Creation vs. Evolution

[UnoMOTO]

Logic, reason, rational thinking.

Funny...thats the same method i used in rejecting the idea of us starting as bacterial slop!

edit: but then again thats what gets me into trouble in here..."thinking" that is?

 

[Danoff]

Funny...thats the same method i used in rejecting the idea of us starting as bacterial slop!

Really? Because I don't remember seeing logic, reason, or rational thinking used to support the idea that God created everything.

 

[wfooshee]

And you have not provided the proof or evidence to back up your thoughts that you live and die by. Just theories that are as good as the ones that I use equally to say the bible is the word of god.

Actually, our theories are quite a bit better . . . . . What with actually being theories backed by examination of actual physical evidence, peer review, etc. The fact that you refuse to accept them is a demonstration of the religious close-mindedness I've alluded to several times in this thread.

Well...if we could just get them to move out of the desert, It wouldn't be such an issue.

As for native americans...Per my Colorado history, they have lived in western deserts LOOONG before the Europeans pushed them to the current locations.

What did I say to make you rant about this? Did I say people couldn't live in the desert? Did I say anything about the right or wrongs of people in the past?

I'm not ranting. I started with the Native Americans because they are one of the most recent nomadic peoples on Earth, and among the most widely known. I began by showing their original nomadic and migratory lifestyle as an example of the non-farming early people we'd been discussing. If you want to learn how stone-age man lived, look at the native North American. I then contrasted that lifestyle with what was forced on them by the white man in the 19th century, hoping to show that without the ability to move freely in the search for food, water, and shelter, they would be unable to support themselves, and die off, as they have not been a successful, independant civilization since being placed on the reservations. Without the government support they receive, they would not exist today. It was not my intention to discuss the rights or wrongs of this point of history, but to show the difference in a free nomadic lifestyle and an imprisonment on useless unsupportive lands. In each of my posts I was replying to your posts, and did not bother quoting because I thought you could follow the thread. Hopefully these quotes will help you reassemble the train of thought.

How could you observe the evidence of these things if they happened millions of years ago. Many of those items wouldn't be visable in a fossil or geological record. You may apply those assumptions per what you see now and assume that it was that way in the past too. I do agree with your method, but it has too many variables to be presented as fact. I also do not assume my link could be proven as fact. Would you prefer that I not bring up subjects for debate in this forum?

Nothing in Danoff's list, which you were responding to, was "millions" of years ago. 5 figures, tops, maybe only 4. Prehistoric, yes, but not DINOSAUR prehistoric.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Really? Because I don't remember seeing logic, reason, or rational thinking used to support the idea that God created everything.

I guess the good and the bad about logic is that it would only have to be proven to the individual. Reason is we have these types of discussions. You can say that your reasoning is better but couldn't prove it. Rational thinking, humm....Both of us think we are rational, but look at each other and see the opposite.

Actually, our theories are quite a bit better . . . . . What with actually being theories backed by examination of actual physical evidence, peer review, etc. The fact that you refuse to accept them is a demonstration of the religious close-mindedness I've alluded to several times in this thread.

And your showing open mindedness how? Isn't this as we say "the pot calling the kettle black"

I'm not ranting. I started with the Native Americans because they are one of the most recent nomadic peoples on Earth, and among the most widely known. I began by showing their original nomadic and migratory lifestyle as an example of the non-farming early people we'd been discussing. If you want to learn how stone-age man lived, look at the native North American. I then contrasted that lifestyle with what was forced on them by the white man in the 19th century, hoping to show that without the ability to move freely in the search for food, water, and shelter, they would be unable to support themselves, and die off, as they have not been a successful, independant civilization since being placed on the reservations. Without the government support they receive, they would not exist today. It was not my intention to discuss the rights or wrongs of this point of history, but to show the difference in a free nomadic lifestyle and an imprisonment on useless unsupportive lands. In each of my posts I was replying to your posts, and did not bother quoting because I thought you could follow the thread. Hopefully these quotes will help you reassemble the train of thought.

Sorry you missed the sarcasm in some of my posts? Did you completely ignore the posts stating that I agree with you? I live in a state with a very rich history of Native Americans. Mesa Verde...ever heard of it?

I don't disagree with all of your migration, nomad, wonderer, hunter gatherer examples.

