U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-24-2010, 10:27 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,070,692 times
Reputation: 14878

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by baket View Post

so science first said.. this is fact:



fast forward to year 2000 or earlier and many are pointing the silliness of it.
"Many" in this case is a weasel word. Who are these "many"?


Quote:
i have my valid reasons. exclamation point.
You have your reasons, validity isn't one of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-24-2010, 10:30 PM
 
354 posts, read 677,949 times
Reputation: 81
"many" enough for science to say that is not how it worked but rather, genetic mutation or whatever scientific crap they bamboozzle to weed out that silly silly illustration of evolution of man circa 1950(?) splashed in all our science textbook.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2010, 10:36 PM
 
Location: Cedar Park, TX
580 posts, read 917,336 times
Reputation: 389
I think most of the problems that theists have with evolution is in terms of how the universe began. In fact, as a "de-facto atheist," I'll say that sometimes I do have trouble wrapping my mind around things like the Big Bang starting from nothing to create the universe.
That said, evolution, or at least micro-evolution, is a scientifically proven process, and I'll trust it over anything that any speculative theist proposes any day of the week.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2010, 10:36 PM
 
Location: Richland, Washington
4,070 posts, read 4,967,252 times
Reputation: 2479
Baket, have you ever actually done any independent research on evolution? By the way, AIG and the Discovery Institute aren't credible sources. Credible sources come from people who work in the field such as Ken Miller or Richard Dawkins. Also, those pictures you gave have been widely discredited. I'm surprised you would even think of using them. That may have been the idea of evolution back in the Civil War, but nowadays we have a much more accurate model which describes evolution as looking more like a tree. Also, you claim that Rifleman is an arrogant fool, yet you are making a number of arrogant assumptions. You claim that earth is the only planet in the solar system that supports life, yet you provide no evidence for this. Have you scoured every planet? There is evidence of water on Mars which indicates it may support/have life on it. Also, life doesn't necessarily have to be the sort of life we see on earth. Also, there are billions of planets within the universe. Mathematically, there are others that support life. Also, do you have any response relating to the thread topic? The topic is problems with ID, not everything you don't understand about evolution.

Last edited by agnostic soldier; 03-24-2010 at 10:49 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2010, 06:19 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,069,422 times
Reputation: 3717
Default The fool maketh my point. Again. Thanks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by baket View Post
which is precisely why for freakish reason there must be a creator/designer. and to rifle: life comes from life... and earth again has freakishly been the only one on an entire solar system to have life. i wonder where that life came from? the big freaking bang? and spare me the scientific illiterate crap. so you are an arrogant fool, what else is new.

i just am finding more and more the flaw of of evolution. so spare me the insults or explanations. i am sold. evolution of man is science fiction. i have my valid reasons. exclamation point.
Well, as always, the less prepared prove the point in question. Again, you conflate life's existence with Evolution, proving again, you didn't stay awake in that particular lecture. This thread has NOTHING TO DO with The Big Bang, silly. We're not discussing that one! This is about Evolution versus ID. Read the OP again, wouldjah?

But then you throw in unrelated commentary and criticism that's unsupportable. Quite convincing! And you call me an arrogant fool? Which point am I wrong on again? Tell me specifically, oh Grande Master of the Universe.

Life, per se, has NOTHING to do with the Evolution processes you so love to hate. But, as is predictable with the chanting, yowling pitchfork-and torch-wielding but brainless masses en route to the public floggings, you won't or can't get your head around that, so I defer to your greater stubbornness and lack of education.

It's also typical that when cornered by a higher level of knowledge, you turn to claims of arrogance. (Or do you claim to know more than everyone about everything? You know all about neuro-surgery perhaps? Or HD-TV repair? And how to fix the fuel injection system in your car? You're an expert on all of it?)

Phunny!

Just answer the fricking questions, why don't you? (I know why you don't/won't, of course..., and MY supposed arrogance has nothing to do with your complete inability to answer a simple question...)

I'll admit: that's amazing if you do know literally EVERYTHING. But obviously I do happen to know far more than you about Evolution and it's mechanisms, because you keep getting it so completely and utterly wrong by anyone's objective review. And yet you then come back and re-spout the same tired and totally incorrect stuff.

Why is that? Because you won't open your mind up. And so I'm arrogant, conceited and stupid, huh? Typical deflective comeback.

Well, fortunately, there's more interested and intellectually honest folks here than just you. You're apparently hopeless and unteachable. There's that "relationship" deal-breaker again. It's a sad person who cannot admit when they fall short on a particular topic. Now me; I'm the first to admit my bible studies classes and knowledge of scripture is a bit short, and I"ll defer to others. Ditto for me on, say, neuro-surgery and HD-TV repair. I'm not proud; there's lots I don't know squat about.

But apparently, you not so much. But sadly that won't save you, or mean if you keep making brainless, unsupported statements, we won't go after them.

Enjoy, grasshopper.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2010, 06:34 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,069,422 times
Reputation: 3717
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeoZ View Post
I think most of the problems that theists have with evolution is in terms of how the universe began. In fact, as a "de-facto atheist," I'll say that sometimes I do have trouble wrapping my mind around things like the Big Bang starting from nothing to create the universe.
That said, evolution, or at least micro-evolution, is a scientifically proven process, and I'll trust it over anything that any speculative theist proposes any day of the week.
Thanx, LeoZ. Breath'a Fresh Air in here! Good to see someone with common sense! As a scientist, I'm not comfortable with the Big Bang hypothesis right now either, though it's our best attempt to manage what we do see out in the universe. and it also predicts some things we didn't anticipate. But when we went and looked, there they were, exactly as predicted. Pretty interesting when that happens, huh. Sorta confirms the hypothesis, right?

In particular, the existence, as proved by Hubble's calculations and the telescope named after him, of a rapidly expanding universe that also can be seen to be moving away from a specific point, indicates SOMETHING happened at that unit point in the past. I mean, if we're moving down the road at 30 mph, and we've been going at that speed for one hour, where were we an hour ago? Why, back 30 miles. Simple stuff. Ditto for our rough calculations of the original formative origin of our observable universe.

But of course, then we have some who automatically dismiss such logic, and state, categorically, that the entire universe revolves around th Earth, just like it says in the bible, and that, as per Genesis, the night sky is but a dome above us with some lights pasted on it. Goody!

But just where did the original universal materials came from? Dunno. Are there alternate possibilities? co-existent universes, or two (or and infinite number of...) universes that occasionally collide and form a new start-up universe, which later collapses? You bet, some or most of which we may simply not be able, ever, to get our pointy little heads around.

We're only human after all, right?

But as for Evolution per se, as you say, it's been observed, documented, analyzed and, lately, proven to be, quite simply, how existing life (post Big-Bang, or whatever...) diversified on this planet. Don't know how, or if, it has happened on other planets that might support life. We'll have to wait and see, though the Christians want all the answers, right now, and don't want us to even look any further.

Remember that religious nutball in the movie "Contact" who just had to sabotage the time/space craft? He's the fanatic Everyman fundy religious zealot, typical of some who show up here to call us names instead of simply engaging in honest debate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2010, 06:42 AM
 
354 posts, read 677,949 times
Reputation: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by agnostic soldier View Post
Baket, have you ever actually done any independent research on evolution? By the way, AIG and the Discovery Institute aren't credible sources. Credible sources come from people who work in the field such as Ken Miller or Richard Dawkins. Also, those pictures you gave have been widely discredited. I'm surprised you would even think of using them. That may have been the idea of evolution back in the Civil War, but nowadays we have a much more accurate model which describes evolution as looking more like a tree. Also, you claim that Rifleman is an arrogant fool, yet you are making a number of arrogant assumptions. You claim that earth is the only planet in the solar system that supports life, yet you provide no evidence for this. Have you scoured every planet? There is evidence of water on Mars which indicates it may support/have life on it. Also, life doesn't necessarily have to be the sort of life we see on earth. Also, there are billions of planets within the universe. Mathematically, there are others that support life. Also, do you have any response relating to the thread topic? The topic is problems with ID, not everything you don't understand about evolution.

AIG and the Discovery Institute - huh? what is that? precisely my point. science back in civil war was so freaking sure that is how evolution of man happen and confident enough to teach that crap in all science class back in those days. actually, even in 1980s in my elementary science class, that is what i see in my science textbook. that silly illustration. which i believed, mind you. who now is teaching crap about the beginning of man? they even have the nerve to print it in EVERY school SCIENCE textbook. and you say book of bible crap should not be taught in school? science has taught a very very silly idea of that evolution for a looong time.

who was poisoning children's mind back in civil war era, even on my elementary years? i think it is just fair to teach kids about the bible's creation AND science's evolution. then let them decide what is crap, what is not. how can these kids choose what to believe if you only teach science? how is that freaking fair?

Last edited by baket; 03-25-2010 at 07:00 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2010, 07:12 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,069,422 times
Reputation: 3717
Default And on he goes.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by baket View Post
who was poisoning children's mind back in civil war era, even on my elementary years? i think it is just fair to teach kids about the bible's creation AND science's evolution. then let them decide what is crap, what is not. how can these kids choose what to believe if you only teach science? how is that freaking fair?
No contest. Let them take a course in religious philosophy, but include all religion: an honest comparative religious philosophy course. That will allow Christiantiy to duke it out with, say, Islam, or Shinto. Not just Christianity. Agreed?

(NOTE: Most Christian-based school boards say NO to this open-minded idea; they just want Christianity taught, and such topics as Evolution dropped and not even mentioned. Suppression of knowledge is their end game. Well, sorry; no sale. We have a constitution in this country.)

Now then, baket: just what is the "science" you so object to? "Science" is just a standardized toolset used to minimize bias and fakery, and it regularly uncovers such attempts. The high quality of it's results, however, speak for themselves. Your particular philosophical pet peeves don't hold any water, in fact.

As for the results it's created in the areas of geology, engineering, life sciences, biochemistry, medicine, genetics and evolution, you'd have to show me and us specifically where it has failed, where the results of research are all wrong. Your personal dislike of those peer-reviewed results fails to prove anything. But science allows and even encourages you to replicate an experiment you might disagree with. If you prove the results to be different, and your methods are sound, then you get a gold star, and the overall knowledge base is improved.

You like to call that arrogance or science changing it's mind. We scientists call it "improvement" and "progress", and the general base of knowledge now is so much better than it was, say, 20 yeas ago, that your dismissal of it all is baseless and tired.

Given your lack of positive input or suggestions, you're just ranting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2010, 07:42 AM
 
354 posts, read 677,949 times
Reputation: 81
science in other fields like i said i have no problem. i even agree they make our world a better place to live in. i am basically saying, for you evolutionists to conclude it is much more fool proof than creation, how can that be? if evolution did not apparently happen in other planets in our solar system. there are rovers currently in mars right? they shown HD pics from mars, somehow as i am writing this, no life is discovered even a plant? if evolution as i am writing this did not apply to other solar system, how can u accurately state evolution is fool proof. that is my point. because you state that logically that has got to be why human is what it is now. when your very logic of evolution did not even apply to other planets. because the very core of evolution, which is natural selection apparently did not even started in other planets. as i am writing this, apparently my statement is true. i am open for it to be false if science in say 5000 years discovered a plant in other planets. unfortunately, i am dead by then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2010, 07:45 AM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,952,585 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by baket View Post
science in other fields like i said i have no problem. i even agree they make our world a better place to live in. i am basically saying, for you evolutionists to conclude it is much more fool proof than creation, how can that be? if evolution did not apparently happen in other planets in our solar system. there are rovers currently in mars right? they shown HD pics from mars, somehow as i am writing this, no life is discovered even a plant? if evolution as i am writing this did not apply to other solar system, how can u accurately state evolution is fool proof. that is my point.
Evolution requires life. If there is no life on Mars (because the atmospheric pressure is too low to contain liquid water) you will not get biological evolution. Q.E.D. It does not get any more simpler than that.

The best we can think of for planets outside of Earth that might contain life in this solar system would be Titan or Europa, both of which emanate heat and contain liquid ices and water. Considering the ices on those moons are some hundreds of feet think, it might be a while before we bore into them to look.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top