I never said they weren't Christians. Most scientists these days actually are; you can't see so many incredible things and not believe in some sort of Creator.
No, the point is, mainstream Christianity/the Church refused to accept their ideas. That was my point.
Evolution?
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
-
Euthanatos
- Redshirt
- Posts: 1455
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:52 am
- Location: Seattle
-
Deacon
- Shining Adonis
- Posts: 44234
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Lakehills, TX
[quote="Silux";p="503522"]If you truly believe that Evolution is defunct, then why are you arguing your point here in an internet forum? What will that accomplish? Trying to convert the uninformed? A few extra parishoners at your service next Sunday? Why not take your evidence to the scientific community and see what kind of weight it holds?[/quote]
I'm not sure which of the following smileys best captures my reaction to this line of questioning which is shockingly stupid yet somehow amusing, like watching some mouthbreather shoot himself in the face with a nailgun, so I'll just list them all:
I'm not sure which of the following smileys best captures my reaction to this line of questioning which is shockingly stupid yet somehow amusing, like watching some mouthbreather shoot himself in the face with a nailgun, so I'll just list them all:
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922
[quote="Silux";p="503522"]
Sorry, those were just two bits I read earlier that sent me into convulsions. As for everything else, well, what can you do? I've had numerous debates with coworkers, friends, family, and ultimately concluded that people will believe what they want to.[/quote]
"People" sure are annoying when they don't agree with you when you are obviously and irrefutibly right, aren't they? How could they possibly believe something contrary to what you do, who knows Truth like the back of your hand? Individuals will believe what they believe to be correct and reasonable. It is not a matter of whims. If it were, no one would be able to make any assertion of fact of any kind. "People" may see things differently, and possibly more correctly, than you do. Dismissing it as "believing what they want to" is arrogant and pig-headed.
[quote="Silux";p="503522"]
If you truly believe that Evolution is defunct, then why are you arguing your point here in an internet forum? What will that accomplish? Trying to convert the uninformed? A few extra parishoners at your service next Sunday? Why not take your evidence to the scientific community and see what kind of weight it holds?[/quote]
What is this crap? The point of a discussion of evolution is to converse amongst ourselves and debate the many aspects of the theory. Those of us who find fault in it will try to show it. Others will try to assert its accuracy. What will this discussion accomplish? Some who participate may learn new things from it, and may have their beliefs on the subject altered. The purpose of any discussion is to attempt to bring the truth to the surface, not to "win." I really don't think we are concerned with the status our talks and findings would have in the "scientific community", as you put it. We are not attempting to prove to the world that evolution is true or false. We may be trying to do that amongst ourselves, and if we can reach conclusions here, then it serves us well as individuals.
[quote="Silux";p="503522"]
For those arguing on the side of evolution, good for you. But you aren't likely going to change anyone's mind on the matter that has already decided to think otherwise.[/quote]
This reminds me of trying to win an argument by shouting "You're ugly!" at the other person. It's real easy to "win" arguments in your own mind if you completely discount the other person as a stubborn idiot.
[quote="Silux";p="503522"]
For the rest somewhere in the middle, please don't take others' opinions as proof. Do some research of your own. Allowing people tell you what to think is the mark of a weak mind.
[/quote]
You goddamn hipocrite.
Sorry, those were just two bits I read earlier that sent me into convulsions. As for everything else, well, what can you do? I've had numerous debates with coworkers, friends, family, and ultimately concluded that people will believe what they want to.[/quote]
"People" sure are annoying when they don't agree with you when you are obviously and irrefutibly right, aren't they? How could they possibly believe something contrary to what you do, who knows Truth like the back of your hand? Individuals will believe what they believe to be correct and reasonable. It is not a matter of whims. If it were, no one would be able to make any assertion of fact of any kind. "People" may see things differently, and possibly more correctly, than you do. Dismissing it as "believing what they want to" is arrogant and pig-headed.
[quote="Silux";p="503522"]
If you truly believe that Evolution is defunct, then why are you arguing your point here in an internet forum? What will that accomplish? Trying to convert the uninformed? A few extra parishoners at your service next Sunday? Why not take your evidence to the scientific community and see what kind of weight it holds?[/quote]
What is this crap? The point of a discussion of evolution is to converse amongst ourselves and debate the many aspects of the theory. Those of us who find fault in it will try to show it. Others will try to assert its accuracy. What will this discussion accomplish? Some who participate may learn new things from it, and may have their beliefs on the subject altered. The purpose of any discussion is to attempt to bring the truth to the surface, not to "win." I really don't think we are concerned with the status our talks and findings would have in the "scientific community", as you put it. We are not attempting to prove to the world that evolution is true or false. We may be trying to do that amongst ourselves, and if we can reach conclusions here, then it serves us well as individuals.
[quote="Silux";p="503522"]
For those arguing on the side of evolution, good for you. But you aren't likely going to change anyone's mind on the matter that has already decided to think otherwise.[/quote]
This reminds me of trying to win an argument by shouting "You're ugly!" at the other person. It's real easy to "win" arguments in your own mind if you completely discount the other person as a stubborn idiot.
[quote="Silux";p="503522"]
For the rest somewhere in the middle, please don't take others' opinions as proof. Do some research of your own. Allowing people tell you what to think is the mark of a weak mind.
[/quote]
You goddamn hipocrite.
I love this thing.
[quote="Nerdess10052";p="503898"]I REALLY LIKE KNIVES![/quote]
-
Euthanatos
- Redshirt
- Posts: 1455
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:52 am
- Location: Seattle
Silux, you make me ashamed to also embrace Evolution as a viable idea. It's disgraceful that Ruu is entirely 100% in ripping you a new one; we're not debating all this to convert people, to either side, but to have what is called a rational, intelligent exchange of ideas.
So what if you won't convert them, or they won't convert us? We discuss it to make each side think about both positions, to possibly enlighten people a little. We're here to say right and wrong, but to provide more food for thought. It's people like you, on both sides, that derail potentially interesting stuff like this.
So what if you won't convert them, or they won't convert us? We discuss it to make each side think about both positions, to possibly enlighten people a little. We're here to say right and wrong, but to provide more food for thought. It's people like you, on both sides, that derail potentially interesting stuff like this.
I would weep, but my tears have been stolen.
I would shout, but my voice has been taken.
Thus, I write.
I would shout, but my voice has been taken.
Thus, I write.
Re: Evolution?
Hmmm...shockingly stupid, arrogant and pig-headed, hypocrite...
One post and we're already into name calling? That's a new record for me.
[quote="Euthanatos";p="503971"]Silux, you make me ashamed to also embrace Evolution as a viable idea. It's disgraceful that Ruu is entirely 100% in ripping you a new one[/quote]
Firstly, evolution isn't a "viable idea". It's well documented, and widely accepted scientific fact. The cornerstone of modern biology.
Second, I wasn't aware his little post actually did "rip me a new one". It looks to me like he Ruu got a little upset that someone had the gall to say such a terrible thing as "let's agree to disagree". Sorry if I'm taking this whole forum in a new direction where we don't argue like children. I figure telling someone to do a little homework seems a tad more practical than dismantling their flawed arguments for hours, and ending up exactly where you started off, only a little more upset.
My point is that Ruu, Proginosko, Deacon and the like, really aren't saying anything new. A little bit of research and Ruu could have discovered that his points in that enormous post early on in this topic had already been addressed years before he copied and pasted them from whichever fundamentalist site he dug them up. How arrogant to think that posting it here, will give any more validity to that agenda. Maybe he just wanted to look smart.
The creationists have always relied on distortion of the facts, quotes taken out of context, arguments from authority, bad science, and yes even bible verses to make their claims and chip away at evolution. Don't you think if anything they brought to the table was actually relevant that it would have flipped science on it's head already?
But like I said, I've gone through this all before. By all means, continue with your exchanges. I'll...just be over...here...
One post and we're already into name calling? That's a new record for me.
[quote="Euthanatos";p="503971"]Silux, you make me ashamed to also embrace Evolution as a viable idea. It's disgraceful that Ruu is entirely 100% in ripping you a new one[/quote]
Firstly, evolution isn't a "viable idea". It's well documented, and widely accepted scientific fact. The cornerstone of modern biology.
Second, I wasn't aware his little post actually did "rip me a new one". It looks to me like he Ruu got a little upset that someone had the gall to say such a terrible thing as "let's agree to disagree". Sorry if I'm taking this whole forum in a new direction where we don't argue like children. I figure telling someone to do a little homework seems a tad more practical than dismantling their flawed arguments for hours, and ending up exactly where you started off, only a little more upset.
