Funkyd- thanks for the links, i will check them out, haven`t yet, but i still think evolution is just a load of boffins giving their opinions, and i find the subject quite boring.
Stevenyc- show me one thing that is still evolving?
evolution or creation? lets talk...
by Sam87 537 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Beardo
@ Dido
That is part of the problem here - I have had a brief glimpse at the various ideas projected by evolutionists, but am not fully versed to argue upon their own territory due to the language employed and conceptual models used, which to be honest, simply do not appeal to who I am and what I choose to believe.
Amongst any so called " learned " people there can also be a degree of intellectual arrogance projected and you are fighting against a community that has its own interests to protect.
Regarding 'an observation of change from one species to the next' - the hypothesis of gradual change over many thousands/millions of years excludes that kind of observable evidence. Which is rather convenient wouldn't you say They only tend to bring forth vague examples from what I have seen. I'd love to see a clear case myself. Seriously. My belief system is flexible enough to morph from one idea to the next if needs be.
-
dido
Beardo- `am not fully versed to argue upon their own territory due to the language employed and conceptual models used` don`t appeal to me either! and i have noticed the arrogance, Abbadon is a good example of that. As i said a dogmatic attitude about it, kind of bullying you into believing it, just because they `can`t` be wrong! I agree that they are `vague` ideas and would like to see `observable evidence` myself. I have asked for one example, but so far they haven`t come up with one!
-
Abaddon
dido
Abaddon- first of all i am not playing the `dumb` card, but i hate it when science boffs quote stuff which the average person doesn`t have a clue about. Whether they are trying to impress others with their `intellectual` mind comes into question.
Don't you think it is a little unreasonable to (in a discussion about science) have a chip on your shoulder about those who have studied enough to know what they are talking about? This is not me dropping sesquipadalian into a conversation about cheese. This is me talking about science using science words, which is as neccesary and reasonable as talking about cars using car words.
After believing in creation for all my life, and not ever contemplating evolution, i admit i don`t know a lot about it, but why should all my assumptions be false?
The ones you've used thus far in arriving at some of your questions ARE false. That doesn't mean all your assumptions regarding evolution are false, just the ones you've displayed so far
Another example of dogmatism if you ask me!
I think expecting to talk about a complex subject in kiddy-terms and expecting to understand something without study is arrogant.
Okay, give me one example of something that is still evolving, as i don`t know one?
Bacteria. Any organism undergoing selection pressure.
Also, i actually agree with the `creative myth` that women are `unclean` while menstruating.
Your issues, not mine; menstural blood is sterile. I have to point out that that the Mosaic Law (where such nonsense as that is contained) is not a creative myth, it is just attributed traditionally to the same bronze-age goatherd as the Biblical Creation myth.
Well, i`ll put that in laymans terms, women need a break from sex during that time of the month, but selfish men don`t see it that way.
What you mean to say is YOU (and some other women) don't like having sex during your period and rather than just saying that (which is fine) point to the scribblings of a bronze-age goatherd to justify what you don't need to justify. Why don't you just say 'I don't like having sex when I am on my period'? The way you handle this now actually makes it look like you condmn the choice made by women who like sex during their period or don't care either way, and makes you universally condemn men. Thanks a lot; I suppose it's okay for you to throw around dogmatic as an insult but how about self-rightous comin back at you?
I already said you're not dumb; it's your making excuses for your lack of knowledge about the subject I am calling you on. Read a book on the subject. Look at some of the links you've been provided on this thread; the links to SNG's series of posts is a classic example, all there in laymans terms.
Beardo
Is it anti-intellectual week or what? I always find it hysterically funny when someone in a discussion resorts to insulting someone or being sarcastic because they think they're dealing with someone they obviously think of as an intellectual.
I kinda think when all you have to say (in effect) is "you're being an intellectual" you simply don't have anything better to say.
Eschatology? When we discuss the final destiny of humankind (we haven't so I wonder why you raise it) your opinion MAY be as valid as mine. Alternately you may sincerely believe we will be eaten by a mutant sky-goat, in which case I'm pretty sure my views on eschatology will be more valid than yours.
You also clearly stated you were not god. How can you not be god when you are part of god? It's like not being a baseball player when you are on a baseball team. Maybe you were tripping...
I was unsure whether you were being sarcastic, thus the question. Why do you find hiding behind vaugness and unknowability so comforting? For a start,. there is not nearly as much vaugeness and unknowability as you seem to make out. For seconds, even where there is vaugness and unknowability there is a definate order of probabilities.
Your comments to dido and her reply are classic. You both want to talk about the subject and have people treat your opinions as something of value, but neither one of you is willing to actually bother learning about the subject. We thus have to listen to clueless opinions put forth by people too arrogant to learn something as they're too self-satisfied or lazy to go to the effort, but who at the same time want to be taken seriously in a discussion about the subject. You poor little diddums you!
It is white-collar bias. Any person with no knowledge of carpentry who told a craftsman with thirty years of study and work in shaping cabinets from raw wood they're wrong would be thought of as arrogant, absurd and laughable.
It someone who know nothing about a 'white-collar' subject like science tells someone with thirty years of study and work in shaping their particular field of knowledge they are wrong, then they get all upset if people think they're unqualified and arrogant to pass such judgement.
I suggest you go off to a discussion board about nuclear physics and tell the physicists where they are going wrong, or a discussion board for oncologists and tell them where they are going wrong. You both seem to have the personality and knowledge for it.
And you call me arrogant! LOL. Yes, I may well be, about areas I know enough to be sure of my opininions, You guys are sure of your opinons even when you don't know enough to relaibly form one.
