|
Post by Liu Shan on Aug 11, 2008 9:13:36 GMT -5
The Daodejing is more of a set of guidelines on how to live a more peaceful life - this coincides with the ideas of Qi/Chi. It doesn't say you have to believe every word, but more of here is a point.. Take it if you believe it, if not, just try to live a happy life without hurting others.
Creationism? Never heard that before.
However, the dinosaurs were destroyed because they were animals, they needed 2 genders to get offspring. Plant life is different, all you need is 1 seed which can grow into a large amount of crop; as the plant produces seeds that can be carried by the wind to other terrains to grow there.
Though I find it hard to imagine that I or anyone else would have come from fungi or ameobas.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Wu Sheng on Aug 11, 2008 9:19:03 GMT -5
Same rules apply for how can one put blind faith, build entire lives on the simply faith of there being a god. Every bible was written by man, most religions and gods come from stories written and spoken off from man - and what are we...what is mankind.
We are just a race, a very arrogant one at that - who think they're better then everything else. Well that is all true..and that is all proven from history. But to say that one has to see evolution to believe it isn't entirely correct.
Things can evolve, and we see forms of evolution anyway, things change - plants changs and things become mutated, they are forms of evolution one way or another. yeah climax and the way were destroying the world is brining these forms of evolution - but time, regardless is adapting things around us because of our treatment to this planet.
You say a comet destroyed just dinosaurs, then you're probably not to knowledgable on what happened after the comet. Does the cave-man era ring any bells with you, or the ice age. Everything was destroyed, but like all living organsims they learned to adapt, to change on the climax around us - which is why we humans are so very different from country to country, maybe not as a whole, but appearance wise we adapt our skin tones and our attributes from the climax around us, since origionally its said we was all on just 1 hige continent - but that i'm not sure i believe.
Christian or religious theories state about adam and eve..making us all just incest based creatures...which in our stupid world of morals and politics is VERY WRONG AND GROSS, which it is if we look at it from our built perspective. But the landmass itself always changes, trees, plants - they all came back but different. You realsie every continent has its own sort of plants right, its just harder to notice because we can buy plants or flowers from everywhere, but china will have things we dont and we'll have things china doesn't.
As for the whole god creating the world, isn't that just as blind an assumption as saying evolution did it. at least with evolution people can put faith into certain facts, with a god you can't do any of that - you'll read a bible mankind wrote, hear the testaments that change depending on how we percieve the world from time frame to time frame and we constantly change rules or regulations from its more historical background.
Still - my point is that evolution is very real and very much active, have you not noticed that certain creatures are changing..from simple spiders to more wild animals, in fact its proven that the camel spider is in fact evolving as we speak. Since every new generation they seem to ge larger..bigger...even your common house spider is changing, 10 years ago there was no such thing as a jumping spider in a household..just wasnt heard of or seen - just big black crawlers. But now every other spider i see if fucking leaping at me, if evolution didn't change that then what did - climax...god...or was there already a specie there...again
its all just theories..nothing can be truly proven and evolution takes longer then a mans life span xD so its hard to prove it..but we can see its effects all around us.
|
|
|
Post by Mikey on Aug 11, 2008 20:37:19 GMT -5
I'm Christian, very religious, but I don't believe in Creationism. Though I don't think it should be labeled as "A Bunch of Bull" and the people who believe in it; bashed for it: I can only say that, if you are a rational thinking human being, and you believe in creationism... Well, that's pretty sad to hear. Dick move, by the way Ijiero. I've heard enough stories and miracles to believe in God. I mean, I don't go to Church >.> But still, I've read the Bible. And THAT counts.
|
|
|
Post by Sima Yi on Aug 11, 2008 21:12:28 GMT -5
Same rules apply for how can one put blind faith, build entire lives on the simply faith of there being a god. Every bible was written by man, most religions and gods come from stories written and spoken off from man - and what are we...what is mankind. Right, and most religion has a hole in it somewhere, but if you are going on the gimp theory that god can’t be real because you have to simply believe he is there is pretty weak, as any smart Christian or Muslim or Hindu or anyone would simply point out the wind. You can’t see the wind, you can see the effect of the wind, but you can’t see the wind. You simply have faith that is a real and acting force. Granted, it is not the strongest explanation, but it is one. Faith is a certain aspect of any religion, and if you are to believe what they are to tell you, then for all you know, they truly were moved by a god or gods to write what they did. And if that god was real, than those people are telling the truth. Who are you to really argue otherwise? For all you know, they are right, you are just to cynical to believe them. We are just a race, a very arrogant one at that - who think they're better then everything else. Well that is all true.. and that is all proven from history. But to say that one has to see evolution to believe it isn't entirely correct. We are arrogant, and it is true. You are going on blind faith that it is right, and that the scientist know what they are talking about. You are making the same assumptions that you say others who believe in a god are, what makes yours any more correct or more right? Because man said it was… oh right. Things can evolve, and we see forms of evolution anyway, things change - plants changs and things become mutated, they are forms of evolution one way or another. yeah climax and the way were destroying the world is brining these forms of evolution - but time, regardless is adapting things around us because of our treatment to this planet. Um… virus and sun damage isn’t evolution. Now, if you are talking about the poison we are pumping into the Earth, than that is slightly different. And plants are adapting to it, they are simply dying. Which will eventually kill us all, because they are producing our oxygen. But they are not changing or becoming better, else they would be trying to manipulate their ways so they can absorb more carbon dioxide, yes? You say a comet destroyed just dinosaurs, then you're probably not to knowledgable on what happened after the comet. Does the cave-man era ring any bells with you, or the ice age. Everything was destroyed, but like all living organsims they learned to adapt, to change on the climax around us - which is why we humans are so very different from country to country, maybe not as a whole, but appearance wise we adapt our skin tones and our attributes from the climax around us, since origionally its said we was all on just 1 hige continent - but that i'm not sure i believe. Um.. I am quite aware of what we say happened afterwards, but that is my point, everything would be dead. There would be no way to adapt. As I said, plants would have been the first to go, since, naturally, they would have no sunlight, and thus sputter and die, then plant eaters, and then dinosaurs. Or what? Did every single dinosaur look at the comet, trip, and fall in a lake? Yeah… And if you want to believe what the Chinese, Aztecs, Persians, Greeks, Egyptians, and other cultures believe and say a great flood buried the earth in water? Of course not, makes no sense, how could they all have the same idea, even though they are spread through out the world. And I can believe that part, with all the tectonic plate shifting going on. And at some point in the (far) future, it is likely to happen again. Christian or religious theories state about adam and eve..making us all just incest based creatures...which in our stupid world of morals and politics is VERY WRONG AND GROSS, which it is if we look at it from our built perspective. But the landmass itself always changes, trees, plants - they all came back but different. You realsie every continent has its own sort of plants right, its just harder to notice because we can buy plants or flowers from everywhere, but china will have things we dont and we'll have things china doesn't. Right, and why is that? (Not the incest, will get to that in a second.. Mmm) Why is it that there are so many plants and animals, some that are only in certain regions. Both evolution and divine intervention could explain both, though, enough places on the Earth are the same, yet evolution couldn’t do the same thing twice? Even though most evolutionist believe in the 1 continent idea? So why would the change over time into something else? Or why they have the same genes even though they are miles away from each other, walled off by water? (Which should disprove that theory of 1 continent idea). Otherwise, wouldn’t they be different? I.e. The African Elephant and the Asian, or the Chinese Bear and Grizzly Bear, yes? Just cause they don’t look the same doesn’t mean they are not close, yes? But if they “evolved” on other parts, why so close? And yes, if you believe in the Bible, than you can pretty much be assured that Seth slept with his sister, and so didn’t the others. In fact, Abram’s wife was his half sister, so incest happened. It was not till the time of Moses, that it was banned. As for the whole god creating the world, isn't that just as blind an assumption as saying evolution did it. at least with evolution people can put faith into certain facts, with a god you can't do any of that - you'll read a bible mankind wrote, hear the testaments that change depending on how we percieve the world from time frame to time frame and we constantly change rules or regulations from its more historical background. I think you already stated this, evolution you are taking the word of scientist who are believing something that someone else told them. And plenty of people (as Mikey pointed out) have seen supernatural, and not all of them are liars. So if they have seen and felt stuff, what makes them any different from those who claim something else? Yes? Still - my point is that evolution is very real and very much active, have you not noticed that certain creatures are changing..from simple spiders to more wild animals, in fact its proven that the camel spider is in fact evolving as we speak. Since every new generation they seem to ge larger..bigger...even your common house spider is changing, 10 years ago there was no such thing as a jumping spider in a household..just wasnt heard of or seen - just big black crawlers. But now every other spider i see if fucking leaping at me, if evolution didn't change that then what did - climax...god...or was there already a specie there...again More than likely, it is his diet, as you can see when you go to and look at armor that was for a man of five foot one. But that doesn’t mean they are evolve, evolving is more than changing of size. It is you actually taking on something new. Like some how growing lungs and magically stepping out of the water onto land. Of course, how you knew what land was in the first place is never confirmed. Granted, I don’t think animals are that smart to figure all that out. But that is just me of course. Oh, and I think jumping spiders are in Australia, it would not take much for it to be smuggled into Europe. its all just theories..nothing can be truly proven and evolution takes longer then a mans life span xD so its hard to prove it..but we can see its effects all around us. Well that can be said of creationism as well, so… And evolution is takes longer than a man’s life then it can never be disproved. Now, I am not attacking Steve here, but he listed what most evolutionist believe, so it is easier to follow through with it. Now don’t get me wrong, there are aspects of evolution I believe in, that being growth and being able to breed between species. Horse breeders and dog breeders have been doing that for a long ass time. So why can’t other species, yes?
|
|
|
Post by Eshmunbaal on Aug 12, 2008 5:19:41 GMT -5
Right, and most religion has a hole in it somewhere, but if you are going on the gimp theory that god can’t be real because you have to simply believe he is there is pretty weak, as any smart Christian or Muslim or Hindu or anyone would simply point out the wind. You can’t see the wind, you can see the effect of the wind, but you can’t see the wind. You simply have faith that is a real and acting force. Granted, it is not the strongest explanation, but it is one. Faith is a certain aspect of any religion, and if you are to believe what they are to tell you, then for all you know, they truly were moved by a god or gods to write what they did. And if that god was real, than those people are telling the truth. Who are you to really argue otherwise? For all you know, they are right, you are just to cynical to believe them. Eh, we can see the wind, as what moves are just molecules propelled forward by high pressure and lower pressure in the athmosphere. Just because we lack the ability to see it doesn't require "faith" to believe it is actually there. Plus, insane people writing fiction =/= religious text. Following the ravings of a disturbed mind is foolish. Why would a God, if he does exist, touch one man to write a religious text, while keeping us in the dark about the truth. Why would he test our faith while blindly giving the truth away to one other person. It is a ridiculous notion and you know it. We are arrogant, and it is true. You are going on blind faith that it is right, and that the scientist know what they are talking about. You are making the same assumptions that you say others who believe in a god are, what makes yours any more correct or more right? Because man said it was… oh right. No, the whole point of believing in science is the fact that we ourselves can also see that it is true if we know what the scientist is talking about. Unlike religion where the only people who can "understand" it are a few select people "touched by god". (aka, insane) Um… virus and sun damage isn’t evolution. Now, if you are talking about the poison we are pumping into the Earth, than that is slightly different. And plants are adapting to it, they are simply dying. Which will eventually kill us all, because they are producing our oxygen. But they are not changing or becoming better, else they would be trying to manipulate their ways so they can absorb more carbon dioxide, yes? Plants are trying to adapt and evolve, but evolution is simply not fast enough for them to change enough to survive to this sudden change in climate. This is why they would die out if the climate changed radicaly, and not because evolution is false. Um.. I am quite aware of what we say happened afterwards, but that is my point, everything would be dead. There would be no way to adapt. As I said, plants would have been the first to go, since, naturally, they would have no sunlight, and thus sputter and die, then plant eaters, and then dinosaurs. Or what? Did every single dinosaur look at the comet, trip, and fall in a lake? Yeah… And if you want to believe what the Chinese, Aztecs, Persians, Greeks, Egyptians, and other cultures believe and say a great flood buried the earth in water? Of course not, makes no sense, how could they all have the same idea, even though they are spread through out the world. And I can believe that part, with all the tectonic plate shifting going on. And at some point in the (far) future, it is likely to happen again. There are many doomsday scenarios, and I can tell you that even if there was a comet, plants wouldn't necessarily die out. Plants came from one-celled organisms just like we did. When dinosaurs were around plants were also unevolved, and most plants didn't require sunlight for photosynthesis. Many plants would have died out because of a comet, if that is really what happened, but not all of them. Right, and why is that? (Not the incest, will get to that in a second.. Mmm) Why is it that there are so many plants and animals, some that are only in certain regions. Both evolution and divine intervention could explain both, though, enough places on the Earth are the same, yet evolution couldn’t do the same thing twice? Even though most evolutionist believe in the 1 continent idea? So why would the change over time into something else? Or why they have the same genes even though they are miles away from each other, walled off by water? (Which should disprove that theory of 1 continent idea). Otherwise, wouldn’t they be different? I.e. The African Elephant and the Asian, or the Chinese Bear and Grizzly Bear, yes? Just cause they don’t look the same doesn’t mean they are not close, yes? But if they “evolved” on other parts, why so close? The earth had only one continent billions of years into the past. (Which if you're a creationist isn't possible because the earth's only 6000 years old. lol wut?) The continents broke off due to tectonic shifting, just look it up on wikipedia. The result of which was that all different parts had different climates, encouraging species to evolve to adapt to the climate, natural predators and so on. You give an example of polar bears, grizzly bears, etc. You claim that they evolved from a different species into pretty much the same thing. The truth is not that, but that they all evolved from the same kind of bear which was not too dissimilar from the bears we have today. It is called "parictis" and because it was already resilient against many climates and was one of the main predators, it didn't require to evolve to be able to survive. Which is why bears are so similar in appearance. Still, they are very different, as polar bears for example are much smarter then other bears, and have a better sense of smell. Which could be seen as proof of evolution in the first place, not the opposite. And yes, if you believe in the Bible, than you can pretty much be assured that Seth slept with his sister, and so didn’t the others. In fact, Abram’s wife was his half sister, so incest happened. It was not till the time of Moses, that it was banned. If it was really banned in the time of Moses, and they believed the Christian religion to be true, people would have stopped reproducing alltogether. I think you already stated this, evolution you are taking the word of scientist who are believing something that someone else told them. And plenty of people (as Mikey pointed out) have seen supernatural, and not all of them are liars. So if they have seen and felt stuff, what makes them any different from those who claim something else? Yes? Supernatural things are something different alltogether, as they can be attributed to all sorts of things, ranging from hallucination to psychic power. Note that psychic powers would be proof of evolution, not that I believe in it. More than likely, it is his diet, as you can see when you go to and look at armor that was for a man of five foot one. But that doesn’t mean they are evolve, evolving is more than changing of size. It is you actually taking on something new. Like some how growing lungs and magically stepping out of the water onto land. Of course, how you knew what land was in the first place is never confirmed. Granted, I don’t think animals are that smart to figure all that out. But that is just me of course. Oh, and I think jumping spiders are in Australia, it would not take much for it to be smuggled into Europe. Magically growing lungs? Magically stepping out of the water? I have said this before in this thread, macro-evolution is something made up by religious figures to disprove evolution. Macro-evolution is not true. Micro-evolution is true so stop using macro-evolution to disprove something completely different. Well that can be said of creationism as well, so… And evolution is takes longer than a man’s life then it can never be disproved. Now, I am not attacking Steve here, but he listed what most evolutionist believe, so it is easier to follow through with it. Now don’t get me wrong, there are aspects of evolution I believe in, that being growth and being able to breed between species. Horse breeders and dog breeders have been doing that for a long ass time. So why can’t other species, yes? Please note that you are talking about genetics, not evolution. Also, watch this: nl.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQGJnE8Y6n8
|
|
|
Post by Sima Yi on Aug 12, 2008 8:43:02 GMT -5
Eh, we can see the wind, as what moves are just molecules propelled forward by high pressure and lower pressure in the athmosphere. Just because we lack the ability to see it doesn't require "faith" to believe it is actually there. Plus, insane people writing fiction =/= religious text. Following the ravings of a disturbed mind is foolish. Why would a God, if he does exist, touch one man to write a religious text, while keeping us in the dark about the truth. Why would he test our faith while blindly giving the truth away to one other person. It is a ridiculous notion and you know it. Uh, thanks for making my point, and then contradicting yourself. All you are saying is god can’t be true because the person writing it must be insane. That is about as argument as saying chocolate is better because some loony said that vanilla tasted sweeter. Try coming up with a better attack than your own opinion based upon nothing. And if you read the Bible, Quran, Hindu texts, Mayan wall charts, they don’t keep us in the dark, the tell us what is going to happen, people would have to read past them, and most people are just to lazy for that, too much effort and all that. No, the whole point of believing in science is the fact that we ourselves can also see that it is true if we know what the scientist is talking about. Unlike religion where the only people who can "understand" it are a few select people "touched by god". (aka, insane) How do you know? Have you seen any of this proof besides pictures and diagrams? Have you seen a dinosaur that wasn’t fossilized with bird wings. Have you see a Neanderthal about walking about? Or are you just listening to people who found a monkey skull and claim it was our long lost ancestor. So because someone has a phd that automatically makes them right. When more than likely more than half of science is wrong, but we don’t know it cause we don’t have the technology to figure it out. (and again, you are being childish with your insane thing there) Plants are trying to adapt and evolve, but evolution is simply not fast enough for them to change enough to survive to this sudden change in climate. This is why they would die out if the climate changed radicaly, and not because evolution is false. And your proof is….? There are many doomsday scenarios, and I can tell you that even if there was a comet, plants wouldn't necessarily die out. Plants came from one-celled organisms just like we did. When dinosaurs were around plants were also unevolved, and most plants didn't require sunlight for photosynthesis. Many plants would have died out because of a comet, if that is really what happened, but not all of them. And you know this how? You were there, 3.5 million years ago? You looked at the planets and were like “Yup, didn’t require photosynthesis.” No. You are going with something that probably isn’t even speculative in the scientist community. Bring me proof that what you say is true. And I don’t mean wikipedia. The earth had only one continent billions of years into the past. (Which if you're a creationist isn't possible because the earth's only 6000 years old. lol wut?) The continents broke off due to tectonic shifting, just look it up on wikipedia. The result of which was that all different parts had different climates, encouraging species to evolve to adapt to the climate, natural predators and so on. You give an example of polar bears, grizzly bears, etc. You claim that they evolved from a different species into pretty much