming from Babylonian 'Sabatu').

With people taking a day off from work to go to the temple and give their offerings and donations, the temple grew wealthy and powerful. God took the seventh day off, according to the temple scribes, so the temple could grow rich.

And since knowledge of photosynthesis was totally lacking in those days, you only have to look at the massive errors in the creation story. God (gods in actual translation) created plants and trees before he created the sun, the other stars and the moon. This is not even worth debating. There is no creationist argument.

Modern? That was the belief of the Jews before the Romans destroyed their temple c. 70 A.D. After then the Jews tended (until Modern times) became very orthodox and protective of their beliefs.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
The metaphor argument used by apologists to keep this nonsense going on for another thousand years isn't going to work any longer. Those texts were written under theocracies to serve those in power. They lived in a world where they thought they would never have to defend themselves against a scientific movement one day. God was creator, he made the world, man and the laws. Man followed the laws and wasn't given the freedom to think beyond what was given. God was the theocracy. His views were theirs. His words were theirs. His power over people was theirs.

Apologetic arguments are not sensible in a debate about history and science. It's like a Neo-Nazi apologist making excuses for what happened 60 years ago and asking people to bear with him and his Aryans from Atlantis beliefs which are actually metaphors for spreading flowers and love throughout the universe.

The metaphor intepration of the Torah was the accepted intepretation of the early Jewish communities (before the destruction of the Temple, Jewish philosophical and theological discussion was widespread, after that the religion froze until modern times when 'reformed' rabbis entered the picture').

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Exactly what I was getting at. AGAIN: MEANINGS CHANGE IN TIME. THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE DO NOT. You are ignorant if you read the Bible word-for-word and don't account for these changes in semantics, especially through a veil of translation (the "word of God" is translated, so you're not reading His words, anyways).

This gets into another issue.

Who is the authority that determines the correct intepretation of the Bible?

The Bible itself saids that the Bible is not sufficient in itself. Protestants have been using sola scriptura, and abolished the tradition of interpretation that the Catholic Church had established in the early times of Christianity

An interesting read for non-Catholic christians:

http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/challenge.html

Non Christians, disregard this as really none of the arguments will convince you as you lack one thing: Belief in the bible and God.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Very good point. Along these lines, I heard that "virgin" is meant to mean "young lady" (as it used to) instead of the strict definition usually used today (hasn't had sex yet), thus making Jesus's not-so-immaculate conception more believable.

Unfortunately, many people read the Bible word-for-word, and don't realize that the translations aren't perfect and meanings change with time, for one, and that the Bible isn't always meant to be taken literally (sometimes it's symbolic; I know a Catholic woman that is completely convinced that she is drinking the actual flesh and blood of Christ during communion, and that it's NOT symbolic or anything along those lines).

Hey, I drink the blood and eat the flesh of Jesus Christ at least once a week on Sundays. And so did the early Christians.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Anyway, I'd like to conclude something here. Goyim Christians don't own the creation story. It's Jewish. Many Israelis don't believe it. Many famous Jews don't believe it. And if you studied at the top universities in Israel you'd be taught that it's a mythology just like the myths of other cults long ago. Teachers at the famed Tel Aviv University even teach that everything from the creation story to Moses and the story of David and Solomon is not rooted in history but a mixture of theocratic myths used to control people, fables and legends which were exaggerated over time. The final say does not belong to Goyim but to those whose culture wrote those stories.

Maaybe one day such high level education will spread to Muslims and to those fundamentalist Christian eccentrics in the US. That will be an important step to halving most of the world's battles and the exploitation of the sheep masses.

Hold on. Most religious Jews treat the Genesis as truth, but in the poetic sense, but anything past that is pretty much 90% historical.

It is interesting, if you read many articles in the Encyclopedia Brittanica many dates are determined for Ancient Babylonia through events which happened in the Bible. The Bible is one of the world's most valuable historical accounts of the Middle East. The Kingdom of Israel was almost certainly a real kingdom. The things which aren't true are the obvious mentions of the 'greatness' of the kingdom etc. Afterall, it really was only a kingdom of 12 tribes.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
A little off-topic, but the mention of consumers reminded me of this: I'm pretty sure that there's nothing in the Bible that says priests should not wed or should abstain from sex. The church, however, around the time of the Renaissance, IIRC, began to prohibit priests from marrying and having heirs so that the church would inherit whatever the priests (that often used to be landowners and not terribly bad-off in those days) owned at the time of their deaths.

WRONG! Since the 5th it was the custom for priest to not marry, it was only codified in 11th century. In addition, the Church would not do this as cunning scheme to inherit more money from the priests. The vast majority priests were paupers. The came to the church with nothing, and they died with nothing, living off the parish to which the priest provided services for. The only rich men in the church were the bishops, and the pope (who is a bishop). Most priest spent there entire time providing for their parishes. If the Church did nothing for the people, why did everyone come back each Sunday?

Church land was donated by the gentry and was not inherited from priests. The real reason why the church decided priests could not marry was so priests would devote their entire time to the maintenance of their parish.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by wireframe:
Probably the story of Gilgamesh. Most of the stories in the OT can be sourced from Mesopotamia, from the flood, to Adam, the Ark, and so on. One theory on how it was included in the Jewish OT, was when they were in captivity in Babylon, there they came into contact with the Persians, Assyrians, babylonians, and any other culture that was present. From there, Ezra (the bibilical personality) is said to have re-written the Torah (since it had largely been forgotten due to time, and the fact it was mostly kept in people's memories), and once the Israelites were sent back home to Palestine, they had brought with them all of that Babylonian/Persian religion, knowledge, and stories.

Certainly the Genesis stories originated from Babylonia, but surely the rest of the old testament originated from the Jews? I can hardly imagine the Babylonians rabbeling on about the glories of Israel.

[CharlesS]

Basically it boils down to this.

Regardless of whatever else gets into the argument, the basic argument creationists use to argue for the very viability of their entire position is cognitive relativism. Because in a scientific theory, there's always some degree of doubt, however small, that makes the theory falsiable, creationists argue that it is not proven and therefore that all alternative beliefs are equally valid, and therefore that teachers should teach these multiple beliefs. The thing is, if you believe this, then to be consistent you have to reject other scientific theories as well, such as gravity. You have to believe that the idea that the universe is a simulation in the Enterprise holodeck is just as valid as our theories of how the stars and planets interact. And you have to argue for all such hypotheses in the classroom. You also have to include the philosophy of the Buddhist, Hindu, and other religions.

And if you don't believe this, you have to abandon creationism because the body of evidence points towards the theory of evolution, which has been tested for over 100 years now. You just can't win with the creationist argument.