<< In religion, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer >>
Philosophically, 'I don't know' is an acceptable answer. Religion is the thing that tries to explain everything. Betcha the Bible started off smalle, and then entered the bloatware-effect.
<< In religion, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer >>
Philosophically, 'I don't know' is an acceptable answer. Religion is the thing that tries to explain everything. Betcha the Bible started off smalle, and then entered the bloatware-effect.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
<< You're making the assumption that we know for a fact that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. We don't. That just seems to be the "going" guess, with the "evidence" made to fit the evolutionary model as I've stated before. At one point in time, we knew a whole bunch about this guy named Brontosaurus. >>
We don't? All the fossils we gathered isn't evidence?
<< << You're making the assumption that we know for a fact that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. We don't. That just seems to be the "going" guess, with the "evidence" made to fit the evolutionary model as I've stated before. At one point in time, we knew a whole bunch about this guy named Brontosaurus.
We don't? All the fossils we gathered isn't evidence? >>
It all depends on who is being convinced. In a religious or philosophical context "proof" and "evidence" are very subjective.
<< It all depends on who is being convinced. In a religious or philosophical context "proof" and "evidence" are very subjective. >>
I think we have a winner here, folks.
nik
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
So he is asking us to believe a book written by a bunch of superstitious Desert Nomads over Modern Science? If you have doubts about modern technology how can you even start to believe a book that is written by people who didn't even know about the continents and Earth's Poles and how can you expect someone who's been taught to be logical (though we try to defeat logic every chance we get) to believe something that seems so illogical?
<< We don't? All the fossils we gathered isn't evidence? >>
Which fossils? Is Piltdown man evidence? Is Archaeoraptor evidence? Or are you just going to be selective about your fossils?
So... which fossils, and how modern does science have to be before it becomes "modern?"
<< a book written by a bunch of superstitious Desert Nomads >>
Oh. So if evidence comes from a bunch of superstitious Desert Nomads thousands of years ago, it's inadmissible? I see. And I don't recall upholding such evidence, but if I did, it wouldn't be on the basis of the people who found/wrote it. Einstein peed his pants. Does that discredit his theories?
<sigh>
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
<< Oh. So if evidence comes from a bunch of superstitious Desert Nomads thousands of years ago, it's inadmissible? I see. And I don't recall upholding such evidence, but if I did, it wouldn't be on the basis of the people who found/wrote it. Einstein peed his pants. Does that discredit his theories? >>
Excuse me, you talking in circles just proves that you are good at talking in circles where as the fossils which I have seen with my own eyes tells me that that the creature that these fossils came from actually existed.
<< Excuse me, you talking in circles just proves that you are good at talking in circles >>
And you making ad hominem remarks just proves that you are good at making ad hominem remarks. What's your point?
<< the fossils which I have seen with my own eyes tells me that that the creature that these fossils came from actually existed. >>
Sure. For the most part, fossils do come from creatures. Of course, some of them might be completely fabricated like Piltdown man, who still happens to be in the dictionary my college uses, where Piltdown is cited by G.G. MacCurdy as being "on of the most extraordinary prehistoric stations ever uncovered." After all, he saw these fossils with his own eyes. Now, did the fossils speak to him? No, he read what he wanted to read into them.
I'm not denying the existence of creatures. I'm just saying that the logical leaps -- all the inferences designed to mold the evidence around preconceived notions -- aren't necessarily true. Sure, the fossils existed. Might have even lived at one point. Fine. When did they live? What did they live like? How did they eat? What did they eat? Those are guesses.
Oh. And you're excused.
<< Christian Science is an Oxymoron >>
The thread should have ended here. Nothing more to be said really
<< Some Christians actually do believe that the universe went from squat to fully formed with humans in seven literal days. Most people agree that this is madness. Those who believe this contend that the dinosaur bones and other evidence of an ancient earth were put there by the devil to lead the unwarry astray, or by God as a test of faith.
Most Christians however hold that time as we know it means very little to God and that the "seven days" was metaphorical, or indicates stages in which the creator brought things into being. They hold that the ammount of time in each "day" is indeterminate, and all "days" need not be of the same duration. >>
Yeah, that's called self-delusion. Alow me to illustrate:
Chritian: "God created the earth and universe in 7 days"
Scientist: "No he didn't, evidence shows otherwise:
Christrian: "Oh...well...the bible didn't mean 7 literal days, but he did create the the stars after he created earth"
Scientist: "No he didn't evidense shows otherwise"
Christian: "Oh, well the bible didn't mean it in that way..."
Scientist:
<<
<< According to Christian, Jewish, and Muslim belief, the world went from nothing to its modern form with humans in seven days, right?
How do they explian things like dinosaurs and other evidence that life existed millions of years before humans came along?
Is that "seven days" just a figurative statement, and was really a few billion years because
God considers millions of years one day? >>
First of all, you're wrong in assuming that dinosaurs existed millions of years before humans. If you're looking through Creationism, you have to believe that nothing was before God created the world.
Secondly, God makes an analogy to one day being equal to 1000 years, not millions. There is a debate in seminaries as to whether the 7-days is a literal 7-day or 7000 years.
now... go from here.
nik >>
Dude, haven't you ever heard of carbon dating and other scienstific procedures to determine the date of something? Dinosaur remains have been scientifically proven to be ALOT older than any human remains found. If you dont beleive that the devil planted dinosaur bones, I guess you could say that all the human remains from the times of the dinosaurs have been destroyed by the devil in an effort to deceive us?
Yeah, like I said, I find both theories to be risible.
Scientist: "Giraffes evolved increasingly longer necks because they had to stretch them to eat leaves off the trees."
Christian: "No they didn't, evidence shows otherwise. Just because I stretch my neck my whole life doesn't mean my kid's going to have a longer neck."
Scientist: "Oh...well...it takes millions of years for microevolution to develop sufficient changes to produce macroevolutionary changes."
Christian: "Then where are the transitional forms? Where are the millions of intermediaries?"
Scientist: "Oh, well... hm... perhaps punctuated equillibrium can explain the sudden gaps we see between species in the fossil record."
Christian:
Scientist: "Giraffes evolved increasingly longer necks because they had to stretch them to eat leaves off the trees."
Christian: "No they didn't, evidence shows otherwise. Just because I stretch my neck my whole life doesn't mean my kid's going to have a longer neck."
Scientist: "Oh...well...it takes millions of years for microevolution to develop sufficient changes to produce macroevolutionary changes."
Christian: "Then where are the transitional forms? Where are the millions of intermediaries?"
Scientist: "Oh, well... hm... perhaps punctuated equillibrium can explain the sudden gaps we see between species in the fossil record."
Christian:
<< Dude, haven't you ever heard of carbon dating and other scienstific procedures to determine the date of something? Dinosaur remains have been scientifically proven to be ALOT older than any human remains found. If you dont beleive that the devil planted dinosaur bones, I guess you could say that all the human remains from the times of the dinosaurs have been destroyed by the devil in an effort to deceive us? >>
They have not been scientifically proven to be older. They have, rather, been scientifically inferred to be older. Using scientific processes to come to a conclusion does not produce absolute proof. Or are you another brainwashed product of the American education system? No. I don't think the devil is in the bone-destroying business either. Geez, what is this? You people come up with the weirdest stories regarding my position. I suppose you're used to coming up with doozies, though. Keep them coming. I find them interesting. What else do I believe?
<< Yeah, like I said, I find both theories to be risible.
Scientist: "Giraffes evolved increasingly longer necks because they had to stretch them to eat leaves off the trees."
Christian: "No they didn't, evidence shows otherwise. Just because I stretch my neck my whole life doesn't mean my kid's going to have a longer neck."
Scientist: "Oh...well...it takes millions of years for microevolution to develop sufficient changes to produce macroevolutionary changes."
Christian: "Then where are the transitional forms? Where are the millions of intermediaries?"
Scientist: "Oh, well... hm... perhaps punctuated equillibrium can explain the sudden gaps we see between species in the fossil record."
Christian:
Scientist: "And what would you suggest?"
Christian: "Well, there is this being, you cannot see, hear or prove that he exists, but he does, cuz my book says he does. And he made everything 6000 years ago and he made the giraffes. "
Scientist:"Yeah?"
Christian: "Yeah! And he is the real god, because my book says so, and all other gods are false gods -- cuz my book says so."
Scientist: "Uh huh"
Christian: "yeah, and if you don't admit you're a sinner and believe in him you will go to the bad place where bad things will happen to you, because youare a bad person if you don't believe in him"
Scientist:
I like your fire Xirtam. I may have missed it but what evidence are you talking about that shows the Earth is young?
Biblical chronology
Christian science perspective on radiometric dating, etc
Natural science perspective on age of the earth; response to young-earth creationist
Here's a thought for the creationist. Organisms on our planet clearly fill niches in the environment (other than humans). If dinosaurs coexisted with man, mammals, birds, etc why are these remains found in particular areas while dinosaur fossils appear to be everywhere? And am I correct in the understanding that before the fall all creatures on Earth were vegetarians?
Biblical chronology
Christian science perspective on radiometric dating, etc
Natural science perspective on age of the earth; response to young-earth creationist
Here's a thought for the creationist. Organisms on our planet clearly fill niches in the environment (other than humans). If dinosaurs coexisted with man, mammals, birds, etc why are these remains found in particular areas while dinosaur fossils appear to be everywhere? And am I correct in the understanding that before the fall all creatures on Earth were vegetarians?
<< Christian Science..... (no, not "that" christian science) >>
I'm kind of curious. What other Christian science could have been meant here?
The reliion christian science where they dont go to the hospital or beleive in medicine.
The think that God will cure them if they're sick or in an accident.
The think that God will cure them if they're sick or in an accident.
<< The reliion christian science where they dont go to the hospital or beleive in medicine.
The think that God will cure them if they're sick or in an accident. >>
I guess you learn aboot new weirdos every day.
BaliBabyDoc: I'm not adamantly stamping my foot like a spoiled brat and closed-mindedly proclaiming the earth to be 6,000 years. Here's a quote from above --
<< As far as evidence is concerned, I see very little in direct support of either side. I do see a *lot* of evidence, and both sides just kind of twist it together to fit into their little framework so they can try to justify themselves as superior intellectually to the other side. Then, when challenges come up, the sides give a little. Creationists come up with the idea of theistic evolution -- the idea that God worked through evolution. This doesn't make sense, because Darwinian evolution was designed to explain why we don't need a God to cause speciation -- just unguided, random processes. Likewise, the evolutionists come up with the idea of "punctuated equilibrium" to explain why there's a huge lack of fossil evidence in support of evolution. I'm tired of playing the game.
This much I know: I exist. I am a complex, integrated life form.
This much I can reasonably infer: I was created >>
Like I said. I'm tired of playing the game. I don't want to breathe into the evidence my own interpretation. The earth is either old, young, or between "old" and "young," whatever that might be. That doesn't affect my life right now. It doesn't affect my faith. It doesn't change my intellectual position. The point of the Bible isn't to tell us the age of the earth -- it's to tell us about the Creator of the earth. Many of the "details" we can speculate about and wonder about, but we can't really know it for sure. Mainly because we weren't there. Read 1984 if you want to understand the dangers of believing that the present is the key to the past.
HombrePequeno, the other Christian Science is the religion established by Mary Baker Grover Patterson Eddy (maybe more last names -- I think that's all of the guys she married) in the 1800's.
<< As far as evidence is concerned, I see very little in direct support of either side. I do see a *lot* of evidence, and both sides just kind of twist it together to fit into their little framework so they can try to justify themselves as superior intellectually to the other side. Then, when challenges come up, the sides give a little. Creationists come up with the idea of theistic evolution -- the idea that God worked through evolution. This doesn't make sense, because Darwinian evolution was designed to explain why we don't need a God to cause speciation -- just unguided, random processes. Likewise, the evolutionists come up with the idea of "punctuated equilibrium" to explain why there's a huge lack of fossil evidence in support of evolution. I'm tired of playing the game.
This much I know: I exist. I am a complex, integrated life form.
This much I can reasonably infer: I was created >>
Like I said. I'm tired of playing the game. I don't want to breathe into the evidence my own interpretation. The earth is either old, young, or between "old" and "young," whatever that might be. That doesn't affect my life right now. It doesn't affect my faith. It doesn't change my intellectual position. The point of the Bible isn't to tell us the age of the earth -- it's to tell us about the Creator of the earth. Many of the "details" we can speculate about and wonder about, but we can't really know it for sure. Mainly because we weren't there. Read 1984 if you want to understand the dangers of believing that the present is the key to the past.
HombrePequeno, the other Christian Science is the religion established by Mary Baker Grover Patterson Eddy (maybe more last names -- I think that's all of the guys she married) in the 1800's.
<<
<< Dude, haven't you ever heard of carbon dating and other scienstific procedures to determine the date of something? Dinosaur remains have been scientifically proven to be ALOT older than any human remains found. If you dont beleive that the devil planted dinosaur bones, I guess you could say that all the human remains from the times of the dinosaurs have been destroyed by the devil in an effort to deceive us? >>
They have not been scientifically proven to be older. They have, rather, been scientifically inferred to be older. Using scientific processes to come to a conclusion does not produce absolute proof. Or are you another brainwashed product of the American education system? No. I don't think the devil is in the bone-destroying business either. Geez, what is this? You people come up with the weirdest stories regarding my position. I suppose you're used to coming up with doozies, though. Keep them coming. I find them interesting. What else do I believe? >>
Man, how much evidence do you need before you believe something?
I sure would like you on the jury if I was facing a serious charge
It just seems odd that you do not beleive any scientific evidence with theories, formulas, and alot of research to back it up...but you do beleive in a story about a supreme being that created everything and rules the world without any proof of his existence other than "cause the bible says so".
<< Man, how much evidence do you need before you believe something?
I sure would like you on the jury if I was facing a serious charge >>
That's right. I wouldn't convict you unless I was sure you did it. We'd have a lot more executions if we were as willing to go off scanty evidence in murder trials as we are with evolutionary "evidence."
