REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Rían]

by the chocoholic Sea Elf
This could work both ways, you know. The 'explanation' of "The [insert animal] has [insert observed characteristic] because the Lord has created them so." is just as silly. The proof for that sort of statement is also pretty thin IMO.

Oh, absolutely. I agree I just object when that particular one is only thrown at Creationists

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
(this must be a record number of rolley-eyes for me, but really, those "explanations" are so silly! And they ASSUME that evolution happened - they certainly don't PROVE it.)

that's the whole point of science... in the end nothing can be proven 100%... you make observations about reality, try to theorize upon how things came to be as they were... then ideas develop over time and are tested to see if they hold true

scientists are currently trying to see if they can recreate the intial formation of life on earth... putting together inanimate molecules to see if, along with water and heat, they will lead to the development of self-replicating life forms... if they succeed would you be willing to reconsider the origins of life?

[Rían]

But they can't "succeed" in a truly relevant way, because they don't know what the initial conditions truly were, right?

Rather like the Urey-Miller experiment ...

And again, evolutionists may change PARTS of their theory, like going to punctuated equilibrium or even "hopeful monsters", but WILL NOT GIVE UP the unproven assumption that macro evolution occurred.

[Rían]

(plus it STILL leaves unanswered where the original stuff came from ... just like Creationism leaves unanswered where God came from ... it's obvious that SOMETHING "uncreated" was around - either God or some goo. Personally, an uncreated God making a complex world seems MUCH more logical than goo turning into a complex world.)

[brownjenkins]

nothing will answer ultimate origins or fates... but it can help us to understand the in-between

was it adam and eve 6000 years ago?

was it goo a few billion years ago? (with the possibility of a creator in a much more distant past)

if we can create life from it's inanimate building blocks, it does not tell us how those blocks came about (though stellar theory attempts this)... it just tells us that life could have originated that way... and may also exist in other places in the universe

on macro-evolution, they are testing against the best theory currently available... if a better one comes along you can be assured science will adapt... it's the essence of science

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
LOL!

Oh, I thought you knew it better, because you mentioned keeping some of the special days pretty strictly. I thought I remembered you saying that your mom wouldn't let you leave the house, or go far from the house, for one of them.

Genesis is one of my favorite books!

Yeah, when I learned Genesis I was 7 years old.

No way my mom is going to do that. She doesn't think the Bible ever happened and that god exists, so...

Onan-ing

In English, there's a word, "onanism", that describes the physical practice. But there's no slang using Onan as a root.

It's not slang. and if you want to know the word, to jerk off would be 'le'onan'.

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
nothing will answer ultimate origins or fates... but it can help us to understand the in-between

I agree about ultimate origins - I was trying to answer your "if they succeed would you be willing to reconsider the origins of life?" question, and that was what I was saying, too.

if we can create life from it's inanimate building blocks, it does not tell us how those blocks came about (though stellar theory attempts this)... it just tells us that life could have originated that way... and may also exist in other places in the universe

Yes, and those "could have"s and "may"s would be interesting, but would prove nothing.

on macro-evolution, they are testing against the best theory currently available... if a better one comes along you can be assured science will adapt... it's the essence of science [/B]

Now HERE is where I would be willing to reconsider things if really solid, repeatable evidence ever showed up. And THIS area DOES fall more into the realm of proper science, in terms of hypothesis, test, repeatable test, observable results, altho ultimately because it's in the past you can't definitely say. But there is just NO observable evidence (and the teensy amount that is claimed to be, just doesn't have solid enough claims) that macro evolution happens, and even that the necessary conditions for macro evolution to happen (ie, beneficial adaptations) exist. So it's a double-negative-whammy against th. of evolution in this CRITICAL area, and despite this, evolutionists don't give up their unproven assumptions.

[brownjenkins]

evolution, by it's very nature, takes a long time... and we have only been observing it for a few hundred years at best... it is obvious if you trust the fossil record

if not, small degrees of evolution can already be seen in the insect world... and even greater degrees in the world of bacteria and viruses... this is due to the fact that they reproduce at such a greater rate... viruses cross over all the time and evolve in ways so that they can inhabit new hosts (i.e. humans) that they were never able to inhabit in their previous forms

they are really no different then us... it is just that their lifespan is so much more compressed

how about the alien life thing, would life on another planet change your opinion of evolution and how life came about?

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
evolution, by it's very nature, takes a long time... and we have only been observing it for a few hundred years at best... it is obvious if you trust the fossil record

But saying it takes a long time is NOT a reason to believe it happened, and I strongly disagree about the fossil record.

if not, small degrees of evolution can already be seen in the insect world... and even greater degrees in the world of bacteria and viruses... this is due to the fact that they reproduce at such a greater rate... viruses cross over all the time and evolve in ways so that they can inhabit new hosts (i.e. humans) that they were never able to inhabit in their previous forms

Again, disagree here - it's only variation within species - bacteria do NOT change into insects or whatever, and insects do NOT change into reptiles or whatever, despite the fact we've had ample time to observe this, if it was gonna happen. We ALWAYS see change "hit a wall" and stop.

they are really no different then us... it is just that their lifespan is so much more compressed

Then I assume you don't take antibiotics when you're sick, if they're the same as us?

how about the alien life thing, would life on another planet change your opinion of evolution and how life came about?

I don't see how it would change my opinon; what do you mean? Why would it?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
despite the fact we've had ample time to observe this, if it was gonna happen.

ample time? evolution has only been widely held as the prevailing theory for less then a century. How is that enough time to witness the whole scale evolutionary changes you only will consider in a living demonstration? I hope you havent been standing in your yard tapping your feet waiting for the fire flies to suddenly pop into bears.

Now I know Ive been down this road with you a few times and in the end my examples always seem to get ignored and this argument gets resurected anew but for the sake of those less educated in this arena Ill go back again to some simple cases that point to whole scale continuation of life and not creation of life in full static form:

If we did not evolve from another type of creature then why do we (humans) have post-auricular muscles? In other mammals these muscles move the ears toward sound. Is the ability of some people to wiggle their ears one of god's lesser appreciated designes for us? Or is it because we came from something that NEEDED that ability...

Why do terrestrial salamanders need to gestate their embroyos in an aquatic environment? Could it be that back in their evolution they were actually... AQUATIC! Or is it god just applying the old frog design to something that no longer needs it?

For that matter why did god design it so that aquatic turtles had to come on land to lay their eggs. The ocean is a much safer place for a 1 ton animal with no legs. So why play that cruel joke on the poor leather backs and such and design them that way UNLESS they actually EVOLVED on land and returned BACK to the ocean at some point in their evolution.

Why did god design dolphins and whales with lungs and no gills? They have to breath and yet they spend their whole lives in the ocean. whats with that? They could easily suffocate (and the babies do all the time) if they dont get to the surface to breath every so often. And whats more they can get the bends as can any creature that has lungs. So why didnt god give them lungs AND gills like he did with salamanders and lung fish. Why make a great design for SOME things and not include it for others? UNLESS they too actually evolved on land and returned back into the water as mammals.

Speaking of whales why do they have a pelvis and hind limb bone remnants? Rather ODD thing to CREATE in a purely aquatic creature dont you think. I mean only land animals have... woops (oh and dolphins have hind limb buds by the way. why?)

Speaking of pelvis's (pelvi?), why do pythons also have a pelvis not to mention a hindlimb remnant and a hindlimb claw remnant if they were simply CREATED to spook adam and eve? Sounds like they had a claw at one point...

I wont even get into the floral arena and talk about things like why asexual plants have flowers. Because theres just so many things to talk about in that area.

Whats with toe nails on manatee flipers?

Why do anteaters and baleen whales develop foetal teeth which quickly get reabsorbed? Whats the purpose for that design exactly? Or could it reflect an evolutionary step in their PAST...

umm... ok Im gonna stop there before i get on a role. Theres really dozens probably hundreds of easy examples like this that simply cant be explained by "intelligent design" but which clearly point to SIGNIFICANT evolutionary change in the course of an animals living history. Please feel free to try to wrestle them away from their quite evident evolutionary explanation and fit them into the design mode if you like though.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Radagast The Brown
Why do you want to know?

Knowledge is power.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Drgnslyer
I've only heard of one theroy, and I'm not sure of the name......all i know that what i'm thinking of is on the cutting edge of (meta? or quantam?)physics.

However, what are the differences between townsend's P-brade and the M-Theroy...

About the 90's (not sure exactly, sorry) there were 5 distinct string theories. M-theory put the 5 different string theories together into one theory that utilized them all in some way or another. I don't think it's all worked out completely yet though. Someone else might know more and could help me on it.

Paul Townsend's P-brane theory...
A "brane" is an object, which appears to be a fundamental ingredient in M-theory, that can have a variety of spacial dimensions. The "P" represents the dimension... so a "P-brane" is a brane with p dimensions. (They're supposed to be the solutions to equations of supergravity theories in 10 or 11 dimensions.)

So, you're saying... that's not right... we don't live in a dimension of 10 or 11. We live in 3 dimensional space, plus time. Well, the theory is that the other 6 or 7 dimensions are curled up so tight that we don't experience them with our senses. Last I read was that some folks were going to do some experiments with the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva.. but I don't know if that went on or not... I haven't read up on this stuff in some years. Sorry.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
(plus it STILL leaves unanswered where the original stuff came from ... just like Creationism leaves unanswered where God came from ... it's obvious that SOMETHING "uncreated" was around - either God or some goo. Personally, an uncreated God making a complex world seems MUCH more logical than goo turning into a complex world.)

Your "god" theory makes no sense to me... it makes as much sense as if someone suddenly stated that we were all shat out of a giant tortoise.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Ruinel
it makes as much sense as if someone suddenly stated that we were all shat out of a giant tortoise.

LOL! Now, now, you may be offending the Sacred Cult of the Turtle Browneye there.

[Falagar]

Again, disagree here - it's only variation within species - bacteria do NOT change into insects or whatever, and insects do NOT change into reptiles or whatever, despite the fact we've had ample time to observe this, if it was gonna happen. We ALWAYS see change "hit a wall" and stop.

We saw a video about the copper-virus on school once, not long ago. The copper-virus evolved, in a way, along with humans: it aquired new ways to infect humans all the time. There were many "keys" to attack human cells within its DNA and trick the human 'defense-system'.

[brownjenkins]

great examples IR!

on the alien life thing RÃ*an... would it not put strict biblical interpretation into question?

as i mentioned earlier... it is one thing to argue that there is a creator behind the universe, and quite another to argue for strict biblical interpretation that has adam and eve "created" 6,000 or so years ago (as well as the universe, one would assume)

if we found intelligent life from another planet that had existed for 50,000 years (or more)... would you rethink strict biblical interpretation... again, i'm not talking about whether there is a god or not

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
ample time? evolution has only been widely held as the prevailing theory for less then a century. How is that enough time to witness the whole scale evolutionary changes you only will consider in a living demonstration? I hope you havent been standing in your yard tapping your feet waiting for the fire flies to suddenly pop into bears.

I'm talking about things that reproduce quickly - that was the context

About the rest - see posts on the creationism thread ... not up to dealing with those again yet.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Your "god" theory makes no sense to me... it makes as much sense as if someone suddenly stated that we were all shat out of a giant tortoise.

But do you agree that there has to be SOMETHING that's "uncreated"? (How can you NOT agree? After all, we're here! But you tend to do exactly what you claim that I do - look at everything thru your worldview glasses )

And looking at it impartially, (IOW, leaving behind YOUR preconceived notions about things ) doesn't it make more sense to say that the complexity we see in the world comes from an intelligent uncreated being, rather than an unintelligent uncreated mass of goo operated on by chance forces?

You don't have to conclude God made things, of course, but really, can you drop YOUR preconceived notions enough to see that the first alternative makes more sense? You can claim that later supporting evidence supports the latter alternative, of course.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Falagar
We saw a video about the copper-virus on school once, not long ago. The copper-virus evolved, in a way, along with humans: it aquired new ways to infect humans all the time. There were many "keys" to attack human cells within its DNA and trick the human 'defense-system'.

And it remained a virus, and the ability to vary its attacks is part of its original DNA make-up, as you noted yourself.

We need to be precise in science, and "evolve" has several meanings. What creationists obect to is when "evolve" is used to mean macro-evolution, which is roughly something radically changed into an entire different type of being (e.g., a one-celled thingy into a human, or a fish into a dinosaur, or whatever the currently popular version is - I forget which is current sometimes, because it changes). This is a critical and foundational part of the theory, and it is completely unobserved.

Evolutionists will then commonly try to wriggle out of the difficulty by saying that evolution just means to change. Of course, that brings up the very reasonable and sensible response of, "please define what types of change you mean," because creationists have no problem with changes that are simply variation within type.

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
on the alien life thing RÃ*an... would it not put strict biblical interpretation into question?

as i mentioned earlier... it is one thing to argue that there is a creator behind the universe, and quite another to argue for strict biblical interpretation that has adam and eve "created" 6,000 or so years ago (as well as the universe, one would assume)

if we found intelligent life from another planet that had existed for 50,000 years (or more)... would you rethink strict biblical interpretation... again, i'm not talking about whether there is a god or not

I honestly don't see how it would put strict biblical interpretation into question ... we aren't told whether or not God created life on other planets. In fact, there's a little intriguing verse in the Bible where Jesus talks about gathering his other flocks, or something like that. It could just be a reference to the Gentiles (the non-Jews), or it could mean life on other planets. To paraphrase Aslan in the Narnia stories, we don't always need to know other people's stories, we need to get ours straight first.

And anyway, just adding more time and a different location doesn't remove the original problem - there's NO difference that I can see - the question is still: which matches the observed data more, creationism or evolutionism? Amount of time does nothing to remove the considerations involved, right? And I just don't see the evidence for the critical and unproven parts of evolutionism. And the people that believe in evolution the strongest are those that have a tremendous religious vested interest in it being true - IOW, the atheists and agnostics. Personally, I have no religious vested interest in evolution being false. I disbelieve evolution independent of my belief in God. IOW, if the evidence was ever uncovered that supported evolution, it would not contradict the evidence that has led me to conclude that God exists.