Evolution
- Thread starter pezenfuego
- Start date
I disagree that nothing but math is provable. We know the composition of water, we know the earth revolves around the sun, and that our moon revolves around the earth. We know that gravity exists and that the our planet has an atmosphere. So on, and so forth.
Faith vs Science can not be resolved, because faith only requires a belief, not facts. I know people who, based on their Christian belief, think that dinosaurs roamed the earth just a few thousand years ago, created just a day or two before man was created. No one will ever shake someone who believes that.....and so you get an oddly high percentage of folks disbelieving evolution--a science that flies in the face of the very core of their faith.
Faith vs Science can not be resolved, because faith only requires a belief, not facts. I know people who, based on their Christian belief, think that dinosaurs roamed the earth just a few thousand years ago, created just a day or two before man was created. No one will ever shake someone who believes that.....and so you get an oddly high percentage of folks disbelieving evolution--a science that flies in the face of the very core of their faith.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374680
I disagree that nothing but math is provable. We know the composition of water, we know the earth revolves around the sun, and that our moon revolves around the earth. We know that gravity exists and that the our planet has an atmosphere. So on, and so forth.
Faith vs Science can not be resolved, because faith only requires a belief, not facts. I know people who, based on their Christian belief, think that dinosaurs roamed the earth just a few thousand years ago, created just a day or two before man was created. No one will ever shake someone who believes that.....and so you get an oddly high percentage of folks disbelieving evolution--a science that flies in the face of the very core of their faith.
The "dinosaur theory" has been easily refuted by the simple process of where bone fragments and fossils were found in the layers of rock where both human remains and dinosaur remains were located, otherwise known as a geologic column - http://www.prehistoricplanet.com/features/index.php?id=48
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374680
I disagree that nothing but math is provable. We know the composition of water, we know the earth revolves around the sun, and that our moon revolves around the earth. We know that gravity exists and that the our planet has an atmosphere. So on, and so forth.
Faith vs Science can not be resolved, because faith only requires a belief, not facts. I know people who, based on their Christian belief, think that dinosaurs roamed the earth just a few thousand years ago, created just a day or two before man was created. No one will ever shake someone who believes that.....and so you get an oddly high percentage of folks disbelieving evolution--a science that flies in the face of the very core of their faith.
The "dinosaur theory" has been easily refuted by the simple process of where bone fragments and fossils were found in the layers of rock where both human remains and dinosaur remains were located, otherwise known as a geologic column - http://www.prehistoricplanet.com/features/index.php?id=48
darthtang aw
Active Member
What personal attack pez?
Darth (the good guy) Tang
pezenfuego
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374680
I disagree that nothing but math is provable. We know the composition of water, we know the earth revolves around the sun, and that our moon revolves around the earth. We know that gravity exists and that the our planet has an atmosphere. So on, and so forth.
Faith vs Science can not be resolved, because faith only requires a belief, not facts. I know people who, based on their Christian belief, think that dinosaurs roamed the earth just a few thousand years ago, created just a day or two before man was created. No one will ever shake someone who believes that.....and so you get an oddly high percentage of folks disbelieving evolution--a science that flies in the face of the very core of their faith.
My point was more philosophical, like the paraphrase I gave from Bertrand Russel: 'Maybe we were all created five minutes ago with ready-made thoughts, the holes in our socks, and our hair in need of cutting.'
Do I believe that the Earth is flat? Of course not, we have pictures of the Earth and actual human beings have seen it from space with their own eyes. However, if someone wanted to use the above argument to dispute this, they could. Would they be right? Of course not. Is there any way we could prove them to be wrong? Maybe, but there is always another loophole to be found.
If human fossils are found alongside dinosaur fossils, then evolution would be disproven. Evolution is something that would be easily disproven if false.
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374680
I disagree that nothing but math is provable. We know the composition of water, we know the earth revolves around the sun, and that our moon revolves around the earth. We know that gravity exists and that the our planet has an atmosphere. So on, and so forth.
Faith vs Science can not be resolved, because faith only requires a belief, not facts. I know people who, based on their Christian belief, think that dinosaurs roamed the earth just a few thousand years ago, created just a day or two before man was created. No one will ever shake someone who believes that.....and so you get an oddly high percentage of folks disbelieving evolution--a science that flies in the face of the very core of their faith.
My point was more philosophical, like the paraphrase I gave from Bertrand Russel: 'Maybe we were all created five minutes ago with ready-made thoughts, the holes in our socks, and our hair in need of cutting.'
Do I believe that the Earth is flat? Of course not, we have pictures of the Earth and actual human beings have seen it from space with their own eyes. However, if someone wanted to use the above argument to dispute this, they could. Would they be right? Of course not. Is there any way we could prove them to be wrong? Maybe, but there is always another loophole to be found.
If human fossils are found alongside dinosaur fossils, then evolution would be disproven. Evolution is something that would be easily disproven if false.
pezenfuego
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374680
I disagree that nothing but math is provable. We know the composition of water, we know the earth revolves around the sun, and that our moon revolves around the earth. We know that gravity exists and that the our planet has an atmosphere. So on, and so forth.
Faith vs Science can not be resolved, because faith only requires a belief, not facts. I know people who, based on their Christian belief, think that dinosaurs roamed the earth just a few thousand years ago, created just a day or two before man was created. No one will ever shake someone who believes that.....and so you get an oddly high percentage of folks disbelieving evolution--a science that flies in the face of the very core of their faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution#post_3374673
Radically different from what? Every species on earth is radically different from the other. We are speaking about intelligence, I know. But who measures intelligence? Humans do, in all our grand arrogance.
Oh I missed this post and it is perhaps the best one in the thread. We are so arrogant that we rank animals in terms of how evolved they are. We dod this in different ways, all of which make little sense. Obviously all of the animals on Earth today are evolved enough to remain on Earth.
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374680
I disagree that nothing but math is provable. We know the composition of water, we know the earth revolves around the sun, and that our moon revolves around the earth. We know that gravity exists and that the our planet has an atmosphere. So on, and so forth.
Faith vs Science can not be resolved, because faith only requires a belief, not facts. I know people who, based on their Christian belief, think that dinosaurs roamed the earth just a few thousand years ago, created just a day or two before man was created. No one will ever shake someone who believes that.....and so you get an oddly high percentage of folks disbelieving evolution--a science that flies in the face of the very core of their faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution#post_3374673
Radically different from what? Every species on earth is radically different from the other. We are speaking about intelligence, I know. But who measures intelligence? Humans do, in all our grand arrogance.
Oh I missed this post and it is perhaps the best one in the thread. We are so arrogant that we rank animals in terms of how evolved they are. We dod this in different ways, all of which make little sense. Obviously all of the animals on Earth today are evolved enough to remain on Earth.
flower
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution#post_3374595
The non-scientific belief is not based on rationality, it is based on a literal belief in the Bible. There is no arguing with people who have that faith, and most people in the USA are Christians, and many do believe in the literal interpretation of whatever English version of the Bible they are reading.
It is a faith belief, regardless of scientific facts.
Global warming and global cooling is a fact backed by science. People put spins on whether it is man-caused, or naturally occurring.
The age of the earth is measured in the billions of years based on scientific evidence and facts, as you stated. While the Biblical literalists will say that the earth is only a few thousand years old (based on faith and how the Bible is interpreted by them).
It is true that science evolves, as does religious beliefs. 500 years ago, way after the birth of Christ, there was no such Christian event termed "The Rapture". We all know now what this is referring to but the concept began as early as the first half of the 19th Century.
Yep I agree that blind belief and the fear that to not believe would insult God, and they want to protect their religion.
In scripture however time is not what folks think. The sun and moon were not created until the 4[sup]th day. Well what is the day before the sun and moon were used as measures for a day? As an EXAMPLE Paul said with God a day is like a thousand years to express this very point. So ignorant people decided that the Earth was created in 7 thousand years.
God does not need our protection, it’s a discovery thing. Science is discovering what God has done. They are not opposite poles. The only thing science disproves are the inaccuracies of our understanding of what was written. The holy writings say the universe was created in 7 of whatever Gods days are. I have no problem believing that, and nothing science discovers can shake that reality.
Science and religion collide when you try and put God in a box. How can I be so sure all was created by whatever 7 of God’s days are?...By the very verse that the sun and moon were created on the 4th[/sup] day.
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution#post_3374595
The non-scientific belief is not based on rationality, it is based on a literal belief in the Bible. There is no arguing with people who have that faith, and most people in the USA are Christians, and many do believe in the literal interpretation of whatever English version of the Bible they are reading.
It is a faith belief, regardless of scientific facts.
Global warming and global cooling is a fact backed by science. People put spins on whether it is man-caused, or naturally occurring.
The age of the earth is measured in the billions of years based on scientific evidence and facts, as you stated. While the Biblical literalists will say that the earth is only a few thousand years old (based on faith and how the Bible is interpreted by them).
It is true that science evolves, as does religious beliefs. 500 years ago, way after the birth of Christ, there was no such Christian event termed "The Rapture". We all know now what this is referring to but the concept began as early as the first half of the 19th Century.
Yep I agree that blind belief and the fear that to not believe would insult God, and they want to protect their religion.
In scripture however time is not what folks think. The sun and moon were not created until the 4[sup]th day. Well what is the day before the sun and moon were used as measures for a day? As an EXAMPLE Paul said with God a day is like a thousand years to express this very point. So ignorant people decided that the Earth was created in 7 thousand years.
God does not need our protection, it’s a discovery thing. Science is discovering what God has done. They are not opposite poles. The only thing science disproves are the inaccuracies of our understanding of what was written. The holy writings say the universe was created in 7 of whatever Gods days are. I have no problem believing that, and nothing science discovers can shake that reality.
Science and religion collide when you try and put God in a box. How can I be so sure all was created by whatever 7 of God’s days are?...By the very verse that the sun and moon were created on the 4th[/sup] day.
bang guy
Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374812
If a paleontologist dies next to dinosaur bones while digging it out of the ground, no one finds him for 50 years, but when he is found his bones are next to the dinosaurs, that doesn't mean the paleontologist lived at the time that the dinosaur did.
yep
There's a place in China, I forget the province, where fossils are constantly being exposed due to weather erosion. That doesn't mean the dinosaurs died yesterday.
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374812
If a paleontologist dies next to dinosaur bones while digging it out of the ground, no one finds him for 50 years, but when he is found his bones are next to the dinosaurs, that doesn't mean the paleontologist lived at the time that the dinosaur did.
yep
There's a place in China, I forget the province, where fossils are constantly being exposed due to weather erosion. That doesn't mean the dinosaurs died yesterday.
slice
Active Member
Remember the line near the end of the movie Contact, when Matthew McConaughey's character said something like "science and religion both try to discover the truth. I don't see a conflict between the two."
I fail to see any conflict between creationism and evolution theories except those manufactured by people who feel they must be right at the expense of others.
Creationism tries to explain what happened, evolution tries to explain how it happened. Both positions can exist side by side.
I fail to see any conflict between creationism and evolution theories except those manufactured by people who feel they must be right at the expense of others.
Creationism tries to explain what happened, evolution tries to explain how it happened. Both positions can exist side by side.
spanko
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374819
Remember the line near the end of the movie Contact, when Matthew McConaughey's character said something like "science and religion both try to discover the truth. I don't see a conflict between the two."
I fail to see any conflict between creationism and evolution theories except those manufactured by people who feel they must be right at the expense of others.
Creationism tries to explain what happened, evolution tries to explain how it happened. Both positions can exist side by side.
You don't see a conflict between faith that something happened and the scientific proof that something happened? Me thinks perhaps this is a mincing of words.
Spanko ("Get your hands off me, you damn dirty ape!") Henry
Originally Posted by Slice http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374819
Remember the line near the end of the movie Contact, when Matthew McConaughey's character said something like "science and religion both try to discover the truth. I don't see a conflict between the two."
I fail to see any conflict between creationism and evolution theories except those manufactured by people who feel they must be right at the expense of others.
Creationism tries to explain what happened, evolution tries to explain how it happened. Both positions can exist side by side.
You don't see a conflict between faith that something happened and the scientific proof that something happened? Me thinks perhaps this is a mincing of words.
Spanko ("Get your hands off me, you damn dirty ape!") Henry
stdreb27
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution#post_3374583
Your argument is great, don't get me wrong, but I see a hole in it. Global warming is a scientific consensus and far from being a scientific theory. Evolution is a scientific theory. We dated the earth by using a bounty of radioactive isotopes and their half lives and have done the same with igneous rock surrounding fossils. It is safe to assume the laws of physics have been constant. In fact there is no reason not to believe that. Radioactive decay is therefore constant. I don't see how any rational human being can just explain that away.
Science isn't infallible and is constantly changing.
Stop drinking the coolaid, there is no consensus when it comes to made made global warming. The only people who say that are people who can't support their own belief system. Hell for the most part man made global warming has been completely debunked. And chief "scientists" discredited. But I guess they dont' show that in school.
And these are the same people that claim that somehow, based purely on accedent this whole world morphed into what we have today. Riiiight. I just don't buy it. IMO 1000 years from now, people are going to look back at us and laugh at the thought we came from monkeys, and say man can you beleive how stupid they were, just like we say that about geo-centric/ and flat earth people.
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution#post_3374583
Your argument is great, don't get me wrong, but I see a hole in it. Global warming is a scientific consensus and far from being a scientific theory. Evolution is a scientific theory. We dated the earth by using a bounty of radioactive isotopes and their half lives and have done the same with igneous rock surrounding fossils. It is safe to assume the laws of physics have been constant. In fact there is no reason not to believe that. Radioactive decay is therefore constant. I don't see how any rational human being can just explain that away.
Science isn't infallible and is constantly changing.
Stop drinking the coolaid, there is no consensus when it comes to made made global warming. The only people who say that are people who can't support their own belief system. Hell for the most part man made global warming has been completely debunked. And chief "scientists" discredited. But I guess they dont' show that in school.
And these are the same people that claim that somehow, based purely on accedent this whole world morphed into what we have today. Riiiight. I just don't buy it. IMO 1000 years from now, people are going to look back at us and laugh at the thought we came from monkeys, and say man can you beleive how stupid they were, just like we say that about geo-centric/ and flat earth people.
stdreb27
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374754
Geesh...what ever happened to good ol ancient allien astronaut theory? Where is Von Danaken when you need em?
I know, or the stargate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374747
The "dinosaur theory" has been easily refuted by the simple process of where bone fragments and fossils were found in the layers of rock where both human remains and dinosaur remains were located, otherwise known as a geologic column - http://www.prehistoricplanet.com/features/index.php?id=48
Geez back in the "pre-historic" times the earth musta been reall small. For all those layers to build up like that. It is assumptions like this that blow my mind. I fail to see how you can date stuff the deeper you go. Or assume stuff on the same level is from the same time frame. The earth has been so dynamic that there would be a myriad of reasons why you'd find remains from different times in the same place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374680
Faith vs Science can not be resolved, because faith only requires a belief, not facts. I know people who, based on their Christian belief, think that dinosaurs roamed the earth just a few thousand years ago, created just a day or two before man was created. No one will ever shake someone who believes that.....and so you get an oddly high percentage of folks disbelieving evolution--a science that flies in the face of the very core of their faith.
Sure it can. This is the idea I think most people miss when it comes to mixing faith vs science. If you approach the earth from a literal creation perspective, you'd have to assume that God in creating earth, used some sort of mechanism to create it. People like to think that The Creation Belief assumes, God used "magic" (the religious word for that is miracle) to create the earth, "bippity boppity boo". Then you have all this "science" as we've observed that runs contrary to it. Continuing the assumption of creation viewpoint, you'd have to assume one of two things, either God created the physics, and scientific laws in which we operate.(remember we're are starting from nothing). Or that they were already in place, and he created this world to operate inside of that scientific framework.
But why in the world would a God use magic to create something, then set it up to run bass ackwards from the way he built it. It just wouldn't work. Now days, "miracle" provers, like to define a miracle as something that happens outside of a natural process. (you know that there is always an explanation) But why would God, who created that natural process, use something else to influence our world? If anything, science is simply an observation of the tools used to create and operate our natural world.
People argue that their is no relationship between faith and science, or their opposing forces, but why is it not faith/miracle, when science can observe it? Just because we've kinda sorta figured what is inside of it, means that there is no way faith is involved?
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374754
Geesh...what ever happened to good ol ancient allien astronaut theory? Where is Von Danaken when you need em?
I know, or the stargate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374747
The "dinosaur theory" has been easily refuted by the simple process of where bone fragments and fossils were found in the layers of rock where both human remains and dinosaur remains were located, otherwise known as a geologic column - http://www.prehistoricplanet.com/features/index.php?id=48
Geez back in the "pre-historic" times the earth musta been reall small. For all those layers to build up like that. It is assumptions like this that blow my mind. I fail to see how you can date stuff the deeper you go. Or assume stuff on the same level is from the same time frame. The earth has been so dynamic that there would be a myriad of reasons why you'd find remains from different times in the same place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374680
Faith vs Science can not be resolved, because faith only requires a belief, not facts. I know people who, based on their Christian belief, think that dinosaurs roamed the earth just a few thousand years ago, created just a day or two before man was created. No one will ever shake someone who believes that.....and so you get an oddly high percentage of folks disbelieving evolution--a science that flies in the face of the very core of their faith.
Sure it can. This is the idea I think most people miss when it comes to mixing faith vs science. If you approach the earth from a literal creation perspective, you'd have to assume that God in creating earth, used some sort of mechanism to create it. People like to think that The Creation Belief assumes, God used "magic" (the religious word for that is miracle) to create the earth, "bippity boppity boo". Then you have all this "science" as we've observed that runs contrary to it. Continuing the assumption of creation viewpoint, you'd have to assume one of two things, either God created the physics, and scientific laws in which we operate.(remember we're are starting from nothing). Or that they were already in place, and he created this world to operate inside of that scientific framework.
But why in the world would a God use magic to create something, then set it up to run bass ackwards from the way he built it. It just wouldn't work. Now days, "miracle" provers, like to define a miracle as something that happens outside of a natural process. (you know that there is always an explanation) But why would God, who created that natural process, use something else to influence our world? If anything, science is simply an observation of the tools used to create and operate our natural world.
People argue that their is no relationship between faith and science, or their opposing forces, but why is it not faith/miracle, when science can observe it? Just because we've kinda sorta figured what is inside of it, means that there is no way faith is involved?
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374832
Stop drinking the coolaid, there is no consensus when it comes to made made global warming. The only people who say that are people who can't support their own belief system. Hell for the most part man made global warming has been completely debunked. And chief "scientists" discredited. But I guess they dont' show that in school.
And these are the same people that claim that somehow, based purely on accedent this whole world morphed into what we have today. Riiiight. I just don't buy it. IMO 1000 years from now, people are going to look back at us and laugh at the thought we came from monkeys, and say man can you beleive how stupid they were, just like we say that about geo-centric/ and flat earth people.
You won't have to wait 1000 years to find people who laugh at the idea that we (human beings) came from monkeys! Every anthropologist, paleontologist, biologist and archeologist laughs at that concept now. They laugh because it such a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory that there is little else left to do but laugh at criticism of a theory by individuals who don't understand even the most basic concept of that theory.
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374832
Stop drinking the coolaid, there is no consensus when it comes to made made global warming. The only people who say that are people who can't support their own belief system. Hell for the most part man made global warming has been completely debunked. And chief "scientists" discredited. But I guess they dont' show that in school.
And these are the same people that claim that somehow, based purely on accedent this whole world morphed into what we have today. Riiiight. I just don't buy it. IMO 1000 years from now, people are going to look back at us and laugh at the thought we came from monkeys, and say man can you beleive how stupid they were, just like we say that about geo-centric/ and flat earth people.
You won't have to wait 1000 years to find people who laugh at the idea that we (human beings) came from monkeys! Every anthropologist, paleontologist, biologist and archeologist laughs at that concept now. They laugh because it such a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory that there is little else left to do but laugh at criticism of a theory by individuals who don't understand even the most basic concept of that theory.
stdreb27
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374848
You won't have to wait 1000 years to find people who laugh at the idea that we (human beings) came from monkeys! Every anthropologist, paleontologist, biologist and archeologist laughs at that concept now. They laugh because it such a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory that there is little else left to do but laugh at criticism of a theory by individuals who don't understand even the most basic concept of that theory.
(I purposely did that) mainly to illustrate how they've change their minds after it people preached as fact, (see original post) "how is it possible that people don't believe in evolution, extremists?" Our "evolutionary" ancestors have been very fluid... Besides, monkeys, apes, gorrillas, or zebra's who cares. It doesn't change or modify my point.
"Hahaha, everyone knows we came from this primate type animal, that doesn't exist anymore."
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374848
You won't have to wait 1000 years to find people who laugh at the idea that we (human beings) came from monkeys! Every anthropologist, paleontologist, biologist and archeologist laughs at that concept now. They laugh because it such a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory that there is little else left to do but laugh at criticism of a theory by individuals who don't understand even the most basic concept of that theory.
(I purposely did that) mainly to illustrate how they've change their minds after it people preached as fact, (see original post) "how is it possible that people don't believe in evolution, extremists?" Our "evolutionary" ancestors have been very fluid... Besides, monkeys, apes, gorrillas, or zebra's who cares. It doesn't change or modify my point.
"Hahaha, everyone knows we came from this primate type animal, that doesn't exist anymore."
slouiscar
Member
I always found it interesting that throughout history viewpoints that conflict with accepted theories are met with such passionate opposition from the scientific community. I am not referring to outlandish claims or conspiracy theories, but plausible thought out hypothesis... say, mans role or lack thereof in global climate change. I like to think that objective people can come to an agreement on theories supported by reasonable facts. But it seems there has always been interests that are vested in a particular point of view.
As for creationism and the age of the earth... I find it interesting that the two are linked in most peoples minds. There are old earth creation theories. It is simply convenient to dismiss creationism altogether by focusing on the apparent silliness of the young earth crowd. Literal bible interpretation is a slam dunk for reasonable criticism. Given the available evidence few would accept a books teachings that the earth is 6000 years old, or the god in 7-days story, or dinosaurs coexisting with man, or two of every species on an ark, etc... However, shaping the debate by marginalizing the group does not make a hypothesis more or less attractive. It reminds me of recent tea-party movement. Focus efforts on categorizing the group as extreme, racist crackpots, and then it is an easier leap to accept that all of their ideas therefore must also be wrong. As if it is healthy that the gov't spends 3x more than revenue month after month. I digress.
So are creation theory and evolution mutually exclusive? If we agree the age of the earth is 4.54 billion years old, as radiometric age dating of meteorite material suggests, does that alone disprove intelligent design? That evolution requires vast periods of time to accommodate the central theme of random mutation and that the earth is old... is that the end of all thought or discussion on the matter?
I have difficulty with the notion that random mutation and natural selection have consistently been the initial catalyst in the emergence of new complex organisms. The accepted answer that it simply happened over eons of randomness escapes me.
As for creationism and the age of the earth... I find it interesting that the two are linked in most peoples minds. There are old earth creation theories. It is simply convenient to dismiss creationism altogether by focusing on the apparent silliness of the young earth crowd. Literal bible interpretation is a slam dunk for reasonable criticism. Given the available evidence few would accept a books teachings that the earth is 6000 years old, or the god in 7-days story, or dinosaurs coexisting with man, or two of every species on an ark, etc... However, shaping the debate by marginalizing the group does not make a hypothesis more or less attractive. It reminds me of recent tea-party movement. Focus efforts on categorizing the group as extreme, racist crackpots, and then it is an easier leap to accept that all of their ideas therefore must also be wrong. As if it is healthy that the gov't spends 3x more than revenue month after month. I digress.
So are creation theory and evolution mutually exclusive? If we agree the age of the earth is 4.54 billion years old, as radiometric age dating of meteorite material suggests, does that alone disprove intelligent design? That evolution requires vast periods of time to accommodate the central theme of random mutation and that the earth is old... is that the end of all thought or discussion on the matter?
I have difficulty with the notion that random mutation and natural selection have consistently been the initial catalyst in the emergence of new complex organisms. The accepted answer that it simply happened over eons of randomness escapes me.
stdreb27
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by slouiscar http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374854
I always found it interesting that throughout history viewpoints that conflict with accepted theories are met with such passionate opposition from the scientific community. I am not referring to outlandish claims or conspiracy theories, but plausible thought out hypothesis... say, mans role or lack thereof in global climate change. I like to think that objective people can come to an agreement on theories supported by reasonable facts. But it seems there has always been interests that are vested in a particular point of view.
As for creationism and the age of the earth... I find it interesting that the two are linked in most peoples minds. There are old earth creation theories. It is simply convenient to dismiss creationism altogether by focusing on the apparent silliness of the young earth crowd. Literal bible interpretation is a slam dunk for reasonable criticism. Given the available evidence few would accept a books teachings that the earth is 6000 years old, or the god in 7-days story, or dinosaurs coexisting with man, or two of every species on an ark, etc... However, shaping the debate by marginalizing the group does not make a hypothesis more or less attractive. It reminds me of recent tea-party movement. Focus efforts on categorizing the group as extreme, racist crackpots, and then it is an easier leap to accept that all of their ideas therefore must also be wrong. As if it is healthy that the gov't spends 3x more than revenue month after month. I digress.
So are creation theory and evolution mutually exclusive? If we agree the age of the earth is 4.54 billion years old, as radiometric age dating of meteorite material suggests, does that alone disprove intelligent design? That evolution requires vast periods of time to accommodate the central theme of random mutation and that the earth is old... is that the end of all thought or discussion on the matter?
I have difficulty with the notion that random mutation and natural selection have consistently been the initial catalyst in the emergence of new complex organisms. The accepted answer that it simply happened over eons of randomness escapes me.
See, and I think it is a huge step to say, we know all species that were on the planet however many millions of years ago. So we can definitively say, man and dinosaurs didn't co-exist and, if you think that they did, you're a crack pot.
For that matter, I think the scripture in Job that describes "dinosaurs". And the assumption that he visually saw them. Is too big of a leap to take. Heck, modern man describe dinosaurs all the time, and we've never seen one living...
Originally Posted by slouiscar http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374854
I always found it interesting that throughout history viewpoints that conflict with accepted theories are met with such passionate opposition from the scientific community. I am not referring to outlandish claims or conspiracy theories, but plausible thought out hypothesis... say, mans role or lack thereof in global climate change. I like to think that objective people can come to an agreement on theories supported by reasonable facts. But it seems there has always been interests that are vested in a particular point of view.
As for creationism and the age of the earth... I find it interesting that the two are linked in most peoples minds. There are old earth creation theories. It is simply convenient to dismiss creationism altogether by focusing on the apparent silliness of the young earth crowd. Literal bible interpretation is a slam dunk for reasonable criticism. Given the available evidence few would accept a books teachings that the earth is 6000 years old, or the god in 7-days story, or dinosaurs coexisting with man, or two of every species on an ark, etc... However, shaping the debate by marginalizing the group does not make a hypothesis more or less attractive. It reminds me of recent tea-party movement. Focus efforts on categorizing the group as extreme, racist crackpots, and then it is an easier leap to accept that all of their ideas therefore must also be wrong. As if it is healthy that the gov't spends 3x more than revenue month after month. I digress.
So are creation theory and evolution mutually exclusive? If we agree the age of the earth is 4.54 billion years old, as radiometric age dating of meteorite material suggests, does that alone disprove intelligent design? That evolution requires vast periods of time to accommodate the central theme of random mutation and that the earth is old... is that the end of all thought or discussion on the matter?
I have difficulty with the notion that random mutation and natural selection have consistently been the initial catalyst in the emergence of new complex organisms. The accepted answer that it simply happened over eons of randomness escapes me.
See, and I think it is a huge step to say, we know all species that were on the planet however many millions of years ago. So we can definitively say, man and dinosaurs didn't co-exist and, if you think that they did, you're a crack pot.
For that matter, I think the scripture in Job that describes "dinosaurs". And the assumption that he visually saw them. Is too big of a leap to take. Heck, modern man describe dinosaurs all the time, and we've never seen one living...
bang guy
Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanko http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374820
You don't see a conflict between faith that something happened and the scientific proof that something happened? Me thinks perhaps this is a mincing of words.
Spanko ("Get your hands off me, you damn dirty ape!") Henry
"Scientific Proof" - what is that? I'm not a scientist (back off man) but I'm not sure science ventures to prove anything.
Originally Posted by spanko http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374820
You don't see a conflict between faith that something happened and the scientific proof that something happened? Me thinks perhaps this is a mincing of words.
Spanko ("Get your hands off me, you damn dirty ape!") Henry
"Scientific Proof" - what is that? I'm not a scientist (back off man) but I'm not sure science ventures to prove anything.
slice
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374859
"Scientific Proof" - what is that? I'm not a scientist (back off man) but I'm not sure science ventures to prove anything.
You might want to keep those thoughts to yourself, Bang. Someone might pick it up and apply for a new research grant...
http://www.grants.gov/
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/20#post_3374859
"Scientific Proof" - what is that? I'm not a scientist (back off man) but I'm not sure science ventures to prove anything.
You might want to keep those thoughts to yourself, Bang. Someone might pick it up and apply for a new research grant...
http://www.grants.gov/