the same thing. The truth is not that, but that they all evolved from the same kind of bear which was not too dissimilar from the bears we have today. I was talking to Steve there on the Bears part, and why it was likely. And Christians believe the Earth is that old, not Creationist. But then again, we don’t really know how long time span before the recording of Bible is, for when he says seven days, it is said that “A day is like a Thousand years to God.” As such, it could very well be another seven thousand years added on to that. And being a god, he could easily manipulate the break up, though more than likely that would happen after the Tower of Babel, naturally, because that would be when the different speaking people spread out. It is called "parictis" and because it was already resilient against many climates and was one of the main predators, it didn't require to evolve to be able to survive. Which is why bears are so similar in appearance. Still, they are very different, as polar bears for example are much smarter then other bears, and have a better sense of smell. Which could be seen as proof of evolution in the first place, not the opposite. And if they evolved from the same bear, then why are they not more similar? Why is a panda spotted like a cow? Hmm? I would see that more as divine thinking, someone planning ahead of time. So it could easily be taken either way… so…. If it was really banned in the time of Moses, and they believed the Christian religion to be true, people would have stopped reproducing alltogether. Judaism is the correct religion you are looking for. And I don’t think you are right, because that was only the decedents of Israel (Jacob) that followed that. The Egyptians were still there, screwing their sisters. I am not sure about the Greeks and Babylonians, but I know those Pharaohs were still going at it. Of course, it wouldn’t take to much thought to realize that. Supernatural things are something different alltogether, as they can be attributed to all sorts of things, ranging from hallucination to psychic power. Note that psychic powers would be proof of evolution, not that I believe in it. And it could actually be god. I know it is such a far stretch, but drugs and psychic powers (which would be awesome) are just trying to come up with some weak attempt to cover it up, and try to deny it. It’s like calling people insane, it is a George Bush and Bill O’Reilly move, and a weak attempt. Magically growing lungs? Magically stepping out of the water? I have said this before in this thread, macro-evolution is something made up by religious figures to disprove evolution. Macro-evolution is not true. Micro-evolution is true so stop using macro-evolution to disprove something completely different. Ok, enlighten us then. Until you try to explain how fish moved on to land, I am still going to be confused on how you think it worked. Oh, and again, no wikipedia. Please note that you are talking about genetics, not evolution. Which has to be taken into consideration when talking about evolution. But thanks for giving me an excuse why I know think it is all bs. And can't watch youtube, lags my computer up.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Wu Sheng on Aug 12, 2008 12:45:58 GMT -5
I respect your views on the world Sima Yi - and it really does make me happy to know that you're willing to go so far as to argue every point to get your dieals across. It is what forms debate and that - brings people together in one way or another. I may challenge the idea of there being a god, but i do not deny certain aspects of the whole subject - such as ghosts or supernatural happenings. I strongly beleieve in spirits and auras, i also believe in how we can communicate with each other through deeper means then simply *talking*. But i do have an issue with religion and how every god ever designed by man has changed over the years, like that youtube topic stated, isn't it a little strange we say god created things because we don't see how it would be possible to do scientifically. There used to be sun gods and night gods, but now we know that the sun rises and falls because of the rotation and orbitting of this planet - that is fact, no? We also knew that we would have laughed over the diea of the world being round, or mankind learning the key ingrediant on how we can fly. granted we can't just get up and jump and flap our arms, but we have constructed technology advanced enough to fly when before that would have been laughed at, we also know that there have been sooooo many gods how can anyone be sure if any of them exist, how can someone put their entire faith on 1 simple bible when there have been so many versions of what a god is or how they expect their people to act, the idea behind it seems far to fetched in my books. A religious person is also saying that god came out of nothing, and created this world...out of nothing - isn't that using the idea of magical elements to basically say what happened, when in actuality there have been thousands of proven discoveries to defend against scientific equations, we know about so many things with the world which we didn't know 100 years ago, yet still people are believing in simple..magic. Thats just as bad as saying a natural process created earth, at least that bypasses the idea of magic, which ISN'T case to fight with when dealing with the creation or origin of this universe, because magic..doesn't exist, and it has never existed. if you can prove to me Sima Yi - that a god exists, how he created the world *without using any form of magic, all through possible means that someone can understand logically and intelligently rather then through ' oh...magic..yeah THAT WORKS' then you may actually have a point. Until then you're defending science that has been discovering new things for years...unless you will consider it all to be a load of crap in pretense that your god will shame you for it. if that is the case, you shouldn't be debating Theres no point getting a point across if our to arrogant to see both sides of the story, and blind faith doesnt win scientific debates, nor does saying god magically did everything. We all know 1 day for this so called god could be a million years for all we know..but that again - is completely irrelevant, it's stil lsaying that god created a world out of nothingness. I do like your faith in your beliefs, i just don't really care about your points unless you offer concrete proof to back them up - just like how you're telling us we are wrong, so are you So..have fun trying to prove god exists..because its something that cannot be proven and therefore..this debate can never end. So i suggets we just agree to disagree, remain civilised and friendly and put it behind us unless you want to continue to speak honestly and stuff without trying to bash other peoples voiews or opinons
|
|
|
Post by Mikey on Aug 12, 2008 18:14:48 GMT -5
That youtube video stuff is a bunch of bullshit, all it is, is a guy telling you over and over again that you suck at science and all your gods are all fake. As for the gods, Paganist didn't just stop believing in Sun Gods and Night Gods just because they were proven that the sun and moon rotate.
Paganism was killed off by the Christians and converted harshly. There is no point in history where they just gave up because they were told the sun and moon rotate. Hell the Mayans already knew about astronomy, they were a civilization that knows possibly more about astronomy then we do today. We don't even know how the hell they made up their calender to be so precise. Yet they believed in there Gods.
Can you disprove magic? Really can you? Magic 'tricks' maybe, but there are still some magics, (Like Voodoo) that are unexplained and are more then cheap card tricks.
Did God create himself? Sure he did hes god, as for just making the universe pop out of no where, The Big Bang theory, how did the Big Bang start? No one knows, but since theres no proof of a universe before the Big Bang I'm convinced that God started that big ass explosion.
|
|
|
Post by Eshmunbaal on Aug 12, 2008 18:47:40 GMT -5
Since some people can not watch youtube it seems, I'll just post the whole thing. (it's another thing then before.) nl.youtube.com/watch?v=5RojR-50_5YCreationists are the ultimate skeptics. They will believe in men being raised from the dead and talking ghosts that can impregnate virgins without even a shred of evidence, but when confronted with the evidence for biological evolution they transform into staunch critics upholding the highest burdens of proof ever constructed. The theory of evolution is actually supported with a wide array of evidence. Evolution is right up there with basic principles of elementary physics in terms of observational support. In the face of such overwhelming evidence, critics adopt standards of such unreasonableness that virtually nothing could be considered true if we applied such standards across all areas of inquiry and knowledge. The creationist's argument is based on selectively raising standards. If other proposed ideas were supported by evidence to the degree that biological evolution is, creationists would certainly not doubt these ideas, for example, the theory of gravity and the atomic theory. However, the theory of evolution is fair game for doubt, because creationists selectively demand implausible degrees of evidence for its truth, and won't accept anything less. Notice how these facts could only truly be considered criticisms of evolutionary theory if we expected complete and total mathematical proof for biological evolution. The problem, of course, is that empirical sciences do not deal with formal proofs of absolute certainty, and must instead rely on evidence and probability, like much of our every day knowledge. In normal scenarios, creationists do not have such high standards of proof. If, for instance, they found a half-eaten deer carcass surrounded by wolf paw prints, the reasonable conclusion is that the wolves ate the