Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 8/28/2006 5:26:20 PM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline
Relax.  That comment wasn't even directed at you (though it's true).

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTRsubNW

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Yeah, and the theory that the sun revolved around the earth existed for about 100,000 years.  So what?


(Don't be fucking with me man...)

(in reply to LTRsubNW)
Profile   Post #: 401
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 9/9/2006 9:53:02 AM   
LTRsubNW


Posts: 1604
Joined: 5/6/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Relax.  That comment wasn't even directed at you (though it's true).



Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha (sometimes it's just not worth getting out of bed lol)

< Message edited by LTRsubNW -- 9/9/2006 9:54:22 AM >

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 402
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/11/2006 9:46:04 PM   
MissBabydoll


Posts: 62
Joined: 8/9/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

You still have yet to get any facts straight CD.  They were right about the pigs and whistle.  I will try once more though.

Creationism explains, if not taken to be a literal six days, the stages of evolution from the \Big Bang to the existence of Ubadian settlements.  It was simplified to pass it down from generation to generation before the advent of writing in 3000 BC.

The Chaos Theory explains that the world is not random at all.  There is nothing random about it.  It explains that everything, even though it appears to be random, such as the atmosphere, solar system, economics and population growth actually has order to it.  An interesting example is any coastline along the ocean.  View it from space.  You will see bays.  Continue to zoom in.  You will continue to see them.  Keep zooming in down to the particles of sand on the beach.  You will continue to see them, and a mathematical formula will apply.  Of course, if you still cannot get this through your head I will provide the equation and further explanation for you.

It is our poorly educated masses that keep this debate going on.  It is people like you that do not have the first clue about history, science, mathematics or society that makes these absurd claims and maintains a closed mind, keeping the world from exploring the possibilities and opening us up to new and fantastic discoveries.  Of course the fundamentalist right is equally to blame.  I know you are trying to excuse your actions by saying there is no God and thus eradicating any sense of accountability.  You have already made that very clear.  You are not alone.  Millions of people do it.  However, it is starting to appear that viewpoint makes about as much sense as the theory that we are just here at random.

Bear in mind that the theory of Creation and it's many interpretations has been around for more than 6000 years.  The theory of Evolution can not even hold a candle to that.  The two can coexist, if people like you would stop being so narrow minded.


The first problem here is the use of the word "theory" to describe both creation myths (anyone's, not just the Christian reading of the first book of the Torah, which is quite obviously a conflation of several oral narratives from different periods of Jewish history) and the scientific body of knowledge known popularly as "the theory of evolution."

First off, as Stephen J. Gould points out, biological evolution is not a theory. It's a *fact*. It's a fact that countless species over billions of years have come and gone, and that life on earth has changed, and that new species have developed out of previous ones. The evidence for this fact is overwhelming: the fossil and geological record, morphology, radioisotopic dating, species distribution, and now genomics--as well as, in real time, microbic resistance to antibiotics and antivirals, and countless lab experiments on fruitflies and other fast-reproducing creatures. Natural selection, the explanation for biological evolution first advanced by Charles Darwin, is a theory. In nearly 150 years since he published *The Origin of Species*, the theory has been tested countless times against observable reality, and found to be by far the best explanation we have. There is still debate among scientists about all the ways in and levels at which natural selection operates--is it only at the level of the gene, or are organisms and even communities of organisms co-evolving?--but no sane biologist now argues that natural selection is not the main mechanism of evolution.

This brings me to the issue of what a "theory" is. The conflation of stories Christians call by the Greek name "Genesis" is not a theory. It is a mythical explanation based on a very limited knowledge of the nature of the physical universe. It is often beautiful and has poetic resonance, because those ancient Hebrew herdsmen, my distant ancestors, saw the same sky and breathed the same air and drank the same water we do, and also had kinship systems and fought and made friends and fell in love and had babies and died, and so confronted basically similar existential questions. The theory of natural selection, on the other hand, is based on and reinforced by a vast accumulation of empirical evidence, much of it not intuitive at all: who would have guessed before genomics that the closest cousin of the hippopotamus was not the rhino or the elephant (which it superficially resembles) but the dolphin? This makes sense, though, if you remember that the cetacea, like the hippo, evolved in rivers (and a few species of dolphins still live in them). And I'm sorry, but  the beginning of Genesis does not sound like an account of the Big Bang to me. The ancient Hebrews knew nothing about star formation, or comet bombardment leading to the formation of the oceans, or the structure of galaxies, or the bulk of the history of life on earth, which was fermentative and bacterial, not photosynthetic. Trying to twist words in a creation myth around to make them sound like what we now know and believe about the history of the universe and of life is just an exercise in self-delusion, like all fundamentalist Biblical hermeneutics. I'm a poet and a scholar of poetry, and I think poetry has its own truth, which is not the truth of a scientific theory, which must be observable, testable, accurately predictive, and disprovable in principle. The stories in Genesis do not meet these criteria.

The fact that a person can post on here and say flatly "I don't believe in evolution," a statement as utterly ludicrous as "I don't believe in oxygen," and not be ridiculed shows that education is science and indeed any form of critical reasoning has been crippled by pressures from organized religion, mainly fundamentalist Christianity. This has to stop, or we head into a new Dark Age. No, I am not tolerant of religious views when they bring harm to others, and religious fundamentalism is harmful on a scale that global warming is about to bring home quite dramatically--not to mention the forthcoming overthrow of Roe v. Wade. I will fight the fundies to my last breath, and I will not play nice with them. Will any of you people stand up for the establishment clause of the First Amendment?

(in reply to SirKenin)
Profile   Post #: 403
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/12/2006 7:46:18 AM   
ZenrageTheKeeper


Posts: 237
Joined: 6/26/2005
Status: offline
quote:

I know you are trying to excuse your actions by saying there is no God and thus eradicating any sense of accountability.  You have already made that very clear.  You are not alone.  Millions of people do it.  However, it is starting to appear that viewpoint makes about as much sense as the theory that we are just here at random.

Bear in mind that the theory of Creation and it's many interpretations has been around for more than 6000 years.  The theory of Evolution can not even hold a candle to that.  The two can coexist, if people like you would stop being so narrow minded.


oooh, Creationism is an old conjecture passed down by people who believed that gods lived on top of mountains and the dead lived underground which after 5000 years STILL has no real empirical evidence to support it..

...and the length off time its been around, unsupported, somehow makes it valid theory by default, huh?

yeah.. it takes a REAL narrow mind to understand how that could be tossed aside by educated individuals. [/sarcasm]

Science is NOT something that is voted upon or denied because it is unpopular with the theistic masses. Real science involves hypotheses based on avialable knowledge which in turn present metholodgies to obtain real evidence, that can be measured, under controlled circumstances to either support or deny the current hypothesis.

Creationism is all conjecture and no science. Creationism is actually a double conjecture based on the first conjecture that "god exists" - for which, again, there is no evidence for beyond personal religious faith. It has no methodology to obtain evidence. No suggestion of how to contsruct an environment to contain such an experiment. No way of measuring that evidence once the experiement obtains it. And no guidelines for establishing a relationship if there was one between the conjecture and the evidence.

Simply put, Creationists are NOT scientists, attempting to poke holes in well supported theories like Evolution does not make Creationism valid by default, and teaching Creationism in Biology classes would be like teaching Alchemy in Chemistry class as a serious discipline instead of a complete joke.

Creationists are not awarded respect in the scientific community simply because they have not earned it.


_____________________________

If Men never thought with their penises, all you girls would still have cooties.

(in reply to SirKenin)
Profile   Post #: 404
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/12/2006 9:15:10 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ZenrageTheKeeper

quote:

I know you are trying to excuse your actions by saying there is no God and thus eradicating any sense of accountability.  You have already made that very clear.  You are not alone.  Millions of people do it.  However, it is starting to appear that viewpoint makes about as much sense as the theory that we are just here at random.

Bear in mind that the theory of Creation and it's many interpretations has been around for more than 6000 years.  The theory of Evolution can not even hold a candle to that.  The two can coexist, if people like you would stop being so narrow minded.


oooh, Creationism is an old conjecture passed down by people who believed that gods lived on top of mountains and the dead lived underground which after 5000 years STILL has no real empirical evidence to support it..

...and the length off time its been around, unsupported, somehow makes it valid theory by default, huh?

yeah.. it takes a REAL narrow mind to understand how that could be tossed aside by educated individuals. [/sarcasm]

Science is NOT something that is voted upon or denied because it is unpopular with the theistic masses. Real science involves hypotheses based on avialable knowledge which in turn present metholodgies to obtain real evidence, that can be measured, under controlled circumstances to either support or deny the current hypothesis.

Creationism is all conjecture and no science. Creationism is actually a double conjecture based on the first conjecture that "god exists" - for which, again, there is no evidence for beyond personal religious faith. It has no methodology to obtain evidence. No suggestion of how to contsruct an environment to contain such an experiment. No way of measuring that evidence once the experiement obtains it. And no guidelines for establishing a relationship if there was one between the conjecture and the evidence.

Simply put, Creationists are NOT scientists, attempting to poke holes in well supported theories like Evolution does not make Creationism valid by default, and teaching Creationism in Biology classes would be like teaching Alchemy in Chemistry class as a serious discipline instead of a complete joke.

Creationists are not awarded respect in the scientific community simply because they have not earned it.




=====================================================

Perhaps in addition to teaching creationism and alchemy we should also teach the flat earth along with geography.
thompson

(in reply to ZenrageTheKeeper)
Profile   Post #: 405
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/12/2006 12:36:52 PM   
Zensee


Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ZenrageTheKeeper

oooh, Creationism is an old conjecture passed down by people who believed that gods lived on top of mountains and the dead lived underground...



Careful Zrenrage - I'd say this thread is pretty solid proof that the dead can rise again.


_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to ZenrageTheKeeper)
Profile   Post #: 406
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/12/2006 1:01:53 PM   
Kirei


Posts: 146
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
You want to teach all this in science class its really simple.  You have 2 science classes.  One is factual (hard)science which is stuff like biology, chemistry, and some physics all of the stuff that you can actually do and see.  Now the second class of science should be called theoritical science.  This would allow you to teach the theory of relativity, creation, evolution, big bang, super string stuff, etc.  Because all of this stuff is still theory, and is mostly based on some mathimatical equation that has yet to proven by real hard science.
   This way we would have those that know the real facts of what can be done and those that dream of bigger and different things and who wish to prove themselves right.  Fact: Carl Sagan was considered a nut case till we actually got to the moon and it proved his theory right over someone else's who has now been forgotten.

(in reply to Zensee)
Profile   Post #: 407
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/12/2006 1:38:59 PM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline
You can't put the theory of relativity and the theory of creationism in the same category.  "Theory" doesn't just mean "this or that unproven stuff."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirei

Now the second class of science should be called theoritical science.  This would allow you to teach the theory of relativity, creation, evolution, big bang, super string stuff, etc.  Because all of this stuff is still theory, and is mostly based on some mathimatical equation that has yet to proven by real hard science.

(in reply to Kirei)
Profile   Post #: 408
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/12/2006 7:15:23 PM   
Elegrea


Posts: 38
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Obscurity
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TopCurious0

I would more say that religion trys to answer "why" and often that answer is a "who".






I make it my religion to ask 'Why?'



_____________________________

If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you.
If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.

(in reply to TopCurious0)
Profile   Post #: 409
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/12/2006 7:36:45 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

We have proof of Creation too, if we do not take it to be a literal six days.


Really?

(in reply to SirKenin)
Profile   Post #: 410
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/12/2006 7:40:54 PM   
Zensee


Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline
Well said, Elerea.

Kirei - Gravity doesn't stop working because we change our theory of what makes it tick. There are theories about evolution but evolution is not a theory, it is a natural mechanism.

Z.


< Message edited by Zensee -- 11/12/2006 7:41:45 PM >


_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to Elegrea)
Profile   Post #: 411
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/12/2006 7:51:30 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Second, there is only one story of Creation, not two.


FWIW, I learned in my Catholic preparatory seminary that there are indeed two creation accounts.

The older of the two, attributed to the Yahwist author, appears in Genesis 2. God first creates the man, then creates the garden and trees. God decides that it's not good for the man to be alone and creates the animals and then the woman.

The newer account, attributed to the Priestly writer, appears in Genesis 1. It recounts the familar six days of creation. In this account, plants and animals are created before humans.

(in reply to SirKenin)
Profile   Post #: 412
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/12/2006 8:14:59 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

I just don't understand why those who believe in God feel they can't believe in God and Darwinism?


I learned all about evolution in Catholic school, so I've never felt it was necessarily at odds with faith.

(in reply to captiveplatypus)
Profile   Post #: 413
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/12/2006 8:25:10 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Philosophy..clearly a threatened species will, if it can, move into a parallel niche which is able to support the species as it currently exists. What it wont do is change into a new species.

I have decide to up the ante philosophy and ladle out a little abuse in your direction. It may clear your head. Your arguments are so weak that my suggestion is that you cross a dead sheep with a dead goat and await for a Welsh Wizard to be produced. If that happens I will accept the truth of natural Selection.

I do hope Rule has not moved to a parallel niche. Though I did think that he was feeling threatened so who knows.


What I find curious about arguments that evolution does not exist is that one can see the results of evolution in species like bacteria that live a week or so.

Create a petri dish of bacteria from, say, your mouth.  Let it populate.  Drop in something like, say rotting bread.  Watch 90% of the bacteria die.  Let those bacteria populate in a new petri dish.  Drop in a something like, another piece of rotting bread.  Watch 10% of the bacteria die.  Populate more petri dishes, and discover that if you put the petri dish in your mouth you could eat as much rotting bread as you wanted without upsetting the bacteria in your mouth.

Sure, people generally do not see the results of natural selection in a big way in animals which live 20 years because, well, people dont live that long.

On the other hand, dogs and cattle were domesticated from wild animals to fill the niche that was created for them over thousands of years.

Just me, etc.

Sinergy

edited to remove superfluous phonemes.

< Message edited by Sinergy -- 11/12/2006 8:47:07 PM >


_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 414
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/12/2006 8:27:42 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

The Pentateuch source considered to be the earliest is the Elohist or 'E' source.


I thought the Yahwist (J) was the oldest source. In Understanding the Old Testament, Bernhard Anderson gives the following chronology:


  • Yahwist (J) -- c. 950 B.C.E.
  • Elohist (E) -- c. 850 B.C.E.
  • Deuteronomic (D) -- c. 650 B.C.E.
  • Priestly (P) -- c. 550 B.C.E.



(in reply to QuietDom)
Profile   Post #: 415
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/12/2006 8:32:34 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

I don't know what Bible he was using and he didn't say.  But in every Bible on earth, the phrase "be fruitful and multiply" comes in the verse AFTER the verse that says God created male and female human beings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuietDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


Kedikat must be referring to a characteristic of the Elohist source.  If you have a decent study Bible, it will use consistent standard when it translates terms for God, so that you know which word was originally used.

The Pentateuch source considered to be the earliest is the Elohist or 'E' source.  He uses the word Elohim for God.  In Hebrew, words ending in -im are plurals.  Scholars take that to imply that, at the time of the E-source, the Israelites were not yet monotheistic, but polytheistic just like all the neighbouring cultures.  This earlier practice also carried over into the name El Elohim, which your Bible likely translates to "God of gods."  This term bespeaks a continuing polytheistic practice, but with an "over-god" in charge of all the others, comparable to the roles of Zeus and Odin in their respective belief systems.



The confusion may stem from the fact that God says "Be fruitful" twice. The first command is directed to animals (Gen. 1:22), the second to humans (Gen. 1:28).

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 416
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/12/2006 8:40:59 PM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline
You're responding to something from three months ago, so I had to look back at what we were talking about...

And we were talking about God's directive to human beings.  So obviously we weren't talking about 1:22.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

I don't know what Bible he was using and he didn't say.  But in every Bible on earth, the phrase "be fruitful and multiply" comes in the verse AFTER the verse that says God created male and female human beings.


The confusion may stem from the fact that God says "Be fruitful" twice. The first command is directed to animals (Gen. 1:22), the second to humans (Gen. 1:28).

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 417
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/12/2006 8:44:53 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

You can't put the theory of relativity and the theory of creationism in the same category.  "Theory" doesn't just mean "this or that unproven stuff."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirei

Now the second class of science should be called theoritical science.  This would allow you to teach the theory of relativity, creation, evolution, big bang, super string stuff, etc.  Because all of this stuff is still theory, and is mostly based on some mathimatical equation that has yet to proven by real hard science.



Hello A/all,

Big bang has been experimentally proven by measuring the background microwave radiation in the universe.  Energy had to start somewhere, and there is no real coherent theory of what would cause it at this time except a "Big Bang" sort of event.  In other words, the most cohesive theory at hand is that the universe started with a big bang.

Why the universe is speeding up trying to get away from each other is still a conundrum.

String theory was originally developed as a means to reconcile quantum mechanics (which has been proven) and gravity (which has also been proven).  The issue is that we have no way to mathematically or experimentally connect these two things.  Hence, string theory.  In my mind, saying "God did it" is just a silly cop-out.

The Theory of Relativity has been proven.  So it is no longer really a theory.
It was proven by time samples from synchronized clocks travelling at different speeds (satellites vs. ground stations)  The timing signals differ (over time) based on the delta between the speeds they are travelling.  This has resulted in the need for software in both satellites and ground stations to modify their clock timings based on the theory of relativity to keep their signals current.  To summarize:  We have to modify our computer systems to account for what the Theory of Relativity theorizes in order to make things work correctly.  This proves, at least to me, that this theoretical model is correct.

Chaos theory is rather poorly named.  It is the theory that complexity and persistent systems arise of their own accord in a truly chaotic environment.  Again, it is not really a theory as it has been proven experimentally via computers as well as archeologically.

The problem creation scientists have is that their theories generally fall back on a basic premise, which seems to be "I cannot understand it, therefore God must have made it happen."

I have heard pre-schoolers make similar arguments about things.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 418
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/13/2006 5:29:56 AM   
ZenrageTheKeeper


Posts: 237
Joined: 6/26/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

The problem creation scientists have is that their theories generally fall back on a basic premise, which seems to be "I cannot understand it, therefore God must have made it happen."


That's pretty much everything Behe said in a nutshell.


_____________________________

If Men never thought with their penises, all you girls would still have cooties.

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 419
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/13/2006 6:29:13 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline
I'm glad this subject has re surfaced and I notice the same old pro evolution fallacies being trotted out.
For example pro evos,  the observation that a Deity could not/did not create what we see around us does NOT make Evolution by Natural Selection true.

Cosmologists are being lead astray by abstruse mathematics, ask a cosmo man what preceded the Big Bang and I think you will get a somewhat blank response couple with a dash of irritation.
As an example for a few years now cosmologists have confidently asserted the the existance of Dark Matter simply to give more credence to the maths. Now it appears that Dark Matter probably doesnt exist at all. Oh well not to worry plenty more theories to choose from !

To the best of my knowledge there is no known example of species A mutating to species B. Odd what ? In fact Evolution has nothing to say about  the critical points in pre history when the new species SUDDENLY emerge as if by magick !

(in reply to ZenrageTheKeeper)
Profile   Post #: 420
Page:   <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094