Evolution vs. Creation

I think what Jolly is doing is using participation of this argument to show its stupidity. Sort of like an individual who runs for a political office for the sole purpose of resigning once they are elected. However, stupidity within an argument is usually dependent upon the participants of it. A debate can be either intellectually rich or a wealth of stupidity based on the individuals involved.

I'll admit that arguing in a debate in order to prove its pointlessness is inherently pointless itself, and therefor selfdestructive. However, I think its acceptable for use. Just my opinion.

Personally, I don't think that evolution is a theory. I believe that it's a fact. You can clearly see how different species can evolve or change.

It's the "why" that gets everyone upset. I also don't think that evolution is necessarily antithetical to creationism. Yes, evolution happens, but there could very well be a guiding hand. Now, I well know that this is a science fiction novel and not often considered literature, but has anyone read Calculating God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emily655321

If you think this debate is trivial, why don't you just go away? Are you trying to gain recognition as someone who devotes their time and energy to the discussion of something totally meaningless?

Also, P.S., you admitted it is a debate. Ha. :p

---

lol! I love this. Youre a cutie! :thumbs_up
If they had a heart smilie, itd be your from me! :nod:
If I left then I wouldnt havew so much fun with yall.
You and sword mouth debate, so its a debate.
i criticise your use of the language. Thats no debate. Im allowed to use the word. But If I said that I was participating in this thread as a debater, then you re either mistaken or I was out of context. You can debate it all you want. I still think your a cutie :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by retrowilde

Personally, I don't think that evolution is a theory. I believe that it's a fact. You can clearly see how different species can evolve or change.

It's the "why" that gets everyone upset. I also don't think that evolution is necessarily antithetical to creationism. Yes, evolution happens, but there could very well be a guiding hand. Now, I well know that this is a science fiction novel and not often considered literature, but has anyone read Calculating God?

---

Evolution IS a theory. The problem arrises when people are misinformed as to what a theory is. "Theories are general hypotheses that have been tested and subjected to verification through accumulated evidence" (Intro to Physical Anthropology, Jurmain). Therefore, calling something a theory is actually a positive suggestion, rather than a negative one. It means that it has survived the test of time and hasn't been falsified.

And as you say evolution is not necessarily antithetical to creationism. In fact, today the official position of the Catholic Church is that evolutionary processes do occur but that the human soul is of divine creation and not subject to evolutionary processes. At the same time, I can see how believers would see Evolution as contrary to their beliefs, because if evolution is true, then the Creation story is not. The Creation story is the bible, so does that then call into question the validitiy of the rest of the bible? This is a question I myseld have struggled with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by water lily

Evolution IS a theory. The problem arrises when people are misinformed as to what a theory is. "Theories are general hypotheses that have been tested and subjected to verification through accumulated evidence" (Intro to Physical Anthropology, Jurmain). Therefore, calling something a theory is actually a positive suggestion, rather than a negative one. It means that it has survived the test of time and hasn't been falsified.

And as you say evolution is not necessarily antithetical to creationism. In fact, today the official position of the Catholic Church is that evolutionary processes do occur but that the human soul is of divine creation and not subject to evolutionary processes. At the same time, I can see how believers would see Evolution as contrary to their beliefs, because if evolution is true, then the Creation story is not. The Creation story is the bible, so does that then call into question the validitiy of the rest of the bible? This is a question I myseld have struggled with.

---

No.
I think the bible was written during a time when the authors didnt expect alot from the readers, in terms of comprehending the underlying themes.
Its a mis mash of many authors bringing thier stories all together with wee bit of embellishment. behind the scenes, the bible is all true. but across the sands of time the story has MUTATED to meet the aims of a mere few. but not all of it is like this.
I think alot of the true bible has been sensored out long ago by people we will never learn about, maybe. Even on the walls of the tombs of the great pyramid lies the truth about some of the stories that lie therein.
Fret not fair lass! keep reading and looking for clues...
they "threw the baby out with the bathwater" in its sensorship

