Started By
Message
re: Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution
Posted on 4/8/14 at 7:07 pm to Kentucker
Posted on 4/8/14 at 7:07 pm to Kentucker
quote:You are right that there is an enmity between scientists who believe uniformitarianism and theists. As much as theists like to "push" their beliefs on others, there is as much smug condescension coming from the other side who views anyone who doesn't accept their understanding as ignorant and stupid. I see some of that going on in this thread.
I may be overly sensitive to theists' views. The historic enmity between scientists and theists exists to this day.
quote:I'm sure, and it's quite understandable. But on the flip-side, those same lawyers are now making bank keeping opposing views out of schools altogether, which I don't believe is the original intent of "the separation of church and state".
Scientists are very wary of the motives of lawmakers, especially in some regions of America, and there is a concerted effort in the scientific community to always be ready for battle when threats arise.
quote:There may be some in the "religious community" that is paranoid about scientific advancements, but I don't think that's the case in general. Most are very welcoming in advances of understanding and especially the advances in technology that come through scientific experimentation. I think many who are religious are skeptical and resistant to specific findings or interpretations, though. Evolutionary theory cannot be used as an example of resistance to science, in general, though.
It's my firm opinion that the religious community is still as paranoid about scientific advancements as it has been in the past. Evolution is the clearest example of how threatened I think theists feel. That and removal of prayer from public schools has led to a "Cold War" between the communities for at least the past 50 years
1
Posted on 4/8/14 at 7:12 pm to Ross
quote:As I said previously, there are too many individual examples to exhaust myself in attempting to refute them here. That isn't a concession of defeat as much as an admission of the futility of such an endeavor. I've been to this rodeo many times and I can spend all day, week, or month attempting to refute the specific examples, but it will all come back to interpretation of the evidence based on our respective worldviews.
There are so many issues with the idea that a worldwide flood caused all the geographical phenomena we see in this day and age, much less getting into the issue that every single species we observe today could be gathered by a single man and dispersed across the globe in a way consistent with what we observe now.
For starters, if there was a singular flood event, you wouldn't see the sediments layer as they do, and you wouldn't see different groups of fossils (which are known through radiometric dating to be of different time periods) appear with the younger fossils appearing in higher, separate layers. You would see a mixing of fossils with no discernible, consistent layers. This isn't what we observe, so the global flood hypothesis isn't a viable model.
I will say, though, that the common "problems" that are often cited aren't really problems when a plausible explanation is provided. Those explanations are simply dismissed by those who think that such an idea of a global flood is pure ridiculousness. Then we go in circles, talking past each other.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 7:16 pm to OMLandshark
quote:As do I. But what we are discussing goes beyond individual intelligence or basic reasoning.
Please, don't be. I like being intelligent and understanding basic reasoning.
quote:Actually, that does not mean it didn't happen. That's the thing about events that have happened in ancient history, you can't really know for sure what happened because there are no witnesses. You can examine the evidence and come to a conclusion but that doesn't mean that is the truth of the matter. I discussed this previously. I also discussed previously how evidence must be interpreted.
Actually, that does mean it didn't happen. It's called reasoning. Whenever I have textbooks and textbooks of evidence that the Flood didn't happen, and your only bit of evidence is 5 pages from a 3000 year old book, then I win that argument.
This post was edited on 4/9/14 at 4:42 pm
Posted on 4/8/14 at 7:34 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
As do I. But what we are discussing goes beyond individual intelligence or basic reasoning.
It really does not. I don't see how an intelligent human being can see the overwhelming evidence against the flood and not instantly realize its a load of crap.
quote:
That's the thing about events that have happened in ancient history, you can't really know for sure what happened because there are no witnesses.
So in order for something to be proven there has to be a living witness. So let's turn this into a murder trial. There's blood all over the place, the murder was committed in the murderers house, there's photographic evidence of the murder, a handwritten note saying "John Doe is murdering me right now", not to mention ridiculous amounts of motive, we can't convict the guy because there isn't a living witness to it?
quote:
I also discussed previously how evidence must be interpreted.
How about you discuss the gene pool and why every animal isn't inbred as hell. Why isn't every animal like the Cheetah, that's sick as hell because a common ancestor of all living cheetahs can be traced back 5000 years ago? So either the Flood didn't happen, or for some reason God hates Cheetahs and wants them to suffer.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 7:40 pm to OMLandshark
The ark is one of the biggest issues I have with bible, two of EVERY animal? All on one boat smaller than the titanic, with food for 40 days.... The math itself is impossible. unless they magically shrank, became docile, all decide to congregate to Noah, and then sit calmly on a boat for 40 days its absolutely impossible. But miracles, ya know.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 7:46 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
As I said previously, there are too many individual examples to exhaust myself in attempting to refute them here.
Yeah just basic facts that show you how stupid your beliefs really are. I can refute your retarded beliefs in one sentence. Can't you give a basic explanation of what happened here aside from "God Did It"?
quote:
I will say, though, that the common "problems" that are often cited aren't really problems when a plausible explanation is provided. Those explanations are simply dismissed by those who think that such an idea of a global flood is pure ridiculousness. Then we go in circles, talking past each other.
Because there is not a plausible explanation for a global flood. Anyone who is not an absolute moron or completely brainwashed knows that that is simply ridiculous. Seriously, please refute these questions:
Why doesn't the fossil record go in line with the Flood?
How was Noah able to fit millions and millions of animals on a cruise ship?
Where did all the water go?
Why isn't every portion of Earth salted?
How did fresh water fish survive?
Why is the gene pool not totally screwed?
How and why did all these animals go all over the world?
Why are there different races in such a short period of time?
And this is just a start. And don't give me an explanation as "God Did It".
This post was edited on 4/8/14 at 7:48 pm
Posted on 4/8/14 at 8:26 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You are right that there is an enmity between scientists who believe uniformitarianism and theists. As much as theists like to "push" their beliefs on others, there is as much smug condescension coming from the other side who views anyone who doesn't accept their understanding as ignorant and stupid. I see some of that going on in this thread.
The "smug condescension" comes from theists' attempts to compete with science. There are simply no similarities to compare.
I would say that condescension of scientists towards theists is less hurtful than theists burning scientists at the stake. Wouldn't you?
quote:
But on the flip-side, those same lawyers are now making bank keeping opposing views out of schools altogether, which I don't believe is the original intent of "the separation of church and state".
They recognize that religion is not science. The Constitution guarantees religion its place in society - churches, synagogues, mosques and the like. Thankfully, most areas of the US are content in guaranteeing science its place in society, too - schools.
The wall between church and state must remain impermeable.
quote:
There may be some in the "religious community" that is paranoid about scientific advancements, but I don't think that's the case in general. Most are very welcoming in advances of understanding and especially the advances in technology that come through scientific experimentation. I think many who are religious are skeptical and resistant to specific findings or interpretations, though. Evolutionary theory cannot be used as an example of resistance to science, in general, though.
The resistance to evolution is silly. It's just a biological process in nature.
Anti-evolution is just the spearhead of some theists, however. Any success in that area would lead to imposition of religious constraints in other areas of science.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 9:21 pm to NATidefan
quote:
The ark is one of the biggest issues I have with bible, two of EVERY animal? All on one boat smaller than the titanic, with food for 40 days.... The math itself is impossible. unless they magically shrank, became docile, all decide to congregate to Noah, and then sit calmly on a boat for 40 days its absolutely impossible. But miracles, ya know.
What's amazing is it happened 6,500 years ago.
Equally amazing is God had no idea about Australia at this time.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 9:40 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
That's untrue. Just look at Plato's works and you've been soundly defeated, those were written centuries before the New Testament, too.
Lawls. There's plenty of scholarly debate as to the authorship of Plato's works. Same with Homer. Same with Xenophon's Anabasis. Same with Thucydides. Not sure where you got your info, but there's plenty more to learn.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 9:52 pm to the808bass
quote:
Lawls. There's plenty of scholarly debate as to the authorship of Plato's works. Same with Homer. Same with Xenophon's Anabasis. Same with Thucydides. Not sure where you got your info, but there's plenty more to learn.
There's debate about the Socratic Dialogues but they pretty much all attribute it to Plato. It is very nearly unanimous in who they ascribe the author as. There are tons of sources for almost every big time philosopher -- they aren't anonymous at all. They have carvings, busts, paintings and text that fit their timeline.
On the other hand: They have no idea who wrote Luke, John, Matthew and Mark. They have guesses, but when they're written decades after someone who supposedly lived, it's very difficult.
I don't think there's a single scholar out there who would say "The Republic" is authored by an anonymous source.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:08 pm to OMLandshark
quote:Your inability to see how an intelligent human being can believe the flood story constitutes a deficiency on your part, not mine.
It really does not. I don't see how an intelligent human being can see the overwhelming evidence against the flood and not instantly realize its a load of crap.
quote:I'm actually sort of glad you made this analogy. Many times innocent people are found guilty based on the "overwhelming evidence" against them , while many are declared not guilty in spite of the overwhelming evidence that they committed the crime. Others who are guilty are declared not guilty due to lack of evidence. The evidence (or lack thereof) doesn't always lead people to the truth. Obviously the justice system is different due to reasonable doubt and all that, but I think the point is still valid in that evidence doesn't always point to the truth.
So in order for something to be proven there has to be a living witness. So let's turn this into a murder trial. There's blood all over the place, the murder was committed in the murderers house, there's photographic evidence of the murder, a handwritten note saying "John Doe is murdering me right now", not to mention ridiculous amounts of motive, we can't convict the guy because there isn't a living witness to it?
quote:As I said before, I'm not interested in debating the specifics of the flood because it is an exercise in futility, despite your attempts to goad m into with your ad hominem attacks. I'd love to go back and forth with you about it but it would be a waste of both our time.
How about you discuss the gene pool and why every animal isn't inbred as hell. Why isn't every animal like the Cheetah, that's sick as hell because a common ancestor of all living cheetahs can be traced back 5000 years ago? So either the Flood didn't happen, or for some reason God hates Cheetahs and wants them to suffer.
If you'd like to take a step back and discuss the philosophy behind my beliefs or yours, then I'd be more inclined to bite.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:13 pm to OMLandshark
quote:Why should you set the standard for what answer I should give? Why can't "God did it" be the answer?
Yeah just basic facts that show you how stupid your beliefs really are. I can refute your retarded beliefs in one sentence. Can't you give a basic explanation of what happened here aside from "God Did It"?
Because there is not a plausible explanation for a global flood. Anyone who is not an absolute moron or completely brainwashed knows that that is simply ridiculous. Seriously, please refute these questions:
Why doesn't the fossil record go in line with the Flood?
How was Noah able to fit millions and millions of animals on a cruise ship?
Where did all the water go?
Why isn't every portion of Earth salted?
How did fresh water fish survive?
Why is the gene pool not totally screwed?
How and why did all these animals go all over the world?
Why are there different races in such a short period of time?
And this is just a start. And don't give me an explanation as "God Did It".
I don't think you actually care about the truth. You only care about those things which fit your paradigm. I can't fault you for that, since everyone (including myself) does it, but it's rather hypocritical to condemn others for doing the same thing.
Also, the ad hominem attacks aren't constructive.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:17 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Your inability to see how an intelligent human being can believe the flood story constitutes a deficiency on your part, not mine.
It's either that or you're completely brainwashed. Looking objectively at both sides, there's no question on which on is more applicable. Hell, even my fundamentalist friend doesn't think Noah's Ark happened the way its described in the Bible, because he knows how completely illogical it is. He does think there was a flood, like near the Mediterranean, but not world wide.
quote:
I'm actually sort of glad you made this analogy. Many times innocent people are found guilty based on the "overwhelming evidence" against them , while many are declared not guilty in spite of the overwhelming evidence that they committed the crime. Others who are guilty are declared not guilty due to lack of evidence. The evidence (or lack thereof) doesn't always lead people to the truth. Obviously the justice system is different due to reasonable doubt and all that, but I think the point is still valid in that evidence doesn't always point to the truth.
Sweet Jesus.....
quote:
As I said before, I'm not interested in debating the specifics of the flood because it is an exercise in futility, despite your attempts to goad m into with your ad hominem attacks. I'd love to go back and forth with you about it but it would be a waste of both our time.
Oh, yeah, you don't want to discuss the specifics because they refute every single point you're talking about. The specifics here are pretty important. Please explain basic genealogy to me and how that doesn't completely contradict Noah's Ark. Because I know you can't, that completes refutes your position, and you are too blind or stupid to see otherwise. If you understood even the most basic components of genetics, then you would not believe in Noah's Ark. There is no way an intelligent person who understands simple ways the world works would believe in this hogwash.
quote:
If you'd like to take a step back and discuss the philosophy behind my beliefs or yours, then I'd be more inclined to bite.
I'm not going to discuss the philosophy to it, because there is no philosophy to it. It's basic reasoning. It's like I say the sky is blue, and you start telling me it's green and to think of the philosophy behind it being green. No, its not green anymore than there was a worldwide flood. There is no philosophy behind it other than a made up story or perhaps parable of some ancient guy who survived a flood with a dozen or so animals.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:19 pm to OMLandshark
Why the frick is this thread still going?
NO ONE is going to change their mind on either side of this debate (myself included).
These discussions are pointless bullshite. Believe whatever the frick you want to believe and quit trying to denigrate the other side.
frick.
NO ONE is going to change their mind on either side of this debate (myself included).
These discussions are pointless bullshite. Believe whatever the frick you want to believe and quit trying to denigrate the other side.
frick.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:20 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Why can't "God did it" be the answer?
Because it doesn't make sense. If you say "God did it", I will then ask "then why did God do it that way?" "Why does God hate certain animals and want them to suffer?" "Why did God not leave a dent in the gene pool?"
quote:
I don't think you actually care about the truth. You only care about those things which fit your paradigm. I can't fault you for that, since everyone (including myself) does it, but it's rather hypocritical to condemn others for doing the same thing.
The thing is I fear you have kids, and you're going to indoctrinate them into your anti-science bullshite, and it pisses me off more than I can say. I just wish we could leave your mentality back in the 16th century where it belongs instead of even trying to rationalize it.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:23 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Because it doesn't make sense.
To you.
quote:
The thing is I fear you have kids, and you're going to indoctrinate them into your anti-science bullshite, and it pisses me off more than I can say.
Get the frick out of here with this shite. If you have kids, you raise them to believe what you will and quit worrying about his.
quote:
I just wish we could leave your mentality back in the 16th century where it belongs instead of even trying to rationalize it.
Your mentality is bullshite.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:28 pm to Kentucker
quote:Depends what you mean by "hurtful". I'd wager that while burning someone at the stake hurts an individual, the attacks on the faith of Christianity affect many more people. You might think it's a good thing, but according to my beliefs, it would be better to spend a short time burning in the flames on earth than an eternity in hell. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that due to your views on the world.
The "smug condescension" comes from theists' attempts to compete with science. There are simply no similarities to compare.
I would say that condescension of scientists towards theists is less hurtful than theists burning scientists at the stake. Wouldn't you?
But it sounds like you are justifying (if not downright supportive of) the smug condescension. I don't think that's necessary in civil society at all.
quote:The Constitution does not place religion in any specific cubbyhole. It does not relegate it to the confines of one's closet. Many who are against religion (especially its public expression) seem to view religion as almost a bad or evil thing that the Constitution was protecting the people against. On the contrary, it was protecting the valuable right to freedom of religious expression so that people could worship as they please (within reason, obviously; no human sacrifices and all).
They recognize that religion is not science. The Constitution guarantees religion its place in society - churches, synagogues, mosques and the like. Thankfully, most areas of the US are content in guaranteeing science its place in society, too - schools.
The wall between church and state must remain impermeable.
The point of the "separation" was not to remove religion from the public realm, but to prevent the government from forcing the public to embrace one particular religion or set of religious principles. But that's really a topic for another discussion.
quote:That's your opinion, but I don't believe it is silly at all. Just about all Christians (that I'm aware of) embrace changes that may happen from one organism to another. The issue at hand is whether or not those little changes actually have resulted in a change from a sea animal to human beings over time. It's not silly to question that, since it isn't testable or even observable, which are two important aspects of the scientific method.
The resistance to evolution is silly. It's just a biological process in nature.
Anti-evolution is just the spearhead of some theists, however. Any success in that area would lead to imposition of religious constraints in other areas of science.
I actually agree that there are certain aspects of scientific endeavor that should be constrained. Not many, but I don't think anything and everything should be allowed in the name of science.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:29 pm to OMLandshark
Oh please the big bang could very well be started by intelligent design
If God does exist we would never be able to prove it anyway. If he's the creator I doubt he'd be discovered unless he wanted to.
If God does exist we would never be able to prove it anyway. If he's the creator I doubt he'd be discovered unless he wanted to.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:29 pm to TbirdSpur2010
Tbird, I hope you've read the 15 pages of this thread. If you haven't then you're being an a-hole.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:30 pm to TbirdSpur2010
If Christians would just quit attacking evolution, I think we all could move on. We don't care if you believe in God and Jesus Christ as your saviour, we just don't want it preventing evolution from being taught in schools and being accepted by society. You can believe in God and Evolution, I know a lot of people that do. I'm not even against intelligent design as long as it follows along with evolution and the actual ages of the universe, world, and mankind.
My grandmother told me dinosaurs didn't exist cause they weren't in the Bible, would it be ok to teach kids dinosaurs don't exist today? Cause we are fighting the same battle.
My grandmother told me dinosaurs didn't exist cause they weren't in the Bible, would it be ok to teach kids dinosaurs don't exist today? Cause we are fighting the same battle.
This post was edited on 4/8/14 at 10:34 pm
Page 15 of 49
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News