Gedanken

Joined

• started 4 topics
• posted 134 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Gedanken

• 
  56

  Don't believe in Evolution or Creation.

  by sleepy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  what am i going to do , i'm not fully convinced by evolution or creation arguments.. they are both flawed in different ways, and suffer from a lack of evidence.although change through evolution does happen how far this can go is unknown.complexity from design does happen but usually leaves evidence .also no theories can go far enought in answering the ultimate questions.evolution relies on a universe that springs into existance, creation on a god that does so.evolution requires many complex and unlikely senarios in order to have happened so does creation.the fossil record is incomplete and without the missing pieces we can only infer what else should be there.god is either very shy or has lost his voice and dosen't seem bothered to prove his existance.. yet i exist, and the very heart of my being , the conscious mind is one of the least understood phenomenons in the universe.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gedanken

  Ferric oxide girl,

  Good points - you post on the Guardian talkboads now and then, correct?

  Gdnkn
• 
  56

  Don't believe in Evolution or Creation.

  by sleepy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  what am i going to do , i'm not fully convinced by evolution or creation arguments.. they are both flawed in different ways, and suffer from a lack of evidence.although change through evolution does happen how far this can go is unknown.complexity from design does happen but usually leaves evidence .also no theories can go far enought in answering the ultimate questions.evolution relies on a universe that springs into existance, creation on a god that does so.evolution requires many complex and unlikely senarios in order to have happened so does creation.the fossil record is incomplete and without the missing pieces we can only infer what else should be there.god is either very shy or has lost his voice and dosen't seem bothered to prove his existance.. yet i exist, and the very heart of my being , the conscious mind is one of the least understood phenomenons in the universe.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gedanken

  dubla,

  It is only ludicrous if you're ignorant of what a theory is. It seems that you are.

  Gedanken
• 
  56

  Don't believe in Evolution or Creation.

  by sleepy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  what am i going to do , i'm not fully convinced by evolution or creation arguments.. they are both flawed in different ways, and suffer from a lack of evidence.although change through evolution does happen how far this can go is unknown.complexity from design does happen but usually leaves evidence .also no theories can go far enought in answering the ultimate questions.evolution relies on a universe that springs into existance, creation on a god that does so.evolution requires many complex and unlikely senarios in order to have happened so does creation.the fossil record is incomplete and without the missing pieces we can only infer what else should be there.god is either very shy or has lost his voice and dosen't seem bothered to prove his existance.. yet i exist, and the very heart of my being , the conscious mind is one of the least understood phenomenons in the universe.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gedanken

  Matty,

  Which is easier to explain in simple words, the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution? The point being that the fact of evolution is almost as obvious as is the fact of gravity, but no perfect or readily understandable theory exists for either. Of course, gravity can be tested in real time while evolution takes a bit longer. Unfortunately, the theories of gravity and evolution are fairly murky, but the theory of gravity is actually much more difficult to understand than is the theory of evolution.

  Creationists are much like those religionists who persecuted those who argued that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Simply put, they don't like to hear the truth when it conflicts with their beliefs. People haven't changed much from the Middle Ages.

  Gedanken
• 
  56

  Don't believe in Evolution or Creation.

  by sleepy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  what am i going to do , i'm not fully convinced by evolution or creation arguments.. they are both flawed in different ways, and suffer from a lack of evidence.although change through evolution does happen how far this can go is unknown.complexity from design does happen but usually leaves evidence .also no theories can go far enought in answering the ultimate questions.evolution relies on a universe that springs into existance, creation on a god that does so.evolution requires many complex and unlikely senarios in order to have happened so does creation.the fossil record is incomplete and without the missing pieces we can only infer what else should be there.god is either very shy or has lost his voice and dosen't seem bothered to prove his existance.. yet i exist, and the very heart of my being , the conscious mind is one of the least understood phenomenons in the universe.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gedanken

  Sleepy,

  Excellent points. Likewise, I am not fully convinced that gravity exists. You see the theory of gravity is constantly changing and doesn't mesh well with quantum mechanics, for what that's worth. These scientists are always changing their tune - a bit like the WTS - and so cannot be trusted.Given the flaws in the several theories of gravity I'm tempted to put on my seven league boots and jump to the Moon for some free cheese.