Id like to clarify something, dear water lily. ;)
Evolution definately is not a theory anymore. Itwas surely, back in Darwins time, when it was new and being debated by scientists in a scientific forum. This is no scientific forum. And you can ask any scientist that is an EDUCATED PUBLISHED Doctor of Philosophy in Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics: the "true" sciences they are called.
True scientists do not waste thier time discussing evolution as a theory because its not a theory. it has entered the realm of what we scientists call Scientific Truth. Hence, it is no longer a theory as it shows great disrespect to Darwin who successfully debated it and proved that evolution was agreed to be scientific truth. There are few scientific truths. Evolution is a gimme when it comes to being a scientific truth.
If it was a theory then scientists would be debating it still. Currently there are no reputable scientists debating evolution because they would be laughed at because there is NO DEBATE> ITS IS SCIENTIFIC TRUTH> As I stated earlier, the debate ended about 150 years ago. lets move on. THERe IS NO LONGER A DEBATE.
If you want to discuss it here interms of creatinist dogma, then you will find that the creationists will be discussing it with themselves! No reputable scientists will participate in debating something that has been accepetd as scientific fact for 15 decades or more.
Hence my point, all you people who want me to go away. There is no debate. There is no debate there is NO DEBATE!
You just make yourselves look silly by flinging insults and abuse at me because I want to set the record straight for those of you who are misinformed.
Abroad, in the news, do the headlines say Scientists debate evolution? No. ID ers rather dictate that there is one, so that the bible will be taught in american public schools.
Debate sensorship, or the patriot act. Or nuclear non proliferation. Dont try to remake the wheel.
Thank you all for your patience and have a good night and a pleasant tomorow.
peace :bday_2:

dearest jollyollie,
Evolution is a Theory. My point was that calling it a theory is not an insult but a compliment. No, scientists do not debate it, they all believe in Evolution as a truth, but they will all agree that ini scientific terms it is a theory. Having taken a biology course last semester, and beeing in a human origins class now, I feel confident that I am not mistaken. I agree with the idea you're trying to express, but feel that you misunderstand the scientific definition of a theory.

If everyone would, please, take lightly to a little criticism... Everybody in this thread who debates over evolution or creation, beliefs, respect, and whether it's wrong or right to fight for your beliefs (or should I say for the RESPECT of your beliefs), needs to realize that half the argument is contradicting "the argument" in itself. One argues that only some beliefs are worth respecting and others are not (that type of outlook, by the way, will cause conflict), while another feels that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and that their beliefs should be respected (no matter how bazaar), and then there is the belief that beliefs should not be taken so personal because taking offense and fighting because of it is pointless. However, as I read on I can sense strong beliefs, offense, bitterness, aggression, and most important angry confliction. The fact that a lot of the argument is the belief that beliefs should not be fought over is a contradiction in itself. I BELIEVE that the only rational direction is to respect everyone’s beliefs and in turn get respect for your own beliefs. In that case your beliefs can be personal, and it's difficult to be offended by respect.

(addressed to Atiguhya Padma below)
Also by who's and what standards would you consider a belief to be respectable. In my opinion that is an extremely arrogant, stubborn, and narrow minded thought process. I don’t think that you are any better to judge which beliefs are worthy and which are not than the next person. I can say one thing for certain, I'm sure most will agree, the sure way to get disrespect is to give disrespect, and I feel that you have disrespected everyone (and their beliefs) in this debate. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niteskytwilight

If everyone would, please, take lightly to a little criticism... Everybody in this thread who debates over evolution or creation, beliefs, respect, and whether it's wrong or right to fight for your beliefs (or should I say for the RESPECT of your beliefs), needs to realize that half the argument is contradicting "the argument" in itself. One argues that only some beliefs are worth respecting and others are not (that type of outlook, by the way, will cause conflict), while another feels that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and that their beliefs should be respected (no matter how bazaar), and then there is the belief that beliefs should not be taken so personal because taking offense and fighting because of it is pointless. However, as I read on I can sense strong beliefs, offense, bitterness, aggression, and most important angry confliction. The fact that a lot of the argument is the belief that beliefs should not be fought over is a contradiction in itself. I BELIEVE that the only rational direction is to respect everyone’s beliefs and in turn get respect for your own beliefs. In that case your beliefs can be personal, and it's difficult to be offended by respect.

---

Although this is an articulate and passionately argued contribution, I think there are problems with it. I know that you define your position as a belief but you are offering an approach, which I think is open to challenge, on the basis of that belief. While I have nothing to say about your belief per se, I do find your suggestion that “the only rational direction is to respect everyone’s beliefs and in turn get respect for your own beliefs” very difficult to accept. Doesn’t it mean that we must respect the views of racists, psychopaths, the mentally ill and so on? Perhaps you realise this and would say ‘yes’. In which case are such people also entitled to offer a 'direction' as you have done? Surely, by simple logic, not all of these differing beliefs can prevail: either we decide that murder is acceptable, in which case we allow it, or it isn’t, it which case we try to prevent it. If, however, you say ‘no’ then aren’t you yourself deciding that some beliefs are unacceptable in the sense that you would try to ensure that they are not acted upon?

While not respecting someone’s view might bring conflict, that view itself can be seen to invite conflict. If someone makes an outrageously racist remark, then surely the responsibility for any ensuing conflict lies with the holder of that belief, and not with anyone who doesn’t respect it?

Is there no situation in which you feel disrespect is ever justified? Do you respect the Nazis in their view that the entire Jewish race should be exterminated in gas chambers?

"Is there no situation in which you feel disrespect is ever justified? Do you respect the Nazis in their view that the entire Jewish race should be exterminated in gas chambers?"

Godwin? end of thread?

niteskytwilight said:

<(addressed to Atiguhya Padma below)
Also by who's and what standards would you consider a belief to be respectable. In my opinion that is an extremely arrogant, stubborn, and narrow minded thought process. I don’t think that you are any better to judge which beliefs are worthy and which are not than the next person. I can say one thing for certain, I'm sure most will agree, the sure way to get disrespect is to give disrespect, and I feel that you have disrespected everyone (and their beliefs) in this debate. :mad>

Is this supposed to be an attitude of respect for my beliefs niteskytwilight? You believe that all beliefs should be given respect. I do not. It is therefore your duty to respect my belief is it not? It is certainly not my duty to respect yours if I think it is nonsense. Were you to believe the sky is a gigantic pudding bowl that covers the earth, I certainly wouldn't give your beliefs any respect for that. With your attitude though, you would feel that you must respect all my beliefs no matter how ridiculous they are. The statement that I quote above seems a funny way of walking your talk.

The sure way to get disrespect is to go around talking nonsense and expecting people to respect your for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

"Is there no situation in which you feel disrespect is ever justified? Do you respect the Nazis in their view that the entire Jewish race should be exterminated in gas chambers?"

Godwin? end of thread?

---

Well, not quite yet :) If somebody starts making +personal+ insults about some other member being a Nazi, then they would get deleted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

Well, not quite yet :) If somebody starts making +personal+ insults about some other member being a Nazi, then they would get deleted.

---

You can delete people? Wow! That's power. :nod:

I will be more careful around you in future. Although I can't help thinking that you should really be using this power to delete the nazis, not their opponents. Where were you in the 1930s? ;)

gotta love this freedom of speech concept.. :D you can say anything you want unless it is against things we decided to tolerate/like/support... :lol: Hypocrisy all over the place... :brickwall

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe

You can delete people? Wow! That's power. :nod:

I will be more careful around you in future. Although I can't help thinking that you should really be using this power to delete the nazis, not their opponents. Where were you in the 1930s? ;)

---

That would be great if I could just vaporise some real people in just a few clicks :lol:

What I +meant+ was that a flaming/naming post à la Godwin would be edited or deleted.

Amra, there is no "true" freedom of speech here. Admin is the benevolent dictator, he formed the rules for his site and the Mods oversee that they are followed. It's pretty simple. I'm sorry that you see "hypocrisy" when some people are just trying to do their job.

I wonder if it's possible that this topic will get back on track? :)