Quit with the condesending attitudes and we might even have a descent discussion.
-
Beardo
Is it anti-intellectual week or what? I always find it hysterically funny when someone in a discussion resorts to insulting someone or being sarcastic because they think they're dealing with someone they obviously think of as an intellectual.
Nah, just pushing your buttons Abaddon... I've been watching this board off & on for years and have seen your posts before.
I'm not " anti-intellectual " ...
How can you not be god when you are part of god?
That's for you to work out. I'm not going to write an essay for you, some things in this life we share aren't that straight forward in my estimation. You want a 'reason' for everything. Fine, if that's what makes you happy. But you will never ever have a reason for "everything".
Why not listen to some of Alan Watts lectures - they are out there - he was pretty clued up.
Your comments to dido and her reply are classic.
Glad to be of service to you and nice to know your model of reality has been confirmed yet again by us bumbling spiritually minded buffoons.
May I suggest you hop along to a few occult forums? You may learn something.
-
TopHat
Your issues, not mine; menstural blood is sterile. I have to point out that that the Mosaic Law (where such nonsense as that is contained) is not a creative myth, it is just attributed traditionally to the same bronze-age goatherd as the Biblical Creation myth.
THERE! Does it make you feel better and does it make evolution correct "IN YOUR MIND" to call an inspired person from God a "goatherder" Is that all you have to prove we have no creator? You are starting become a BORE!
-
funkyderek
dido:
Funkyd- thanks for the links, i will check them out, haven`t yet, but i still think evolution is just a load of boffins giving their opinions, and i find the subject quite boring.
Stevenyc- show me one thing that is still evolving?
If you find the subject boring, then I suggest you stop getting involved in discussions about it. If you really want an answer to the question you keep asking, then I suggest you do check out the links I posted, as you're in danger of displaying the same willful ignorance as whyizit.
I have asked for one example, but so far they haven`t come up with one!
I provided about a dozen. It's now up to you whether you want to remain ignorant or not.
-
TopHat
I provided about a dozen. It's now up to you whether you want to remain ignorant or not.
OH MYYYYYYYYYY HERE WE GO AGAIN!! If you don't believe in evolution then you'er ignorant...OH PLEASEEEEEEEEEE!!! BORRRRRRING
-
LittleToe
While believing in a Creator who got the ball roling, I also believe in evolution as the mechanism that got us here. I see no conflict.
Philosophy and spirituality are an ever evolving process. Today we think using concepts that weren't around thousands of years ago. A major break occured in the Hellenistic period, but the discoveries of science continue to broaden our world-view and allow us an understanding of things like bacteria and subatomic particles. A few hundred years ago these were unknown, but today they are commonplace.
IMHO the Genesis account is a bronze-age attempt to explain our origins, using contemporary understanding. There's nothing wrong with that, and it was a model that helped mankind make sense of the world around them for thousands of years. We like such mental frameworks, to keep our minds in order.
As for the "eschatology", hehehe, eventually our sun will go supernova and our planet will likely be completely destroyed. Unless we've evolved to traverse the "heavens" by then, we will disappear with it. Certainly "mankind" in its present stage of development will be fortunate to even remain a footnote in the annals of history (on whatever storage medium is thenavailable).
-
AuldSoul
AlmostAtheist,
I just want to reply to one tidbit of your post. "Religion" is a catch-all generalized label like "apostate" or "evolutionist". Believers are implied as part and parcel to the mild epithet "religion" while religion is only a formulaic system of expression for belief. Believers may or may not have "all the answers", and a given religion may or may not have "all the answers". It is certain that Buddhists do not claim to have all the answers, for instance.
Respectfully,
AuldSoulIn response to the general flow of the thread:
Someone asked why God would use evolution/guide its progress. Let's take God out of the equation for a moment: Why would anyone use evolutionary development of anything?
Someone mentioned that the concept of God is poorly defined. The same can be said of much of recognized and even utilized physics. It is perfectly understandable that God would be ill-defined if God exists in a part of physical reality that is outside our ability to perceive but can, nonetheless, influence physical reality we can perceive. It is at the very point, in physics, when reality plainly steps beyond our capacity for perception that our definitions of observed reality become lacking.
Certainly anyone who believes the Bible believes that God is extraterrestrial (in the sense that God exists beyond earth, is not earthbound). There is quite a lot of data to suggest that there has been influential external manipulation of the progression of life on this planet. Someone posted a link to a Web site that offers a $100,000 reward to anyone who can explain (in basic terms) the introduction of entirely new code sets into a closed system without extraterrestrial influence.
Also, I challenge believer in God to examine carefully whether the evidence indicates that the "human" result was acheived without trial and error. If we are created in his image, wouldn't we expect the human design models that have existed ever since the first fletcher to also be present with God? Why did believers impose on God the incapacity for trial and error? The inverse of this becomes that trial and error on the part of humans is a sign of imperfection. But is it? Really?
Would you even want to get everything exactly right the first time you tried it?
Back to the original question, taking God out of the equation for a moment: Why would anyone use evolutionary development of anything?
Designing systems that build on previous systems and watching them become more comlpex, delighting in the interactions between elements of the system, watching which parts fail and designing more resilient models in the future...sound familiar? That's what humans do. Humans use evolutionary development in the improvement of ALL our systems and most of our products. In evolution, there is plenty to indicate that actually happened.
When looking for the signs of design in [fill in the blank], one looks to known design first, then determines whether those signs are present in [fill in the blank]. I see plenty of evidence in favor of design. I don't need to explain God to reach that conclusion.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul