rhys 0 #126 August 5, 2008 QuoteWe don't bother to explain to lab rats the way of the world, do we? Why would a god be any different with us? Because according to Christianity, this world was mad for man, we are not animals like everything else; we are the reason for existence. This, by the way, is absurd."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #127 August 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteDo you understand the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution? No, that's why I asked you to explain the difference. A reptile losing it's legs would be micro. A reptile becoming a mammal would be macro. Those are anecdotal examples. Please, explain the difference. What are the definitive characteristics that make macro-evolution different from micro-evolution? Micro evolution occurs within a species. Macro evolution occurs when a species becomes a completely different species (that is incapable of interbreeding). Could you please point out which reptile species has both legged and legless versions?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #128 August 5, 2008 Quote>Macro evolution occurs when a species becomes a completely >different species (that is incapable of interbreeding). In that case, we have seen the following cases of macroevolution occur right in front of our own eyes: Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas) Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis) Tragopogon Raphanobrassica Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit) Madia citrigracilis Brassica Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum) Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae) Stephanomeira malheurensis Maize (Zea mays) Drosophila paulistorum (a kind of fruit fly) So we have solid, observed scientific proof of both the things you call microevolution and macroevolution. Everybody knows a hemp nettle is just a regular nettle that's more interested in getting stoned than getting laid. It's not really a different species.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,563 #129 August 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteDo you understand the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution? No, that's why I asked you to explain the difference. A reptile losing it's legs would be micro. A reptile becoming a mammal would be macro. Those are anecdotal examples. Please, explain the difference. What are the definitive characteristics that make macro-evolution different from micro-evolution? Micro evolution occurs within a species. Macro evolution occurs when a species becomes a completely different species (that is incapable of interbreeding). Could you please point out which reptile species has both legged and legless versions? It'd also be nice for him to explain why he's given a definition involving species but an example involving classes! I did tell him to stop digging...Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #130 August 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteWe don't bother to explain to lab rats the way of the world, do we? Why would a god be any different with us? