Evolution 2 - Never-ending Debate

I wouldn't have had to patronize you if you didn't have such incredibly weak arguments. There are a mountain of things in here that you questioned that would get incredibly amusing looks from people. You even seriously asked what's wrong with the universe being older than the Earth and how do I "know" that. You even resorted to personally slandering scientists to help your argument! LOL

I didn't enter this thread to have you like me nor do I care if you do. In fact I came in with full knowledge that my participation in this thread would make me rather unpopular with the "religious" who frequent this board but again I didn't really care. I tried to make forceful arguments and have a good laugh at the same time so if that's offensive to you then I apologize. It wasn't a malicious intent.

No, I am not offended. I don't get offended easily. I just don't like your methods. Weak arguments? Please. Need I remind you so soon of the "I don't have to explain why I'm illogical if I don't want to"? This from the same guy who actually expects me to believe that he would assume a geometrically precise 3D stone cube would get there without intelligent intervention? Sorry, no leg to stand on.

I make my beliefs very public, and every now and then I run into someone like you. Someone who tries to belittle me by telling me that what I say is ridiculous to most (funny, though...people like you are in the minority). I did not "resort" to any such thing. I mentioned that I don't think it's a coincidence...I don't see how it can be, reasonably. There must be a connection.

You also quoted "something from NASA," I believe is what you called it, claimed that it contradicted creationism, when in fact it did not. I don't care if you like me, either. In fact, I'd be shocked if you did. The only thing I care about is stating my case and stating it well. I'm quite happy with the outcome so far.

Funny, I mention how rude you are, and you basically say "I wouldn't be rude if you didn't make such weak arguments."

How appropriate this thread title is becoming...I'm going to bed for the night.

Geez... if the universe is 12 billion years old which is the "something from NASA" that I posted and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old that contradicts Genesis which is the story of creation. Pretty easy to follow.

You wake up.
You breath.
You try to do it right.

That's what it's about.
My two words, my two cents:

WHO CARES?

Who cares how we got here, or where we're going.

This is a purely Toose-ian (add that to the glossary) moment for me. Life isn't about knowing everything about what made us us. It's about living each day, breathing the air. Living life.

My two cents.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

But why is it? Because they say so? Again, it's this subconcious belief that people in white coats, instead of white collars, are infallible.

Ya know what really amuses me? You almost argue against yourself with every post. You don't want me to think you're wrong...either that or you don't want others reading this to think you're wrong. Or you just want to justify your beliefs to yourself. But WHY? There is no God, apparently. So what's right? What's the point?

Every day of your life you appeal to people's inner, engrained sense of right and wrong. "Hey, that's my seat," for example. Why would you say that? Because people, even if they do mean things, don't usually do them knowing they are mean. They think that there are exceptions, basically. When you argue with someone, you're appealing, most often than not, to their sense of right and wrong. A common standard of fairness. And yet you don't believe in God, so no such standard exists.

And when you're faced with something like this, you essentially say that you don't have to be logical or make sense if you don't want to. Right.

Timing- How is it you have no trouble putting your faith in science vs. God?
Science has this funny way of making factual statements, and then disproving those facts further down the road. I would think twice about believing everyhing I read in "science books".
Most of the trash I was taught in science classes at school, is laughable material in today's scientific circles. I can't imagine investing my faith into something that is contantly correcting it's self, disproving it's theory's, second guessing it's facts, and altering, what once was, concrete evidence.
I would be careful about putting stock in what scientists say they believe.
Andrew Chaikin, a leading voice in the science community, gave a speech at the Johnson Space Center and said," Human memory is flawed and has to backed up constantly with recorded facts. I've made a living off of archives, and I can tell you with certianty; I've come across tons of contradicting information."
So, Timing, depending on when you heard certian information and who said it...it could all be @ssbackwards by the time you look it up again. Nothing is concrete in science.

Want something to think about, Timing? Read this article ( In the N.Y. Times, not some Christian Mag) about the National Association of Biology Teachers, that are starting to find some validity to Creationisim vs. Evolution. Check it out:http://www.arn.org/docs/fline1297/fl_goodstein.htm

K i havn't had time 2 read this whole thread but i'd like 2 make a statement saying that
EVOLUTION BY CHANCE IS MATHEMATCALLY IMPOSSIBLE

thats all u need to know, k?

it is a mathematical fact that this universe had to be created by a all-powerful/greater power.


www.answersingenesis.org

k.

I used to think debating about evolution was fun - when I was a sophomore in High School.

But when you keep having the same debate over and over again, with the same knee-jerk responses to everything you say (and in this case, it occured on both sides), you realize you should probably be doing something productive with your time.