<< It just seems odd that you do not beleive any scientific evidence with theories, formulas, and alot of research to back it up...but you do beleive in a story about a supreme being that created everything and rules the world without any proof of his existence other than "cause the bible says so". >>
These scientific "evidences" and "theories, formulas, and a lot of research" don't coincide, and I'm finding more and more the failings of evolutionary research. I would love to believe evolution if I were convinced it were true. I'd rather there not be a God. That way I wouldn't have to worry about all these things I feel guilty about. I could just dismiss guilt as a biological means of prohibiting my ability to have fun. Of course, all my "fun" would be pointless anyway, but who cares?
I see evidence of very complex biological systems in nature. I'd be a fool to look at the intricacies of even a cell and say, "that must have happened by a completely random stroke of luck one day." That's like taking a helicopter up to 20,000 feet and dropping a stack of notecards, hoping they'll land in ordered fashion, spelling "Anandtech" on the ground below.
It's true. I do believe in God, but it's based on a little more than "cause the bible says so." Why do people insist on telling me what I believe and what evidence I have for believing it? Furthermore, why do you care? If there is no God, nothing really matters. This life is all there is, and we're all going to die some day. Every emotion you experience has no greater significance than the fact that chemicals are mushing about in your brain. Furthermore, you can't justify anything on moral grounds. If there is indeed no metanarrative, then we have no system of morality. You wouldn't be able to say that it was evil for the perpetrators of the September 11th tragedy to do what they did. Why not? Because they followed Darwin's line of thinking. Survival of the fittest. Adapt or die. You're either a one or a zero. On or off. You live for awhile, as a passing moment, and then, like the passing moment, you pass on. The fact that I recognize evil in the world proves to me that there is some standard whereby we recognize things like "evil," "wrong," "justice," etc., that I can't explain in purely naturalistic terms. Human intuition cries out with evidence for God. Do you really think you evolved from a single-celled organism over the last 4 billion years? Do you really believe that an ape, given sufficient time and the right conditions to genetically mutate, will become fully human with the ability to express rational thought? When I was in grade school, we used to call the idea of a frog turning into a prince a fairy tale. Then came high school and college, where I learned it was science. Please. Think with your brain -- that's why God gave it to ya.
There's just as much proof that God created the universe as there is that it exploded from nothingness. I call both ideas wild and out of the ordinary. After all, we don't observe universes creating themselves all the time, so it's got to be a very rare thing. The problem is that our scientific "theories" and "laws" and "evidences" are based on the norms... not these "wild" occurrences. So you want to have a scientific discussion? Have a scientific discussion about true science -- that which we can observe. Physics... chemistry... biology -- what have you. Things that I can perform tests on. Things for which there exists a test that will prove the theory wrong. Evolution has no such test. It has adapted and changed -- yes, the theory of evolution has evolved with time to suit the minds of those who would like to explain the world in purely naturalistic terms. But it doesn't explain purpose. It doesn't explain "why." And it can't say that "there is no why," because such a statement is ridiculously outside the realm of science.
As far as your evidence is concerned...
If I took you to a junkyard and you saw a bunch of scrap metal, and then I took you inside and you saw pieces and parts of computers lying around, and then I took you to the office and you saw a computer... does that really prove that the scrap pieces of metal evolved into greater and greater degrees of sophistication as time passed to create the end product of a computer by random chance, or is that merely one interpretation based on the data at hand? Note, pretend that everyone you talk to claims that this is the exact process by which computers are made, and nobody knows anybody who designs computers. A few people have the wild notion that the thing was designed by somebody who knew what he was doing, but most people brushed them off because they read it in this book and didn't really have any evidence that such a designer existed. What are you going to believe? The people with the book or the people with the evidence?
And I'm not saying that the Creation side is without evidence. I'm just saying that "evidence" for things like this situation are like statistice -- they're used and abused.
Kind of like I'm about to be.
Let the flaming begin.
<< Yeah, like I said, I find both theories to be risible.
Scientist: "Giraffes evolved increasingly longer necks because they had to stretch them to eat leaves off the trees." >>
Didn't read the whole thread, so I don't know if this has already been replied...
That is NOT how evolution took place! Basically, there were giraffes with long neck and giraffes with shorter necks. The ones with longer necks were better suited for their surroundings, so they thrived, whereas the short-necked cousins did not.
Read the thread. I was following Marty's suit. Lamarck was a scientist who postulated this about giraffes awhile ago. Since then, we have gotten "smarter." Actually, we just fit a new, less defeatible theory to it. But whatever. At least the new one doesn't require as much of a stretch (pardon the pun) of the imagination as Lamarckism, which we now know to be false. Like a lot of other theories and evidences that used to "prove" evolution to be true. They come and go.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter