Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Did we evolve? Are we even allowed to say so?

Did we evolve? Are we even allowed to say so? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
xe0
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 01:58 AM
 
lol. Getting back to the topic at hand. I would like to add- that a young mind is like a sponge; It absorbs information like water.

Is it wise to expose a young mind to one mans theory, and let that mind absorb it as fact? What will the consequences be if yes?
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 01:59 AM
 
I hope no one really believe Earth is only 4000 years old considering China has 4000 years of documented history. Unless Adam & Eve went to China and started popping out millions of babies within their lifetime.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 03:02 AM
 
Originally posted by Tulkas:
Mmmm, that smells like.. like ignorance.

Evolution is not fact. Your belief on the matter should not be pinned onto kids who're just learning what they're taught. You can't honestly expect anyone to believe a theory as fact, moreover one which still has flaws and is still developing. Yes, there are other theories such as gravity that are things we take for granted. I see this as more examples why theory should be clearly marked because people who aren't actively into science are just going to keep on believing a lie.

Religion is about life and how you live it, not about origins. Evolution is going to do absolutely nothing to make your life better or you a better person. Religion and scientific method do not conflict.

No, you don't mean science. Science, after all, is something most people will never care about because it has nothing to do with their lives. You can't "believe" in science.

I don't do organized religion, by the way. I feel it leads to greed, corruption and an overall decay.

Sorry if a missed your point but you were very vague in that last paragraph.
Evolution might as well be fact, there's much more evidence in favor of it than against. Religion IS about origins first and foremost; addendums come afterwards. Religion and scientific method do not ALWAYS conflict (especially when people don't take religious texts literally, but rather allegorically). As far as your scientific argument, so what if some people don't care about science? A lot of people out there are morons. And yeah, you CAN believe in science (which is the logical thing to do), and some people, idiots mostly, DON'T believe in many scientific facts.

As far as affecting your life. Religion usually does, for sure, and for better or worse (depending on the person). Some people believe they benefit. Good for them! If believing in something that isn't logical and can never be proven to be true helps people, then great. I, however, prefer to believe in things that are logical, even in illogical ways (like quantum mechanics and perhaps M-theory). Really, evolution may not affect your everyday life; but people that ignore the fact that evolution is most likely about 99% true as presented now are living in the past, are preventing the next generation from learning the (probable) truth.
"You rise," he said, "like Aurora."
     
Rev-O
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Parker, Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 03:49 AM
 
Originally posted by hyteckit:
I hope no one really believe Earth is only 4000 years old considering China has 4000 years of documented history. Unless Adam & Eve went to China and started popping out millions of babies within their lifetime.
You forget that the Chinese are Godless communists, and therefore OBVIOUSLY tools of the devil, and that whole 4000 years of recorded history is but a insidious ploy to cast doubt into the minds of the faithful.

With God on your side, you can rationalize anything.
Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 07:46 AM
 
Originally posted by Tulkas:
Evidence is not fact.

No, its not enough for me and its not enough for the school system. We don't teach something as what it isn't because you feel its "close enough". Give them the facts not opinion. Otherwise why not teach religion? Flat earth theory?
Well, I certainly hope you're well-tethered to the ground, because Newtonian physics are just a theory.

-s*
     
entrox
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 10:18 AM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Well, I certainly hope you're well-tethered to the ground, because Newtonian physics are just a theory.
Hah! It's even worse. Newtonian physics have been shown to be actually wrong! As soon as you start approaching relativistic velocities, the whole model breaks down. But why are we still using it? Because it's much simpler and the equations work out at lower (i.e. normal for us humans) velocities. How's that for science?
     
Superchicken
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Winnipeg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 10:28 AM
 
Originally posted by mrmister:
Creationists love to argue that evolution isn't proven, that it's just a theory but have little stomach for questioning other popular theories regarding gravity, physics or the Earth's relationship to the Sun. This should be a dead giveaway that the issue is a pedagogic one, not a logical one--they just use that as a straw man arguement because, for whatever reason, they can not live with evolution being taught as fact.

One shouldn't get into arguements with people on this because once faith becomes stuck onto science you get dogmatism and propaganda.

What's happening in Georgia is unfortunate, but if you look at the whole planet you see that day by day, year by year science is winning out...it may seem impossible sometimes, but one day no one will believe the Earth is only 4000 years old.

And on that day there will still be churches, and they will still be doing good work.
Creationists only come out against theories that needlessly put our beliefs in the cross hairs. At the point when a Christian reads evolutionist theory they come to a cross roads where they have to research to figure out which one is correct. The theory of evolution and major points of Christian and Jewish theology go directly contrary to evolution, it makes good sense for Christians to move and research. If the earth has gravity, or if the speed of light is something, that does not contradict scripture, thus Christians have no need to look critically at these theories.

The main reason why evolution has been accepted and taught by the secular educational system is your educational system and mine's attack against Christians.

Anecdotal evidence: Two girls I know wanted to start up a Christian fellowship group at their high school, they were originally told that no there was no way they could do this. Then the Islamic students asked for a special place to pray during the day and the school had no problem... when they confronted the principal about this they said.... ok yah I guess you can have one.

The problem is educators especially by in large have an general disrespect for students who are Christians in many parts of the world. I experienced it in high school, as did many of my other friends who were Christians.

That said I have studied biology myself and after that came to the conclusion that I did not have enough evidence to believe the theory and decided to simply say that we as people don't know, and may never know.

If the schools taught this theory they would be on a much more factual base.
     
benign
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: A couple of stones from the sun.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 10:44 AM
 
Educators have believed in
only teaching young minds
facts and the logical conclusions
found from them.

Doubt and duel meanings have
nearly always been deliberately
avoided.

I have read many who feel
metaphysics should not be
taught till the youth is in his
teens.

Religious texts should be read
as literature and reduced to mythic
archaic stories.

ho-hum :)


Simple Empire...
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 11:07 AM
 
^ ^ Shut up, benign.

Originally posted by xe0:
on a personal note, I find evolution to make very little scientific sense. It is not logical to assume we are mealy advanced amoebas reacting to stimuli.

Furthermore, there is no evidential fossils showing the progressive state of one species to the next. If the earth is as old as we think it is, then logically there should be a bounty of fossil records showing the transformation of each and every species.

in recent times many ague over how evolution takes place, due to this very fact of a lack of evidence. Since our fossil records do not show a gradual development of life from one type to another, some evolutionists theorize that that the process must have happened by 'jerks and starts' and not as a steady pace as originally conceived by Darwin.

Some who follow this theory call the process 'punctuated equilibrium.' that is to say each species stays the same until a drastic change in the gene pool. But doesn't this say the opposite to the original theory?
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/appendix.html

Don't many famous scientists reject evolution?



_____No. The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming. Those opposed to the teaching of evolution sometimes use quotations from prominent scientists out of context to claim that scientists do not support evolution. However, examination of the quotations reveals that the scientists are actually disputing some aspect of how evolution occurs, not whether evolution occurred. For example, the biologist Stephen Jay Gould once wrote that "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." But Gould, an accomplished paleontologist and eloquent educator about evolution, was arguing about how evolution takes place. He was discussing whether the rate of change of species is slow and gradual or whether it takes place in bursts after long periods when little change occurs--an idea known as punctuated equilibrium. As Gould writes in response, "This quotation, although accurate as a partial citation, is dishonest in leaving out the following explanatory material showing my true purpose--to discuss rates of evolutionary change, not to deny the fact of evolution itself." Gould defines punctuated equilibrium as follows:

_____Punctuated equilibrium is neither a creationist idea nor even a non-Darwinian evolutionary theory about sudden change that produces a new species all at once in a single generation. Punctuated equilibrium accepts the conventional idea that new species form over hundreds or thousands of generations and through an extensive series of intermediate stages. But geological time is so long that even a few thousand years may appear as a mere "moment" relative to the several million years of existence for most species. Thus, rates of evolution vary enormously and new species may appear to arise "suddenly" in geological time, even though the time involved would seem long, and the change very slow, when compared to a human lifetime.

The fact of the matter is Darwinism was so flawed it has been modified many times and along the way renamed Evolution, and still to this day the theory undergoes radical changes. Does anyone know what the latest hypothesis is?
Such is the nature of science.

Who in their right mind can believe in the theory of gravity when it's been changed so many times? And we should definitely throw out the heliocentric model of the solar system, since the orbits have been shown not to be perfectly round like Copernicus thought. Kepler changed it to say they were elliptical, what a crock!

</sarcasm> (added for the reading comprension-impaired)

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
entrox
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 11:08 AM
 
Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
Creationists only come out against theories that needlessly put our beliefs in the cross hairs. At the point when a Christian reads evolutionist theory they come to a cross roads where they have to research to figure out which one is correct. The theory of evolution and major points of Christian and Jewish theology go directly contrary to evolution, it makes good sense for Christians to move and research. If the earth has gravity, or if the speed of light is something, that does not contradict scripture, thus Christians have no need to look critically at these theories.
This is so insanely stupid that I don't even know where to begin. First of all, there is no such thing as an 'evolutionist'. There are biologists, chemists, geneticists, palaeontologists, physicists and so on. Each of these disciplines provides different evidence in favour of evolution. Labelling them all as the same is just a straw-man to make it easier to attack them as a whole.
Furthermore, the argument that only 'evolutionist theory' puts Christians at a crossroad is totally bogus. According to the bible, the Earth is centred and the other bodies revolve around it [Ps. 93:1, Ps. 19:1-6, Joshua 10:12-14]. Does that put you at a crossroad, too? After all, the 'cosmologist theory' contradicts the bible, doesn't it?
And what's with the speed of light? Doesn't the bible state that everything was created a few thousand years ago? Doesn't the fact that we can observe the light from distant stars, which has been travelling for millions of years contradict that one, too? Is that also a crossroad?

You are right in that evolution is a theory. But you should also mention that absolutely every single scientific claim is, in fact, a theory. Schools should focus on the process on how such a scientific theory is formed. Perhaps this would cut down on the confused individuals, who conflate the terms 'hypothesis' and 'theory' like xe0.
     
benign
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: A couple of stones from the sun.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 12:21 PM
 
Originally posted by CharlesS:
^ ^ Shut up, benign.


;) ;) ;) </sarcasm> (added for the reading comprension-impaired)

CharlesS - what a
'Peirce'ing light you are.


Simple Empire...
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 01:29 PM
 
benign and his idol dio



Two rainbows in the dark.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 01:51 PM
 
Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
The main reason why evolution has been accepted and taught by the secular educational system is your educational system and mine's attack against Christians.

