Printable View
I know what a mimmic is. And I am sorry for offending you. Also, what I meant was combining two things into something new, which is something that was not thaught. I will further refrain from commenting in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by okmit
Pendragon,
If you question everything, and only rely only on evidence you yourself have seen, I presume then that you do not believe in the resurrection? Or all the other magical mumbo-jumbo that the bible asks you to swallow without question.
Also, Pendragon, in order to disbelieve evolutionary science, don't you have to believe that all the scientists involved in it, including Darwin, whose own Christianity caused him to sit on his discoveries for decades and his immediate successor Mendel, who was a Christian monk, are colluding in some gigantic lie?
Well, it actually seems to us that there is a difference between books like Bible and works of Darwin. Bible dictates what is true and what is not. Books of evolution are in some point like math books - they don't dictate the truth, but help you to deduct it yourself - a sort of knowledgical midwife.Quote:
On the other hand, how is reading books on evolution going to convince someone who doesn't believe either?
It is quite similar between believing the Pythagoras theorem without evidence and believing it, because you, with the help of a math book, proved it.
So you are suggesting that scientists are lying to us? Excuse me, but to me, it seems a bit like some strange conspiracy theory.Quote:
If they say, "This fossil is a hundred-millon years old, we can prove it by carbon dating.", the sheep follow without question. Now me, I question EVERYTHING. It thus becomes easier for me to belive in a supreme God, than in say, the primordal soup theory, since if it were correct, we could certainly duplicate it in a controled labroratory environment.
And about questioning everything (a good thing, Descartes did the same) do you also question the existence of God and the creation theory?
And if we are not mistaken, they have achieved at least proteins in laboratory conditions, if not life.
No one is following science like a sheep, outside of the few idiots that just believe what they read right off the bat, but there are plenty of each on both sides of this idea. The way you word it shows that no matter what kind of evidence we show you, you'll never believe it in any case. Unless God himself came down and said "Evolution is true, knock off all the crap about me doing it in 6 days" I doubt you'd believe anything. Once you call science a religion your whole basis for reality goes out the window. Science is a gathering of evidence to prove theories that share a possibility of being correct. They're constantly reviewed by thousands upon millions of people daily and checked and changed to better fit new evidence gathered. It's only a religion to the ignorant person that claims science is somehow infallible. Science admits to being wrong all the time, but they also reiterate being right many times over as well in varying arrays of the world around us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Not everyone follows science blindly on their findings, as atiguhya padma said: "There is plenty of evidence for evolution: fruitflies, moths and bacteria all supply evidence of it. Take any creature that has a short lifespan, play around with its environment in specific ways and you will see evolution in action. Why do you think viruses are so good at combatting antibiotics?" There are plenty of things anyone can try to prove evolution, but some people would rather dispute it outright in favor of some magical sky pixie doing the job of their thinking it through dialectically for them.
In the time to make this post three other replies popped up, so I'll leave it to them more so about your other points and posts.
I believe that Darwin's mechanism for evolution doesn't doesn't explain much of what is seen under a microscope.Cells are much too complex to have evolved randomly;intelligence was required to produce them.
The word "evolution" carries many associations.Usually it means common descent--the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no problem with the idea of common descent,and believe it explains similarities among species.By itself however,common descent doesnt explain the vast differences among species.
Thats where Darwin's mechanism comes in."Evolution" also sometimes implies that a random mutation and natural selection powered the changes in life.The idea is that just by chance an animal was born that was slightly faster or stronger than its siblings.Its descendants inherited the change and eventually won the contest of survival over the descendants of other members of the species.Over time,repetition of the process resulted in great changes--and,indeed,wholly different animals.
That's the theory.A practical difficulty,however,is that one cant test the theory from fossils.To really test the theory,one has to observe contemporary change in the wild,in the laboratory or at least reconstruct a detailed pathway that might have led to a certain adaptation.
Darwianian theory successfully accounts for a variety of modern changes.Scientists have shown that the average beak size of Galapagos finches changed in response to altered weather patterns.Likewise,the ratio of dark-to light-colored moths in England shifted when pollution made light colored moths more visible to predators.Mutant bacteria survive when they become resistant to antibiotics.These are all clear examples of natural selection in action.But these examples involve only one or a few mutations,and the mutant organism is not much different from its ancestor.Yet to account for all of life,a series of mutations would have to produce very different types of creatures.That has not yet been demonstrated.
Darwin's theory encounters its greatest difficulties when it comes to explaining the development of the cell.Many cellular systems are"irreducibly complex."That means the system needs several componets before it can work properly.An everyday example is a mouse trap,built of several pieces(platform,hammer,spring and so on.)Such a system probably cannot be put together in a Darwinian manner,gradually improving its function.You cant catch a mouse with just the platform and then catch a few more by adding the spring.All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice.
An example of an irreducible complex cellular system is the bacterial flagellum:a rotary propeller,powered by a flow of acid,that bacteria use to swim.The flagellum requires a number of parts before it works--a rotor,stator and motor.Furthermore,genetic studies have shown that about 40 different kinds of proteins are needed to produce a working flagellum.
The intracellular transport system is also quite complex.Plant and animal cells are divided into many discrete compartments;supplies,including enzymes and protiens,have to be shipped between these compartments.Some supplies are packaged into molecular trucks,and each truck has a key that will fit only the lock of its particular cellular destination.Other protiens act as loading docks,opening the truck and letting the contents into the destination compartment.
Many other examples could be cited. The bottom line is that the cell--the very basis of life--is staggeringly complex.Science has no answers,or partial answers,for how these systems originated.James Shapiro,a biochemist at the University of Chicago wrote,"There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system,only a variety of wishful speculations."
Whenever we see interactive systems(such as a mouse trap)in the everyday world,we assume that they are the products of intelligent activity.We should extend the reasoning to cellular systems. We know of no other mechanism,including Darwin's,which produces such complexity.Only intelligence does.
Intelligent design may mean that the ultimate explanation for life is beyond scientific explanation.I dont want the best scientific explanation for life;I want the correct explanation.
Before I reply to this: Quote your sources that you plagiarize next time. http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ce/sc0017.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by okmit
And a beautiful question to ask you, since you uphold that complex organisms or anything complex means it has to be designed: Who made God? If you say no one, why? Does God somehow not fit into your elaborately complex idea of intelligent design? How is it that complexity is merely a subjective point of view to those who can't wrap their heads around a concept too hard for them to understand probability wise?
There's proof already that this world exists, as far as the evidence shows through what we have discovered; that this world wasn't designed, but actually did grow into what it is today. So no matter how complex and impossible this life around us supposedly is; we've still got the fact that it did happen and until you can spot God's fingerprints on the ground itself, it'll have to do as an accurate representation.
Obviously we can't watch an organism grow into a whole different species because that takes thousands of years to do, but we can watch it adapt and evolve through its generations into something more efficient. The fact of the matter is, the only argument or point intelligent design makes is: It is too complex to be random, god must have done it.
Personally that sort of logic seems flawed, but if you can accept it, good for you. The great part about creationism is that it offers no evidence of its own theories being correct; it only critiques evolution. There is no evidence of creationism out there and I've never seen any outside of "This is too complex to be random!" which isn't evidence at all: merely supposing facts on already real things.
Plagerize!This comming from an athiest(belief in nothing) that has already proclaimed Nothing is original,everything is a mimick.Should I have used quotation marks to denote you said it?I thought you said a copy or two with a twist of your own made it original?How many ways do you want it?I concur with the text.
By the way,it came from Michael J Behe files,associate professor of biochemistry at Leigh ,author of "Darwins Black Box:The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution."
I only used a Scientist text because you expressed a faith..or a belief..or a trust in what they bring to the table as opposed to Scripture.However it is clear that you have decided to ignore science when it flies in the face of what you believe..or think...or theorize.
As for the faithless heaping acolades on on those that have vaporized 280 thousand men, women,and children with their brilliant invention,stated ddt was environmentaly safe,that their was no danger in dumping agent orange on my head in nam,that said if we put catylitic converters on our gas powered push mowers and cut in the mornig or evening the hole in the ozone would heal itself...while they continue burning hundreds of thousands of pounds of rocket fuel thru it.Good luck
We're on a literature forum, plagiarism is serious stuff. I'm fine with posting someone else's ideas, just cite them. By the way, atheism is only a lack of belief in gods. You're thinking nihilism, which believes in "nothing" so to speak. An atheist can be anyone, believe in anything, do anything they want, so long as it involves them not believing in gods. But hey, way to act original and bring up the ole' "atheists believe in nothing" idea. Really, good job.Quote:
Originally Posted by okmit
Oh, so it's just a personal problem. Well there's your problem right there. Just because some douche makes a nuclear weapon, develops a biological agent to destroy lives, creates some weapon of any sort of destruction, doesn't make science evil. If you were an adult about these sort of things, you might know that. Blame the warmongers, blame the stupid governments that made it legal to use, blame the industrialists and capitalists that stiffled environmentalism all these years-but do not, and I repeat, do not blame all science for your own personal disagreements with a particular branch of science.Quote:
Originally Posted by okmit
Here I thought I was dealing with someone who at least could manage to defend themselves without resorting to personal attacks or dealing with their problems with science in a more objective sense, but it appears you've gone and based your entire dislike for science on a completely personal problem. Get some counseling, stop arguing, it's just absurd. And no this isn't an attack, it's a simple truth of the situation you've brought up. I'm fine discussing a thought on evolution and even defending evidence v. no evidence, even bringing the bible into a discussion, but at no point will anything get done if it's just one big conspiracy hatefest against science in general for some personal cause.
I wonder why life cannot be made up of both creation and evolution but it appears that it has to be one or the other here. I believe we were created first then we evolve with each passing breath we take. Evolution does not have to always mean a physical, biological, or even turning into a whole species to happen. Evolving is growing beyond what you were in the past in my opinion not Darwin's or anyone else's. The big picture is not how intelligent we are or how stupid we are but that we strive to continue to learn each day about who we are and the world around us. Scientific proof not matter whether it is disproved down the road give us a start to where to look for the answers. Which is at least a beginning and I think we should question theories as well as the Bible. In order to find truth but truth is not always easy for all us to find but at least I seek it.
Didn't we note that both of them at the same time is quite fine a few pages ago? There are just some folks that can't accept evolution, just as there are some that can't accept creationism. Life starting from God is fine, when it's looked on as a belief, in my opinion. If it is attempted to be looked at as a fact, then science has to come up to check said facts, which will only end up disputing the facts presented, which is why I said (in a sense) "creationism's sole purpose is to disprove evolution" in today's age at least. No one ever minds that God might've created earth, started evolution, etc, but when creationism spends 99% of its time arguing about evolution's many proven facets rather than presenting its own "evidence" the problem arises.
I agree that psychological evolution is but a concept we all must take, to grow as people into what we feel is best for our lives, be they guided by faith or reason or both. Question everything, but don't be afraid to take a stance on something that might be wrong. I state all the time that I don't know everything, but I don't hear enough from the other side stating similar. I may not know if anything is true, but I can still believe that things are true. That's how we have a discussion, we pick a side and try to poke holes in the other side, to better understand how our side works and the other works. Works well enough, so long as one tries to remain somewhat objective in their own subjective truths.. heh.
If it was stated a few pages back forgive me my brain is working on stress right now. There are people out there who refuse to consider other theories and stand by their own as solid truth. I feel that if you do not explore others ideals, beliefs, cultures, and theories how are you going to grow as a person. I know there is a good chance everything I know is wrong but I also know that there is a good chance I am right. I feel that answers are going to come from many sources and in the end I decide whether they are true or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyrwen
Quote:
Originally Posted by okmit
Whether you agree with someone else's words or not if you copy their words you should be respectful enough to say so. For they where not written or said by you first. Also being a athiest has nothing to with plagiarism. I apologize for my comments but you appeared to be not respecting the opinions of others.
Do you think we truly can find the truth about evolution vs creation through either science or the Bible? I am curious about what people think about this for me I believe both can lead us to those answers but in the end don't we really decide what is true for ourselves?
Of course we decide ourselves, and no one will ever truly convince the other side completely because there will always be someone to believe God did it in 6 days, no evolution required. And so long as God remains unprovable, as gods usually are since they don't leave behind evidence outside of testimonies, that sort of thought will continue forever.
It's a difference of those that will always choose to follow their emotions, their faith, their feelings, and those that are willing to take what they see as reasonable as a good justification of their beliefs being corect. I'm not saying there isn't a middle ground, I'm just saying no one is ever going to prove the other side entirely wrong, because there are always holes in the theory and there are always arguments from the other side. So long as one side has evidence and the other side faith, by definition no need for evidence, the discussion will continue on forever and ever.
I see fossils, I see adaptation, I see carbon and radiometric dating, I see plate tectonics, and abiogenesis in molecules being proven again and again. The age of the universe, of the earth, of the creatures around us and their inevitable changes through the eons being proven again and again. And I find it reasonable, I accept it as true because I haven't seen anything to show otherwise. I haven't been approached by a feeling of God in my heart, nor have I read the Bible and thought "Gee, sounds beautiful, so right." We all follow what feels best to us, whether it be some long complex reasonable explanation or some short, to the point, idea that feels right no matter the lack of empirical proof.
Although I stand by my assertion that creationism is a belief, not a theory, which only exists to disprove evolution rather than prove itself. The creation story is a different idea, but to use it to prove evolution false is about as sane as me using Lord Of the Rings to prove the Earth has more than one realm to it. Literature and scientific studies are two different things entirely, but until people get around to thinking differently, I don't expect the contrast to arise anytime soon.