My point is that Ruu, Proginosko, Deacon and the like, really aren't saying anything new. A little bit of research and Ruu could have discovered that his points in that enormous post early on in this topic had already been addressed years before he copied and pasted them from whichever fundamentalist site he dug them up. How arrogant to think that posting it here, will give any more validity to that agenda. Maybe he just wanted to look smart.
The creationists have always relied on distortion of the facts, quotes taken out of context, arguments from authority, bad science, and yes even bible verses to make their claims and chip away at evolution. Don't you think if anything they brought to the table was actually relevant that it would have flipped science on it's head already?
But like I said, I've gone through this all before. By all means, continue with your exchanges. I'll...just be over...here...
-
Euthanatos
- Redshirt
- Posts: 1455
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:52 am
- Location: Seattle
You've apparently missed the core of the issue here.
Evolution is just a viable idea. Not a fact. A theory.
The moment something better comes along that fits all the given information, it will be adopted. That's how science works.
As far as arguing like children, you basically said 'it's dumb to fight over this because i'm right and you won't admit it', which is about as childish as you can get without name calling or thumb sucking.
And, in case you missed it, I happen to be pro-evolution. Yes, creationists as a whole are not the best scientific debaters. However, the ones you happen to be discussing this with are reasonably articulate, informed, and at least willing to listen if you make a valid point. As far as bringing up things to flip science on its head, well, science hasn't managed to squash creationism either, so don't be so cocky about it.
Thank you for bowing out of the discussion, we'll let the more articulate, more mature, and better informed take over here. If anyone would like to get this back to a discussion of the issue instead of a discussion of how we're discussing the issue and how much Silux can't seem to treat the other side with any sort of respect, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Evolution is just a viable idea. Not a fact. A theory.
The moment something better comes along that fits all the given information, it will be adopted. That's how science works.
As far as arguing like children, you basically said 'it's dumb to fight over this because i'm right and you won't admit it', which is about as childish as you can get without name calling or thumb sucking.
And, in case you missed it, I happen to be pro-evolution. Yes, creationists as a whole are not the best scientific debaters. However, the ones you happen to be discussing this with are reasonably articulate, informed, and at least willing to listen if you make a valid point. As far as bringing up things to flip science on its head, well, science hasn't managed to squash creationism either, so don't be so cocky about it.
Thank you for bowing out of the discussion, we'll let the more articulate, more mature, and better informed take over here. If anyone would like to get this back to a discussion of the issue instead of a discussion of how we're discussing the issue and how much Silux can't seem to treat the other side with any sort of respect, I'd greatly appreciate it.
I would weep, but my tears have been stolen.
I would shout, but my voice has been taken.
Thus, I write.
I would shout, but my voice has been taken.
Thus, I write.
Re: Evolution?
[quote="Silux";p="504040"]
One post and we're already into name calling? That's a new record for me.[/quote]
At this point, I am surprised that this is a new record and not a long standing one. The only insult I directed at you was "goddamn", as all the other negative terms, including hipocrite, were directed at your behavior, not your person.
[quote="Silux";p="504040"]
Firstly, evolution isn't a "viable idea". It's well documented, and widely accepted scientific fact. The cornerstone of modern biology.[/quote]
You believe this. You actually believe that evolution, one of the most controversial and debated theories of modern science has been proven as fact. Oh wait, you said accepted. Yes, evolution is widely accepted by evolutionists.
[quote="Silux";p="504040"]
Second, I wasn't aware his little post actually did "rip me a new one". It looks to me like he Ruu got a little upset that someone had the gall to say such a terrible thing as "let's agree to disagree". Sorry if I'm taking this whole forum in a new direction where we don't argue like children. I figure telling someone to do a little homework seems a tad more practical than dismantling their flawed arguments for hours, and ending up exactly where you started off, only a little more upset..[/quote]
The only thing that bothered me was the poor quality of your attempt to make a contribution to this thread. On a related note, you didn't say anything like "let's agree to disagree". It was more along the lines of "Evolution is true, and those who disagree are just believing what they want to believe." This implies that people who do not believe in evolution are choosing to ignore reasonable and proven fact in favor of believing comfortable falsehoods. The attitude inherent there is "We can ignore them, they're not smart like us." The reason we are having this discussion is there is room for it. Arguing like children is nothing like what we are doing here. It more rather resembles what you are doing. We are discussing the many aspects of evolution. Those who find faults in it will try to show them. Others who believe it to be true will try to show it as such. You on the other hand came in and essentially said "If you believe evolution is true, good job! You're right!" Rather than debate, you immediately told us what to think! (Something you vehemently warned us against immediately after!) Rather than offer any argument supporting your position, you said "Go look it up and you'll see that I am right." Again, the reason we are having this discussion is that we have done research, and there are still two sides to the issue. The function of the discussion is to plumb our knowledge and put forth our ideas and evidence for the scrutiny of our peers. Oh, and as for your final line from the above quote, don't worry about upsetting anyone. I don't, and you shouldn't either. We aren't so immature.
[quote="Silux";p="504040"]
My point is that Ruu, Proginosko, Deacon and the like, really aren't saying anything new. A little bit of research and Ruu could have discovered that his points in that enormous post early on in this topic had already been addressed years before he copied and pasted them from whichever fundamentalist site he dug them up. How arrogant to think that posting it here, will give any more validity to that agenda. Maybe he just wanted to look smart.[/quote]
Ah well, if all the issues have already been addressed, then I would love to get the evidence and proofs from you here. You are certain that evolution is fact, and so you should have no problem relating the answers, for you no doubt studied evolution thouroughly, since you hate having people tell you what to think.
Yes, I just wanted to look smart. You caught me.
[quote="Silux";p="504040"]
The creationists have always relied on distortion of the facts, quotes taken out of context, arguments from authority, bad science, and yes even bible verses to make their claims and chip away at evolution. Don't you think if anything they brought to the table was actually relevant that it would have flipped science on it's head already?[/quote]
In response to this, here is a quote from C.S. Lewis's The Weight of Glory:
"The Bergsonian critique of orthodox Darwinism is not easy to answer. More disquieting still is Professor D. M. S. Watson's defence. "Evolution itself," he wrote, "is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or... can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice? Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?"
[quote="Silux";p="504040"]
But like I said, I've gone through this all before. By all means, continue with your exchanges. I'll...just be over...here...[/quote]
Glad to know we have your approval, oh wise one. You shan't be missed, as you seem to fall into the very description you made of people who "believe what they want to."
One post and we're already into name calling? That's a new record for me.[/quote]
At this point, I am surprised that this is a new record and not a long standing one. The only insult I directed at you was "goddamn", as all the other negative terms, including hipocrite, were directed at your behavior, not your person.
[quote="Silux";p="504040"]
Firstly, evolution isn't a "viable idea". It's well documented, and widely accepted scientific fact. The cornerstone of modern biology.[/quote]
You believe this. You actually believe that evolution, one of the most controversial and debated theories of modern science has been proven as fact. Oh wait, you said accepted. Yes, evolution is widely accepted by evolutionists.
[quote="Silux";p="504040"]
Second, I wasn't aware his little post actually did "rip me a new one". It looks to me like he Ruu got a little upset that someone had the gall to say such a terrible thing as "let's agree to disagree". Sorry if I'm taking this whole forum in a new direction where we don't argue like children. I figure telling someone to do a little homework seems a tad more practical than dismantling their flawed arguments for hours, and ending up exactly where you started off, only a little more upset..[/quote]
The only thing that bothered me was the poor quality of your attempt to make a contribution to this thread. On a related note, you didn't say anything like "let's agree to disagree". It was more along the lines of "Evolution is true, and those who disagree are just believing what they want to believe." This implies that people who do not believe in evolution are choosing to ignore reasonable and proven fact in favor of believing comfortable falsehoods. The attitude inherent there is "We can ignore them, they're not smart like us." The reason we are having this discussion is there is room for it. Arguing like children is nothing like what we are doing here. It more rather resembles what you are doing. We are discussing the many aspects of evolution. Those who find faults in it will try to show them. Others who believe it to be true will try to show it as such. You on the other hand came in and essentially said "If you believe evolution is true, good job! You're right!" Rather than debate, you immediately told us what to think! (Something you vehemently warned us against immediately after!) Rather than offer any argument supporting your position, you said "Go look it up and you'll see that I am right." Again, the reason we are having this discussion is that we have done research, and there are still two sides to the issue. The function of the discussion is to plumb our knowledge and put forth our ideas and evidence for the scrutiny of our peers. Oh, and as for your final line from the above quote, don't worry about upsetting anyone. I don't, and you shouldn't either. We aren't so immature.
