Do you accept evolution as fact? Yes/No?

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: petrek

No, it's not. A rabbit dated to the pre-cambrian period would disprove evolution pretty damn quick.

A rabbit dated to the pre-cambrian period would not disprove evolution, because the person who was doing the dating would assume the data was in error and would continue testing until an acceptable date was spit out of the machine. (Refer to talkorigins article Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale)

Dave

Oh, so now we're calling yet ANOTHER area of science that has been well accepted for the last century into question... :disgust: Biology, geology, what's next?

 

[0marTheZealot]

Nevermind the fact that we haven't found a rabbit from the pre-cambrian.

 

[petrek]

Please don't tell me you actually believe in cherubs, Adam and Eve eating apples given to them by snakes, arks and doves and ravens, burning bushes, David and Goliath, water into wine, etc.

My own existence is a miracle to me, so NO, I don?t consider the historical accounts found in the Bible to be absurd.

I am able to think, to reason, to meditate, to contemplate in a manner which is not controlled by my physical body, is free from my physical body, but is able to control my physical body.

In regards to cherubs, there is certainly ample evidence from varied sources supporting the existence of other worldly creatures.

In regards to a snake (Satan appearing in the form of a flying snake) speaking to Eve, there again is ample evidence of the existence of other worldly creatures with the ability to possess and to control physical bodies.

In regards to Arks, doves, and ravens, the story does not falter.

In regards to burning bushes, it is certainly more reasonable in my estimation to believe God is able to control the laws of nature than it is for everything to have come from nothing.

In regards to David and Goliath, it certainly is realistic. Not a common occurrence, but realistic none the less.

In regards to water into wine, again, God is not bound by the laws of the Universe he created, so turning water into wine is no problem?and less of a problem for me than having the Universe suddenly appearing out of nothing.

I didn?t believe the Bible and then go looking for proof. I believed in the miracle of my own existence, of life, and went searching for the Creator. To which I found Him in the oldest known book which gives an account of the beginning of the world to the end and is supported by the existence of the Jewish people against all odds.

Dave

 

[Whaspe]

Wasn't there a really big one, except it had scales and large sharp teeth, not to mention the lizard like tale?

 

[petrek]

Oh, so now we're calling yet ANOTHER area of science that has been well accepted for the last century into question... Biology, geology, what's next?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: Vic
No, what's stupid is you claiming to know for fact the nature of events that occurred millions of years ago. Your murder analogy doesn't work. Not when you're claiming knowledge for fact and all a court requires is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't expect you to understand the difference, but from the standpoint of logic it is a huge difference.

So basically, you just don't CARE about the sheer amount of evidence all in support of evolution. The murder analogy DOES work...in both cases, convergent lines of evidence come together to support a conclusion.

When you figure out a little more about science, come back and let me know.

And I invite you to find just one place in this thread where I said that I believed in the literal creation or am a creationist. You won't find it. I don't and I am not. You have simply ASSumed that because I refuse to proclaim my faith to your particular sect of psuedo-atheistic dogma.

The only one linking this to faith and atheism is you, numbnuts. I accepted evolution long before I even considered the possibility of rejecting my faith in god.

I have, however, said that I agreed with the theory of evolution many times. What I disagree with are agenda-ists like yourself who have transformed science into a religion, claiming you know for fact and that no one can be allowed to disagree and attacking anyone and anything that dares to believe different.

Straw man. I never said a damn thing about not allowing people to disagree. However, this is a debate...so if you're going to sit here and whine and cry about me not respecting someone else's viewpoint, take it elsewhere, because I don't care. And yes, there's a difference between allowing someone else's viewpoint and respecting it.

State religion, moronic? Hardly. How much of the taxpayers' monies go toward scientific endeavors?

Non-sequitur. How much of taxpayer's money goes to the military? Does that make the military a state religion? You know nothing about science. :disgust:

No, I guess it's just you. I like how when you run out of valid arguments, you switch to profane insults. Nice... :roll:

Actually, it's you who obviously ran out of arguments, because again, you failed to address the point that the only people bringing atheism and faith into the discussion are you religious nuts.

"Wheels within wheels in a spiral array,
A pattern so grand and complex,
Time after time we lose sight of the way,
Our causes can't see their effects.

"Science, like nature,
Must also be tamed
With a view towards its preservation.
Given the same
State of integrity,
It will surely serve us well."
- Rush, "Natural Science"

Ah yes, the "argument from mainstream music" method. And you accuse ME of not having an argument. :laugh:

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: petrek

Oh, so now we're calling yet ANOTHER area of science that has been well accepted for the last century into question... Biology, geology, what's next?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

Which doesn't support your argument, Creationist.