  Gedanken
• 
  114

  15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  scientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.

  short and to the point.. this is the first page.

  click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gedanken

  Grunt,

  I like Mesa Verde too. It's much better when you're not on whatever it seems that you're on.

  Gedanken
• 
  114

  15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  scientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.

  short and to the point.. this is the first page.

  click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gedanken

  Grunt,

  You have chosen an apt name.

  Is a snowflake complicated? Who's the maker? How about amino acids spontaneously forming in a test-tube? Your barn analogy is not only pathetically idiotic, it is also self-aggrandizing. So you are Mr/Mrs back-to-the-Earth former of barns. Who gives a stuff? I've painted tons of houses, replaced scores of windows, fixed fleets of cars and mown meadows of grass. So what? Any fool knows that those things cannot be done by chance. You aren't so much missing the point as being too ignorant as to even know that there is a point. Lest you be unduly insulted, I will state that I do like you - for you are trying. But it's a big mf of a universe and trying don't count for much. Try thinking, and after that, get some education. Without that you are just as worth listening to as a monkey with its finger up its ass and its head firmly buried in a pile of deep doodoo.

  Harsh? yes. But get used to it, that is the way of evolution - you can perhaps accrue attention on a board like this, or amongst loony creationists, but can you go out into the real world? That's the acid test. My "buddy" Jan - who I don't even know other than electronically, but whom you stupidly associate with me based only on our coalescence of opinion - no doubt can. I can too. can you? If not then trust in God. Or the Watchtower.

  Hugs,

  G-man.

  ps: not all educated people in the world know each other.......there are many of these types

  pps: edited for typos and several missed opportunities for insult.

  Edited by - Gedanken on 6 August 2002 1:0:23

  Edited by - Gedanken on 6 August 2002 1:3:26
• 
  114

  15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  scientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.

  short and to the point.. this is the first page.

  click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gedanken

  Grunt: light doesn't travel in straight lines. Spacetime is curved. Your barn analogy is not even wrong, it's totally silly. Not only that, it's pretty damn obvious. Even a child can make the argument that complicate dthings all have makers. Problem is it's not true. Also, it's a very childish argument that tends to persist in those who never transecnd childlike thinking.

  pomegranate: dear me, you do sound all het up. Believe me, the Encarta encylopedia is ok, but it's a bit like following Awake!. You need to do your own reasearch. Actually, the claim that you are hanging your hat on is under active dispute by a team from Oxford.

  http://www.nature.com/nsu/020304/020304-6.html

  Ironically, the guy (Schopf, from Ucla) who thought he found cyanobacteria might actually have discovered the primitives that Jan is talking about.

  But the fact remains: bacteria don't necessarily rely on dead things to eat. So, poof goes your FOOD challenge.

  Gedanken
• 
  114

  15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  scientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.

  short and to the point.. this is the first page.

  click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gedanken

  Grunt,

  First of all the bit you quote is in response to a specific argument made by creationists, rather than being a stand-alone statement of why evolution is a fact. In other words, it isn't so much a rationale for evolution - that relies on actual hard evidence - as debunking a particular nonsensical argument against evolution by creationists. If, for example, you stated that the Moon is made of greenish-blue cheese, say gorgonzola, because both things have similar color, rather than having its known composition based on the evidence, my reply might be as follows: "Your argument doesn't hold water because, equally, the moon might be made of diced Thai lake shrimp because of their color.

  The point being not that I believe that, but that it shows the invalidity of the cheese argument. So, the experiment re: Shakespear's play is not anything like a proof of evolution, and it is not meant to be - it is just a demonstration that the argument of the creationists is invalid.

  Creationists assume that life has to take a particular form - a target - and the experiment demonstrates that if a target is known, then it can be discovered through what is called evolutionary computation much faster than people think. If Shakespeare's play is the target, then it can be found randomly very quickly. You ask for a new and original play. But that's changing the rules - the basic premise of the Creationist's argument is that only one sort of life form (let's say RNA/DNA life) is possible and it could not be found randomly. If the target is known, then it can be found quickly, thus debunking the argument. Wanting a new play, is like wanting a new sort of life - but creationists, in their assumption that God is perfect, don't usually like that possibility. Thus the argument of the creationists is demonstrably false - the means by which that argument is refuted does not in itself constitute an argument for evolution nor is it intended to be such.

  In fact, there is no reason the think that life can only be based on a single form - the multitude of past life forms to some extent demonstrate that. Why are there no longer trilobites? Of course all known life on earth, past and present, is nucleic acid based. But it's possible that evolution has found only a single solution (RNA/DNA life) out of a space that conceivably could contain many answers. There's no real way to know the answer to that and it is irrelevant anyway. The physical evidence demonstrates the fact of evolution. Hard as it may be to accept, facts are facts and the creationists have no facts to go off since they reject the facts becaus ethey fail to conform to their preconceived notions.

  The barn analogy is a bad one by the way - there are no straight lines in nature (or very few) for a reason. Life is essentially a liquid phase process and the construction of barns, watches, etc. is thus a bad analogy. A better analogy might be a slurry of inorganic molecules which can form amino acids, or even the complexity of structure that can "by accident" result from something as simple as a freezing drop of water or a pan of hot oil.

  Finally I'd ask the question, if order in the universe is evidence for a creator, then what about the disorder, including the chaotic motion of various asteroids that every now and then wallop a planet such as the Earth. What is that evidence for?

  Gedanken

  Edited by - Gedanken on 4 August 2002 23:39:14
• 
  8

  Canada and Child Abuse - Need a Program There

  by Gedanken in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  dateline was aired in the us, panorama in the uk - the missing link seems to be canada.

  a segment on as it happens, which is broadcast in much of the us would be terrific.

  any thoughts on how to accomplish this?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gedanken

  Dateline was aired in the US, Panorama in the UK - the missing link seems to be Canada. A segment on As It Happens, which is broadcast in much of the US would be terrific. Any thoughts on how to accomplish this?

  Gedanken
• 
  19

  What's Wrong With Having Hope?

  by DakotaRed in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i have noticed for some time now, that when anyone mentions having hope in something said by the bible, some come forth and start asking pointed questions designed to denigrate that hope.

  if one says they hope there is a god, someone else will come on ask how could that be because of all the ills in the world.

  if it is said that one hopes the earth will be restored by god, another will come on and start asking what about lions being vegetarians, and eating birds and mosquitoes and such.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gedanken

  Dakota,

  In itself there's nothing wrong with hope - it's a very human feeling. However, it can lead to problems; e.g., someone could quit their job and become a gambler in the hope of making a killing, or join a nutcase religion that fosters unrealistic expectations that are couched as being "hope." Also, please bear in bind that if one expresses one's hopes on a forum such as this, then many will disagree as well as agree, for discussion is the point of a forum. Presumably, if one felt 100% confident in one's hope(s) then there would be no need to discuss it or them in a forum, unless one was trying to get others to subscribe to that hope. It's one thing to hope that nothing bad happens in the sense of not wanting bad to happen, quite another to hope that stupid or irrational actions or beliefs will not have deleterious or unexepected effects somewhere down the line.

  So all in all it's a complex subject - also, if my "hope" happens to be that there is no God, no driving force at all, and I were to express that here, then would, or should, that go uncontested?

  I don't think it's cynical to have spirited discussions about this topic - after all if our beliefs are robust then they can stand discussion, and if our hopes, however whimsical, or not, are useful emotionally then equally they can withstand discussion. Such hopes reflect intrinsic parts of our own personalities and while others amy argue with them, they are what they are.....

  Hope that makes sense :-)

  Gedankdn