no im saying that it doesn't tie in with the laws of physics and our current understanding of the universe. i refuse to believe in something which may or may not exist, i choose to follow proof and if not proof then at least some kind of solid evidence. science allows us this freedom to better understand things not yet known. which is why im agnostic, open to the possibility that something may exist, and if it can be proved beyond a doubt then only will i comfortably accept the idea that im not wasting my time. however currently i will not waste my time on something which makes absolutely no sense with respect to our current understanding of the laws of physics.Prometheus said:I don't understand exactly what you're saying here. Sounds like you don't belief that what is said by religion could indeed happen. Could you please explain this to me.
Lol - Yes! If I can stay safe from flames until Friday I am thinking about signing up for Jabulani's free fettucine and Spaghetti Monster offer!ajak said:Now you have gone and done it....HIDE! THE FLAMES ARE GONNA EAT YOU ALIVE he he
Rkootknir, to you sir I owe an apology. I did not mean to get you write what you did, and I am sorry I provoked it.Prometheus said:Rwenzori. There's only so much a person can say to someone mocking religion. I've said what I could say. All I can do now is hope that they will come to enlightenment and let God take care of them as He said that vengeance is His.
dude i would tend to agree with him, if you dont believe there's global warming as a result of the hole in the ozone layer, then you may as well believe the earth is flat. the hole is over the poles, causing the poles to melt, increasing sea levels as well as surface temperature of the water. this is enough to give rise to storms. i refer you to the following linkcaptainwifi said:On the BBC the reporter asked a global warming alarmist what about the people who disagree. His answer:"... they are on the same level as people who believe the earth is flat". Reverting to ad-hominim attacks is something you do when you can't answer the question.
Still sounds the same to me as physically impossible. What do you consider solid evidence? We can both agree that we probably can't prove or disproof the bible based on the science available to us today. But what about independant accounts of an occurence. If people who didn't know one another can write down the same event taking place, can someone then still claim that event to be fictional just because there's no scientific proof for it.Highflyer_GP said:no im saying that it doesn't tie in with the laws of physics and our current understanding of the universe. i refuse to believe in something which may or may not exist, i choose to follow proof and if not proof then at least some kind of solid evidence.
You are doomedWretchedToadlll said:*backs away from rwenzori....
what an excellent thread but nonetheless, if it werent for Jabu an Pip and a few others i wouldve been bogged down and nodded off way back...
Keeps the smiles coming.....
I disagree. The one is based on the scientific method (the TOE), the other one is based on the supernatural (Creationism). The supernatural can never be used to do science as I have pointed out before, so Creationism is excluded from science. It is simply a religious opinion (RO), and as such doesn't matter any more than my RO, your RO or anybody else's RO to the world of science.Doges said:Both theories/beliefs do have holes you can focus on. Does that make one more "wrong" than the other? No.
Most of examples you gave of problems with the TOE have been explained (or disproved). Take a look at the relevant literature, or at Talk.Origins for the simplified version.Doges said:Evolution: This is a theory that tries to explain the diversity of animals we see today. It proposes a genetic mechanism with which changes occur to give some individual animal an edge over another. Thereby making that animal more likely to survive under certain adverse conditions. Following the theory through it means that all of us are descended from single celled organisms that made their appearance on pre-historic earth 3500-2800 Million years ago. These organism were prokaryotic (Bacteria), only about 2000 Million years later did eukaryotic cells (Eukaryotic cells are more complex than procaryotic cells, and are found in plants, animals and fungi) made an appearance (1500 Million years ago). (Eukaryotic cells differ from Prokaryotic cells in that eukaryotic cells contain many membrane bound organelles, small membrane-bound structures inside the cell which carry out specialized functions. For example, the nucleus is surrounded by a nuclear membrane and contains most of the heriditary material (DNA) of the cell.) Between 1500 and 600 Million years ago we see the rise of the first multicellular organisms. 545 Million years ago we had, what is commonly known among biologists, the so-called "Cambrian explosion" where many of the commonly found body-shapes (and many more you can't imagine) made their first appearance. The first vertebrates (organisms with a backbone) only made an appearnace 500-450 million years ago (Fishes). That is a whopping 2955 Million years after live made it's first appearance on earth! First landanimals (Millipedes) evolved 420 Million years ago. The first mammals only appeared 220 Million years later! And up intel 65 Million years ago mammals played second fiddle to the reptiles (Dinosours). And then, 50 million years ago the first primative monkeys evolved. It then rook a further 30 to 38 Million years for the first homonid lines to evolve. And humans made their grand entrance approximately 0.05 Million years ago. Amazing! So what are the problem with this theory? Two things. Firstly time. It took 1100 Million years from the appearance of earth, to the appearance of the first forms of life. It took 2000 million Years for Eukariotic cells to make an appearance. From the end of the time of dinosours (65 Million years ago) to the appearance of the primative monkeys took 15 Million years. From there to the development of bipedalism (A prerequisate for himans) took a further 46 Million years. And then, in only about the space of 4 Million years did Humans evolve.
3300 Million Years for Prokariotic cells to evolve. About 50 million years for humans to evolve (From appearance of first primative monkeys). Which is more complex. A single-celled organism, or a human? Secondly, selection. Evolution advances the development of species by selection of traits that are beneficial to the organism. So explain to me how a structure like an eye would evolve. You would start with say a few cells that are photo-responsive. Can sense say light and dark. How do you get from that, to a human eye? Do you think the intermediary steps will be beneficial to the organism in which a mutation to his photoreceptive cells occurred? What about Lungs? Ever saw a fossil with intermediate lungs. Selection explains some advances, but cannot always explain the appearance of many specialized organs in higher animals. Does this make the theory of evolution wrong? No, it just means we don't know everything!
Quite so, Creationism invokes the supernatural.Doges said:Creationism: There is a divine creator that made the universe, earth, and everything on it. The Bible does not tell you how G-d did it. It just tell you G-d did it. The Bible is not a manual that shows us all the intricate details of creation. It is rather a collection of stories that teaches us how to behave and how to live. However, many of the historical facts in the Bible can be independently verified. So, where are G-d, I can't see Him! That is what BELIEF is all about. I don't have to see something to believe it's there. It is my choice! I choose to see G-d in the natural world, all around me. So there are really no concrete facts that shows us G-d exist. It is a choice to believe in Him or not. Wheter you want to believe in Him or not is your choice. However, don't mock my beliefs. Does the fact that we cannot prove the existance of G-d make it wrong to believe in Him? No, it just means we don't know everything (See previous paragraph on Evolution)
Here is where I differ, as I've already pointed out in the first paragraph. Science vs Religion, the supernatural (God) can never be used as an element in the scientific method.Doges said:So are these theories mutually exclusive? No, I don't think so. To me evolution is a mechanism designed by G-d to drive his creation. He might have pushed evolution in certain directions to get to where He wanted it to go. The Bible tells us that we are the crown of His creation. And what would you know, evolutionists thinks the same!
Well let us try to answer this.Doges said:Why, if you don't believe in something/one do you try to belittle those that do? I thought this debate was about creationism vs evolution (something, which in my opinion are not mutually exclusive). But some people rather descend to a level of childish name calling and invention of invisible playmates (spaghetti monsters). Some in-duh-viduals stoops to ridiculing the beliefs of others, rather than focusing on the issues. In my mind this is counterproductive and frankly a sign of intellectual inability to debate issues.
True, the supernatural can never be used to do science. But, the debate started by pitting creationism against evolution. Naturally that drew religion into the debate. And I gave my Religious opinion on how I choose to view the natural world. If this debate was about selection versus spontanious change as the most important drive in evolution, I would not have talked about my religious beliefs!Rkootknir said:I disagree. The one is based on the scientific method (the TOE), the other one is based on the supernatural (Creationism). The supernatural can never be used to do science as I have pointed out before, so Creationism is excluded from science. It is simply a religious opinion (RO), and as such doesn't matter any more than my RO, your RO or anybody else's RO to the world of science.
Do you have a problem with the timeline? Or the fact that there is no evolutionary payoff for having an intermediate eye? Or maybe the fact that we have found no fossils with such intermediate samples? I do not talk about fossils that are an intermediate between a amphibian and a fish. I talk about fossils with intermediate organs such as eyes. For an eye to look and function the way it does, needs a huge number of genetic changes from having photo-sensitive cells only. It cannot come about with one chance mutation. Please give links to this literature as I do enjoy reading science history. I also enjoy learning more about evolution, especially as I did some molecular work on the evolutionary link between various pathogenic fungi in a certain genus. I have no problem with the theory of evolution. I do however, recognise that there are certain unknowns and therefore assumptions we cannot always adequately explain. If there are explanations, or concrete proof for some of these assumptions, it is fine. I love facts. To me my religion is on another level as the physical world, it cannot be challenged by what I learn about the world I live in. I know the site talk.origins. and visit it often. That is where I got the timeline from. O yes, and thanks for your concern about giving me axess to the simplified version. I suppose because I am a Christian I would have a problem with the "more complex stuff".Rkootknir said:Most of examples you gave of problems with the TOE have been explained (or disproved). Take a look at the relevant literature, or at Talk.Origins for the simplified version.
I agree, so why then the debate of creationism against evolution? While I do not try to explain the occurrence of certain natural phenomena by hiding behind G-d, I do believe that everything is part of his creation. Including the mechanisms of change, such as evolution.Rkootknir said:Quite so, Creationism invokes the supernatural.Here is where I differ, as I've already pointed out in the first paragraph. Science vs Religion, the supernatural (God) can never be used as an element in the scientific method.
The spaghetti monster story was created by those apposed to the teaching of creationism in science and biology classes. Their point was that if the Christian point of view on creation can be taught in science class than so can the spaghetti point of view. The goal was to make sure that creationism doesn't get taught in science classes but rather in religious classes where it belongs.Doges said:[...] and invention of invisible playmates (spaghetti monsters). Some in-duh-viduals stoops to ridiculing the beliefs of others, rather than focusing on the issues. In my mind this is counterproductive and frankly a sign of intellectual inability to debate issues.
What would a religious person accept as proof that g-d doesn't exist? If science where to prove the TOE correct would that be enough? There will always be unanswered questions so there will always be people who choose to use religion as the answer to them.Doges said:By Rkootknir's own admission this is a moot point! One cannot use the supernatural to prove or disprove something arrived at using scientific method! Following from that statement, it is also true that scientific method can never be used to prove or disprove the existance of G-d.