Whether or not Evolution will be disproven, or laughable in the future, has nothing to do with anything. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation was "disproven" (replaced, actually) by Einstein's General theory of Relativity. Yet Newton's version is still taught from primary education all the way up to second-year physics in college. Why? Because it works - under certain conditions.

Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are both mutually exclusive - but we use both theories. Scientists will continue to use both until either one is either disproved or reconciled with the other. Why? Because they both work - under certain conditions.

Occam's razor works. Science is a study of the natural world; it has nothing to say about anything in the supernatural. So scientists will use the theory that best explains certain phenomena - the fossil record, for instance - in a manner that fits into a "naturalistic" view of the universe.

Science, unlike math or logic, is not exact. A theory is never "true"; it is just accepted until it is disproven or replaced by another theory.

And Sades, in that article you linked to, the first two paragraphs claim the NABT has just removed the words "unsupervised" and "impersonal" from its definition of evolution. I would take this to mean they are lending credence to Theistic Evolution rather than Creationism.

I think there was a short period of time in which I thought of this kind of stuff as fun. It didn't last, though. I rarely find any enjoyment at all in it now. I find I only feel "back to normal" once I've gotten my reply up. Until then, it sort of nags on my mind. Sure, I take satisfaction in, say, a particularly well-made point...but believe me, I don't like this at all.

I only do it because...

1) I feel obligated.
2) I still feel it is something I can learn from.
3) You never know who's "listening." I don't argue with people to necessarily convince them of what I'm saying.

And let me tell you...there are definitely some people I've talked with that seem to have at least come to dispell some stereotypes they had about Christians or Creationists or anything of the sort. They may not believe in it -- and that's fine. But I honestly don't think of these kinds of things as fruitless.

And yes, I agree, it's a lot of the same arguments. I get mildly excited when I see a new one -- it happens so rarely...and if it doesn't, well, I'm not going to be too likely to say anything new, either.

The debate of evolution and creation will never end as non-christian-scientists are almost always atheists and will not under any circumstance admit that a all-powerful God created everything in 7 days.
It's just not scientific enough!

No, it's leaning towards the notion that there must be a "supervisor". Art, don't come here to make our discussion seem fruitless...k?

From the article:

Master Hand at the helm of what? Evolution (notice they didn't drop the E-word from their definition). Once again, this suggests theistic (or "supervised") evolution rather than pure creationism.

I'm sorry. Obviously this isn't MY discussion, it's YOURS. I should have known better.

To everyone who participated in this discussion, I apologize for trespassing on your private property. I also would like to apologize for oppressing you with my comments by making your discussion seem "fruitless."

I'll never do it again.

You're not dumb Arthur -- you know very well what she meant. We're having a discussion about evolutionism and creationism, and you basically came in to tell us off about how much time we were wasting...and, I'm sorry to say, it wasn't in a friendly "it would be for the best" sort of way. Perhaps you intended it another way -- but I can't say it came off well. At least not to me. I don't care much either way, though...but I wouldn't say Sades is out of line for being a tad upset.

And yeah, the article simply talks about intelligent design somewhere. Maybe Jesus really did create us through evolution. Who knows? This debate has been primarily about His existence in the first place, however.

Keeping in mind the title of the thread and comments like these:

...it seems like you would AGREE with me.

This debate seemed to be over. When was the last time Timing posted? 8 days ago?

Yes, there were some new arguments since then: a "WHO CARES?" argument, a "Why do you think scientists are infallible" argument, an "Evolution is impossible, that's all you need to know" argument, a "Science is always correcting itself" argument (which I addressed) and a link to a New York Times article (which I also addressed).

But if you really don't think you're wasting your time, I truly do apologize, especially to Sades. I don't care either way, so go ahead and continue this debate if you'd like.

No, I don't like these debates, like I said. My comments about getting work done are meant in a joking fashion...half-serious. Yes, there are better things I could do with my time. I know that...I don't need to be told. I do not think it's pointless, though.

Yep, the debate seemed to be over. Don't look at me, I didn't dive back in. I'm not even necessarily defending what Sades and Ben & Willie said...I just understand exactly where she's coming from. I see it a lot...

“But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.” - Mark 10:6

“Everything in the Scriptures is God’s Word. All of it is useful for teaching and helping people and for correcting them and showing them how to live.” - 2 Timothy 3:16

Ben (can I call ya Ben? I dunno what to call you with such a confusing username. ), while I completely agree with your opinion on how we came into being, I don't think it's an undeniable fact that God meant that part of The Bible literally. I think it's POSSIBLE that it could've been meant as symoblic or something of the sort. I don't think it was, and I think it's far-fetched, but not ridiculous. It could be. I'm not sure of that part. The only thing I am sure of is that there's some kind of God out there, and that it appears to be the God from The Bible.