 

[SickBeast]

I accept the fact that evolution does occur, but I do not accept the fact that we all evolved from amoebas.

Strange isn't it, I don't fully adhere to religion or science. Such an odd breed I am.

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: petrek
My own existence is a miracle to me, so NO, I don?t consider the historical accounts found in the Bible to be absurd.

I am able to think, to reason, to meditate, to contemplate in a manner which is not controlled by my physical body, is free from my physical body, but is able to control my physical body.

And yet, if I were to take a monkey wrench and hit you over the head - a physical part of your body - hard enough to cause brain damage - again, damage to a physical part of your body, you would not be ABLE to do this any longer.

In regards to cherubs, there is certainly ample evidence from varied sources supporting the existence of other worldly creatures.

No, there isn't.

In regards to a snake (Satan appearing in the form of a flying snake) speaking to Eve, there again is ample evidence of the existence of other worldly creatures with the ability to possess and to control physical bodies.

Again, no there isn't, and the snake in the garden of eden was not satan. He doesn't even enter the story until much later.

In regards to Arks, doves, and ravens, the story does not falter.

Nor does it agree with any reality that we know of now. Or maybe you'd like to explain why Egyptian and Chinese culture continued uninterrupted during the time period the "worldwide" flood supposedly took place?

In regards to burning bushes, it is certainly more reasonable in my estimation to believe God is able to control the laws of nature than it is for everything to have come from nothing.

Of course it is, you're comparing an untestable faith whose goalposts will always be shifting to the dishonest strawman caricature of science that your preachers told you.

In regards to David and Goliath, it certainly is realistic. Not a common occurrence, but realistic none the less.

Except for that pesky problem of there never having been any giants, right?

In regards to water into wine, again, God is not bound by the laws of the Universe he created, so turning water into wine is no problem?and less of a problem for me than having the Universe suddenly appearing out of nothing.

Same criticism holds true.

I didn?t believe the Bible and then go looking for proof. I believed in the miracle of my own existence, of life, and went searching for the Creator.

In which you still came to your conclusion before looking at the evidence.

To which I found Him in the oldest known book which gives an account of the beginning of the world to the end and is supported by the existence of the Jewish people against all odds.

LMAO, now this nut thinks the bible is the "oldest known book," despite the fact that other cultures predate the Abrahamic religions!

There's no reasoning with people like this, folks, which is why I'll never respect this person's viewpoint!

 

[petrek]

Which doesn't support your argument, Creationist.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

about halfway down.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Fx02
I think what he meant is that they do not allow any leeway, but still know how to enjoy a good convenience that Science created. After all God did create man, gave him wisdom, whom inturn created the machines, right? It's a classic case of "what's good for me"

What I believe, and I think anyone with some sensibility would too, is that we would keep an open mind about everything. It is very possible that everything we see was created by and for a reason, and what science has explained so far is just the unraveling of that work. It is also very possible everything just came together as a coincidence, and we're just slowly but surely finding out how that came to be.

Just think of the ancient times, when people actually believe there are fire god, earth demons, and revered every natural phenomenons as supernatural. I'm sure there are still people that worship fire gods, but you know better because science can explain that there are no fire gods... Now, I'm not saying that a God did not create the fire, but if there was one, it's not the God of propaganda that the people of this country are trying to push.

It is not in any way a "what's good for me" thing. In my experience, most Fundamentalist Christians are more eager for scientific advancement than those who claim to believe in science, whose left-leaning tree-hugging ways are constantly calling for measures that work against science and against the continuing evolutionary advancement of humanity.

Yes, we should keep an open mind. Because we don't know and will never know. As for coincidence, I think you should know that the current scientific probability for abiogenesis (and don't ask me how they come up with this) is 1:10^140,000 against. I know, I know... evolution isn't about abiogenesis. I agree. But this thread was blantant flamebait so that arro-igno-rant idiots who come in and slam the religious beliefs of others simply because they might accept the present facts of evolution as we are able to witness them today. How that trolling crowd gets from the facts of evolution to "God is dead", I don't know, but IMO they are pretty sad in their stupidity and hatred.

Moving on, there is no supernatural and never has been. Simply a lack of human understanding. While we understand more today than we have ever, we still barely have more than just "a good idea" about the nature of our reality.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dgevert

Originally posted by: Vic
No, what's stupid is you claiming to know for fact the nature of events that occurred millions of years ago. Your murder analogy doesn't work. Not when you're claiming knowledge for fact and all a court requires is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't expect you to understand the difference, but from the standpoint of logic it is a huge difference.

So basically, you just don't CARE about the sheer amount of evidence all in support of evolution. The murder analogy DOES work...in both cases, convergent lines of evidence come together to support a conclusion.

When you figure out a little more about science, come back and let me know.

And I invite you to find just one place in this thread where I said that I believed in the literal creation or am a creationist. You won't find it. I don't and I am not. You have simply ASSumed that because I refuse to proclaim my faith to your particular sect of psuedo-atheistic dogma.

The only one linking this to faith and atheism is you, numbnuts. I accepted evolution long before I even considered the possibility of rejecting my faith in god.

I have, however, said that I agreed with the theory of evolution many times. What I disagree with are agenda-ists like yourself who have transformed science into a religion, claiming you know for fact and that no one can be allowed to disagree and attacking anyone and anything that dares to believe different.

Straw man. I never said a damn thing about not allowing people to disagree. However, this is a debate...so if you're going to sit here and whine and cry about me not respecting someone else's viewpoint, take it elsewhere, because I don't care. And yes, there's a difference between allowing someone else's viewpoint and respecting it.

State religion, moronic? Hardly. How much of the taxpayers' monies go toward scientific endeavors?

Non-sequitur. How much of taxpayer's money goes to the military? Does that make the military a state religion? You know nothing about science. :disgust:

No, I guess it's just you. I like how when you run out of valid arguments, you switch to profane insults. Nice... :roll:

Actually, it's you who obviously ran out of arguments, because again, you failed to address the point that the only people bringing atheism and faith into the discussion are you religious nuts.

"Wheels within wheels in a spiral array,
A pattern so grand and complex,
Time after time we lose sight of the way,
Our causes can't see their effects.

"Science, like nature,
Must also be tamed
With a view towards its preservation.
Given the same
State of integrity,
It will surely serve us well."
- Rush, "Natural Science"

Ah yes, the "argument from mainstream music" method. And you accuse ME of not having an argument. :laugh:

You. are. a. moron.

I know you will never understand this, but you're a disgrace to your own argument and belief system. When you develop a mind that can actually think instead of regurgitate, and the ability to process logic instead of emotion, maybe then we'll talk again.
In the meantime, I do not argue with idiots who insist I'm arguing something that I am not, and insist that I believe in things that I don't actually believe in. Clearly you are one who cannot deal emotionally with having your precious belief system challenged.

 

[petrek]

And yet, if I were to take a monkey wrench and hit you over the head - a physical part of your body - hard enough to cause brain damage - again, damage to a physical part of your body, you would not be ABLE to do this any longer.

If you damage the physical parts, the physical parts are damaged. So, you are correct, if you damage the physical parts, the physical parts are damaged.

No, there isn't.

I gave my opinion based on what I've heard, read, and seen. You have yours.

Again, no there isn't, and the snake in the garden of eden was not satan. He doesn't even enter the story until much later.

"And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years," Revelation 20:2

Nor does it agree with any reality that we know of now. Or maybe you'd like to explain why Egyptian and Chinese culture continued uninterrupted during the time period the "worldwide" flood supposedly took place?

Do you have proof of this that is not based on the dating method?

Of course it is, you're comparing an untestable faith whose goalposts will always be shifting to the dishonest strawman caricature of science that your preachers told you.

The "goalposts" didnt' shift, God has always been the all powerful Creator.
The existence of the Jewish people are the proof.
Anything a preacher says, must be tested against the Word of God.

Except for that pesky problem of there never having been any giants, right?

Wrong, guinness book of facts.

Same criticism holds true.

Same fact remains true. Something out of nothing is not a faith option for me.

In which you still came to your conclusion before looking at the evidence.

No, I did not. If that is what you interpreted, then your interpretation was wrong.

LMAO, now this nut thinks the bible is the "oldest known book," despite the fact that other cultures predate the Abrahamic religions!

There's no reasoning with people like this, folks, which is why I'll never respect this person's viewpoint!

Would you mind pointing me to some proof, last time I had this discussion with someone they were unable to point out an older known book.

Thanks
Dave

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dgevert
There's no reasoning with people like this, folks, which is why I'll never respect this person's viewpoint!

You have that backwards. You're not able to reason with him because you never respected his viewpoint to begin with.

BTW, Petrek and I do not share the same viewpoint. I do not personally believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I can, however, respect his freedom to have his individual point of view. You cannot.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dgevert
There's no reasoning with people like this, folks, which is why I'll never respect this person's viewpoint!

You have that backwards. You're not able to reason with him because you never respected his viewpoint to begin with.

BTW, Petrek and I do not share the same viewpoint. I do not personally believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I can, however, respect his freedom to have his individual point of view. You cannot.

Present some evidence that shows evolution is wrong and we will see if you can reason with him. Until then your just talking out of your ass.

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dgevert
There's no reasoning with people like this, folks, which is why I'll never respect this person's viewpoint!

You have that backwards. You're not able to reason with him because you never respected his viewpoint to begin with.

BTW, Petrek and I do not share the same viewpoint. I do not personally believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I can, however, respect his freedom to have his individual point of view. You cannot.

Oh, I respect his *freedom to have his individual point of view.* Just as I respect MY freedom to call that individual point of view horse shit.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Present some evidence that shows evolution is wrong and we will see if you can reason with him. Until then your just talking out of your ass.

:roll: When have I said evolution is wrong? Never. What I have pointed out is wrong is the religious-esque way that some people believe in evolution. Why don't you actually read my posts? Until then kindly STFU.

Originally posted by: dgevert
Oh, I respect his *freedom to have his individual point of view.* Just as I respect MY freedom to call that individual point of view horse shit.

Which proves my point that it is why you can't reason with him. I rest my case with you.

 

[petrek]

Present some evidence that shows evolution is wrong and we will see if you can reason with him.

The Bible fully supports microevolution, so unless there is proof of macroevolution that I am unaware of, I am unable to prove it (macroevolution) wrong.

Dave

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Present some evidence that shows evolution is wrong and we will see if you can reason with him. Until then your just talking out of your ass.

:roll: When have I said evolution is wrong? Never. What I have pointed out is wrong is the religious-esque way that some people believe in evolution. Why don't you actually read my posts? Until then kindly STFU.

Originally posted by: dgevert
Oh, I respect his *freedom to have his individual point of view.* Just as I respect MY freedom to call that individual point of view horse shit.

Which proves my point that it is why you can't reason with him. I rest my case with you.

You keep making claims that people treat evolution as a religion but you still haven't demostrated anyone doing so.

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: petrek
If you damage the physical parts, the physical parts are damaged. So, you are correct, if you damage the physical parts, the physical parts are damaged.

You're ignoring the point (surprise surprise.) If I were to damage that physical part of you, you would NO LONGER BE CAPABLE of expressing the capabilities you mentioned. You would NO LONGER be able to express your personality. You would not be able to think correctly. These processes are not from some supernatural soul or mind entity.

Again, no there isn't, and the snake in the garden of eden was not satan. He doesn't even enter the story until much later.

"And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years," Revelation 20:2

So you support my claim. Revelations is in the END of the Bible. It was written LONG after Genesis. Thanks!

Do you have proof of this that is not based on the dating method?

Why should I cater to your refusal to accept basic science that has been accepted for longer than any of us here have been alive? We've known that the earth was very old since before Darwin even wrote "The Origin of Species," for crying out loud!

The "goalposts" didnt' shift, God has always been the all powerful Creator.
The existence of the Jewish people are the proof.
Anything a preacher says, must be tested against the Word of God.

Meaningless drivel. And dare I point out the obvious? Does the existence of the people in Greece right now who believe in the Greek pantheon prove that the Greek mythologies are true, and that their story of the creation of the world is true? That's as logical as your claim.

Personally, I believe that what people say should be tested against actual evidence and reality. But then again, I'm fundamentally different from you.

Wrong, guinness book of facts.

Freak humans do not constitute the existence of giants. Sorry.

No, I did not. If that is what you interpreted, then your interpretation was wrong.

Typical creationist.

LMAO, now this nut thinks the bible is the "oldest known book," despite the fact that other cultures predate the Abrahamic religions!

There's no reasoning with people like this, folks, which is why I'll never respect this person's viewpoint!

Would you mind pointing me to some proof, last time I had this discussion with someone they were unable to point out an older known book.

Doubtful. I'll get back to you, but off the top of my head, any number of pre-Judaic religions themselves are enough to prove this wrong, along with several mythologies that Judeo-Christianity ripped off (the flood story of Gilgamesh, the 3 wise men and Mithra's birth, etc.) The written laws of ancient Chinese civilization are much older than Judaism as well, if I recall correctly.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
You keep making claims that people treat evolution as a religion but you still haven't demostrated anyone doing so.

Are you kidding? dgevert is doing it right now. Watch, why don't you? If he wasn't treating science as a religion, then he would not see science as incompatible with Christian faith, nor feel the need to attack it so. Now, he can deal with Petrek because he is simply an infidel, but I get a special place in his hatred as a heretic.

 

[mect]

I always love this arguement. A few general comments to start off. First of all, lets clear up what a theory is. A theory is not a fact. A theory isn't trying to be a fact. There is a difference between a theory and a law. A law describes the exact behavior of something. In other words, it can be solved for exactly. A theory is a model developed to approximate behavior when an exact solution cannot be found. Some theories are better than others. So, the question "do you believe in evolution" really isn't even appropriate. For one thing, by this age the question is far too general. There are so many different theories of evolution. Also, a better way to ask the question would be "do you believe that the ________ (fill in one of the different theories) theory of evolution accurately models the development of _______" fill in the blank. One other point. In making a theory, because it is unable to exactly solve for something, certain postulates or assumptions are made. One of these assumptions which is of course always unstated is that there is no devine guiding force. As someone earlier stated, that's how science works. Believing or not believing in evolution is really quite rediculous. If you are doing scientific work on how species change, you are likely going to use some theory of evolution in conducting that work. If you are trying to find meaning in life, the theory of evolution probably isn't going to help you because that isn't what it was designed to model. Being educated doesn't really seem to help people be consistent with this point, however, as there are many phd level biologists who do take the theory of evolution religiously, as demonstrated by a case in California at a university when a professor presented a class with some of his personal research which contradicted the current evolution models. Education doesn't neccessarily hurt however, as I'm sure most people have met those who think they can't believe in evolution because they want to believe in God. That's like a chemistry student saying they won't believe in molecular orbital theory because they believe in God. Or in the previous example, a professor getting in trouble for presenting data that suggested that the energies predicted by molecular orbital theory were inaccurate. Oh well, that's just how I see things, I guess.

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Spencer278
You keep making claims that people treat evolution as a religion but you still haven't demostrated anyone doing so.

Are you kidding? dgevert is doing it right now. Watch, why don't you? If he wasn't treating science as a religion, then he would not see science as incompatible with Christian faith, nor feel the need to attack it so. Now, he can deal with Petrek because he is simply an infidel, but I get a special place in his hatred as a heretic.

Hey, dumbass, hello, I *do NOT* see science as incompatible with Christian faith!

You're a liar.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Spencer278
You keep making claims that people treat evolution as a religion but you still haven't demostrated anyone doing so.

Are you kidding? dgevert is doing it right now. Watch, why don't you? If he wasn't treating science as a religion, then he would not see science as incompatible with Christian faith, nor feel the need to attack it so. Now, he can deal with Petrek because he is simply an infidel, but I get a special place in his hatred as a heretic.

Or maybe he sees it a pointless to debate with a person that use scripture instead of evidence to back his claim.

 

[petrek]

You're ignoring the point (surprise surprise.) If I were to damage that physical part of you, you would NO LONGER BE CAPABLE of expressing the capabilities you mentioned. You would NO LONGER be able to express your personality. You would not be able to think correctly. These processes are not from some supernatural soul or mind entity.

Not being able to express one's personality is not proof that no personality exists. Stephan Hawking comes to mind.

So you support my claim. Revelations is in the END of the Bible. It was written LONG after Genesis. Thanks!

No, I wasn't making the comment for your sake. Anyone can readily recognize who the serpent represents in Genesis without being expressly told the serpent is the Devil.

Why should I cater to your refusal to accept basic science that has been accepted for longer than any of us here have been alive? We've known that the earth was very old since before Darwin even wrote "The Origin of Species," for crying out loud!

I'm aware that others have believed in the idea of evolution long prior to Darwin, and that people have rejected the possibility of Creation long prior to Darwin. Again, the response was meant for those reading the thread, not you in particular. You just happened to bring up the subject that I have researched before as a result of one of the numerous previous evolution/creation threads.

Meaningless drivel. And dare I point out the obvious? Does the existence of the people in Greece right now who believe in the Greek pantheon prove that the Greek mythologies are true, and that their story of the creation of the world is true? That's as logical as your claim.

Personally, I believe that what people say should be tested against actual evidence and reality. But then again, I'm fundamentally different from you.

How do a few people who believe in the Greek pantheon compare to the existence of the Jewish people against all odds? Their history speaks for itself. Again though, it was for those reading the thread, not you.

Freak humans do not constitute the existence of giants. Sorry.

How big were these giants?

Typical creationist.

When someone misinterprets what is being said, you point it out...creationism has nothing to do with it, as others are aware.

Doubtful. I'll get back to you, but off the top of my head, any number of pre-Judaic religions themselves are enough to prove this wrong, along with several mythologies that Judeo-Christianity ripped off (the flood story of Gilgamesh, the 3 wise men and Mithra's birth, etc.) The written laws of ancient Chinese civilization are much older than Judaism as well, if I recall correctly.

"Judeo-Christianity ripped off"
Yes, get back to me with links.

Thanks
Dave