Started By
Message
re: Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:28 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:28 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
No need to throw out the Bible for those things because you clearly don't understand the difference in the types of law in the Old Testament (moral, civil, and ceremonial) and the purposes of each. If you did, you wouldn't use the oft-repeated but rarely understood examples you gave.
The types of law in the Old Testament indicate to me that your god was a tremendous a-hole until the the first century.
But that might be a little too brash, I noticed you completely disregarded that speciation is an observable occurrence in an earlier post, so I figured I'd show you how we can actively observe evolution generating new species in the form of ring species.
This post was edited on 4/8/14 at 11:30 pm
1
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:32 pm to dawgfan24348
quote:That's true. He could have gathered the animals in the surrounding areas, but why would he? Remember that he would have had to do that prior to the flood, and how would he have known about the flood ahead of time? With all of our knowledge and technology, we can barely predict a heavy rainfall with accuracy today, so he would have either been really lucky or God really told him to do it. If it were the latter, then God would have known that the whole world wouldn't have been affected by a local flood.
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
Not to mention that the point of the story in the Bible was that God wanted to blot all living things off the face of the earth due to sin, including animals, and only killing off a few animals and a few people (relatively speaking) would have been pointless.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:33 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
This is really all I need to hear about your level of understanding of evolution. This is pointless since anything I tell you you clearly won't be able to comprehend.
He might be able to comprehend it, he just won't accept it.
It's a common theme I've noticed with people who desperately want evolution not to be a reality. They'll claim an arbitrary wall to how far speciation can go, limiting the types of animals to certain "kinds", to quote Ken Ham. What they fail to realize is that these branches of new species that are constantly generated have no arbitrary wall, and over time the differences between these species will increase as they adapt to their environments.
This is the fundamental tenant of evolution, it's observable, and it explains pretty much ever observation made in a variety of fields.
But it conflicts with the first few chapters of a 2000 year old book assembled by some group of guys that got together and decided to include/toss whatever books made by farmers 6000 years ago they felt worthy, so frick science.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:35 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I'm actually fine with not mixing religion with science. However, I'm not fine with teaching these theories as historical facts. There is a difference between observational science and historical science.
You don't believe in science you can't observe, but you believe in the Bible versions of science which you also can't observe... you also believe in a deity you can't observe, a heaven and hell you can't observe... But you can't believe in a volcano that erupted over 1 million years ago eventhough I can dig up and show you the ash.
How about light from stars, you can observe that, and using some simple mathematics figure out how far away that star is... also using some simple math and the study of the speed of light, you can figure out how old that light you are observing is.
Yet, even though you can observe this, you can't believe that light is that old, cause the universe isn't that old because of a book you read written by men 2000 years ago.
This post was edited on 4/8/14 at 11:37 pm
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:35 pm to NATidefan
quote:Sure, but I didn't try to use dog breeding to prove evolution, either.
I'm not sure about the exact timing... but dog's had a lot of help evolutionary wise from man...
My point is that you breed one type of dog (wolf) with another type of dog and you'll get another kind of dog. It won't produce a cat (or something within the felidae family)
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:37 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
My point is that you breed one type of dog (wolf) with another type of dog and you'll get another kind of dog. It won't produce a cat (or something within the felidae family)
No shite sherlock, that's not the way evolution works.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:37 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
My point is that you breed one type of dog (wolf) with another type of dog and you'll get another kind of dog. It won't produce a cat (or something within the felidae family)
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:37 pm to GeorgiaFan
quote:What you're talking about is why the changes happen. Information is gained or lost to and the result would be physical changes in the organism. Enough of those over time supposedly result in different kinds of organisms, such as monkeys and humans, branching off from a common ancestor.
That's not evolution though. Evolution is things being gained, loss for the better of the species.
What you said is making one species change to another.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:38 pm to FooManChoo
You'd be correct, and thankfully for scientists evolution doesn't predict that two dogs breeding will ever produce a cat.
I implore you to at least skim the link I sent you about ring species.
I implore you to at least skim the link I sent you about ring species.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:39 pm to OMLandshark
quote:The example was meant to show the changes and varying characteristics between different kinds of animals. I wasn't implying that a dog could turn into a cat or vice versa. Perhaps I didn't explain that very well.
This is really all I need to hear about your level of understanding of evolution. This is pointless since anything I tell you you clearly won't be able to comprehend.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:40 pm to NATidefan
quote:
You don't believe in science you can't observe, but you believe in the Bible versions of science which you also can't observe... you also believe in a deity you can't observe, a heaven and hell you can't observe... But you can't believe in a volcano that erupted over 1 million years ago eventhough I can dig up and show you the ash.
How about light from stars, you can observe that, and using some simple mathematics figure out how far away that star is... also using some simple math and the study of the speed of light, you can figure out how old that light you are observing is.
Yet, even though you can observe this, you can't believe that light is that old, cause the universe isn't that old because of a book you read written by men 2000 years ago.
I don't think these guys realize that they aren't just fighting the field of Biology. They are fighting almost every single field of study there is.
If the universe is only 6000 years old almost all of our ideas about the universe, which have empirically worked so well in experimentation, are flushed right down the toilet.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:46 pm to FooManChoo
Here's a better representation of how evolution works than a dog and a wolf producing a cat...
Let's say you have a species of fish, a thousand of them... and they are fairly adaptable... you take half that thousand and put them in the artic and the other half in the gulf of mexico... Pretty different climates... and they pretty much stay put... since you believe in micro evolution as it's liked to be called you could see how these two groups over a million years could develop different traits that help them survive. Now would it be completely unbelievable that if you brought these to back together maybe they changed so much they couldn't breed together anymore? If you can believe it, then you believe in macro evolution, because you have two new species..
Let's say you have a species of fish, a thousand of them... and they are fairly adaptable... you take half that thousand and put them in the artic and the other half in the gulf of mexico... Pretty different climates... and they pretty much stay put... since you believe in micro evolution as it's liked to be called you could see how these two groups over a million years could develop different traits that help them survive. Now would it be completely unbelievable that if you brought these to back together maybe they changed so much they couldn't breed together anymore? If you can believe it, then you believe in macro evolution, because you have two new species..
This post was edited on 4/8/14 at 11:48 pm
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:47 pm to GeorgiaFan
quote:I'm fine with teaching the Bible in a private school. I'm fine with having an elective class on Biblical studies in a public school if the school system wants to have one. I'd also be OK with a history of Islam, Buddhism, or a generic Religious Studies class in a public school, so long as they were electives and not required classes.
Are you okay with teaching the bible in class? Like in private catholic schools?
quote:I'm not so sure they were treated like the rest of the "culturally-similar" citizens at the time, so they probably thought nothing of it. I will say that politicians have never been very consistent with the application of the laws, even if their motives were good.
What about Native americans? Cultural assimilation of Native Americans
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:47 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Enough of those over time supposedly result in different kinds of organisms, such as monkeys and humans, branching off from a common ancestor
We haven't evolved so much that we aren't comparable to our primate family.
Like a dog turning into a cat would.
I'm very confused on what you were going for here.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:49 pm to NATidefan
There is no need to pass that off as a belief, pretty much that exact scenario can be done today and shown to be true.
Too much genetic divergence in a population causes the population to split into two separate species that do not breed.
Too much genetic divergence in a population causes the population to split into two separate species that do not breed.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:51 pm to Ross
quote:I don't blame you for thinking that. Most people do when they don't fully understand what's going on there.
The types of law in the Old Testament indicate to me that your god was a tremendous a-hole until the the first century.
quote:I know that speciation is observable, but in reality, we're talking about one kind of bird changing into a slightly different kind of bird or one kind of dog changing into a slightly different kind of dog. They can breed with each other and their offspring is another bird or another dog. What we haven't observed is the change from a monkey to a human (I know that's not what the theory proffers) or from some common ancestor to a monkey or a common ancestor to a human.
But that might be a little too brash, I noticed you completely disregarded that speciation is an observable occurrence in an earlier post, so I figured I'd show you how we can actively observe evolution generating new species in the form of ring species.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:53 pm to Ross
quote:
There is no need to pass that off as a belief, pretty much that exact scenario can be done today and shown to be true.
They keep doing new things... and I don't follow it as much as I used to... but cool... seems like I did read they did this with smaller organisms that have a much shorter life cycle.
This post was edited on 4/8/14 at 11:53 pm
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:55 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
FooManChoo
Do you believe the world is only 6000 years old?
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:55 pm to NATidefan
Now that I think about it, isn't the flu and other viruses basically proof of evolution. Ever year there's a new strain... God created all animals and man at one time, but not viruses... he decided to pop those out on an annual basis.
ETA: I may be total wrong on this... forgive me if I am.. I don't know much about micro organisms.
ETA: I may be total wrong on this... forgive me if I am.. I don't know much about micro organisms.
This post was edited on 4/8/14 at 11:58 pm
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:56 pm to NATidefan
Yeah I guess so 
Page 18 of 49
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News