[quote="Silux";p="504040"]
My point is that Ruu, Proginosko, Deacon and the like, really aren't saying anything new. A little bit of research and Ruu could have discovered that his points in that enormous post early on in this topic had already been addressed years before he copied and pasted them from whichever fundamentalist site he dug them up. How arrogant to think that posting it here, will give any more validity to that agenda. Maybe he just wanted to look smart.[/quote]
Ah well, if all the issues have already been addressed, then I would love to get the evidence and proofs from you here. You are certain that evolution is fact, and so you should have no problem relating the answers, for you no doubt studied evolution thouroughly, since you hate having people tell you what to think.
Yes, I just wanted to look smart. You caught me.
[quote="Silux";p="504040"]
The creationists have always relied on distortion of the facts, quotes taken out of context, arguments from authority, bad science, and yes even bible verses to make their claims and chip away at evolution. Don't you think if anything they brought to the table was actually relevant that it would have flipped science on it's head already?[/quote]
In response to this, here is a quote from C.S. Lewis's The Weight of Glory:
"The Bergsonian critique of orthodox Darwinism is not easy to answer. More disquieting still is Professor D. M. S. Watson's defence. "Evolution itself," he wrote, "is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or... can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice? Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?"
[quote="Silux";p="504040"]
But like I said, I've gone through this all before. By all means, continue with your exchanges. I'll...just be over...here...
[/quote]Glad to know we have your approval, oh wise one. You shan't be missed, as you seem to fall into the very description you made of people who "believe what they want to."
I love this thing.
[quote="Nerdess10052";p="503898"]I REALLY LIKE KNIVES![/quote]
Though I'm not on the same side of that debate as Ruu, I agree with him 100% with regards to you Silux. No, we're not going to change anyone's mind in a pointless forum debate, but all of us have our own beliefs and find enjoyment in presenting them and defending them. Oh, and I'd like to make a VERY important note . . .
The difference between a fact and a theory is a big one. A theory is something that can be wrong, but thus far has evidence that supports is as well as no evidence that disproves it. This is why it's called the THEORY of evolution. Laws in science are just a formal name for basic, commonly accepted theorems. For example, 2 = 2 is a fact (also known as an axiom in mathematics), but 2 + 2 = 4 is a theorem. the theory that 2 + 2 = 4 holds for now because we can provide evidence that it does using the axioms of mathematics. If anyone can ever manage to prove that, following the axioms of mathematics, 2 + 2 != 4, than that theory will be disproved and will be replaced or amended to accomodate for the new data.
Now, this criteria for being a theory is the main reason that creationism and ID are NOT considered theories. The concept of a divine being creating and directing everything has no scientifically verifiable evidence to support it (I would say undeniable but in this case that word is very subjective). However, there is also no evidence to disprove it. This is why creationism is considered a hypothesis.
Now, while the hypothesis of God's existance surely simplifies much of the world, the same applies to the hypothesis of the existance of magnetic charge. No one has ever found it, but if anyone ever did it would simplify electrodynamics greatly. However, since no one has every found a magnetic monopole, we are forced in science to assume that such things do not exist. This same line of reasoning is also applied to the existance of God, hence why creationism is not commonly accepted by scientists.
Anyone who says that anything in science is a FACT has done nothing more than prove that they really don't know science. EVERYTHING in science is THEORY. We don't know anything for sure, we're just trying to come up with the best rules possible to describe our environment. Even things as "simple" as gravity aren't fully understood (the effects are well understood, but the how and why are complete mysteries to us).Firstly, evolution isn't a "viable idea". It's well documented, and widely accepted scientific fact. The cornerstone of modern biology.
The difference between a fact and a theory is a big one. A theory is something that can be wrong, but thus far has evidence that supports is as well as no evidence that disproves it. This is why it's called the THEORY of evolution. Laws in science are just a formal name for basic, commonly accepted theorems. For example, 2 = 2 is a fact (also known as an axiom in mathematics), but 2 + 2 = 4 is a theorem. the theory that 2 + 2 = 4 holds for now because we can provide evidence that it does using the axioms of mathematics. If anyone can ever manage to prove that, following the axioms of mathematics, 2 + 2 != 4, than that theory will be disproved and will be replaced or amended to accomodate for the new data.
Now, this criteria for being a theory is the main reason that creationism and ID are NOT considered theories. The concept of a divine being creating and directing everything has no scientifically verifiable evidence to support it (I would say undeniable but in this case that word is very subjective). However, there is also no evidence to disprove it. This is why creationism is considered a hypothesis.