Nothing in Danoff's list, which you were responding to, was "millions" of years ago. 5 figures, tops, maybe only 4. Prehistoric, yes, but not DINOSAUR prehistoric.

Millions or thousands...Those items still wern't observable. So how does that change my point?

 

[Danoff]

I guess the good and the bad about logic is that it would only have to be proven to the individual. Reason is we have these types of discussions. You can say that your reasoning is better but couldn't prove it. Rational thinking, humm....Both of us think we are rational, but look at each other and see the opposite.

I didn't really follow any of that.

 

[UnoMOTO]

I didn't really follow any of that.

I'm truly not suprised. I have read many of your logic ideas and I am sure It was way to simple of a statement. I should have put some if A then B stuff in it. True thinking cannot always be found in a book or learned in a class.

 

[Danoff]

I guess the good and the bad about logic is that it would only have to be proven to the individual.

Logic is not subjective.

Reason is we have these types of discussions. You can say that your reasoning is better but couldn't prove it.

I use reason, you use emotion.

Rational thinking, humm....Both of us think we are rational, but look at each other and see the opposite.

One of us is right. Faith is by definition irrational.

 

[Swift]

One of us is right. Faith is by definition irrational.

Yep, but we all have a little faith. But we went over that before.

Quick example, prove the moon is actually what we all think it is. Impossible without going there yourself. So you trust the scientists to let you know what's going on with the moon. There's a measure of trust and a hint of faith in there. Not saying that later "evidence" won't change your mind. Just that the current "evidence" shows a specific conclusion.

 

[Danoff]

Yep, but we all have a little faith. But we went over that before.

Quick example, prove the moon is actually what we all think it is. Impossible without going there yourself. So you trust the scientists to let you know what's going on with the moon. There's a measure of trust and a hint of faith in there. Not saying that later "evidence" won't change your mind. Just that the current "evidence" shows a specific conclusion.

My conclusions about the moon are based on flawed inductive reasoning. Not faith.

 

[UnoMOTO]

My conclusions about the moon are based on flawed inductive reasoning. Not faith.

You have faith in the scientist that give you the information to build reasonablity on.

 

[Danoff]

You have faith in the scientist that give you the information to build reasonablity on.

Nope. I use flawed inductive reasoning to determine whether to build on the information. Again, no faith.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Nope. I use flawed inductive reasoning to determine whether to build on the information. Again, no faith.

That theres a fancey word for faith my friend! I hate to break it to you and I am sorry for your denial of it!

 

[Danoff]

That theres a fancey word for faith my friend! I hate to break it to you and I am sorry for your denial of it!

Inductive reasoning is not faith. Here's a wikipedia entry on inductive reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

If inductive reasoning = faith, then you don't believe in God.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Inductive reasoning is not faith. Here's a wikipedia entry on inductive reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

If inductive reasoning = faith, then you don't believe in God.

Ok...by that I read that inductive reasoning = first hand knowledge of a given...which you don't have if a scientist gives you information. You must have faith or trust in his work to begin your process. You can observe the crow is black, but you cannot observe that the moon is made of cheese.

 

[Danoff]

Ok...by that I read that inductive reasoning = first hand knowledge of a given...which you don't have if a scientist gives you information. You must have faith or trust in his work to begin your process. You can observe the crow is black, but you cannot observe that the moon is made of cheese.

I have first hand knowledge of scientists, their claims, and their track record. I can use that via inductive reasoning to form a conclusion about their claims based on shaky reasoning. This is not faith, it's evidence.

 

[UnoMOTO]

I have first hand knowledge of scientists, their claims, and their track record. I can use that via inductive reasoning to form a conclusion about their claims based on shaky reasoning. This is not faith, it's evidence.

May I remind you that the only thing you believe is that you exist. Everything else must be taken as faith that they know what they are talking about.

 

[Danoff]

May I remind you that the only thing you believe is that you exist. Everything else must be taken as faith that they know what they are talking about.

I'm well aware of my beliefs. Which is why I know that the only thing I believe is that I exist (ie: I don't believe scientists).

That's not faith.

 

[UnoMOTO]

I'm well aware of my beliefs. Which is why I know that the only thing I believe is that I exist (ie: I don't believe scientists).

That's not faith.

I don't know what to say now...you got me with that one!!!

 

[Danoff]

I don't know what to say now...you got me with that one!!!

Glad to see you can admit when you're wrong. So hopefully now you'll never accuse anyone who subscribes to evolution of faith.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Glad to see you can admit when you're wrong. So hopefully now you'll never accuse anyone who subscribes to evolution of faith.

Being wrong is not what you got me on. THIS IS

*snip*(ie: I don't believe scientists).

What should we really do with this statement?!

 

[Danoff]

What should we really do with this statement?!

Do what you want with it. It's true of everyone who subscribes to evolution (as long as they understand the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning). Just don't accuse me of having faith (ie: being irrational).

 

[UnoMOTO]

Do what you want with it. It's true of everyone who subscribes to evolution (as long as they understand the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning). Just don't accuse me of having faith (ie: being irrational).

I will nver understand how you can debate this with the passion you do over an idea you don't believe in while trying to convince someone else they should. Are you an organ donor? Science would love to dissect your brain to see what makes you tick. Not that your ideas are bad, you just think like nobody I have ever known.

 

[Danoff]

How can I have faith in something that's based on inductive reasoning? I use inductive reasoning, I rely on it regularly, but to me it's a roll of the dice. I don't have faith it in, I don't believe in it.

Evolution is based on unsound logic - evidence. Evidence is good only for telling you what's probable, not what's absolutely certain. I subscribe to evolution because I find it highly probable, not because I have faith in it.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Evolution is based on unsound logic - evidence. Evidence is good only for telling you what's probable, not what's absolutely certain. I subscribe to evolution because I find it highly probable, not because I have faith in it.

Language like this makes more sense to the masses. You could have lots of openmined conversations with me and my kind if you entered a dialogue with that mind set. Some of your other stuff makes you sound as "off your rocker" as I am.

 

[Danoff]

After having had this conversation three or four times in this thread, I've started to approach the conversation with the most technically accurate description of my position possible.

 

[Small_Fryz]

How can I have faith in something that's based on inductive reasoning? I use inductive reasoning, I rely on it regularly, but to me it's a roll of the dice. I don't have faith it in, I don't believe in it.

Evolution is based on unsound logic - evidence. Evidence is good only for telling you what's probable, not what's absolutely certain. I subscribe to evolution because I find it highly probable, not because I have faith in it.

How can you not understand where danoff is comming from with that statement?

Maybe its because I'm a maths guy and math was very easy and came to me with no study or anything, so which inturn makes me a "logical" guy. I dont rely on emotions (i try not to) to make my beliefs, i use my "brain".

Either way the above statement makes perfect sense to me and I'm close to saying thats my stance on life also.

I cant understand how you cant understand that statement

 

[UnoMOTO]

How can you not understand where danoff is comming from with that statement?

Maybe its because I'm a maths guy and math was very easy and came to me with no study or anything, so which inturn makes me a "logical" guy. I dont rely on emotions (i try not to) to make my beliefs, i use my "brain".

Either way the above statement makes perfect sense to me and I'm close to saying thats my stance on life also.

I cant understand how you cant understand that statement

I'm not sure what you are talking about. I just said in other words that it was one of the most logical things I have heard danoff say. You didn't get my drift that I met danoff in the middle with my last post?

 

[Small_Fryz]

http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/77893/10_Questions_Intelligent_Christians_Must_Answer.html

not sure where to post this but i find it interesting, i know we have covered a lot of talk about some of these in here and thought that it would be a goodplace for it.

Just to point it out, while i dont belive in god i do think he is a bit harsh, so please dont think im with him on his tone and choice of words.

 

[Touring Mars]

Hmmm, I don't think it belongs in this thread. Perhaps the 'Questioning Religion' thread would have been better. As for the vid, I'm an atheist and even I found it whiny and ever so slightly patronising...

 

[UnoMOTO]

After watching that it made me think of a question to ask. Why do non-believers work so hard to try to convert us into not believing? What would this guy personally have to gain in breaking someone of their faith? Would it make the earth a better place to live if you didn't think god created the earth?

As a Christian, I would hope to convert people for reasons of eternal salvation. I want everyone to move to the next level. I hope that people would see a good motivation in that.

On a side note...I was watching Blue Planet the other night, which by the way I think is a fantastic series, and I heard Sigourney Weaver compare a particular area to a veritable "Garden Of Eden". Nice Ironic choice of words! Comparing something that is...to something that in their eyes never existed.