Anecdotal evidence: Two girls I know wanted to start up a Christian fellowship group at their high school, they were originally told that no there was no way they could do this. Then the Islamic students asked for a special place to pray during the day and the school had no problem... when they confronted the principal about this they said.... ok yah I guess you can have one.
Attack? I wouldn't go that far. GOOD schools attempt to separate public school from religion, because it's hard to accommodate all faiths. Recently, because of middle eastern racism and terrorist fear, I'm not surprised that the school opted to allow Muslims a place to pray. Another thing: as I've come to learn, many Muslims have to pray something like 6+ times a day hourly or 2-hour intervals (or something similar, I'm not sure exactly how it is, but I don't think that strict Muslims can go the entire school day without prayer). Christians do not have these requirements, though; thus, Christians can form a group outside of the school, that wouldn't be affiliated with the school (maybe it could affiliate itself with the church instead). So the two matters are different because one is dictated by the religion, another is excess. Not everyone is out to get you, but personal things like religion should not become overly involved in public education (which is why it's ridiculous that teaching something as fundamental to biology as evolution has become optional in Georgia; it's like making any fundamental history completely optional), so save it for the private schools.

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
That said I have studied biology myself and after that came to the conclusion that I did not have enough evidence to believe the theory and decided to simply say that we as people don't know, and may never know.

If the schools taught this theory they would be on a much more factual base.
And I've studied religion and after that came to the conclusion that no one has any evidence to believe the theory and decided to simply say that we as people don't know. However, evolution seemed to have a lot more evidence and rationale, so I chose to believe that one.
"You rise," he said, "like Aurora."
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 01:55 PM
 
Why don't people know what "theory" means?
"You rise," he said, "like Aurora."
     
entrox
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 02:11 PM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
Why don't people know what "theory" means?
I've been asking that myself. I think it's especially irritating when the person in question throws in a few other scientific words and pretends to have studied the respective field for a longer time.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 02:13 PM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
Why don't people know what "theory" means?
Because they don't care what "theory" means. The propaganda they read and listen to says to parrot the statement "Evolution is just a theory," so they do. The propaganda tells them that this is a good argument, so they believe that it is.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Tulkas
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: I have no idea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 02:26 PM
 
Atleast I put aside my beliefs in this discussion, lets hope others can too. This is not about religion as religion is not based on what you see, its about what you don't. Science and religion don't conflict because they work on different planes. Evolution does though but its the only one that does so.

Hyteckit, I have never gone to the doctor and I've never taken any pharmaceutical remedy/drug. So I guess I don't trust him. Entrox, none of those verses suggest any conflict... unless you're catholic and somehow living in the dark ages. The first refers to the immovability (can you move it?), not that it isn't moving. Second is actually referring to the israelites. Third is almost laughable because I don't see how you can say a miracle conflicts with science.

For all this talk about evolution being about origins it really isn't. Can you explain where the matter came FROM? No, you can't. To you it was just there but you don't know how it got there. You also can't explain why it wasn't already in some life-supporting form, because really you have infinite time before the big bang so one would assume that evolutional changes that took billions of years would happen even in a longer span. So now you have the distinct possibility that we're not the first intelligent life form, but thats just speculation.

Cross species evolution has little evidence, but I have no doubt things do evolve, we have evidence and we have observation. On the other hand there is pathetically little solid evidence of cross species evolution, not to mention it was just a dream of some crack-pot. Plus, I might add, evolution does not encompass the formation of the planets, etc.

Stradlater, as was there NO evidence against newtonian physics for some time. Well well, turns out it was a pile of crap which has helped us get a little closer to the truth, but in itself ****. This is about what we teach our kids. Its not for us to force on them ideas as something they are not. Same as we can't teach them religion as fact, newtonian physics as fact or any other theory. Theories are to be built upon and we can't expect that to happen if future generations are brain-washed into thinking lies. This is not about our petty beliefs and lives, this is about furthering the cause of science and we cannot do that by building on a pile of lies. Oh, and I've never met anyone who thought science (as a whole, not in part) was ********. I could also explain every last attempt by religion to pervert science but I can easily sum it up in saying that all of them were perversions or misinterpretations. Another good point is that numerous scientists whom we have to thank for the most crucial discoveries have been biblical christians.

Benign, if it were up to you every "mystic" would be rounded up and burned at the stake. Hm, not unlike what the catholic church preferred doing to "mystics".

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants"-Isaac Newton. Whether it be right or wrong evolution should be taught as a step up, not a pinnacle.

Those cows won't know what hit 'em. They won't know what hit them even after it hits them, because they're cows.
     
Tulkas
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: I have no idea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 02:35 PM
 
Originally posted by CharlesS:
Because they don't care what "theory" means. The propaganda they read and listen to says to parrot the statement "Evolution is just a theory," so they do. The propaganda tells them that this is a good argument, so they believe that it is.
I am not arguing on a religious standpoint. You, unfortunately, are still fighting an endless battle for atheism and are just using this argument as fodder. I am not for or against evolution: I am for teaching our kids to be free-thinking and open-minded enough not to be sucked anyone's belief. Whether it is being staunchly convinced of something which is not proven�be it religion, a theory or atheism�it is not in the best interest of our children.

Otherwise why not teach about God too? Afterall, many many people believe in him. See, we can't let our kids be guided by beliefs. Give them facts not our positions.

Those cows won't know what hit 'em. They won't know what hit them even after it hits them, because they're cows.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 02:42 PM
 
When did evolution = atheism?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 02:43 PM
 
Originally posted by Tulkas:
Stradlater, as was there NO evidence against newtonian physics for some time. Well well, turns out it was a pile of crap which has helped us get a little closer to the truth, but in itself ****.
Please tell me you're kidding. Newtonian physics works in our frame of reference, which means we still apply it to the majority of things we do. Newtonian physics landed us on the moon. "Pile of crap"? You have to be kidding me. They are simpler equations that work for us the vast majority of the time.

Originally posted by Tulkas:
This is about what we teach our kids. Its not for us to force on them ideas as something they are not. Same as we can't teach them religion as fact, newtonian physics as fact or any other theory.
Newtonian physics is only taught for basic things that it works for, and when children are first introduced to it, they don't know what relativity is yet (when they learn about relativity, they learn what's wrong with Newton, but most people can use newtonian physics because it works with what they deal with, with what they experience.

Originally posted by Tulkas:
Theories are to be built upon and we can't expect that to happen if future generations are brain-washed into thinking lies. This is not about our petty beliefs and lives, this is about furthering the cause of science and we cannot do that by building on a pile of lies. Oh, and I've never met anyone who thought science (as a whole, not in part) was ********. I could also explain every last attempt by religion to pervert science but I can easily sum it up in saying that all of them were perversions or misinterpretations. Another good point is that numerous scientists whom we have to thank for the most crucial discoveries have been biblical christians.
Yes, and I'm not arguing against the fact that theories are always up for revisal and expansion. The theory of evolution is still being built upon...what makes you think it's being build upon "a pile of lies"??
"You rise," he said, "like Aurora."
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 02:46 PM
 
Summing up Tulkas,

Science = bad
Reilgion = good
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 02:58 PM
 
Originally posted by hyteckit:
Summing up Tulkas,

Science = bad
Reilgion = good
Not really; he's just not making much sense right now.
"You rise," he said, "like Aurora."
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 03:07 PM
 
Open minded is good.

Here is a site trying to proof evolution is wrong:

http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm

Yeah, there are hundreds of thousands of site like this.

If you think evolution is the idea of Atheist and they are out to get you, you need serious help. Considering the US population is composed of 79% Christians and only 9% Atheist.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Tulkas
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: I have no idea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 03:10 PM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
Please tell me you're kidding. Newtonian physics works in our frame of reference, which means we still apply it to the majority of things we do. Newtonian physics landed us on the moon. "Pile of crap"? You have to be kidding me. They are simpler equations that work for us the vast majority of the time.

Newtonian physics is only taught for basic things that it works for, and when children are first introduced to it, they don't know what relativity is yet (when they learn about relativity, they learn what's wrong with Newton, but most people can use newtonian physics because it works with what they deal with, with what they experience.

Yes, and I'm not arguing against the fact that theories are always up for revisal and expansion. The theory of evolution is still being built upon...what makes you think it's being build upon "a pile of lies"??
No, I meant that building on the assumption its fact when it isn't is wrong.

Newtonian physics is a flawed explanation. My point wasn't that its no good, I was just countering what others said about religious people not being able to accept it as flawed. I probably should have quoted the original poster.

Those cows won't know what hit 'em. They won't know what hit them even after it hits them, because they're cows.
     
benign
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: A couple of stones from the sun.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 03:25 PM
 
Originally posted by Tulkas:


Benign, if it were up to you every "mystic" would be rounded up and burned at the stake. Hm, not unlike what the catholic church preferred doing to "mystics".


I am only irritated by my fellow
mans unconditional following of
archaic man-made religious texts
(stories) as if divine words and
actions of a creator, or as some sort
of an erternal universal pillar of truth
and cosmic significance.

No ghosts, no angels, no demons
or gods or karma. Nothing supernatural
holds you from being all that you can be.

Don't be afraid of superstitions.

I will or hope for no pain or suffering
of any man, just confounded by those
that hold onto archaic dreams of immorality
and divine knowledge in such an artificial
anthropomorphic form as religion offers.


Simple Empire...
     
Tulkas
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: I have no idea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 03:31 PM
 
Originally posted by hyteckit:
Open minded is good.

Here is a site trying to proof evolution is wrong:

http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm

Yeah, there are hundreds of thousands of site like this.

If you think evolution is the idea of Atheist and they are out to get you, you need serious help. Considering the US population is composed of 79% Christians and only 9% Atheist.
Not to mention books and so on. Sadly many are just as desperate to disprove evolution and tend to make uninformed arguments, even falsify evidence.

I said 999 times that it has nothing to do with religion, that our beliefs should be put aside here.

Those cows won't know what hit 'em. They won't know what hit them even after it hits them, because they're cows.
     
Tulkas
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: I have no idea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 03:36 PM
 
Originally posted by benign:
I am only irritated by my fellow
mans unconditional following of
archaic man-made religious texts
(stories) as if divine words and
actions of a creator, or as some sort
of an erternal universal pillar of truth
and cosmic significance.

No ghosts, no angels, no demons
or gods or karma. Nothing supernatural
holds you from being all that you can be.

Don't be afraid of superstitions.

I will or hope for no pain or suffering
of any man, just confounded by those
that hold onto archaic dreams of immorality
and divine knowledge in such an artificial
anthropomorphic form as religion offers.
Perhaps you're more irritated that they take things which have no backing as fact? I can't see how simply following a certain group would irritate you.

Maybe you should join the army, then you can really be "All that you can be"

I'm not the least bit afraid. Frankly, God hasn't done squat here for a loooong time. When other christians start with the "watch out or god'll toss a rock at you're head" I laugh.

If you whacked the margins, used periods, and didn't come across as a holier-than-thou poet maybe people would listen?