Now, while the hypothesis of God's existance surely simplifies much of the world, the same applies to the hypothesis of the existance of magnetic charge. No one has ever found it, but if anyone ever did it would simplify electrodynamics greatly. However, since no one has every found a magnetic monopole, we are forced in science to assume that such things do not exist. This same line of reasoning is also applied to the existance of God, hence why creationism is not commonly accepted by scientists.
"I'll have to confess, Mr. Chairman, that I am also a video game player. I have worked my way up to Civilization IV. I haven't yet been able to beat it but I at least understand the fundamentals of it." - Texas Representative Joe Barton
-
Deacon
- Shining Adonis
- Posts: 44234
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Lakehills, TX
Is there a term for that, along the lines of Godwin's Law and other such laws? Or is that one of the flamer variants?Rather than offer any argument supporting your position, you said "Go look it up and you'll see that I am right."
EDIT: Hmmm...after a long time of searching, I have come up with nothing, even under http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922
Re: Evolution?
I love this thing.
[quote="Nerdess10052";p="503898"]I REALLY LIKE KNIVES![/quote]
Ding ding ding...I guess I'm back for Round 3...
[quote="Euthanatos";p="504074"]
And, in case you missed it, I happen to be pro-evolution. [/quote]
Oh boy. Please don't start using the term pro-evolution. That'll lead to the other side using the term pro-God, and then it's like the abortion debate. Nobody wants to be anti-God, just like the pro-choice people don't like being called pro-death.
[quote="Euthanatos";p="504074"]
you basically said 'it's dumb to fight over this because i'm right and you won't admit it'[/quote]
Actually if you're going to paraphrase me, let's use this, "it's dumb to fight over this because the IDers and creationists haven't really done their homework." Sort of along the lines of the old adage, don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference.
[quote="Euthanatos";p="504074"]
As far as bringing up things to flip science on its head, well, science hasn't managed to squash creationism either, so don't be so cocky about it.
[/quote]
Well, I'll give you that one. Science will never be able to empirically support or refute a claim that isn't bound by the laws of the observable, natural world. How exactly do you disprove God? But if you're talking about knocking down strict biblical interpretations, here's a fun little site...
http://members.aol.com/smcdownlds/youngearth.html
[quote="Ruu";p="504089"]
Yes, evolution is widely accepted by evolutionists.[/quote]
Nice zinger.
[quote="Ruu";p="504089"]
Again, the reason we are having this discussion is that we have done research, and there are still two sides to the issue.[/quote]
Then please, go hit the books again.
[quote="Ruu";p="504089"]
if all the issues have already been addressed, then I would love to get the evidence and proofs from you here.[/quote]
Why certainly. You can start here...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-mis ... html#proof
[quote="Ruu";p="504089"]
Yes, I just wanted to look smart. You caught me. [/quote]
I KNEW IT!
[quote="Ruu";p="504089"]
here is a quote from C.S. Lewis's The Weight of Glory:
"The Bergsonian critique of orthodox Darwinism is not easy to answer. More disquieting still is Professor D. M. S. Watson's defence. "Evolution itself," he wrote, "is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or... can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice? Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?"[/quote]
"In short the reason why creation is incredible is that it is contrary to the observable facts." - Mike Hopkins
[quote="Grumlen";p="504121"]
Ah, no. That's not quite correct there friend. You're approaching it as if this were a philosophy class and arguing semantics. As Stephen Jay Gould has put it...
"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search? ... fic%20fact
Trusting you won't aruge with Webster's link above, I'll hand off to H. J. Muller...
"Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....
So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words."
And as Obi Wan says, only a Sith deals in absolutes.
[quote="Grumlen";p="504121"]The difference between a fact and a theory is a big one. A theory is something that can be wrong, but thus far has evidence that supports is as well as no evidence that disproves it. This is why it's called the THEORY of evolution. Laws in science are just a formal name for basic, commonly accepted theorems. For example, 2 = 2 is a fact (also known as an axiom in mathematics), but 2 + 2 = 4 is a theorem. the theory that 2 + 2 = 4 holds for now because we can provide evidence that it does using the axioms of mathematics. If anyone can ever manage to prove that, following the axioms of mathematics, 2 + 2 != 4, than that theory will be disproved and will be replaced or amended to accomodate for the new data.[/quote]
Well put, but completely irrelevant. Mathmatics is a different animal. Take it away Mr. Gould...
"...'fact' does not mean 'absolute certainty.' The final proof of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty because they are not about the empirical world."
[quote="Euthanatos";p="504074"]
And, in case you missed it, I happen to be pro-evolution. [/quote]
Oh boy. Please don't start using the term pro-evolution. That'll lead to the other side using the term pro-God, and then it's like the abortion debate. Nobody wants to be anti-God, just like the pro-choice people don't like being called pro-death.
[quote="Euthanatos";p="504074"]
you basically said 'it's dumb to fight over this because i'm right and you won't admit it'[/quote]
Actually if you're going to paraphrase me, let's use this, "it's dumb to fight over this because the IDers and creationists haven't really done their homework." Sort of along the lines of the old adage, don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference.
[quote="Euthanatos";p="504074"]
As far as bringing up things to flip science on its head, well, science hasn't managed to squash creationism either, so don't be so cocky about it.
[/quote]
Well, I'll give you that one. Science will never be able to empirically support or refute a claim that isn't bound by the laws of the observable, natural world. How exactly do you disprove God? But if you're talking about knocking down strict biblical interpretations, here's a fun little site...
http://members.aol.com/smcdownlds/youngearth.html
[quote="Ruu";p="504089"]
Yes, evolution is widely accepted by evolutionists.[/quote]
Nice zinger.
[quote="Ruu";p="504089"]
Again, the reason we are having this discussion is that we have done research, and there are still two sides to the issue.[/quote]
Then please, go hit the books again.
[quote="Ruu";p="504089"]
if all the issues have already been addressed, then I would love to get the evidence and proofs from you here.[/quote]
Why certainly. You can start here...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-mis ... html#proof
[quote="Ruu";p="504089"]
Yes, I just wanted to look smart. You caught me.
[/quote]I KNEW IT!
[quote="Ruu";p="504089"]
here is a quote from C.S. Lewis's The Weight of Glory:
"The Bergsonian critique of orthodox Darwinism is not easy to answer. More disquieting still is Professor D. M. S. Watson's defence. "Evolution itself," he wrote, "is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or... can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice? Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?"[/quote]
"In short the reason why creation is incredible is that it is contrary to the observable facts." - Mike Hopkins
[quote="Grumlen";p="504121"]
Anyone who says that anything in science is a FACT has done nothing more than prove that they really don't know science..[/quote]Firstly, evolution isn't a "viable idea". It's well documented, and widely accepted scientific fact. The cornerstone of modern biology.
Ah, no. That's not quite correct there friend. You're approaching it as if this were a philosophy class and arguing semantics. As Stephen Jay Gould has put it...
"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search? ... fic%20fact
Trusting you won't aruge with Webster's link above, I'll hand off to H. J. Muller...
"Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....
So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words."
And as Obi Wan says, only a Sith deals in absolutes.
[quote="Grumlen";p="504121"]The difference between a fact and a theory is a big one. A theory is something that can be wrong, but thus far has evidence that supports is as well as no evidence that disproves it. This is why it's called the THEORY of evolution. Laws in science are just a formal name for basic, commonly accepted theorems. For example, 2 = 2 is a fact (also known as an axiom in mathematics), but 2 + 2 = 4 is a theorem. the theory that 2 + 2 = 4 holds for now because we can provide evidence that it does using the axioms of mathematics. If anyone can ever manage to prove that, following the axioms of mathematics, 2 + 2 != 4, than that theory will be disproved and will be replaced or amended to accomodate for the new data.[/quote]
Well put, but completely irrelevant. Mathmatics is a different animal. Take it away Mr. Gould...
"...'fact' does not mean 'absolute certainty.' The final proof of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty because they are not about the empirical world."
-
Terrik
- Redshirt
- Posts: 626
- Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 7:05 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Gainesville, Florida
Re: Evolution?
"And as Obi Wan says, only a Sith deals in absolutes. "
Hate to be a total nerd here, but that was the most *bogus* line of that movie. It's always been the Jedi who dealt in absolutes and the Sith who justified everything through relativism.
/nerd off
"Why certainly. You can start here...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-mis ... html#proof "
Uh..see this is just another "wtf" claim. I can't name a single Creationist that believes in a 5,000 year old Earth. I dont even know where that number comes from. The only idea I have is that it is what was thought in Darwin's day by creationists, but nowdays I think a very small percentage still hold on to that.
And you know, I love how Evolutionists claim its all about science. You realize that when you exclude God from you equations as an impossibility, you are now adhering to a Philosophy. Naturalistic Philosophy where one believes that everything and anything comes from nature.