deer. If subsequently they found wolves near by, covered in deer blood, and analyzed the vomit of one wolf and found that it contained deer meat that would be further evidence in support of the rather obvious conclusion that wolves ate the deer in question. Now, if some wolf-loving skeptic wanted to protect the wolves from this charge of murder, he could adopt the creationist strategy and utilize unreasonably high standards of proof to shield him from criticism. He could argue, for instance, that because no one "observed" the wolves eating the deer, we could doubt the conclusion. For this skeptic, all the evidence pointing towards the wolves means nothing to him if we cannot directly observe the event in question. He could also remark that the wolf theory leaves out certain details. For instance, it doesn't tell us exactly how many wolves were involved, or whether the wolves first attacked from the right or left side, or whether the deer happened to be looking down at its feet when the attack occurred. They could argue that deer are faster than wolves so it is impossible. The skeptic could argue that these "gaps" in the theory rule out the wolf hypothesis. Of course, any reasonable person can see that the wolf skeptic sets his standards of proof way too high. We need not directly observe the event, nor explain every trite and inane detail in order to know that the wolves did indeed eat the deer. The evidence of the eaten deer carcass, the wolf paw prints, and blood spattered wolves, the deer meat in the vomit, and so on, all show without a doubt that the deer was eaten by the wolves. Creationists use almost the exact same sorts of arguments against evolution. When they argue that huge biological changes resulting from evolution have never been observed, they do not realize that scientists need not directly observe single-celled organisms becoming primates in order to reasonably conclude that such an event occurred, just as those who believe that the wolves ate the deer need not directly observe the event to know that it truly happened, given the abundance of evidence supporting the claim.
|
|
|
Post by Sima Yi on Aug 12, 2008 20:44:31 GMT -5
Um, to the guy above Mikey. You spoke just like a politician. I.e. saying nothing but using words. If you want to go ahead and insult creationist, by all means, but try to be more intelligent about rather than spewing hate, it really is quite childish.
You doubt Creationism as much as we do Evolution, so um, try to be less hypocritical please. Thanks. Oh and thanks for confirming that Evolution is based upon assumption. And the wolf anology is quite nice, till you realize that is happening in the present. A few hours in the past does not equate to millions of years that Evolutionist believe, and there for is not really a justifiable explaination. And you do need to observe, other wise, how the hell do you know it took place besides what you assume, yes?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Wu Sheng on Aug 12, 2008 22:44:57 GMT -5
Wouldn't that mean Esh..rather then yourself.
Since he posted above you >.>
|
|
|
Post by Mikey on Aug 12, 2008 23:05:48 GMT -5
*Face Palm* I'm just going to delete all my posts and shut up. xD Because apparently I can't read.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Wu Sheng on Aug 12, 2008 23:19:17 GMT -5
Just thought a friend should tell you that before someone actually took the piss hehe As for my reply against what you said..meh - maybe when it isnt 5:20am ^_^
|
|
|
Post by Eshmunbaal on Aug 13, 2008 2:36:47 GMT -5
You doubt Creationism as much as we do Evolution, so um, try to be less hypocritical please. Thanks. Oh and thanks for confirming that Evolution is based upon assumption. And the wolf anology is quite nice, till you realize that is happening in the present. A few hours in the past does not equate to millions of years that Evolutionist believe, and there for is not really a justifiable explaination. And you do need to observe, other wise, how the hell do you know it took place besides what you assume, yes? Except ofcourse the one small detail that creationism has absolutely no proof backing it up and evolution has an innumerable amount of proof... And also thank you for proving the wolf analogy correct... edit: If you want actual proof of micro-evolution, search for information on the peppered moth. Because of the trees it grows on have become darker due to pollution, it's changed color... That's just one example of us being there to observe evolution in progress.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Wu Sheng on Aug 13, 2008 8:18:18 GMT -5
I could listen to you two battle it out all day, because my views are strongly with Eshmunbaels, i just don't have the words i guess to lay it out. Still - i gotta give Sima Yi a point, he really is debating this well. Just a shame at the end of the day the two sides will never ever finish debating until we do, which we will find out the origin of this planet and how it was created
|
|