Creation vs. Evolution

SuperCobraJet · Nov 16, 2006

Pako
All hail the powerful and great Famine! All hail!!

Seriously though, no you shouldn't. You have made a strong argument. The problem with having this discussion with Famine and the like, is that our stance is backed by the knowledge of an omnipotent presence in our lives. They will never believe you because they have not experienced this for themselves. Everything you say is hearsay and conjecture. Even if there are millions of people that experience the same 'relationship' as you with a God of all creation, this holds no 'value' of fact for them. They live in a world of observing God's greatness and don't even know it while they hold on the truths of science that leaves them with an understanding of how God works within the capacity of our intellectual ability.

Additionally I think it is quite apparent that FAMINE and likely Danoff too are wired a little differently than we are.
The more I examine their statements the more I recognize their approach is not the same. At this point I would express it as: they are "how" men and we are more "why" men. They insist upon knowing the intricacies of "how" to reach belief. I myself consider the "hows" of secondary importance. I have to know the "whys" first or as to motive. What are the power and forces at work in everything. That is where I concentrate my efforts.
At any rate its just my observation.

Just in case, I'm not implying or inferring anything either way as to one being better or worse than the other. Rather I think it goes to diversity for balance and coverage.

Famine · Nov 16, 2006

SuperCobraJet
That is not what I'm saying

O RLY?

SuperCobraJet
It must not be important, if its not mentioned.

SuperCobraJet
may appear "Passionate".......Hmmmm?
Tell me how this works.

It was your phrase. You said that danoff was passionate about dinosaurs and evolution, considering he's someone who doesn't believe in anything. I pointed out that he merely appears passionate from your point of view, since you have no frame of reference for knowledge without belief, when people try to pervert science for their own ends.

SuperCobraJet
Your leaving out an very important detail. Thats unlike you.

Yep - I missed out the translation into Greek between the Aramaic and Latin.

Seriously, you have several different "Versions" of the Bible, depending on who commissioned it. Which is the correct one?

SuperCobraJet
Because it is an obvious precurser to the law.
You are delving into God's plan and purpose and while it may be possible to extract it I don't know that like the dinosaurs it will be of great significance to you if you did.

So... God let people hump their sisters until he decided not to, ironically allowing them consanguinous relations while human populations are supposedly small when it would be most damaging to the gene pool (Adam/Eve/Cain/Abel and Noah/Shem/Ham/Japeth) but then banning it when it is of less consequence.

No doubt this is like the time he flooded the planet, made a tiny little boat to fit everything inside, cured all cats of their congenital need for meet, then let everything out in Turkey, changed the cats back again and teleported the marsupials to Australia.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

SuperCobraJet
I don't think thats the wrong conclusion, unless your looking for an out and hell bent on, as you put it "boinking your sister or other close female relative".
You failed to mention the obvious: "it may not be a good thing for all concerned".

Though was absolutely fine for everyone from Adam through Jacob?

03R1
If its a given that ALL the land mass were at one point connected

Which it isn't.

03R1
At some point that chunk of land decided to set sail only including those who occupied it. For those lizards to servive they had to adapt, such as breathing underwater. Its this a good example?

No. Why would land animals need to breathe underwater if the land they're on is perfectly okay?

03R1
I'll state this again and again until I am blue in the face. Me being in here is like taking a knife to a gun fight. There is NO WAY I can begin to understand your level of understanding because you have made its your lifes work to dig deeper then the casual person. Just accept that as it may be or due to my qualifications should I remove myself from this topic?

Again, not at all. But you're attempting to discredit what you don't understand based on a position of false knowledge.

Knowledge starts from questions. Ask us questions about evolution, plate tectonics, dinosaurs - whatever you like - and we'll attempt to answer them to the best of our ability. We won't even try to condescend to you as popular science literature does.

Pako
All hail the powerful and great Famine! All hail!!

About bloody time too.

Pako
Seriously though, no you shouldn't. You have made a strong argument. The problem with having this discussion with Famine and the like, is that our stance is backed by the knowledge of an omnipotent presence in our lives. They will never believe you because they have not experienced this for themselves. Everything you say is hearsay and conjecture. Even if there are millions of people that experience the same 'relationship' as you with a God of all creation, this holds no 'value' of fact for them. They live in a world of observing God's greatness and don't even know it while they hold on the truths of science that leaves them with an understanding of how God works within the capacity of our intellectual ability.

Now Pako has recognised that there's little point trying to defend the Bible from scientific enquiry because it just won't happen. Under scrutiny, it'd just melt like an ice cube in a mocha in the Mojave.