Those cows won't know what hit 'em. They won't know what hit them even after it hits them, because they're cows.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 03:44 PM
 
Hehe... another cool and interesting site. I enjoy reading these stuff.

http://www.omniology.com/
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
entrox
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 03:48 PM
 
Originally posted by Tulkas:
Science and religion don't conflict because they work on different planes. Evolution does though but its the only one that does so.
You're right. Science and religion cannot be compared. The former is based on rationality, logic and constant revision while the latter is based on faith, dogmatism and appeal to an authority which may not be questioned. But suggesting that evolution is the only conflict is ridiculous. I pointed out just a few examples.

Entrox, none of those verses suggest any conflict... unless you're catholic and somehow living in the dark ages. The first refers to the immovability (can you move it?), not that it isn't moving. Second is actually referring to the israelites. Third is almost laughable because I don't see how you can say a miracle conflicts with science.
1.: "The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved."

Here it is clearly stated that the earth CANNOT be moved, which is just wrong. Period. It doesn't matter how you turn, it's still wrong. The earth orbits the sun, which in itself moves through space. Are you telling me that's not movement? You argue that I can't move it. Wrong. I can move the earth by providing a strong enough force in a direction. Imagine a gigantic rocket drive at the south pole, which propels the earth somewhere else. Can we do it today? No. Is it possible? Definitely.

2.: "In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, 5 which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. 6 It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat."

I'm not talking about Israelites, I'm talking about the circuit made by the sun. The words plainly state that the sun is circling the earth, don't they? And no, excuses like "it's figure of speech" or "that's only your interpretation" don't count. If you can take other parts of the bible literally, you have to take this one, too.

3.: 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."

Again, something which is physically impossible is written in the bible. I fail to see how that passage doesn't contradict science. Your "rebuttal" to this one is pathetic at best and totally insane at worst. How can a miracle like this not conflict with modern physics?

For all this talk about evolution being about origins it really isn't. Can you explain where the matter came FROM? No, you can't. To you it was just there but you don't know how it got there. You also can't explain why it wasn't already in some life-supporting form, because really you have infinite time before the big bang so one would assume that evolutional changes that took billions of years would happen even in a longer span. So now you have the distinct possibility that we're not the first intelligent life form, but thats just speculation.
You are thoroughly confused. First of all, as you correctly say, evolution has nothing to do with cosmology. So I don't know why you digress other than to attack a straw-man. Secondly, you should actually read up on theoretical physics before you start blathering about "infinite time" before the "big bang". You (wrongly) state that as if it were fact. We don't know what happened in the first few femtoseconds after the big bang, but we know that our current models and laws break down in that period. We don't even know if there was time before that event. Therefore I think it's quite bold to talk like you know anything about the very fabrics of reality. You just invoke some buzzwords without actually knowing anything about physics.

Plus, I might add, evolution does not encompass the formation of the planets, etc.
Fine, then stop talking about it.

Stradlater, as was there NO evidence against newtonian physics for some time. Well well, turns out it was a pile of crap which has helped us get a little closer to the truth, but in itself ****.
You again demonstrate your lack of understanding. Newtonian physics are not "****", as you put it. They are still valid for non-relativistic velocities and used everywhere. Do you think a mechanical engineer will whip out special relativity equations to do his calculations? Here's a hint: at velocities which are actually interesting to us humans, Einstein's equations actually reduce to the ones you were hopefully taught in school (although I doubt you listened).

This is about what we teach our kids. Its not for us to force on them ideas as something they are not. Same as we can't teach them religion as fact, newtonian physics as fact or any other theory. Theories are to be built upon and we can't expect that to happen if future generations are brain-washed into thinking lies. This is not about our petty beliefs and lives, this is about furthering the cause of science and we cannot do that by building on a pile of lies. Oh, and I've never met anyone who thought science (as a whole, not in part) was ********. I could also explain every last attempt by religion to pervert science but I can easily sum it up in saying that all of them were perversions or misinterpretations. Another good point is that numerous scientists whom we have to thank for the most crucial discoveries have been biblical christians.
You are actually saying valid things, namely that children should be taught to be able to think for themselves, but you seem to be entangled by religious propaganda, since you seem to be referring to a pile of lies. The only reason we're discussing this is because some people feel that one aspect of science is an utter lie, which goes directly against the written word of some god. We don't see them arguing about whether children should be taught the heliocentric model or if gravity and electromagnetism actually exist. Evolution is the result of direct observation and this is the reason why it should be taught. It is a description of life, just like Newtonian physics is a description of mechanics. Perhaps it's not very accurate and it will be revised, but that's absolutely no reason to not teach it as a fact (because it is). General relativity didn't contradict classical physics totally like creationism contradicts evolution; it merely provided us with more accurate answers. Singling out evolution is just the result of religious bigotry
     
benign
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: A couple of stones from the sun.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 04:09 PM
 
Originally posted by Tulkas:

If you whacked the margins, used periods, and didn't come across as a holier-than-thou poet maybe people would listen?

holier-than-thou - did you
read what I wrote or what :)


Simple Empire...
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 04:15 PM
 
Originally posted by Tulkas:
I am not arguing on a religious standpoint. You, unfortunately, are still fighting an endless battle for atheism and are just using this argument as fodder.
Science != Atheism.

BTW, if you believe everything in the Bible literally, then you have to believe that the world is flat.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Tulkas
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: I have no idea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 05:26 PM
 
Originally posted by entrox:
You're right. Science and religion cannot be compared. The former is based on rationality, logic and constant revision while the latter is based on faith, dogmatism and appeal to an authority which may not be questioned. But suggesting that evolution is the only conflict is ridiculous. I pointed out just a few examples.



