Religulous type Question

Online Users: 1,334 guest(s), 0 user(s). Replies: 330

cantwait4dec09 Posts : 5 Registered: 11/6/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 9, 2008 7:59 AM Go to message in response to: Tsunami

I don't think that evolution has evidence supporting any more than creation does.  Someone earlier mentioned that science is something that has been tested and observed over time.  However,  I haven't ever seen a half  somethin  other runnin around.  And, in regards to fossils,  where is the evidence there?  Haven't basically all the fossils considered transitional forms later been proved to be somethin else?  In regards to Evolution explaining the diversity of animals, I think that if God created everything, he can do a one heck of a job creating the diversity.   I don't think you mentioned this in your post but i've seen it in others... creationists do support "survival of the fittest"  cuz of course the strongest survive,  but they don't transform into another organism.   A good example would be antibiotic resistance.  If you take a bacteria that can withstand an antibiotic and that bacteria multiplies into many bacteria (and the process repeats itself), the result will not be anything but bacteria.  survival of the fittest, definitely, but not transformation into another organism...  i'm not really sure what i think, just playin devil's advocate. 

Reply

cantwait4dec09 Posts : 5 Registered: 11/6/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 9, 2008 7:59 AM Go to message in response to: Tsunami

I don't think that evolution has evidence supporting any more than creation does.  Someone earlier mentioned that science is something that has been tested and observed over time.  However,  I haven't ever seen a half  somethin  other runnin around.  And, in regards to fossils,  where is the evidence there?  Haven't basically all the fossils considered transitional forms later been proved to be somethin else?  In regards to Evolution explaining the diversity of animals, I think that if God created everything, he can do a one heck of a job creating the diversity.   I don't think you mentioned this in your post but i've seen it in others... creationists do support "survival of the fittest"  cuz of course the strongest survive,  but they don't transform into another organism.   A good example would be antibiotic resistance.  If you take a bacteria that can withstand an antibiotic and that bacteria multiplies into many bacteria (and the process repeats itself), the result will not be anything but bacteria.  survival of the fittest, definitely, but not transformation into another organism...  i'm not really sure what i think, just playin devil's advocate. 

Reply


CatStandish Posts : 2,766 Registered: 6/20/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 9, 2008 10:09 AM Go to message in response to: cantwait4dec09

Evolution is a scientific theory.   Here's how I understand the levels:

Hypothesis - This is an idea which seems to make sense; however, it has not evolved <G> to a poiint where a determinant of provability has been made.  It's used to explain things, but it cannot be relied upon entirely

Theory - this is a way of expressing an idea to explain something.  A theory, however, has a definite means BY WHICH IT CAN BE PROVEN.  It also has not met that criteria.  The THEORY of Evolution postulates that man has evolved over time from a creature similar to the one which monkeys evolved from -- so we have a common ancestor.   However, that 'missing link' has not been found yet, so Evolution has not been proven.  There is a way it CAN be proven (providing such evidence exists).  But until it is proven, this is only a theory (I'm just a theory, but I'm only a theory.... Schoolhouse Rock anyone? <G>)   Other evidences of evolution have been shown... such as  changes over time, like height changes.  This supports survival of the fittest notion, but it does not PROVE the part of the theory that suggests that mankind and monkeys share an ancestor.    There are a whole CHUNK of things in this THEORY that I've not covered.

Fact - this is something that has been proven scientifically

Belief - something that either defies fact or is in an event that cannot be supported by evidence.   it is something we have faith in.  

For the record, Evolution is supposed to be taught as a THEORY (and it was to me).   I accept it as a reasonable explanation, but I do not embrace it as a scientific fact. 


Misty

wedding countdown

Visit our Wedding Website

Reply

Tsunami Posts : 17 Registered: 10/13/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 9, 2008 1:55 PM Go to message in response to: CatStandish

Asking to see "half somethin other" demonstrates an incomplete understanding of evolution. In evolutionary theory, every species on Earth is currently evolving, and so every species could be called "half something", but what the species are evolving into is unknown (since we can't see into the future and find out what they become).

If what you are asking for is to see speciation in action though, why not investigate into Ensatina escholtzii or Hylloscopus trochiloides.

I am not sure what your large post demonstrating the differences between hypothesis, theories, etc. is supposed to show. Yes, evolution is just a theory. Yes, it has not been explicitly proven, since humans don't live long enough to see macroevolution in action and our previous generations did not document species well enough for us to know about the macroevolution that occurred over the past tens of thousands of years.

Although evolution has not been proven beyond doubt, there is evidence that supports it (which you denied earlier but later pointed out) (rather like evidence in a court trial that suggests a person is guilty but does not prove they are). The reason why evolution is so widely accepted by scientists, despite not being proven, is that there is a lot of evidence.

I guess all of my mammalogy, ornithology, and general biology text books were lying to me when they discussed all the many fossils of transitional species. Avimimus, Homo sapiens idaltu...Nope, guess they don't mean a thing.

The only reason I tried to clarify the propositions of creationalism & evolutionary theory is to prevent people from asking "Well how does evolutionary theory explain where the common ancestor came from?" because evolution does not explain how life arose, although creationism does. Perhaps if I had put it this way: Evolution only explains biodiversity, while creationism explains biodiversity + the origins of life & the world.

Whew, long post again, I think! Although the tiny tiny reply boxes on this website make it hard to tell.

 

Reply


CatStandish Posts : 2,766 Registered: 6/20/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 9, 2008 2:30 PM Go to message in response to: Tsunami

My point in explaining the differences is that there are a lot of people who are stating that the theory of evolution is a scientific fact.  It is probably a fact, and I believe it is what happened; but it is still a mere theory.  (And that's a fact <G>)

Many times, those of us on the pro-evolution side of the debate often forget something important -- that evolution has not been scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.  It is still a theory.   We see evolutionary changes, yes, and that supports the theory.  But its not a proven theory.  (Or it would be a scientific fact.)

However, there are also a lot of people who are saying that even if it were a proven scientific fact, they'd still not believe it.

And you will note I also said there was a whole lot more to the theory of evolution than what I put in my comment.   I personally do feel there is room for both creationism and evolution.   However, I also feel that one belongs in the sunday school classroom and one belongs in the biology classroom. 

 


Misty

wedding countdown

Visit our Wedding Website

Reply


CatStandish Posts : 2,766 Registered: 6/20/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 9, 2008 2:32 PM Go to message in response to: Tsunami

(And I am not the one looking to see a half something or the other <G>)

Misty

wedding countdown

Visit our Wedding Website

Reply

Tsunami Posts : 17 Registered: 10/13/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 9, 2008 2:52 PM Go to message in response to: CatStandish

Yeah, I realized after I posted that the posts I was looking at were 2 different names. I apologize if I offended you by grouping you together. Although I was responding to 2 different people, I still stand by what I said in my post.

I agree that evolution & creationism should be taught in different classes. One is science and the other is not. As I've said before though, just because creationism is not science does not make it wrong. I think when creationists are told "No, you can't teach this in biology" they become offended, they feel that their beliefs are belittled. However,  offense is not intended. Its just that supernatural explanations are outside of science, and therefore cannot be taught in science. As far as I am concerned,  creationists are welcome to teach elsewhere though, under the heading of other subjects.

Reply


CatStandish Posts : 2,766 Registered: 6/20/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 9, 2008 5:05 PM Go to message in response to: Tsunami

Absolutely!

Misty

wedding countdown

Visit our Wedding Website

Reply


BirdLover Posts : 2,834 Registered: 3/30/06
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 9, 2008 6:30 PM Go to message in response to: CatStandish

"For the record, Evolution is supposed to be taught as a THEORY (and it was to me).   I accept it as a reasonable explanation, but I do not embrace it as a scientific fact. "

I was also taught it this way, and I thought it was a great way to explain it.  "I'm not saying you have to believe this, but it is a scientific theory, and therefore is important to know what it is."

I also agree that it's a possibility.

That said, because it's only a THEORY, I have no idea why people get so "up in arms" about it.  That would be like fighting over whether or not aliens exist.  No one knows for sure, so what the hell is the point of getting mad about it?

Lilypie Expecting a baby Ticker

Reply

ciscokid Posts : 119 Registered: 8/8/07
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 9, 2008 8:01 PM Go to message in response to: BirdLover

I agree with you guys. Evolution is a theory. And it should be taught as such. But it very, very often is not. I have been taught that this is the way it is, and if you don't agree, you're an idiot. Period.

Also, one of the fundamental ways in which (other) theories are taught is the presentation of evidence for the theory and presentation of evidence against the theory. The second half of that equation is lacking in the teaching of evolution in most cases. People are only taught the supporting evidence, and thus make an uniformed decision if they choose to believe in evolution.

A few quotes from some evolutionists that might make you think:

"...but I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." -E.J.H. Corner, evolutionist

"The first and most important steps of animal evolution remain even more obscure than those of plant evolution." Paul B. Weiss, evolutionist

"The theory of evolution forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature." L. Harrison Matthews - writer of the introduction to "Origin of Species." (emphasis mine)

And for the pp about the transitional fossils: 'Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."

 David B. Kitts, PhD(Zoology),
Head Curator, Dep. of Geology, Stoval Museum. Evolution, vol 28, p 467

And I ask a question (don't have to answer it, just think about it if you will): If you saw a Ferrari sitting in the middle of a junkyard, what would be your first inclination as to how it got there? Would you think that it had, over a period of time, been produced from the parts surrounding it? Or would you think that some intelligent designer had made it? Which option makes the most sense? Because that is what evolution assumes.

Cat: Yes, I knew the meaning of the word misogyny. And yes, I would have a problem with that too. I was simply using that as an example. Forgive me if I have offended you. I don't want to bite you, and I have no desire to offend you. But you are saying that you have no problem with someone believing differently than you do. I believe different than you do. So what is your problem with me, my dear Cat?



Reply


MisterKelley Posts : 258 Registered: 7/11/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 9, 2008 10:09 PM Go to message in response to: ciscokid

Well the train Kept a rollin' All night long  The train kept a rollin' all night long. With a heave and a ho, but I just couldn't let her go.

QUOTE - And I ask a question (don't have to answer it, just think about it if you will): If you saw a Ferrari sitting in the middle of a junkyard, what would be your first inclination as to how it got there? Would you think that it had, over a period of time, been produced from the parts surrounding it? Or would you think that some intelligent designer had made it? Which option makes the most sense? Because that is what evolution assumes. -END QUOTE

Yeah I would think that some intelligent designer created it. However Evolution also applies to your Ferrari. Let's say that Ferrari in the junkyard is a 2008 Ferrari. If I showed you a picture of a 1948 Ferrari what are the chances that it would look just like the 2008 Ferrari? None that's what the chance is. They look completely different, but they are still Ferraris. Nature works the same way. What we are is the end product of tens of thousands of years worth of improvising, adapting and manipulating our surroundings, It's no secret that a major reason for our survival is the fact that we have oppsable thumbs. Humans could not have survived without this special feature, and we're the only living lings things that have them right? Uh no. Many Species of Monkees have opposable thumbs too.  Humans have the remnants of a tail - The Coccyx. A lot of our internal organs have the same physiology as that of other animals. That's how it's possible for surgeons to replace human heart valves with heart vavles from a pig. Now I'm not for one second suggesting that a god of some kind didn't create everything, bacause it is a possibility. However, I just don't buy the way it's put forward in the bible. If this book is the light  that shines the path to heaven, why do I need a study guide to figure it out? If the passages were written as a result of dreams and visions of it's authors, how come god hasn't sent some revisions. The Statement made that if someone today were to write the bible based on what we know,  scientists 1000 years in the future would laugh there asses off at our ignorance. The only way that happens is if you write it in such an ambiguous way that it can interpreted in many different ways.  Wouldn't this defeat your purpose of why you wrote it in the first place? Why did god not make those dreams and visions such that their meaning could have no question not only at the time of their writing but also for posterity thousands of years later? Besides, we really aren't that much more advanced than our ancestors who lived 2000 years ago, Ancient greeks were amazing scientists and astronomers. They understood advanced mathematics and Physics. How much knowledge of engineering was required to build the roman aquaducts? (BTW, had the Romans understood the concept of a hose, the aquaducts wouldn't have had to been built- dumbasses)  Why would god Write out 10 very clear, non abiguous, completely understandable commandments that 2000+ years later are still clear and concise and yet allow the bible to be written in a way that can be twisted into whatever a man or a religeon wants it to be?


MisterKelley - Now specializing in Trainwrecks and Jackassery

Reply


MrsWilliams2008 Posts : 1,431 Registered: 7/19/07
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 9, 2008 10:16 PM Go to message in response to: MisterKelley

Hey all. I'm a Baptist and I absolutely have NO clue. I have always wondered that myself....where exactly do the dinosaurs fit in with Adam and Eve??

That's certainly one question I want to ask God.

However, thanks for the thought provoking (and somewhat hilarious) thread!

 


                         Poster Formerly Known as beauti381

http://www.theknot.com/ourwedding/RyAnne Stafford&RobertWilliams, Jr

                              Happily Married since June 21, 2008

                              Happy Together since June 20, 1994

Reply

Tsunami Posts : 17 Registered: 10/13/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 9, 2008 10:31 PM Go to message in response to: MrsWilliams2008

Don't know Mr.Kelly. I'm not God, I didn't write the Bible, I've never experienced God's visions before, and God is really bad at answering questions directly. Maybe we'll all find out after we're dead, although its rather disappointing to think that.

I'm going to go ahead and talk about the car question, even though no answer is necessary:

Of course we'd assume the car was put there by an intelligent maker. That is because cars are inanimate objects, in capable of reproducing and changing on their own. Species, however, are composed of animate living individuals capable of producing offspring that are different than themselves. If you saw a black monkey sitting in a group of brown monkeys, would you assume the black monkey spontaneously appeared there out of thin air? Or that it was born from one of the brown monkeys and happen to have a gene that made it black instead of brown? lol We could probably sit here all day making up questions for each other along these lines.

I'm going to try and wean myself off this board. I'll check back every once in a while probably but I've been spending way too much time here lately. Keep up the good work though people--this is a cool topic to debate & discuss.

Reply

ciscokid Posts : 119 Registered: 8/8/07
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 9, 2008 11:20 PM Go to message in response to: MisterKelley

Tsunami: It's still a monkey.  

MK: It's still a Ferrari. It didn't turn into a duck (although through evolution's viewpoint, that would be possible, since it is assumed that nonliving substances can give rise to living organisms). As I've said before, I'm not arguing adaptation.

Just FYI, the coccyx, although purported by many to be unnecessary remnants of a tail, supports the muscles that keep you from pooping in your pants. Now, if you don't like yours, I'm sure we can see about having it removed ;-).

I am quite aware of the fact that we share traits with other animals. However, I transmit information using electricity (basically), and so does my laptop. Does that mean I share a common ancestor with my laptop? I certainly hope not.

Some of the passages of the Bible (not all) were written from visions and are not literal (as you well know). Do you refuse the worth of every work of literature that is allegorical or otherwise not literal?

The parts that are important for "shining the path to heaven" don't necessitate a study guide. John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. It doesn't take a study guide to understand that.

As for needing a study guide for some parts - God gave us a book that would interest us on more than just the surface level. He made us. He knows we are curious creatures and He knows how we think. So He made His book (which He wrote for us) such that we could study it and work to understand it. The parts that are important for gaining an initial relationship with Him aren't difficult to understand at all. But after we come to that relationship with Him, we can actuallly study His book. He made clear the parts that were necessary to be clear. The rest we actually have to put forth some effort into understanding.

It's kind of like biology. The parts we need to know - humans have to eat and drink to survive, how to procreate, how to shelter ourselves, etc., are pretty simple. But, if you actually want a deeper understanding of biology, it's going to require some effort and some study. Perhaps you're a lot better at comprehending things than I am, but I can't sit down to a college-level biology textbook and read it through once and completely understand all of it. It takes some study and some time commitment from me.

You stated that if we wrote a book now based on what we know, then people 1000 years from now wouldn't believe our ignorance. And yet the scientific statements that the Bible makes are not ignorant. In fact, some of the statements that are made were not known when the Bible was written, and have only lately been discovered to be true:

Leviticus 17:11 - For the life of the flesh is in the blood.

Obviously, they didn't know how important blood was back then. Only a few hundred years ago, we were still "bleeding" people to try to cure them when they were sick. And yet scientists aren't laughing at Moses' ignorance.

Isaiah 40:22 - He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth

They didn't know that the earth was a sphere until the time of the ancient Greeks. Isaiah very much predates the Greeks. And yet scientists aren't laughing at his ignorance.

Job 26:7 - he suspends the earth over nothing

This would be unimaginable for the ancient writers. Job is one of the oldest (if not the oldest) books of the Bible. And yet scientists are not laughing at his ignorance.

And the Bible cannot be twisted into whatever a man or a religion wants it to be. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." That's pretty concrete. "I am the Lord. I change not." That's pretty concrete.

 

 



Reply


MrsRicecake Posts : 700 Registered: 2/2/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 9, 2008 11:39 PM Go to message in response to: Heidibride30

My question:

If we evolved from monkies why arent we still evolving? Its a theory, and a stupid one at that. Hello all you scientists answer my question (without a freaking theory) and maybe Ill believe in your far fetched dream.

To answer a previous question: How can you believe in something you cant see, touch or hear.

How can you look at a baby and not believe? Or the ocean or a mountain? When I look at nature I SEE God all around me. When I hear the rain I HEAR God. When I touch anything I FEEL God. Thats how you believe in something that many people over look.

God created scientists so he could have entertainment...this coming from a girl who's father is a biologist that laughs at the thought of 'BIG BANG THEORY" December 27, 2008!

http://alaireandclayton.weddings.com

Reply
RSS

Thank You
for Signing Up!

Check your e-mail inbox for the latest updates from brides.com

Give a Subscription to Brides Magazine as a Gift
Subscribe to Brides magazine