|
Page 2 of 16 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last › |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 05:57 PM
Integrity, perhaps. |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 06:00 PM
And you know, the notion that the Earth orbits the sun is also "just a theory."
The two meanings of theory are often confused:
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
and
2. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
The Theory of Natural Selection and Evolution falls into the second category. |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 06:35 PM
"A theory is any body of ideas in science. It does not mean a guess or hypothesis. If you believe a 'theory' is unproven, don't drive across any bridges. The engineers used Stress Theory to design the bridge."
-Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay |
Rochelle
|
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 06:47 PM
I read somewhere, unfortunately I can't remember where, that Darwin never debunked his theory. Rather, the only person at his deathbed was an extremely religious relative who was rather horrified by his theory. She made up his deathbed conversion to save her family's image. Of course, as I'm writing this, it occurs to me that if she really was the only one at his bedside, how do we know she was lying? Darn. I wish I could find whatever it was I read this in. |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 10:03 PM
Eric,
So the world is only thousands of years old?
And species die out, as YOU mentioned, like dinosaurs?
So dinosaurs have been around as recently as thousands of years ago?
So how's come there's no pictures in the bible? Of course there's some reason for that too right? You just have to have faith... in the biggest "fairy tale" ever told.
How people can be so intelligent and so ignorant at the same time is the biggest puzzle in cosmos in my opinion!
 |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 10:14 PM
Sure he dubunked his own theory...
How surprised am I that this "startling revalation" is being communciated by a member of the religious point-of-view?
NONE AT ALL!
There is NO WAY in the world of EVER knowing if it's fact, or just something a person with faith and beliefs "made-up" because they (his family)were ashamed, scared, or fanatical? Or perhaps just because this controversial theory just straight up pissed them off?
So for you Mr. Lumberjack to say that it certainly happened only takes away from and credibility you might have. |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 10:16 PM
revelation...
only takes away from "any" credibility...
OOPS.
 |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 10:24 PM
Citizen Premier,
Someone posted a link to that Big Daddy cartoon here a few months ago. For some reason they seem to think it proves something. It was obviously written by a Creationist for lazy thinkers.
It's easy to 'show up' the critics of your belief when you invent and control the words of the characters on both sides. In this case they created a character (the professor) who did not know how to defend his position. How convenient. Then they used questionable evidence and treated it as undeniable fact. That's easy to do when you have omniscient control of your story.
The outcome would be a lot different if in real life that Jesus-freak student went up against a biologist, a paleontologist, a geologist, an anthropologist and an archaeologist. |
Bigblant
|
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 10:25 PM
There is a lot of evidence to support his claims, check out answers in genesis for futher support for his theorys |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 | 01:27 AM
Bigblant,
Was actually looking forward to the read but got "Invalid URL"
Can you check or fix the link? |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 | 02:27 AM
That someone was me. Sorry, I take any opportunity to make fun of the hard-core creationists.
If I used emoticons, it'd be the blushing one right now. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 | 07:18 AM
...This theory is not new. It's been taught along with Creation since before his book was published.
According to God, there was no rain before The Flood. There was water above, and below the firmament.
Also, you can't base the entire theory on this one article. The journalist may have chopped it up, and only included bits that seemed significant to the writer, but weren't actually as significant in the context of the interview. |
Nick
in Merrie Olde Englande
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 | 02:03 PM
since i have taken dear Charles as my avatar, i feel i should try and defend him a bit.
i) if dinosaurs walked the earth before the flood, why arent they in the bible? how would one know whether or not it was ok to eat them?
ii) if there is no evolution, why are we all so different? did god not create man in his image? that is a nonsensical statement if he has multiple images- surely there was only one Adam and one Eve?
iii) speaking of Adam and Eve, where the heck did their son Cain's wife come from?
iv) we observe evolution at a microscopic level. why is not hence clear that it also happens at a macroscopic level? the conditions and requirements are all the same
i eagerly await an angry response |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 | 06:13 PM
I've posted this before too. I find Christian pseudoscience to be fun.
Where did Cain get his wife?
Ultimately, though, you can't really defend evolution by attacking a religion; there are always plenty more. The only way is to demonstrate how it works. Evolution is certainly hard to understand for someone who's used to thinking of Earth as seven thousand years old, give the billions of years over which it has occured.
He's a few drops of evidence for evolution.
I'd like to defend it more, but I have a bad case of homework. |
DFSTuckey
in Auckland New Zealand
|
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 | 04:59 AM
Actually, Darwin was only the latest of thinkers to have come up with an evoltuionary theory; Earlier philosophers explained diversity of species by biological change previously.
Only difference was, they didn't go as far as Darwin in his linking of disparate groups, such as all the mammals.
Thaose people were Saint Augustine and Saint Thoams Aquinas, BTW. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 | 06:31 AM
Dinos in the Bible |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 | 06:46 AM
I took this from Answering Genesis, b/c the article itself is long, and a little boring.
"Many people immediately reject the conclusion that Adam and Eve |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 | 06:48 AM
...I only read a little bit of Citizen's link...I wasn't familiar with the site & didn't want to quote something I really hadn't thoroughly read. |
Eric the Lumberjack
|
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 | 05:23 PM
I think I might have said something a bit confusing...
Macroevolution would be more akin to amoebas turning into humans. No longer amoebas, now it's something much much more complex.
Micro would be more similar to a cow developing thumbs. It's still a cow, only with thumbs.
Either way, I'm not asking you to believe anything. I certainly do not know for sure that the earth is mot millions of years old, but only thousands, however the evidence I am shown gives me that theory.
The first bit is the inherent fact that carbon dating is inaccurate. I don't know the exact error ratio, but it is large. And this error ratio increases depending on how large the object tested is. Yes, the earth has been carbon dated, thats where scientists get the earth's "age"
Second, because I believe the Bible to be true, it states in Genesis that the earth was created in six days, and on the seventh day was rest. Many could argue that a day for God could be thousands or millions of years, but since on one of the days He designated that one cycle of Dark and Light would be called one day. You can interpret this either way, I choose the second theory. I am not here to prove the validity of my faith, just that most of evolution is bunk. If you would LIKE me to prove my faith, then by all means email me. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
My point was is that I don't see any logical way for an amoeba to become a human no matter HOW long of a timeframe there is. If you can prove to me how this is possible, then I will denounce my God on the spot. That's a BIG sacrifice for me, considering how much evidence I have seen to His existance. Heck, I'll even give you $100. I DO, however, see existing creatures adapting to changing environments. And I don't even call it evolution, I just call it adapting.
And maybe bringing dinosaurs into it was a little confusing as well. My Bible also descibes the existance of "Titans" before the time of man. My theory is that they existed outside of Eden before Adam and Eve were thrown out. I don't know for certain about this. |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 | 10:37 PM
Eric,
It's obvious you haven't bothered to check any facts for yourself. Do you know the accuracy of radio carbon dating or its usefulness for dating the earth? You say the Bible is true so therefore Genesis is true. How do you know the Bible is true? What proof do you have? Doesn't it make sense to find out for sure before you use its contents as evidence? The Bible was written by ignorant peasants who knew nothing about the origin of the earth. How could one insignificant book of uncertain origin, translated dozens of times and altered each time to suit different agendas, be the last word for geological history?
Carbon dating is only one method scientists use to date artifacts. It can only be used on organic material such as wood or cloth so that even if you wanted to, you could not "date the earth" with it. Its range of use is for ages from a few hundred to 50,000 years. It is possible to accurately calibrate the process by testing objects whose ages have been verified by historical records (eg. artifacts from Egyptian tombs).
Fortunately there are other methods that can be used, such as the radioactive decay and transformation of uranium. The rate of conversion, discovered through testing and observation, follows a rule known as "first-order reaction" that tells us the rate of decay is extremely constant over time. If we have a rock that contains uranium-238, we can use this proven fact to determine the amount of time that has elapsed since that particular rock was formed. U-238 atoms, in the process of decaying, will gradually change to lead over a period of time. By examining rocks containing U-238 and measuring the amount compared to that of lead, scientists have determined the age of the earth to be about 4.5 billion years. What does the Bible say about the half-life of U-238?
And since when did anyone say that amoeba became man? The amoeba is on a totally different evolutionary branch of life. It is certain all life started out from the simplest micro-organisms, but if you want to see what the most likely chain of events were, get some good biology texts. You will notice they don't claim to know the exact truth. They can only postulate based on observation and study, unlike the Bible which is just wishful thinking. |
|
Page 2 of 16 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last › |