1.: "The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved."

Here it is clearly stated that the earth CANNOT be moved, which is just wrong. Period. It doesn't matter how you turn, it's still wrong. The earth orbits the sun, which in itself moves through space. Are you telling me that's not movement? You argue that I can't move it. Wrong. I can move the earth by providing a strong enough force in a direction. Imagine a gigantic rocket drive at the south pole, which propels the earth somewhere else. Can we do it today? No. Is it possible? Definitely.

2.: "In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, 5 which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. 6 It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat."

I'm not talking about Israelites, I'm talking about the circuit made by the sun. The words plainly state that the sun is circling the earth, don't they? And no, excuses like "it's figure of speech" or "that's only your interpretation" don't count. If you can take other parts of the bible literally, you have to take this one, too.

3.: 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."

Again, something which is physically impossible is written in the bible. I fail to see how that passage doesn't contradict science. Your "rebuttal" to this one is pathetic at best and totally insane at worst. How can a miracle like this not conflict with modern physics?



You are thoroughly confused. First of all, as you correctly say, evolution has nothing to do with cosmology. So I don't know why you digress other than to attack a straw-man. Secondly, you should actually read up on theoretical physics before you start blathering about "infinite time" before the "big bang". You (wrongly) state that as if it were fact. We don't know what happened in the first few femtoseconds after the big bang, but we know that our current models and laws break down in that period. We don't even know if there was time before that event. Therefore I think it's quite bold to talk like you know anything about the very fabrics of reality. You just invoke some buzzwords without actually knowing anything about physics.



Fine, then stop talking about it.



You again demonstrate your lack of understanding. Newtonian physics are not "****", as you put it. They are still valid for non-relativistic velocities and used everywhere. Do you think a mechanical engineer will whip out special relativity equations to do his calculations? Here's a hint: at velocities which are actually interesting to us humans, Einstein's equations actually reduce to the ones you were hopefully taught in school (although I doubt you listened).



You are actually saying valid things, namely that children should be taught to be able to think for themselves, but you seem to be entangled by religious propaganda, since you seem to be referring to a pile of lies. The only reason we're discussing this is because some people feel that one aspect of science is an utter lie, which goes directly against the written word of some god. We don't see them arguing about whether children should be taught the heliocentric model or if gravity and electromagnetism actually exist. Evolution is the result of direct observation and this is the reason why it should be taught. It is a description of life, just like Newtonian physics is a description of mechanics. Perhaps it's not very accurate and it will be revised, but that's absolutely no reason to not teach it as a fact (because it is). General relativity didn't contradict classical physics totally like creationism contradicts evolution; it merely provided us with more accurate answers. Singling out evolution is just the result of religious bigotry
If you think what I am saying about science makes no sense its nothing compared to your attempt at the bible.

1st verse: Its a metaphor you dolt.

2nd: Tell me, from the earth the sun would appear to be circling us, no? I'm terribly sorry that the book was talking to people without 1/100th of our knowledge but if it had it would be a mighty confusing read back then.

3rd: If God exists why should this be a feat? God is outside the bounds of science, why isn't what he does?

Read the posts I was actually replying to. Face it, everything about the big bang is unknown. Its a hypothesis, one of many. Maybe we could leave it, religion, and any number of other things you seem to be dragging into this discussion, out? I know plenty about physics so unless you're on the verge of some major discoveries we're both working with the same information.

Have you read ANYTHING I've written? I said several times that religion should be left out of the discussion but you keep dragging it back in. I said evolution is a fact, but you keep saying I think its a lie. Believing in God is something a majority do so just face it instead of hiding behind the idea that its just a couple kooks. Oh, and I never brought in any "propaganda". If you can't accept that this is a major faith and that the existence of god is impossible to disprove then atleast don't start putting words in my mouth.

No one said it was an utter lie. Cross-Species evolution is the issue, not evolution. Evidently you can't distinguish the difference because its laughable to think we have "direct observation" of one species turning into another. Did I ever single out evolution? No, I said that any theory should be taught as such whether it be physics or gravity. Obviously we are talking about a high-school level.

The point is we don't shove our crap down our children's throats. Obviously teaching evolution as fact will conflict with the kids beliefs and possibly create friction with various pricks.

You must be proud of yourself, being able to turn this into a religious flame war and all.

Those cows won't know what hit 'em. They won't know what hit them even after it hits them, because they're cows.
     
Tulkas
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: I have no idea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 05:29 PM
 
Originally posted by CharlesS:
Science != Atheism.

BTW, if you believe everything in the Bible literally, then you have to believe that the world is flat.
And that four horsemen are gonna come and toast my ass. Your ass actually

Why can't we all just get along?

Those cows won't know what hit 'em. They won't know what hit them even after it hits them, because they're cows.
     
entrox
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 06:40 PM
 
Originally posted by Tulkas:
If you think what I am saying about science makes no sense its nothing compared to your attempt at the bible.
What's there to attempt? I'm just reading what's written there and you're missing the point. I was replying to Superchic[k]en, who claimed that evolution is the only scientific theory which conflicts with every Christians belief and I showed a few other conflicts. Here comes Tulkas to the rescue and conveniently brushes everything away by claiming it's all metaphors and shouldn't be taken literally of course. Now I ask you: if we start cherry-picking parts out of the bible and brush the obvious violations of physics away, why should we believe in Genesis? Just why should we treat evolution differently from all the other disciplines in school? Isn't this the crux of the discussion? Isn't this what's happening in Georgia right now?


Read the posts I was actually replying to. Face it, everything about the big bang is unknown. Its a hypothesis, one of many. Maybe we could leave it, religion, and any number of other things you seem to be dragging into this discussion, out? I know plenty about physics so unless you're on the verge of some major discoveries we're both working with the same information.
It is a fact that the Big Bang occured and just because we don't know what happened in the first 10^-47 seconds does not mean we don't know anything about it. But I agree, we should stop talking about it, since you've repeatedly demonstrated your lack of understanding of physics. Stop pretending.


No one said it was an utter lie. Cross-Species evolution is the issue, not evolution. Evidently you can't distinguish the difference because its laughable to think we have "direct observation" of one species turning into another.
Well, you were the one who said something about a "pile of lies". The whole irony in this is that you are perpetuating Creationist lies yourself, namely that macro-evolution doesn't occur. One part of it, speciation, has been observed and that is a fact. The other part can be indirectly observed by looking at transitional fossils. Do you also discard plate tectonics because you can't directly observe it? But this has been trampled to death in the other whacko-thread, so I won't repeat everything here.


Did I ever single out evolution? No, I said that any theory should be taught as such whether it be physics or gravity. Obviously we are talking about a high-school level.
But that's stupid to no end. Tell them ONCE how the scientific method works and be done with it. I also learned this ONCE in 7th grade, but perhaps the German education is better than some studies want to make us believe...


You must be proud of yourself, being able to turn this into a religious flame war and all.
I just responded to the outrageous claims originally made by Superchic[k]en. Thanks for playing, though.
( Last edited by entrox; Jan 31, 2004 at 07:11 PM. )
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 06:54 PM
 
Originally posted by Tulkas:
Why can't we all just get along?
Because some people are trying to use the legal system to screw over science education.

No one said it was an utter lie. Cross-Species evolution is the issue, not evolution. Evidently you can't distinguish the difference because its laughable to think we have "direct observation" of one species turning into another.

What makes you think there's some magic barrier between species? What defines a species anyway? It's a classification that we, humans have come up to distinguish between life forms. What's so special about species that suggests that they can't ever change, even though our evidence points to it and we can observe just about everything else changing?

Did I ever single out evolution? No, I said that any theory should be taught as such whether it be physics or gravity. Obviously we are talking about a high-school level.

The point is we don't shove our crap down our children's throats. Obviously teaching evolution as fact will conflict with the kids beliefs and possibly create friction with various pricks.

Guess we shouldn't shove the theory of gravity or any of the principles of chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy, etc. down their throats, by the same reasoning. After all, everything's theory! For all we know, it could all be a vast simulation and we could really be in the holodeck of the Enterprise.

Actually, why bother teaching them at all? Let's just let them sit at home and play video games all day long.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 07:13 PM
 
For since the creation of the world
His invisible attributes are clearly seen,
being understood by the things
that are made

even His eternal power and divine
nature, so that they are without excuse,

because, although they knew God,
they did not glorify Him as God,
nor were thankful

but became futile in their thoughts,
and their foolish hearts
were darkened. Professing to
be wise, they became fools.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 07:25 PM
 
^ Great, now there's two of them.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Nonsuch
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Riverside IL, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 09:45 PM
 
Originally posted by Tulkas:
I am not for or against evolution: I am for teaching our kids to be free-thinking and open-minded enough not to be sucked anyone's belief. Whether it is being staunchly convinced of something which is not proven�be it religion, a theory or atheism�it is not in the best interest of our children.
You can't teach children to reflexively distrust everything they're taught about every subject. Skepticism is a subtle discipline; you need a firm undergirding of knowledge and the ability to think critically, and you can't teach those things in a vacuum. I don't think it's in the best interest of our children to teach them that all our knowledge is speculative, that therefore nothing is really "known" and that therefore they're basically on their own in figuring shit out, since their own guess is as good as anyone else's. Just because this or that principle can't be proven absolutely according to the strict discipline of logic doesn't mean it doesn't have very real usefulness in our lives.
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them.

-- Frederick Douglass, 1857
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2004, 10:06 PM
 
Originally posted by CharlesS:
^ Great, now there's two of them.
Cept I didn't write that.

Don't worry. I wont be making a habit of it.
     
Tulkas
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: I have no idea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2004, 01:37 AM
 
Originally posted by entrox:
What's there to attempt? I'm just reading what's written there and you're missing the point. I was replying to Superchic[k]en, who claimed that evolution is the only scientific theory which conflicts with every Christians belief and I showed a few other conflicts. Here comes Tulkas to the rescue and conveniently brushes everything away by claiming it's all metaphors and shouldn't be taken literally of course. Now I ask you: if we start cherry-picking parts out of the bible and brush the obvious violations of physics away, why should we believe in Genesis? Just why should we treat evolution differently from all the other disciplines in school? Isn't this the crux of the discussion? Isn't this what's happening in Georgia right now?




It is a fact that the Big Bang occured and just because we don't know what happened in the first 10^-47 seconds does not mean we don't know anything about it. But I agree, we should stop talking about it, since you've repeatedly demonstrated your lack of understanding of physics. Stop pretending.




Well, you were the one who said something about a "pile of lies". The whole irony in this is that you are perpetuating Creationist lies yourself, namely that macro-evolution doesn't occur. One part of it, speciation, has been observed and that is a fact. The other part can be indirectly observed by looking at transitional fossils. Do you also discard plate tectonics because you can't directly observe it? But this has been trampled to death in the other whacko-thread, so I won't repeat everything here.




But that's stupid to no end. Tell them ONCE how the scientific method works and be done with it. I also learned this ONCE in 7th grade, but perhaps the German education is better than some studies want to make us believe...




I just responded to the outrageous claims originally made by Superchic[k]en. Thanks for playing, though.
I might note that all but the last bible reference was written by someone with no scientific knowledge.

Ugh, the big bang is not fact. Whatever we know has simply been reasoned out, and while there is evidence its far from being an acceptable explanation. 10^-47? I mean come on...

I said I agreed with macro evolution. I never perpetuated any "creationist lies". You have some difficulty with differing beliefs? All you ever say is "You're wrong, I'm right". You said direct, maybe a typo?

Do you really think this matters anyway? Anyone who cares will study, learn the theory and be happy.

Another thread down the ol' toilet.

Those cows won't know what hit 'em. They won't know what hit them even after it hits them, because they're cows.
     
ghost_flash
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2004, 01:51 AM
 
"Did we evolve?"

No.

"Are we even allowed to say so?

Yes, err No.

...
     
ghost_flash
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2004, 02:05 AM
 
Slightly off-topic:



Great Book Titled: "LINK" by Walt Becker

Synopsis

"The final piece has been found. In a tiny cave in Central Africa, paleoanthropologist Samantha Colby has discovered the skeleton of what might be the long-sought missing link between ape and man. But the ancient bones raise more questions then they answer-and they suggest that human ancestry can be traced to something previously unimaginable. ..The most important discovery in civilization's history could mean death for Colby and renegade scientist Jack Austin. For it will lead them to even greater revelations that could rock the world-and to secrets no human should know."
...
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2004, 03:12 AM
 
Could you imagine, say 5 thousand years from now. Scientists find the remains of the Elephant man. And then claim we were once part elephant.

It happened man, the bones don't lie.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2004, 03:58 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Could you imagine, say 5 thousand years from now. Scientists find the remains of the Elephant man. And then claim we were once part elephant.

It happened man, the bones don't lie.
Do you even know the story of the elephant man?
     
wataru
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2004, 04:10 AM
 
Originally posted by entrox:
Here's a hint: at velocities which are actually interesting to us humans, Einstein's equations actually reduce to the ones you were hopefully taught in school (although I doubt you listened).
This is an excellent point that I don't think many people understand. Both relativity and quantum mechanics reduce to Newtonian mechanics when you consider systems slower (for relativity) or "larger" (energy-wise, for QM). Newtonian mechanics is an approximation, one that is perfectly valid for everything but the extremely large, small, or fast. It is not "crap," nor is it "wrong."
Originally posted by nonhuman:
Do you even know the story of the elephant man?
Save your energy and don't even bother with him. He's a troll. And no, I don't mean the elephant man.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2004, 04:14 AM
 
Originally posted by wataru:
Save your energy and don't even bother with him. He's a troll. And no, I don't mean the elephant man.
I know, I know. I'm just really bad at not starting these arguments. I'm working at it though, I really am!
     
phoenixboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: to your right, if you are wearing bronze, to your left, if you are wearing silver
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2004, 04:17 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Could you imagine, say 5 thousand years from now. Scientists find the remains of the Elephant man. And then claim we were once part elephant.

It happened man, the bones don't lie.
could you imagine people being able to travel through time 5000 years from now, and finally and conclusively prove that every story in the bible is only a metaphor and never literally happened the way it was written.

"but...but it did happen, in another dimension..."


So keep on living And don`t start giving The devil good reasons To get you in the seasons of heartbreak Baby are you tough enough?
     
mrmister
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2004, 04:26 AM
 
If you care to roll back to page two you'll see I posted on how this isn't really going to help by argueing--folks who percieve the the theory of evolution (or more often, their own perception of the theory of evolution) as being antithetical to their belief systems are not capable of reasoning on the matter without dragging their heart into the discussion, because for them it is a religious matter. This makes it impossible to show them that no theory could ever topple God.

These arguements usually devolve into the loud and the louder, with a sprinkling of annoying types on both sides who insist that everryone shut up and listen to them NOW.

I usually don't get into the pool, so I must have too much time on my hands. Anyone who wants to follow me, I'll be in other threads, discussing the Macintosh.
     
entrox
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2004, 08:03 AM
 
Originally posted by Tulkas:
I might note that all but the last bible reference was written by someone with no scientific knowledge.
Irrelevant. There are people who still take things like this literally, otherwise we wouldn't have this discussion.

I said I agreed with macro evolution. I never perpetuated any "creationist lies". You have some difficulty with differing beliefs? All you ever say is "You're wrong, I'm right". You said direct, maybe a typo?
Yes, this was an error on my side. I should've omitted the 'direct' part. The point I was trying to make is that since evolution is the result of observation, it should be taught. Period. It is very probable that revisions will be made and some things may change - that's the idea. But it will not be completely overturned in favour of something completely different like intelligent design.

Do you really think this matters anyway? Anyone who cares will study, learn the theory and be happy.
I couldn't care less about what people believe or not. But there are alarm bells going off in my head if I hear about some people trying to strong-arm the government into screwing with a correct education, just because reality conflicts with their beliefs.

Another thread down the ol' toilet.
The very premise of this thread already sparks of irrationality. I don't see how one can have an objective discussion over an apparently very emotional issue.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2004, 08:29 AM
 
You know it's a good flame war when you see this:




[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:57 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,