Started By
Message
re: Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:31 pm to Kentucker
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:31 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Tbird, I hope you've read the 15 pages of this thread.
Not going to sift through 15 pages of the same shite that gets reposted by both sides in discussions on this subject every single time.
quote:
If you haven't then you're being an a-hole.
Call me whatever the hell you want. I stand by what I said.
1
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:31 pm to dawgfan24348
quote:
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.
I buy this, certainly over a worldwide flood 5000 years ago.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:34 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
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.
But it is testable, and we've seen it. Look at dogs for God's sake. We've gone from a wolf to a Chihuahua in 15,000 years. What if we added another 10 million years to this? Why wouldn't they continue to change?
This post was edited on 4/8/14 at 10:36 pm
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:34 pm to NATidefan
Same could be said for atheists. I've met some major atheist assholes
And there was a part of the bible that caught my interest
And there was a part of the bible that caught my interest
quote:
Look at Behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength it has in its loins,
what power in the muscles of its belly!
17 Its tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
18 Its bones are tubes of bronze,
its limbs like rods of iron.
19 It ranks first among the works of God,
yet its Maker can approach it with his sword.
20 The hills bring it their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants it lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal it in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround it.
23 A raging river does not alarm it;
it is secure, though the Jordan should surge against its mouth.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:36 pm to NATidefan
quote:
If Christians would just quit attacking evolution, I think we all could move on.
The opposite side would say similar. And not once in this thread or in any other forum have I attacked evolution.
Been attacked for saying I don't subscribe to it more times than I can count, though.
quote:
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.
Again, the opposite can also be said.
quote:
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?
There are many Christians (myself included) who believe dinosaurs were in the bible, in fact. Your grandmother doesn't speak for all Christians or for those who don't subscribe to the theory of evolution.
quote:
Cause we are fighting the same battle
Disagree.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:36 pm to OMLandshark
I do believe that a major flood could have hit where Noah lived though
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:39 pm to dawgfan24348
quote:
I do believe that a major flood could have hit where Noah lived though
Yeah, that's possible that a guy named Noah survived a flood on a raft with a bunch of animals. We have plenty of proof of floodings all over the world since civilization itself started on rivers, and they tend to flood. It explains the flood myths. But worldwide to where the millions of species of animals could fit on it, and not have ridiculous long term and measurable consequences? Absolute twaddle.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:42 pm to OMLandshark
Yeah and back then nobody knew how big the Earth was really
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:47 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
Disagree.
Really...
quote:LINK
A teacher who found her son’s SRI class taught that dinosaurs never existed (God just planted the fossil record), called the lessons “unpalatable,” “offensive” and “unacceptable”.
That's the EXACT same thing that is being said about these fossils... LINK
quote:
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.
Again, the opposite can also be said.
Yeah, but one is against something our country was based on... separation of Church and State and freedom of religion... Are we gonna have Muslim, Islam, Jewish, Christian etc prayer and lessons? Or are we just wanting to teach the Christian stuff?
Evolution is Science... Science is not a Religion... I'm sorry your Religion tried to include Science.
This post was edited on 4/8/14 at 10:58 pm
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:50 pm to OMLandshark
quote:Well clearly I must be brainwashed because you can't fathom how a rational, intelligent person could believe what I believe. But that wouldn't jive with the fact that I question everything I'm taught by others because I don't base my faith on what a person says, but what I believe God has said in the Bible.
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.
If your "fundamentalist" friend doesn't believe in the Biblical account of the flood, he should just throw out the entire thing. If you want to talk about illogical, what would be the point of having animals from all over be divinely led to the ark when they could have just stayed where they were or been led over a mountain range or to a higher place to prevent being drowned in a local flood? That's not the account in the Bible, and if he wants to ignore it, that's one thing, but to change it is to be dishonest with the text.
quote:If you really want to know the specifics, go ahead and google it. I already said it is of no use to either of us to delve into those. I've done it before in other forums in another time of my life and it always turned out to be a waste of time, because in the end, it always devolved into someone calling me an ignorant hick who believes fairy tales. Yeah, no thanks.
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:I didn't care to get into a discussion about the flood. I was talking about the philosophy of those who hold to a naturalistic view of the world that discounts the possibility of the supernatural or a divine presence.
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
What you are talking about isn't basic reasoning at all. You are talking about the logical progression from a particular axiom to the conclusion of evolution (or how the flood is a joke). I start with a different axiom and my basic reasoning leads me to a different conclusion. Therefore, the issue isn't about basic reasoning at all, but where we each start the process.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:51 pm to OMLandshark
The problem is they can't admit a few things are wrong within the Bible or that some might be stories that were made up and put in there by man, because if they admit a few things are wrong with it... the whole thing falls apart.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:52 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
the attacks on the faith of Christianity affect many more people.
Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. Fundamentalist Christians are claiming they're under attack because they're not allowed in public schools and government.
Yes, I'm extremely supportive of (and active in) the movement to push religion off the scientific playing field. It has no place in science.
Considering the history of the science/religion conflict, I'd say scientists have been remarkably civil and that theists have been barbarians, and would be again if they get the upper hand.
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).
Best defense is a good offense, again. "Guaranteed its place" is not saying "Limited its influence." That's your statement. Not mine.
quote:
The point of the "separation" was not to remove religion from the public realm
Yes it was.
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.
Evolution is readily observable, and understandable for those who choose to study the biological process. It's rather easy to understand, in my opinion.
quote:
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.
Decisions on constraints must be made by all parts of a society, not just one religion within it.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:56 pm to NATidefan
quote:
NATidefan
This man gets it.
This kind of discussion is great to have with a bunch of "All I want in my life is my gun, god, and family" type of southern people.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:57 pm to OMLandshark
quote:If God exists and He did "do it", then how does that not make sense? That's not a logical fallacy to believe God exists and made something happen outside the realm of the natural processes we observe today, is it?
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?"
If you were really serious about your questions, there are answers from the Bible to address them. But, I don't think you are really interested in those answers, since you think the entire book is some man-made concoction of lies.
quote:But that's not an argument for or against anything. It's just more personal attacks based on false information (I'm not "anti-science"). I actually do have a kid, and she will be raised as I see fit. She's free to make her own decisions when she's old enough to leave the house, but I would hope that she would not depart from the truth at any point in her life. I was raised the same way and I am a productive member of society, regardless of the "silliness" of my beliefs, as you see them.
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 10:57 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If your "fundamentalist" friend doesn't believe in the Biblical account of the flood, he should just throw out the entire thing. If you want to talk about illogical, what would be the point of having animals from all over be divinely led to the ark when they could have just stayed where they were or been led over a mountain range or to a higher place to prevent being drowned in a local flood? That's not the account in the Bible, and if he wants to ignore it, that's one thing, but to change it is to be dishonest with the text.
OK, in that case, throw out the Bible if you do some of the following things: Wear multi-fibered clothes, eat shell fish, mow the lawn on Sunday, or wouldn't sell his daughter to her rapist. Even if you think you take the Bible 100% literally, you don't. If you did, it would be pretty horrifying actually.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:00 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If God exists and He did "do it", then how does that not make sense?
Why did he make it so confusing that anyone of intelligence would throw out the story as a myth? Seems like a pretty reasonable question.
quote:
If you were really serious about your questions, there are answers from the Bible to address them.
I feel pretty confident that genes or the fossil record are not mentioned anywhere in the bible.
This post was edited on 4/8/14 at 11:05 pm
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:00 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
Not going to sift through 15 pages of the same shite that gets reposted by both sides in discussions on this subject every single time.
This thread has been remarkably civil, considering the subject. One or two people may be using curse words, but, by and large, it's been a good discussion.
I hope it goes on for many more pages because I find it interesting and intellectually stimulating.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:00 pm to GeorgiaFan
quote:FIFY
This kind of discussion is great to have with a bunch of "All I want in my life is my gun, god, and family and I ain't no damn monkey" type of southern people.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:04 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If your "fundamentalist" friend doesn't believe in the Biblical account of the flood, he should just throw out the entire thing. If you want to talk about illogical, what would be the point of having animals from all over be divinely led to the ark when they could have just stayed where they were or been led over a mountain range or to a higher place to prevent being drowned in a local flood? That's not the account in the Bible, and if he wants to ignore it, that's one thing, but to change it is to be dishonest with the text.
Or he could have just gathered all the animals in the surrounding areas. It's not hard to believe that a massive flood would seem world wide to people back then
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:05 pm to OMLandshark
quote:So one "dog" (Canis) turned into another (but differently looking) "dog" (Canis) over 15,000 years? I guess you're right, there that we have observed that (every day). Another millions years and perhaps we'll see bulldogs mixed with dingoes.
But it is testable, and we've seen it. Look at dogs for God's sake. We've gone from a wolf to a Chihuahua in 15,000 years. What if we added another 10 million years to this? Why wouldn't they continue to change?
Have we observed one kind of animal (let's say a dog) turn into something completely different (a cat)? We obverse small changes within a species or a genus all the time, but we don't (and can't) observe the drastic changes from one type of animal to another. According to the theory, it's a bunch of tiny changes over millions of years that result in different kinds of organisms with varying complexities.
Page 16 of 49
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News