goku Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 Moderation note: The first 11 posts of this thread were moved from the thread 18600, because they are not a discussion of that thread’s question, but objections to the theory of evolution from a Biblical creationist, and responses to them. So now we see the basic different between science and religion. Religion is based on belief, belief in what you want to be true. Science is based on reality independent on what you want to be true. Religion can be used to make people believe anything is real, science is used to see what is real independent of belief. do you believe in evolution?ever seen anything evolve? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 do you believe in evolution?ever seen anything evolve? I accept evolution as true, and yes, I see things evolving every day... sometimes in 40 days or less. Incredulity and equivocation are not arguments worth my time. I'd encourage you to try again, but I will instead encourage you to try harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 do you believe in evolution? No, I accept it as the best explanation of what we see in the natural world. ever seen anything evolve? Yes, I've seen several examples of evolution in progress. Do you believe in creationism? Ever see anything created? Ever see anything that supports the premise of creationism other than mythology in a old book? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 do you believe in evolution?ever seen anything evolve?Well, goku,I've been watching you flop around like a fish out of water for a long time. Not only have I not witnessed you "evolve" in any sense of the word, I haven't even seen you "learn" anything. Even if God herself promised me eternity in heaven, I wouldn't want to be you. (again) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goku Posted March 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 Do you believe in creationism? Ever see anything created? Ever see anything that supports the premise of creationism other than mythology in a old book? yes,hammers, swords, guns, tv's, paper, pencil, cars, houses, tractors, computers, internet, soap, light bulbs, so on and so forth. all created, by animals? no, by man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamela Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 posted by Gokuyes,hammers, swords, guns, tv's, paper, pencil, cars, houses, tractors, computers, internet, soap, light bulbs, so on and so forth. all created, by animals? no, by man. Come on, now, GokuCreationism and the ability of man to produce or fabricate something are two totally different things. Are you serious about being in this discussion, or are you just playing around? These types of answers that you are giving only invoke frustration for the members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goku Posted March 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 Come on, now, GokuCreationism and the ability of man to produce or fabricate something are two totally different things. Are you serious about being in this discussion, or are you just playing around? These types of answers that you are giving only invoke frustration for the members. these are the facts, cars and computers didn't just pop up out of the ground. do you think they were discovered? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamela Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 from Gokuthese are the facts, cars and computers didn't just pop up out of the ground. do you think they were discovered? why do you insult my intelligence with such a question? I will not even indulge an answer for you. However i will give you the definition of Creationism from dictionary.com1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed. 2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis. 3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goku Posted March 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 why do you insult my intelligence with such a question? I will not even indulge an answer for you. However i will give you the definition of Creationism okay, so you agree that man created said things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 yes,hammers, swords, guns, tv's, paper, pencil, cars, houses, tractors, computers, internet, soap, light bulbs, so on and so forth. all created, by animals? no, by man. Goku, since creationism says that God created everything not man I fail to see your point. I do however agree that man creates lots of things, not God. There is no evidence that God has created anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 Do you believe in creationism? Ever see anything created? Ever see anything that supports the premise of creationism other than mythology in a old book? ...hammers, swords, guns... all created, by animals? no, by man. So, this is what a troll does—disregard any serious discussion or any direct communication looking for anything that can be misrepresented, or taken out of context, or twisted into a disingenuous quibble. What a ridiculous waste of time. ~modest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 okay, so you agree that man created said things. Yes, in exactly the same way that "man created" god and the countless creation stories out there. Just like Zeus and Apollo have long lain dead in the graveyard of human mythology, so too will your cosmic sky pixie and iron age book of fairy tales be realized for the fiction it is in just a few short years. It's just that some of us are ahead of the curve on that particular realization, and view folks like you as we would a child who still believed in the tooth fairy despite correction. So, this is what a troll does—disregard any serious discussion or any direct communication looking for anything that can be misrepresented, or taken out of context, or twisted into a disingenuous quibble. What a ridiculous waste of time. What I personally find most humorous is that you had to split this thread from another due to that other thread going off topic and failing to address questions. Yet, that other thread from which this one was split was ALSO itself created as a split from a now third thread... which went off topic and failed to address questions. This is fun! Let's see if we can split this one into a fourth generation, and we can use this as a remedial demonstration of how evolution works for our fair farming friend who enjoys feigning ignorance (or magnifying that which is sincere) to get attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HydrogenBond Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 There are two human effects, objectivity and subjectivity. There is a simple difference between them which can be seen with examples. Objectivity: if there are three peaches on a table, because we all use the same sensory systems, we will see the same thing and agree. This is total objectivity, since it is consistent with our own objectivity and that of the group. On the other hand, if we all tasted the peaches, since taste is subjective, we may not agree as a group. With taste, one can be objective to how the flavor affects them. If I like the peach, I am being objective to the way it affects me in an internal cause and affect way. But since the group can't agree, my objectivity is called subjective. The entire effect can be half individual objective and half socially subjective, but will be called subjective. This might be the convention with the group affect carrying more weight. If we created a consensus of opinion, saying the peaches tastes good, we have sort of defining the second aspect associated of total objectivity; group agreement. But this can cause some members, not to be objective to what they really think, in terms of the taste. Through time, one can change their natural programming into an acquired taste, where we begin to like it. After we get the acquired taste, we are now defined as totally objective, because ourselves and the group, agree. If you don't get the acquired taste you are called subjective. There is another level of subjective-objectivity that is more subtle. Let me give an example, we have three oranges on the table. We can all be objective to the number of oranges, both internally and socially. Instead, say we had 3 plus or minus 0.1 oranges on the table. What is one suppose to see to be objective, internally, oranges with holes and bumps? This is not what anyone sees, naturally, but it is what they are expected to see through acquired taste. All the oranges now taste good and if you say otherwise, you are being subjective to the consensus taste, even if one is being objective to natural instinct. There are many people who have not acquired that taste. They are the subjective ones to the consensus. The only difference between Creationism and Science of evolution is the plus or minus aspect of the three oranges. Science sees the three oranges but with holes and bumps, which not everyone can see, without first acquiring the taste (one needs to tilt your head a certain way). Religion has its own acquired taste but begins to fuzz the actual number (the actual data). The argument comes down to one orange with a orange nebulous zone, versus three oranges with holes and bumps. Both are acquired tastes. I can only see three smooth oranges, but I tried to learn both and can also still see where they both overlap what I see. For example, quantum jumps into new species look like animals suddenly appear just like creationists say. This is an old model. Relative to life, religion uses the quantum mutation affect for all at once. Science spreads life out in an orderly fashion but still uses the quantum affect for moderate time scales. This evolution of thought appears to be movement in the right direction, if we draw a line connecting the two. Theoretically, smaller and smaller time scales could have their own orderly affect, but that is an acquired taste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 ...The only difference between Creationism and Science of evolution is the plus or minus aspect of the three oranges. Science sees the three oranges but with holes and bumps, which not everyone can see, without first acquiring the taste (one needs to tilt your head a certain way). Religion has its own acquired taste but begins to fuzz the actual number (the actual data). The argument comes down to one orange with a orange nebulous zone, versus three oranges with holes and bumps. .....HB,you are making no sense at all. This is all just gobbledygook, and contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion. The differences between creationism and science are the differences between unquestioning dogmatic belief and intelligent inquiry. Notice how goku is always asking, "do you believe in evolution?" There are actually many ways that the human mind can relate to the external reality around us. Goku uses only "dogmatic belief". In fact, he is trained to accept that that is the ONLY way to relate to reality. Goku dismisses all other approaches as fantasies or science mumbo-jumbo invented to confuse the righteous. What we see in goku's arguments as sarcasm, mockery, and simple-minded "flip-offs", he actually thinks is pure logic. What passes in science and academia as rigourous logic and reasoning, he sees as "evil". Goku is probably so indoctrinated that he will never understand real logic and reasoning. He is unreachable behind his shield of adamant stubborness and unthinking contempt. Galapagos 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dunsapy Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 The differences between creationism and science are the differences between unquestioning dogmatic belief and intelligent inquiry.Now that was an unbiased statement.:evil:Science also has unquestioning dogmatic belief. Christendom ( belief that Jesus is God ) on the other hand, doesn't know the bible, or follow it. But that does not make the bible itself wrong. Just misunderstood.So the informed conclusion is, that both Science and Christendom don't follow their mandate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Now that was an unbiased statement.;)Science also has unquestioning dogmatic belief. Christendom ( belief that Jesus is God ) on the other hand, doesn't know the bible, or follow it. But that does not make the bible itself wrong. Just misunderstood.So the informed conclusion is, that both Science and Christendom don't follow their mandate. Hello Dunsapy. Welcome to Hypography. You hypothesize that both science and religion have unquestioning dogmatic belief then given an example from religion where that is the case, then conclude that both science and "christendom" don't follow their mandate. I'm not sure if you just forgot to give an example where science shows an unquestioning dogmatic belief or if you didn't intend to give one, but if you want to make the conclusion that "both Science and Christendom don't follow their mandate" then some reason or example from science would be needed. ~modest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Now that was an unbiased statement.;)Science also has unquestioning dogmatic belief....dunsapy,how the heck would you know?Like goku, you are fundementally ill-equipped to draw any distinctions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.