So instead he goes back to a notion that science is an invention and tool of God that we could never hope to understand because we haven't accepted God. It's also not a very good position - as ledhed's quote from Galileo would signify - but it is honest.

UnoMOTO · Nov 16, 2006

Pako
All hail the powerful and great Famine! All hail!!

Seriously though, no you shouldn't. You have made a strong argument. The problem with having this discussion with Famine and the like, is that our stance is backed by the knowledge of an omnipotent presence in our lives. They will never believe you because they have not experienced this for themselves. Everything you say is hearsay and conjecture. Even if there are millions of people that experience the same 'relationship' as you with a God of all creation, this holds no 'value' of fact for them. They live in a world of observing God's greatness and don't even know it while they hold on the truths of science that leaves them with an understanding of how God works within the capacity of our intellectual ability.

Thanks for the life preserver. It was obvious that I was drowning in the darwinian soup :yuck:

SuperCobraJet · Nov 16, 2006

danoff
Quote me, specifically. Show me where I have told you that I believe evolution 100% without doubt. Show me where I have implied that it is unquestiable gospel (pun intended) truth.

Danoff, you completely baffle me, you really do.

I find it quite phenomenal that you can read my statement after all that has gone before and come up with that.
I feel like a convict trying to break one of those rocks yall been talking about.
Oh well, you have never said what is listed in the above quote. If thats the case where do you think the contradiction is of which I spoke?

SuperCobraJet · Nov 16, 2006

FAMINE you have me on the wrong quotes
I guess your not infallible after all.
(just a little joke between friends)

Famine · Nov 16, 2006

I do apologise. Dodgy C+Ving there.

Pako · Nov 16, 2006

Famine
About bloody time too.

Now Pako has recognised that there's little point trying to defend the Bible from scientific enquiry because it just won't happen. Under scrutiny, it'd just melt like an ice cube in a mocha in the Mojave.

So instead he goes back to a notion that science is an invention and tool of God that we could never hope to understand because we haven't accepted God. It's also not a very good position - as ledhed's quote from Galileo would signify - but it is honest.

To quote you,

Famine
Quote me!

UnoMOTO · Nov 16, 2006

Famine
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Do these really add anything to the debate or is this an ego thing?

Originally Posted by 03R1
If its a given that ALL the land mass were at one point connected

Which it isn't.

Click to expand...

Sorry to hear that. In our text books from school that was the case.

No. Why would land animals need to breathe underwater if the land they're on is perfectly okay?

Because in your version they might have used up all the resources on land needed slip in the ocean to survive.

Again, not at all. But you're attempting to discredit what you don't understand based on a position of false knowledge.

Any knowledge other then the knowledge you have obtained is false. Alright already...we get it. :bowdown:

Knowledge starts from questions. Ask us questions about evolution, plate tectonics, dinosaurs - whatever you like - and we'll attempt to answer them to the best of our ability. We won't even try to condescend to you as popular science literature does.

Maybe you don't UNDERSTAND that my job here is to shoot holes in your ideas and not to accept your knowledge.

Pako · Nov 16, 2006

03R1
Thanks for the life preserver. It was obvious that I was drowning in the darwinian soup

Well call that darwinian soup, green slime of which all life is derived.

Famine · Nov 16, 2006

Pako
To quote you,

I'm a little confused, as I didn't actually quote you. But I can quote you forwarding the notion I mentioned:

Pako
There is no what if with what God promises. But while we're on the "what if" game, what if God put scientific evidence in our way so that we may continue to grow technologically to better ourselves as a society through science and medicine?

ledhed · Nov 16, 2006

Your making a huge jump in logic and assuming life even existed , if and when they may have been connected . . But aside from that the volcanic Islands that at no time had any relationship with " plate ' tectonics have shown the same type of diversity...by what do explain that ?

again it not the peanut gallery that is showing you that you know poo...it is you yourself , by your own arguments or lack thereof , that is showing the peanut gallery that you may know a little about poo but are still trying to determine what it is you know about it .

again " a little knowledge is a dangerous thing "

It may lead some to believe they" know " when actually they just have something stinky stuck on their shoe .

And honestly , I know nothing of this " side " , you may or may not believe , or assume , I may be on .

Famine · Nov 16, 2006

03R1
Do these really add anything to the debate or is this an ego thing?

These? It's the same one. It's the original form of "Occam's Razor", to which I often refer.

03R1
Sorry to hear that. In our text books from school that was the case.

All the ones I read said that the continents once formed a single land mass known as Pangaea. And once before that formed a single land mass known as Pannotia. And once before that formed a single land mass known as Rodinia. Nothing about all land though.

03R1
Because in your version they might have used up all the resources on land needed slip in the ocean to survive.

Nice theory. Is there any evidence of all of the resources on any land mass being completely exhausted anywhere?

03R1
Any knowledge other then the knowledge you have obtained is false. Alright already...we get it.

Maybe you don't UNDERSTAND that my job here is to shoot holes in your ideas and not to accept your knowledge.

No, you're being silly now.

Already in this post you've proceeded under the assumption that all land was in one place once, which is false knowledge (and, thinking about it for a few seconds, is really amazingly unfeasible). If you don't want to accept that because I said it, fine. But you're attempting to use science to fight science on the basis of information you don't have.

We can provide you with this information - and how to find more of it yourself - as earlier when you asked me why inbreeding hadn't affected evolution. That's what science does. We try to find things out and pass on what we've found, and how, to allow other people to try it again and see if we're right, or try new things based on it.

If you want to reject all of that, fine, but every aspect of your life - and I mean every aspect, right down to the composition of the paper on which your Bible is printed, the ink with which it is printed and the mechanism of printing itself - is based on that.

UnoMOTO · Nov 16, 2006

ledhed
Your making a huge jump in logic and assuming life even existed , if and when they may have been connected . . But aside from that the volcanic Islands that at no time had any relationship with " plate ' tectonics have shown the same type of diversity...by what do explain that ?

again it not the peanut gallery that is showing you that you know poo...it is you yourself , by your own arguments or lack thereof , that is showing the peanut gallery that you may know a little about poo but are still trying to determine what it is you know about it .

again " a little knowledge is a dangerous thing "

It may lead some to believe they" know " when actually they just have something stinky stuck on their shoe .

And honestly , I know nothing of this " side " , you may or may not believe , or assume , I may be on .

Your still claiming that somehow your line of thinking and Your knowledge is right? I have every right to think you are completely wrong. My knowledge might come from a different source but they are my beliefs. If I throw a dart at your science and it doesn't stick, I really don't give a darn because in the end I have nothing to prove to you or any other scientific mind in here. I will play the dart game with you whether I know what you know or not. It that acceptable for this debate or not?

All the ones I read said that the continents once formed a single land mass known as Pangaea. And once before that formed a single land mass known as Pannotia. And once before that formed a single land mass known as Rodinia. Nothing about all land though.

Holy cow...Can you not see that I am talking about the EXACT SAME THING. I just used all land and you used a single land mass. How freaking dense are you?

Pako · Nov 16, 2006

Famine
I'm a little confused, as I didn't actually quote you. But I can quote you forwarding the notion I mentioned:

No need to be confused here. You did in fact quote me here then added your own understanding or interpretation to what I said in the mentioned quote while missing the point of the post in the first place. It's ok.., no problem.

Danoff · Nov 16, 2006

SuperCobraJet
Danoff, you completely baffle me, you really do.

I find it quite phenomenal that you can read my statement after all that has gone before and come up with that.
I feel like a convict trying to break one of those rocks yall been talking about.
Oh well, you have never said what is listed in the above quote. If thats the case where do you think the contradiction is of which I spoke?

I think the hypocrisy of which you spoke is non-existent. I think you're trying very hard to convince all of us that we believe in science as you believe in God. But it isn't so. That's why you're unable to quote me to prove it.

Famine · Nov 16, 2006

03R1
Holy cow...Can you not see that I am talking about the EXACT SAME THING. I just used all land and you used a single land mass. How freaking dense are you?

Oh dear. You'd been doing so well until this evening.

Remember where, in the post you quoted, I distinguished the continents from all land? How about where I pointed out that it was three times and not just once?

You were operating on the assumption that all land started out in one place and has separated into what we know today. The truth is that, since the appearance of liquid water on Earth, the continental landmasses have merged, split, merged, split, merged and split, and at no point has all land been in one place at one time, just the continents.

Leave the name-calling at the door, please.

Pako · Nov 16, 2006

03R1
*snip* How freaking dense are you?

Not appropriate. Please take a deep breath and count to 10 or 4,000. What ever it takes. Return after you've calmed down.

ledhed · Nov 16, 2006

These? It's the same one. It's the original form of "Occam's Razor", to which I often refer.

Be sure to use shaving cream..its leaving nasty cuts .

Your still claiming that somehow your line of thinking and Your knowledge is right? I have every right to think you are completely wrong. My knowledge might come from a different source but they are my beliefs. If I throw a dart at your science and it doesn't stick, I really don't give a darn because in the end I have nothing to prove to you or any other scientific mind in here. I will play the dart game with you whether I know what you know or not. It that acceptable for this debate or not?

Again , I will be the first to admit that I KNOW nothing . I am still learning .
If what I have learned can be disproved then I will have learned something new and my base of knowledge will change to reflect the new information.

Yes you have every right to believe pudding is actually made of fairy dust and frogs lips , what ever floats your boat. But if you are to argue against well established peer reviewed and excepted facts . You must bring more to the table than the simple argument " I believe it so it must be true " .

Again , all your doing is peeing on heads and telling the crowd its raining .

Famine · Nov 16, 2006

Pako
Not appropriate. Please take a deep breath and count to 10 or 4,000. What ever it takes. Return after you've calmed down.

Or 6,000 or 4.5 billion...

(little C vs. E gag there)

UnoMOTO · Nov 16, 2006

Famine
Oh dear. You'd been doing so well until this evening.

Remember where, in the post you quoted, I distinguished the continents from all land? How about where I pointed out that it was three times and not just once?

You were operating on the assumption that all land started out in one place and has separated into what we know today. The truth is that, since the appearance of liquid water on Earth, the continental landmasses have merged, split, merged, split, merged and split, and at no point has all land been in one place at one time, just the continents.

Leave the name-calling at the door, please.

May I now crown you KING OF SEMANTICS!

I do apoligize about the dense comment

ledhed · Nov 16, 2006

Semantics (Greek semantikos, giving signs, significant, symptomatic, from sema, sign) refers to the aspects of meaning that are expressed in a language, code, or other form of representation. Semantics is contrasted with two other aspects of meaningful expression, namely, syntax, the construction of complex signs from simpler signs, and pragmatics, the practical use of signs by agents or communities of interpretation in particular circumstances and contexts. By the usual convention that calls a study or a theory by the name of its subject matter, semantics may also denote the theoretical study of meaning in systems of signs.

Though terminology varies, writers on the subject of meaning generally recognize two sorts of meaning that a significant expression may have: (1) the relation that a sign has to objects and objective situations, actual or possible, and (2) the relation that a sign has to other signs, most especially the sorts of mental signs that are conceived of as concepts.

Most theorists refer to the relation between a sign and its objects, as always including any manner of objective reference, as its denotation. Some theorists refer to the relation between a sign and the signs that serve in its practical interpretation as its connotation, but there are many more differences of opinion and distinctions of theory that are made in this case. Many theorists, especially in the formal semantic, pragmatic, and semiotic traditions, restrict the application of semantics to the denotative aspect, using other terms or altogether ignoring the connotative aspect.

Occams razor indeed.

Danoff · Nov 16, 2006

03R1
Your still claiming that somehow your line of thinking and Your knowledge is right? I have every right to think you are completely wrong. My knowledge might come from a different source but they are my beliefs.

Your beliefs should be based on evidence, not blind faith. Even Pako attempts to justifiy his belief with evidence (though it's evidence only he can experience). The bottom line is that you cannot successfully defend belief in the bible simply because he bible says it is right. You can, on the otherhand, justify an accumulation of evidence and the pragmatic approach of going where the evidence points you.

03R1
Holy cow...Can you not see that I am talking about the EXACT SAME THING. I just used all land and you used a single land mass. How freaking dense are you?

He's not dense, he's being specific.

ledhed · Nov 16, 2006

Specific defined.....

(sometimes followed by `to') applying to or characterized by or distinguishing something particular or special or unique; "rules with specific application"; "demands specific to the job"; "a specific and detailed account of the accident"
stated explicitly or in detail; "needed a specific amount"
particular: a fact about some part (as opposed to general); "he always reasons from the particular to the general"
relating to or distinguishing or constituting a taxonomic species; "specific characters"
being or affecting a disease produced by a particular microorganism or condition; used also of stains or dyes used in making microscope slides; "quinine is highly specific for malaria"; "a specific remedy"; "a specific stain is one having a specific affinity for particular structural elements"
a medicine that has a mitigating effect on a specific disease; "quinine is a specific for malaria"

UnoMOTO · Nov 16, 2006

danoff
Your beliefs should be based on evidence, not blind faith. Even Pako attempts to justifiy his belief with evidence (though it's evidence only he can experience). The bottom line is that you cannot successfully defend belief in the bible simply because he bible says it is right. You can, on the otherhand, justify an accumulation of evidence and the pragmatic approach of going where the evidence points you.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source faith (fth) Pronunciation Key
n.
1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2.Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

My very definition of faith has nothing to do with evidence. That might be something very hard for you to understand

He's not dense, he's being specific.

Agreed...I was wrong. I will make amends best I can as we go along.

Danoff · Nov 16, 2006

03R1
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source faith (fth) Pronunciation Key
n.
1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2.Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

My very definition of faith has nothing to do with evidence. That might be something very hard for you to understand

Nope. I get that completely. Which is why I said what I did. Faith is flawed. Belief is also almost always unjustified - but if one justifies a belief with evidence, at least they're on the right track.

SuperCobraJet · Nov 16, 2006

Famine
O RLY?

Famine
It was your phrase. You said that danoff was passionate about dinosaurs and evolution, considering he's someone who doesn't believe in anything. I pointed out that he merely appears passionate from your point of view, since you have no frame of reference for knowledge without belief, when people try to pervert science for their own ends.

It may have been my phrase but it was Danoff's rendition of the 6 days.
Unlike some in this thread, I don't have any problem admitting to the belief sequence or my beliefs or how and why I believe. Unto this passion is connected.
As to my perception of Danoff's plea about evolution I
seriously doubt I'm alone in that.
In what way did I pervert science to my own end.

Famine
Yep - I missed out the translation into Greek between the Aramaic and Latin.

No, thats not it but since I don't think it would matter to you anyway don't worry about it.

Famine
Seriously, you have several different "Versions" of the Bible, depending on who commissioned it. Which is the correct one?

That is certainly debatetable, but there is no appreciable difference that I know of. Then again I havn't examined them all either. Rest assured there are those who are.

Famine
So... God let people hump their sisters until he decided not to, ironically allowing them consanguinous relations while human populations are supposedly small when it would be most damaging to the gene pool (Adam/Eve/Cain/Abel and Noah/Shem/Ham/Japeth) but then banning it when it is of les consequence.

Famine
No doubt this is like the time he flooded the planet, made a tiny little boat to fit everything inside, cured all cats of their congenital need for meet, then let everything out in Turkey, changed the cats back again and teleported the marsupials to Australia..

You got it
Come on FAMINE if he can make us out of dirt, and lay the foundations of the universe do you really think thats a big problem?

Famine
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Famine

[So instead he goes back to a notion that science is an invention and tool of God that we could never hope to understand because we haven't accepted God. It's also not a very good position - as ledhed's quote from Galileo would signify - but it is honest.[/b]

Click to expand...

I don't totally agree with this.

Pako · Nov 16, 2006

danoff
Your beliefs should be based on evidence, not blind faith. Even Pako attempts to justifiy his belief with evidence (though it's evidence only he can experience). The bottom line is that you cannot successfully defend belief in the bible simply because he bible says it is right. You can, on the otherhand, justify an accumulation of evidence and the pragmatic approach of going where the evidence points you.

He's not dense, he's being specific.

Not just me, millions of other Christ followers, and it's not an attempt, it is a justification for my belief which helps to reinforce my faith.

Just to clarify that.

Danoff · Nov 16, 2006

Pako
Not just me, millions of other Christ followers, and it's not an attempt, it is a justification for my belief which helps to reinforce my faith.

Just to clarify that.

It's not a legitimate justification - but it's better than what I'm used to getting from creationists. The bottom line is that you feel something. You THINK that you feel god, but you can't know for sure. You THINK that you feel the Christian God and that this feeling indicates that you should believe in the Christian holy book, but you can't know that for sure either. Basically all you have is a feeling. It could be a lot of things - it could mean that you're crazy (though I don't think that's it). It could mean that you ate some bad shelfish, or that you have an active imagination. It could be something that the rest of us feel every day and don't see as being God.

That's not a legitimate justification to believe in Christianity - but at least it isn't completely blind faith.

UnoMOTO · Nov 16, 2006

danoff
Nope. I get that completely. Which is why I said what I did. Faith is flawed. Belief is also almost always unjustified - but if one justifies a belief with evidence, at least they're on the right track.

Faith is flawed to you..true, everything is flawed to you except that you are. How is this helping your argument against faith. I'm not justifying faith. Lucky for me I don't have to. Because I suck at expressing my point of view.

Danoff · Nov 16, 2006

03R1
Faith is flawed to you..true, everything is flawed to you except that you are. How is this helping your argument against faith. I'm not justifying faith. Lucky for me I don't have to. Because I suck at expressing my point of view.

Why believe if you have no basis for justifying that belief? It's about like believing in the flying spaghetti monster. Sure it might be true that the FSM is the one true monster, but you have no justification for that belief - so there is no reason to take the leap of faith.

Creation vs. Evolution

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

mmmmkay

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

mmmmkay

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Ultraextreme sanity

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

mmmmkay

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Ultraextreme sanity

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

mmmmkay

Ultraextreme sanity

Ultraextreme sanity

mmmmkay

mmmmkay

Similar threads