Science believes in all possibilites as possible solutions. The process is what eliminates different possibilites until there's only a few left to consider.
Now tell me, which one of these experiments did away with the possibility of God?
Hate to be a total nerd here, but that was the most *bogus* line of that movie. It's always been the Jedi who dealt in absolutes and the Sith who justified everything through relativism.
/nerd off
"Why certainly. You can start here...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-mis ... html#proof "
Uh..see this is just another "wtf" claim. I can't name a single Creationist that believes in a 5,000 year old Earth. I dont even know where that number comes from. The only idea I have is that it is what was thought in Darwin's day by creationists, but nowdays I think a very small percentage still hold on to that.
And you know, I love how Evolutionists claim its all about science. You realize that when you exclude God from you equations as an impossibility, you are now adhering to a Philosophy. Naturalistic Philosophy where one believes that everything and anything comes from nature.
Science believes in all possibilites as possible solutions. The process is what eliminates different possibilites until there's only a few left to consider.
Now tell me, which one of these experiments did away with the possibility of God?
Re: Evolution?
[quote="Terrik";p="504231"]Uh..see this is just another "wtf" claim. I can't name a single Creationist that believes in a 5,000 year old Earth. I dont even know where that number comes from. [/quote]
You must not know a lot of creationists then. There are many degrees of creationism (Flat Earthers, Geocentrists, Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, Gap Creationists, Day Age Creationists, Progressive Creationists, Intelligent Design Creationism, Evolutionary Creationist, Theistic Evolutionists) which vary depending on how much scientific evidence they are willing to accept or dismiss. The 5000 years is the approximate age the Earth would have to be in order for the bible to be correct from a strictly literal interpretation.
[quote="Terrik";p="504231"]Now tell me, which one of these experiments did away with the possibility of God?[/quote]
There isn't one. As I said before, science cannot prove or disprove God simply because God is not an entity confined in the observable, natural world. Truly, there is a possibility that there is a God and that he created the universe, but it doesn't really merit discussion in the realm of science for this reason.
You must not know a lot of creationists then. There are many degrees of creationism (Flat Earthers, Geocentrists, Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, Gap Creationists, Day Age Creationists, Progressive Creationists, Intelligent Design Creationism, Evolutionary Creationist, Theistic Evolutionists) which vary depending on how much scientific evidence they are willing to accept or dismiss. The 5000 years is the approximate age the Earth would have to be in order for the bible to be correct from a strictly literal interpretation.
[quote="Terrik";p="504231"]Now tell me, which one of these experiments did away with the possibility of God?[/quote]
There isn't one. As I said before, science cannot prove or disprove God simply because God is not an entity confined in the observable, natural world. Truly, there is a possibility that there is a God and that he created the universe, but it doesn't really merit discussion in the realm of science for this reason.
Actually, I will argue with that: http://dictionary.reference.com/search? ... c%20theory"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search? ... fic%20fact
Trusting you won't aruge with Webster's link above, I'll hand off to H. J. Muller...
A fact is an observation. You can observe that I am typing right now, and thats a fact. A theory explains those facts. The facts themselves aren't really a part of science, other than just the semantics that you're arguing that I'm using myself. Stop acting like a hypocrite and accusing me of arguing semantics when you're arguing semantics in the process. Plus, it's important to note that "scientific facts" (a term which I have NEVER heard any of my professors use) are ONLY useful to prove theories. They mean little to nothing in and of themselves.
We're not arguing about evolution. Anyone who denies that is an idiot. We're arguing about the THEORY of evolution. That part isn't semantics. And nor is the difference between a theory and a fact.
The point is that nothing is ever taken for granted, which is something that you're doing Silux.
[quote[Well put, but completely irrelevant. Mathmatics is a different animal. Take it away Mr. Gould... [/quote]
Yes, math is a "different animal," but that was FAR from irrelavant. I was using it to illustrate that difference between a fact and a theory. Apparently you missed that completely. The same rules of logic and deduction that apply to math apply to science as well.
No offense Silux, but all you're doing at this point is trying to incite a flame war. Both sides of the arguement are now focused on you, and you're starting to derail the entire topic. Either stop posting in here, or think your posts through more thoroughly before you post again.
Terrik, thats an excellent article that you linked.
"I'll have to confess, Mr. Chairman, that I am also a video game player. I have worked my way up to Civilization IV. I haven't yet been able to beat it but I at least understand the fundamentals of it." - Texas Representative Joe Barton
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest