Prove evolution. Earn 250 large! - Page 2

Kitsune · 01-28-2004, 09:05 PM

He says that creation isn't a theory because it's a belief. Well, evolution is believed by people, isn't it?

Not quite -- both evolution and creationism may be believed, but only one is a theory.

The only way you can prove anything is to experience it and no one alive has.

It is not the purpose of a theory to prove something, as no theory can be proven. Theories are simply there to provide a "working explanation" of what we notice in various phenomena and how they interact. Creationism doesn't do that.

In the Bible, a thousand years happens in an instant for God.

I rather like the theistic evolutionary ideas -- that the bible explains something in simplier terms/in terms relative to god. Its always been a bit friendlier to both sides of the issue.

juju · 01-29-2004, 11:23 AM

This whole gravity thing is bullshit. When are people going to realize it's just a "theory"??

vsp · 01-29-2004, 12:58 PM

Teach evolution in Science classes, along with other competing theories based upon the scientific method (hypothesis, experimentation and theorization).

Teach creationism in Mythology classes, along with other competing belief systems based upon faith and religion.

No one can prove either. No one can DISPROVE either.

wolf · 01-29-2004, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by juju
This whole gravity thing is bullshit. When are people going to realize it's just a "theory"??

Gravity is a fact. Why and how it works is a theory. :p

Beestie · 01-29-2004, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by juju
This whole gravity thing is bullshit. When are people going to realize it's just a "theory"??

Gravity isn't a theory its a law. A self-enforcing law. You break it and it breaks you back.

juju · 01-29-2004, 02:14 PM

The demonstratable effects of gravity are facts, because they can be proven. There is a theory that explains these effects, which has yet to be disproven. That's what I was referring to.

Torrere · 01-30-2004, 04:33 PM

Quote:

* NOTE:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

Hey! I've seen that list before! I think that it was in a Jack Chick Tract!

Happy Monkey · 01-30-2004, 05:07 PM

Good catch. But it's possible both of them got it from a third source.

There were enough problems in the tract to choke a horse, but here are a few in Chick's list:

1) Using the term "evolution" in steps 1-4 is perhaps linguistically accurate, but it is a deliberate attempt to imply that the theories stand or fall together.

2) Steps 2 and 3 are out of order. Higher elements don't "evolve", they are produced by fusion in the heart of stars.

3) He may have just run out of board space, but step 4 is oversimplified. Rocks are a subset of the elements and complex chemicals which predate life.

It's amusing that Chick has the scientist produce the "6 concepts" list, when it is part of the creationist playbook.

FelinesAreFine · 01-31-2004, 09:16 PM

I don't know. There's the Bible and then there's Darwin. The Bible predates Darwin by thousands of years, so logically, the Bible would be the choice. But, Darwin is scientific and we, as scientific, reasoning species, want everything explained. Darwin explains evolution. But it's hard to grasp that we evolved from pond scum. I like to believe that we came from the Garden. It's a much more romantic and cleaner idea. Choices, choices!

elSicomoro · 01-31-2004, 09:20 PM

Many don't take the Bible word for word, though. I see it as a book of faith, not a history book.

juju · 01-31-2004, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FelinesAreFine
The Bible predates Darwin by thousands of years, so logically, the Bible would be the choice.

Why is something more believable because it is older?

Happy Monkey · 01-31-2004, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FelinesAreFine
I don't know. There's the Bible and then there's Darwin. The Bible predates Darwin by thousands of years, so logically, the Bible would be the choice.

That's not logic. That's nostalgia. A few hundred years ago, people thought rats spontaneously generated in garbage. We've learned a few things in the meantime.

Slartibartfast · 01-31-2004, 10:27 PM

Creationists always seem to be the sort that accept word for word literal truth in the Bible. That is a nasty combination.

My favorite idea of theirs is Adam and Eve romping around the Garden with all the animals - including dinosaurs- which had to have gone extinct because they died in the Great Flood.

It drives me nuts that creationists pick and choose the science facts and theories they decide to accept or reject.

One creationist that takes this 'believe only the science in the Bible' to its logical conclusion is at : http://www.fixedearth.com/

He argues that we should go back to geocentrism. Now that's at least consistent in rejecting all modern science!

Kitsune · 01-31-2004, 10:53 PM

Slartibartfast -- awesome link. This guy may be on to something.

WHAT IF - the Bible teaches a stationary earth (just like everyone agreed it did until Copernican and finally Newtonian "mathematics" scared the churches into thinking that "science" had proof of heliocentricity)?

Oh, yeah, I bet that is exactly how it happened. Copernicus scared the church into thinking the sun was the center of the solar system and Galileo disavowed his beliefs just for the hell of it.

Kitsune · 01-31-2004, 11:10 PM

Then, again, there is still nothing better than 4 simultaneous 24 hour days.

You are educated stupid.

01-30-2004, 05:07 PM	#23
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	Good catch. But it's possible both of them got it from a third source. There were enough problems in the tract to choke a horse, but here are a few in Chick's list: 1) Using the term "evolution" in steps 1-4 is perhaps linguistically accurate, but it is a deliberate attempt to imply that the theories stand or fall together. 2) Steps 2 and 3 are out of order. Higher elements don't "evolve", they are produced by fusion in the heart of stars. 3) He may have just run out of board space, but step 4 is oversimplified. Rocks are a subset of the elements and complex chemicals which predate life. It's amusing that Chick has the scientist produce the "6 concepts" list, when it is part of the creationist playbook. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

01-31-2004, 09:16 PM	#24
FelinesAreFine ...they think I'm rich Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: PA, USA Posts: 52	I don't know. There's the Bible and then there's Darwin. The Bible predates Darwin by thousands of years, so logically, the Bible would be the choice. But, Darwin is scientific and we, as scientific, reasoning species, want everything explained. Darwin explains evolution. But it's hard to grasp that we evolved from pond scum. I like to believe that we came from the Garden. It's a much more romantic and cleaner idea. Choices, choices! __________________ The day God created the Cat, He didn't do another thing except sit down and smile.

01-28-2004, 09:05 PM	#16
Kitsune still eats dirt Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 3,031	He says that creation isn't a theory because it's a belief. Well, evolution is believed by people, isn't it? Not quite -- both evolution and creationism may be believed, but only one is a theory. The only way you can prove anything is to experience it and no one alive has. It is not the purpose of a theory to prove something, as no theory can be proven. Theories are simply there to provide a "working explanation" of what we notice in various phenomena and how they interact. Creationism doesn't do that. In the Bible, a thousand years happens in an instant for God. I rather like the theistic evolutionary ideas -- that the bible explains something in simplier terms/in terms relative to god. Its always been a bit friendlier to both sides of the issue.

01-29-2004, 11:23 AM	#17
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	This whole gravity thing is bullshit. When are people going to realize it's just a "theory"??

01-29-2004, 12:58 PM	#18
vsp Syndrome of a Down Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: West Chester Posts: 1,367	Teach evolution in Science classes, along with other competing theories based upon the scientific method (hypothesis, experimentation and theorization). Teach creationism in Mythology classes, along with other competing belief systems based upon faith and religion. No one can prove either. No one can DISPROVE either.

01-29-2004, 02:14 PM	#21
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	The demonstratable effects of gravity are facts, because they can be proven. There is a theory that explains these effects, which has yet to be disproven. That's what I was referring to.

01-31-2004, 09:20 PM	#25
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	Many don't take the Bible word for word, though. I see it as a book of faith, not a history book.

01-31-2004, 10:27 PM	#28
Slartibartfast \|-0-\| <-0-> \|-0-\| Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: New Jersey Posts: 516	Creationists always seem to be the sort that accept word for word literal truth in the Bible. That is a nasty combination. My favorite idea of theirs is Adam and Eve romping around the Garden with all the animals - including dinosaurs- which had to have gone extinct because they died in the Great Flood. It drives me nuts that creationists pick and choose the science facts and theories they decide to accept or reject. One creationist that takes this 'believe only the science in the Bible' to its logical conclusion is at : http://www.fixedearth.com/ He argues that we should go back to geocentrism. Now that's at least consistent in rejecting all modern science!

01-31-2004, 10:53 PM	#29
Kitsune still eats dirt Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 3,031	Slartibartfast -- awesome link. This guy may be on to something. WHAT IF - the Bible teaches a stationary earth (just like everyone agreed it did until Copernican and finally Newtonian "mathematics" scared the churches into thinking that "science" had proof of heliocentricity)? Oh, yeah, I bet that is exactly how it happened. Copernicus scared the church into thinking the sun was the center of the solar system and Galileo disavowed his beliefs just for the hell of it.

01-31-2004, 11:10 PM	#30
Kitsune still eats dirt Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 3,031	Then, again, there is still nothing better than 4 simultaneous 24 hour days. You are educated stupid.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)