Biliskner
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 12:54 am
rosborne979 wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
With god all miracles are possible; that's the underlying argument for everything in the bible.


For a True Believer, it's even more extreme than this, because not only is God omnipotent and omniscient, but he is also granted the flexibility of motive beyond our understanding ("God works in mysterious ways"), and in so doing is given the freedom of illogical and irrational (to us) action.


damn. i had high hopes for people such as Hobbs, Boyle, Descarte, Newton, Leibeniz, Bacon, Faraday, Maxwell, Kepler, Pascal but i guess they were poo-ed in the head and mad with rabies too 'cos they believed in God... damn it, all of a sudden i feel so cold.

Hail Hitle... I mean, Hail Darwinism, and Evolution too.
0 Replies
 
Biliskner
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 12:58 am
cash3 wrote:
headofthefield wrote:
So i guess i would say that i think your idea is wrong.


Just wondering, who do you think is wrong; me with the idea that evolution is different from adaptation or those with the idea that they are the same?


i think you're correct to think that the idea of evolution and the concept of adaptation is different. but the steaming bodies on this thread will say i know jack all 'cos i choose creationism and sit in the stead of 17th - 19th C (pre-darwinian) philosophically minded, God-believing scientists.
0 Replies
 
Biliskner
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 01:05 am
parados wrote:

This leaves out several simple scientific points. The author claims it only took 128 years of plant growth to acheive the entire known coal reserves. An interesting point but it fails to address the issue of how there could be 128 years of growth happening at the instant that the flood occurred. Did the annual grasses live 128 years back then? Did the flood require 128 years for it to occur in spite of the claim of 40 days?
And what about all the oil reserves that would also require plant growth to create? How were they formed since all the plants were required to create the coal?
Is it possible the author was claiming that no plants decayed before the flood? He doesn't say so but that might have been a possibility.

Perhaps you can provide us with the "emprical scientific evidence" to answer these questions Bili.


what exactly are you asking?
(reminiscence of another thread with your sharp questions.)

are you asking if plants change in their live-ability? like humans live average 75-80 years now but 200 years ago they didn't?

the author IS saying that it requires a minimum of 128 days growth of plants to witness the amount of coal reserves we see today. nothing more, nothing less. so what's your question?
0 Replies
 
Biliskner
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 01:10 am
parados wrote:

I thought the Tsunami was pretty catastrophic as well as the author's own reference to St Helens. Don't you agree Bili? Vol? Certainly the large craters formed on earth from very large meteor strikes wouldn't have been catastrophic.


you ain't seen nothin' yet.
what the... where did that come from.


parados wrote:


Bili, Didn't the flood last only 40 days and nights? Can you honestly accept an argument that claims it lasted 1 year?



do you believe that God can ACTUALLY raise someone from the dead (ie: physically)?
oh hang on... don't... oh never mind.


parados wrote:

The real question is where did all this water go that bubbled up out of the earth to cover the highest mountains and then dispersed. Can you provide any evidence of that water going somewhere Bili?


those guys that made the pyramids took it as compensation for building the pyramids.
0 Replies
 
Starchild14
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 01:38 am
evolution **caution: long post ahead**
Obviously, there are many opinions on evolution and it can be a very touchy subject with some people. Here's what I think about it:

First of all, I think evolution is misunderstood by a lot of people, both people who don't believe in it and people who do. I think the most common misconception is that evolution happens all of a sudden, for no good reason: a little monkey is just walking along, minding his own business, when the earth starts to rumble, and **ShaZayum!** the monkey turns into a human and man is born. Shocked

That's not how it works (though if it were, I bet it would be fun to watch :wink: ) Actually, evolution is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population. Confused What the heck does that mean? It means this: imagine that you were immortal, and you came back to the same place at the same time every year and looked at the group of a certain kind of animal that lived there, like the bullfrogs in a particular pond, the whitetail deer in a particular forest, etc. and you did this every year for a long time. You might notice that some years the animals looked or behaved a little different than they did other years. Evolution doesn't have to be anything so dramatic as a fish evolving into a lizard or anything, it's mostly just subtle changes in the way animals look or act that helps them survive better in their environment.

Imagine you've got some gazelles living in a savannah, and they're just chillin', no predators, they're all fat, slow, and dumb, just hangin' out eatin' some grass. Cool. Then a lionness moves into that area. Now, there's fast gazelles and there's slow gazelles, and it ain't good to be a slow gazelle. Now, how fast you run can be affected by a lot of things: how much practice or training you've had, how strong your muscles are, etc. But some of those things, like how good your reflexes are, how quickly you can change direction while running, etc., are things you were just born with, not things you got from practice. Well, the gazelles that were born with the kinds of genes that give them useful skills like fast reflexes, ability to change direction quickly, and general coordination (ie, the non-klutzy gazelles) are the ones that are going to do well in this situation. They'll get away. Now, our friends the slow, bad-reflexes, no coordination (four left hooves you might say), klutzy gazelles are going to run in the wrong direction, and be all slow, and trip over their own four left hooves, and they are going to provide food for the lion. Crying or Very sad Unfortunately, such is life. Now, all the gazelles left alive are going to go on with their lives, and HAVE BABY GAZELLES. <-- that's important. So the genes that helped them run away from the lion, as well as all their other genes, will be passed on to their kids. So imagine this keeps up for a while. Lion eats the slowest ones, fastest ones have babies. If you come back every year, you're going to notice that what started out as a group of fat, lazy, slow, dumb gazelles, is going to turn into a stragetic, lean, limber, fast, coordinated bunch of LION-EVADING MACHINES, baby! Cool No single gazelle changed. But the group is different than it was a few generations ago. AND THAT'S EVOLUTION. Evolution is when a group of living things becomes different than their parents, grandparents, great-great-great-grandparents, whatever. Lady peacocks (called peahens, if you wanna get all fancy) like brightly-colored gentlemen. The brightly-colored peacocks get all the girls, and the dull-looking peacocks get left all lonely. So when that year's crop of baby peacocks shows up, guess who the daddies are? If the dads are brightly-colored, so are the babies. And then when they grow up, those girls pick the brightest-colored boys. So over time, the peacocks get brighter and brighter.

Now, as for religion. I personally believe in evolution, and I am a person of faith. I like to think of evolution as "God's way of doing things." You agree that a lion in town will make the gazelles faster eventually, right? But you've never seen a blaze of lighting, a poof of smoke, and a loud bang right before all the gazelles instantly become leaner, smarter, and better at evading the lion, have you? There has to be a balance between the lion getting food and the gazelles getting to stay alive, and guess who's in charge of keeping that balance? So, I think that evolution is how the balance is kept: some live, some die, and both the gazelles and the lions (who starve if they aren't fast runners, and therefore get faster too, just like the gazelles) become better at living together and there's never too many of either kind. (If there's ever too many gazelles, the lions eat better and are more healthy and have more babies who eat gazelles which brings it back into balance, and if there's too many lions there's not enough food to go around, so some starve and then the balance is restored.) I like to think of evolution as one good way that the One who created the lions and the gazelles and all the other things keeps life here on Earth balanced and in harmony with itself.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 01:51 am
Thankyou Starchild ! At last some sense! Smile

(And not from one of those evil atheists whose every word must immediatley be discarded as poisonous vitriol sent from the devil himself! )
0 Replies
 
Anonymouse
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 02:40 am
Evolution is a religion, one that cannot be questioned and academia seems to take a very unintellectual stance regarding any scrutiny or rejection of the theory.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 02:46 am
> deep sigh <
0 Replies
 
Anonymouse
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 03:01 am
I believe I am entitled to an opinion, as you are to your own. I have no problem with the theory of evolution so long as we acknowledge that it is a theory, and it is a belief, the premise of which is based on a metaphysical assumption. There are internal issues with semantics but that is about it.
0 Replies
 
Jackofalltrades
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 03:23 am
I'm back
I'M BACK!!! Very Happy Seems I missed lots of good stuff. Thanks Biliskner for taking over. You seem to have a good handle on alot of the scientific stuff. I have to do research because I am not familiar with a lot of the new scientific theories because they seem to have to make up a new one when the one they are using doesn't quite work the way they want it to.
As far as the Gazelles... well they are still Gazelles. Seems that is adaptation. When a Gazelle gives birth to a cheetah (a much faster critter) then I will believe in evolution. The slow Gazelles (Gazelles with "slow genes") will eventually get culled. The Gazelles with the "fast genes" keep getting their lineage stronger. This is survival of the fittest and has nothing to do with evolution this is more along the lines of adaption. When a bird lays an egg and out hatches something other than a bird then I will believe in evolution. Let me see it...and not some scientific genetically modified creature...let nature do it on it's own. As far as scientific observation...what have scientists actually observed happening in their lifetimes. Mammals give birth to Mammals each to it's own kind. Humans birth humans, Equine birth equine etc. Fish birth fish to their own kind... Goldfish are still goldfish, Sharks are still sharks etc. I could go on but you know what I mean. 2 Cents Way back on page 11 or 12 I stated that scientists need to use their termonology correctly. There is a BIG difference between adaptation, mutation and evolution. Know the difference and make sure you use it correctly please (and thank you) :wink:
Quote:
Now, our friends the slow, bad-reflexes, no coordination (four left hooves you might say), klutzy gazelles are going to run in the wrong direction, and be all slow, and trip over their own four left hooves, and they are going to provide food for the lion.
4 left hooves?Seems this is a mutation :wink:
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 03:36 am
You presented boldly as fact "Evolution is a religion".

You are entitled to your opinion and you are just as entitled to be just plain wrong.

Evolution is as open as any other scientific theory and unless you have a better theory (that is based on demonstrable fact) you will have to put up with it as the best workable scenario.

Evolution IS required to face a degree of scrutiny other disciplines can only imagine, and it is in the strange position of constantly having to be defended against a huge barage of attacks (it seems 99% of which is from theological sources in scientific wolf's clothing)

Starchild just demonstrated how it is possible for Charles Darwin to spend Sunday morning in church, in fact the pope his good self has agreed to go along with it so get over it already!
0 Replies
 
Jackofalltrades
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 03:44 am
Hmm? I wonder when they put me in the pine pajamas if I'll see the pope?
Any way I know my check is good with God Very Happy .
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 03:48 am
Laughing love your quote too jack!
0 Replies
 
Jackofalltrades
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 03:58 am
Farmerman Wrote:
Quote:
Catastrophes occur and are recorded in the strat history of earth to an extent that they become commonplace when viewed in the immensity of time.

How do you explain the fossils on the south rim of the Grand Canyon, or the areas of the Grand Canyon where whole sections of the strata are turned upside down? It dosen't seem commonplace to me. I asked the ranger how the fossils got up here and how did the sections of strata get shifted. She couldn't tell me.
Just my $.02.
0 Replies
 
Jackofalltrades
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 04:04 am
Thanks Eorl... I like the Newsboys and they have alot of great lyrics. I got these from a song they did called Capt'n Crunch. (They don't serve breakfast in Hell is another from that song Laughing ).
0 Replies
 
Anonymouse
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 05:21 am
Eorl wrote:
You presented boldly as fact "Evolution is a religion".

You are entitled to your opinion and you are just as entitled to be just plain wrong.

Evolution is as open as any other scientific theory and unless you have a better theory (that is based on demonstrable fact) you will have to put up with it as the best workable scenario.

Evolution IS required to face a degree of scrutiny other disciplines can only imagine, and it is in the strange position of constantly having to be defended against a huge barage of attacks (it seems 99% of which is from theological sources in scientific wolf's clothing)

Starchild just demonstrated how it is possible for Charles Darwin to spend Sunday morning in church, in fact the pope his good self has agreed to go along with it so get over it already!


I do not believe that I presented "boldly as fact" that evolution is religion. I merely stated an opinion. Your interpretation of what I state as an opinion made it a fact. My criticisms and scrutiny of evolution come from simple logic, nothing theological as I am not very well versed in theology. I notice that evolutionists rely on alot of assumptions. Apparently they also assume that all criticisms are necessarily from a theological perspective.

With that said, I could be wrong, I am not denying that. At the same time, I am stating that all things are a belief, and evolution in itself is a belief. If you notice alot of the posts in this thread, most of the answers come down to "belief" in the evolutionary explanation. When science moves beyond theories, into law, then we can speak of knowledge.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 06:05 am
Anonymouse, you're right, my bad. I jumped to the conclusion that you think the "creationists" have a more plausible explanation for biodiversity.

Please tell me I'm wrong about that and I'll apologize.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 07:38 am
Anonymouse wrote

"evolution...is based on a metaphysical assumption."

What's that then?

No, not the definition of a metaphysical assmption, I mean what is the assumption on which evolution is in your opinion "based"?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 07:53 am
Biliskner wrote

"damn. i had high hopes for people such as Hobbs, Boyle, Descarte, Newton, Leibeniz, Bacon, Faraday, Maxwell, Kepler, Pascal but i guess they were poo-ed in the head and mad with rabies too 'cos they believed in God... damn it, all of a sudden i feel so cold.

Hail Hitle... I mean, Hail Darwinism, and Evolution too."

Your pathetic attempt to answer rosborne's well made point is just that, pathetic
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 07:55 am
Biliskner wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:

Why? How do you know any of this is true? You never met Jesus, and you didn't meet the people who wrote the original bible. How do you know any of what you believe is true?


??? read the book?

how do i know your grandfather is real? i've never met your grandfather, and i didn't meet the people who wrote the original biography(ies) (oh no he has NO biographies? damn, that's gotta be a worse off case for you to prove him real.) how do i know any of it is true? you could've been a cabbage patch baby delivered by pelicans for all i care.

good argument.


Nice try Bill, but comparing "reading a book" to knowing someone has a grandfather just doesn't cut it. Are you really saying that you know the truth of a book as well as you know that someone has a grandfather? You seem smarter than that.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution? How?
  3. » Page 13
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 05/07/2024 at 11:09:53