Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Belief of something never makes it a fact. I'm surprised that you would suggest this! All you are saying is that since all these "leading scientists" agree believe in evolution, it makes it a fact... I thought that this kind of reasoning went out of style many, many years ago.
It's a theory.
No, you are misinterpreting my post, and presenting my point as a mere belief that a scientist has.
There is a big difference in accepting a logical conclusion based on evidence, calculation, and deduction. Rejecting evolution on grounds that the bible says man was created in its current form, is like rejecting that the earth is round because the bible says... wait a second!
Why would God have created both fishes (non-mammals) and cetaceans (mammals) to live in the oceans? Was God bored that day and just arbitrarily created animals that must swim to the surface of the sea to breathe, whereas many other fish species can breathe through gills?
Is this the question that I didn't answer? Let's see, God put mammals in the ocean which doesn't make sense to you. Conclusion: Evolution is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain
"You can make up whatever story you want,..."
No I can't, and be consistent with the evidence, much less to be taken seriously as a thinking person.
Let me say something about evidence real quick. I try, whenever possible, to use the scientific journals that initially made any claims for or against evolution.
You guys seem to love wikipedia, which I would like to address. It's a great idea (wikipedia), but as a scholarly source it just doesn't hold any weight.
First of all, the content of wikipedia is not determined by the smart people of the world who contribute to it. It is ultimately decided by people who determine which edits are legitimate and which ones are not. Also, it does not have any kind of permanence. There is no guarantee that what was published on wiki yesterday is still there today. Also, you know nothing about the qualifications or possible agenda of the contributors.
If you quote something that was published by Science in May, 1997 (or any peer reviewed media, preferably), it can easily be verified because quotes are forever captured.
I'm not the only one who thinks this, of course.
Science, 27 October 2006, “A Scholarly Wikipedia?”, page 571
The problems with wikipedia are recognized by it's co-founder.
- "A Wikipedia co-founder-turned-detractor is hoping to build a more academic alternative to the freewheeling, user-written encyclopedia."
New Scientist, 27 September 2007, “You can put your trust in Wikipedia 2.0”, pages 28-29
- "Wikipedia wants to be seen as more reliable, but will the changes it is planning deter genuine contributions?"
This is a 2 page article which describes the problems, proposed solutions (hence, "wikipedia 2.0") and the problems with the solutions.
My request is that we start using peer-reviewed journals for claims of evidence.
My request is that we start using peer-reviewed journals for claims of evidence.
Does that sound fair?
Dance, dance, dance. You seem to be quite frightened to engage on the questions I have asked you. So you avoid the issues by talking about the validity of Wikipedia.
Do you understand that most scientific journals are available by subscription only, even in their online forms?
If you cannot address the core issues without referring to peer-reviewed journals, then I would say your understanding of the issues is quite lacking.
Your responses are certainly some of the most disingenuous I have ever seen on this board.
No, you are misinterpreting my post, and presenting my point as a mere belief that a scientist has.
There is a big difference in accepting a logical conclusion based on evidence, calculation, and deduction. Rejecting evolution on grounds that the bible says man was created in its current form, is like rejecting that the earth is round because the bible says... wait a second!
You are so on the road to nowhere with this one Ian...
The glory of evolution is that it believes in changes, mutations and that the science behind it ( like all science) is willing to evolve too, changing ,learning and adapting to new discoveries. We rely on methodology, experiments, experience, logic, scientific reasoning and common sense before we come to any conclusions.
If new events unfold in the scientific community we are willing to consider that our knowledge was not infallible and could be improved upon. Science is constantly seeking the truth via facts.
Religion relies on pure faith .
It is the immutable, immovable object which remains on the same path forever and ever as dictated by the "good book"... Scientists don't believe they have all the answers, but believers do.
How can we even discuss evolution as a scientific reality when some people accept without any doubt religion as fact simply because of the bible ?
I cannot help but feel that rationalists and believers are on 2 different planets philosophically speaking ...
We can discuss Evolution Ad Nauseam but I have come to realise that some discussions and debates are just futile and pointless.
It's like trying to have a discussion in Ancient Greek with someone who only speaks Navajo.
No, you are misinterpreting my post, and presenting my point as a mere belief that a scientist has.
There is a big difference in accepting a logical conclusion based on evidence, calculation, and deduction. Rejecting evolution on grounds that the bible says man was created in its current form, is like rejecting that the earth is round because the bible says... wait a second!
Sorry if I misinterpreted your post... but I do believe that the earth is round!
BTW.. I believe in God because of evidence. I believe the Bible (and in Creation) because I believe in God. Thus I see no need to believe in the TOE (meaning everything sharing a common ancestor, all species evolving from it). If I refused to believe in God, I'm sure I would follow after the TOE, (perhaps holding my nose shut until something better came along, tho!) because it is possibly the only remotely logical theory available for variation of species happening without a God... I don't know if I have enough faith to believe in the "Big Bang", life coming from matter, or matter always existing..
Anyway, really I don't need to worry about all those contradictions, because I know that God is real. On that point rests my view of the origin of the universe. Not just because "a book told me."
Dance, dance, dance. You seem to be quite frightened to engage on the questions I have asked you. So you avoid the issues by talking about the validity of Wikipedia.
Please list the questions that you are waiting for me to answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain
Do you understand that most scientific journals are available by subscription only, even in their online forms?
Do you understand that if you subscribed to some of them, you might actually learn something? Nevertheless, if you want to check out quotes, these journals are available in every Library I have ever been to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain
If you cannot address the core issues without referring to peer-reviewed journals, then I would say your understanding of the issues is quite lacking.
Addressing core issues is one thing, citing evidence is different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain
Your responses are certainly some of the most disingenuous I have ever seen on this board.
Dance, dance, dance.
And your responses seem to consist of nothing but insults.
Addressing core issues is one thing, citing evidence is different.
Dance, dance, dance.
"Please list the questions that you are waiting for me to answer."
The questions are found in my previous posts (on the previous page) and in boldface. I guess you have a very short memory.
Is there a thumper out there somewhere who will actually engage on the issues and questions that I have raised?
I cannot help but feel that rationalists and believers are on 2 different planets philosophically speaking ...
The classic is the guy who says he knows what he needs to know due to his belief in God. But, I would ask, how did he come to believe in that form of God and in those accompanying doctrines? To do so involved selection on his part among alternatives, which involved the use of his rational faculties. So he does actually practice rational thought even though it is severely stunted. So even a thumper cannot evade the fact that rational faculties are being engaged. It is the case that they don't understand the ramifications of the use of rational faculties regarding the assertions of religion. They don't want to admit that their choice of religious belief is either entirely arbitrary or (in almost all cases) simply a result of the accident of the community into which he was born and in which therefore he received his religious education and socialization. A more reasonable exercise of his rational faculties would lead to such a realization on his part.
The classic is the guy who says he knows what he needs to know due to his belief in God. But, I would ask, how did he come to believe in that form of God and in those accompanying doctrines?
(I'm not sure if you're talking about me, but) It's a result of following what you know, not "believing something you don't know".
Quote:
To do so involved selection on his part among alternatives, which involved the use of his rational faculties. So he does actually practice rational thought even though it is severely stunted. So even a thumper cannot evade the fact that rational faculties are being engaged. It is the case that they don't understand the ramifications of the use of rational faculties regarding the assertions of religion.
Rationally, I'd choose heaven over hell any day.
Quote:
They don't want to admit that their choice of religious belief is either entirely arbitrary or (in almost all cases) simply a result of the accident of the community into which he was born and in which therefore he received his religious education and socialization. A more reasonable exercise of his rational faculties would lead to such a realization on his part.
Not quite.. unless you believe the same way about yourself! If the way I believe was not a result of my own decision, neither is yours.
"Please list the questions that you are waiting for me to answer."
The questions are found in my previous posts (on the previous page) and in boldface. I guess you have a very short memory.
Is there a thumper out there somewhere who will actually engage on the issues and questions that I have raised?
Your questions...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain
How old do you believe the Earth is? What scientific methods do you believe are valid to determine that age? Do you have the same difficulties with the today's understanding of geologic time and today's practices of geological dating that you do with the theory of evolution?
I don't know how old the Earth is, and neither do scientists. Almost all of the dates on my 1994 Pan Terra geologic chart are wrong by a few million years. The reason? "… like fashions in hair or hem-length, the geological divisions of our planet’s timeline are prone to change. … The end of the Jurassic period, for instance, has wobbled by more than 30 million years since it was dated in the 1930s." -- Nature, Vol. 429, 13 May 2004, “Time Lords”, page 124
Radiometric dating is inconsistent and, in general, results don't agree. That is why this new timetable is so important -- If they agree what the “right” answer is (based on the rock layer), they know which radiometric results to accept, and which to ignore.
Pretty scientific, don't ya think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain
Do you understand that the theory of evolution doesn't address the origin of life on Earth?
And you don't find this strange? For something that claims to know so much about the natural world, yet it wants to separate itself from abiogenesis. The reason for this is obvious.
It's because the natural spontaneous origin of life is scientifically absurd.
Since abiogenesis is so clearly false, most evolutionists want to separate it from the theory of evolution. They want to start with a living cell and proceed from there. But that is cheating. You have to start at the starting line. You have to start with a dead planet that naturally and spontaneously produces the first living thing.
We don't have a clue how life originated, but we know exactly what happened once it did get here.
Right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain
Do you understand that science is by its nature an incomplete body of work?
Yes. And the more we learn about genetics, the clearer it becomes that it is scientifically impossible for a species to become a different species. It is also why the number of scientists who discount the ToE has grown substantially over the past several decades.
I believe that those are all the questions you raised, besides the ones I already addressed. If I missed something, just let me know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
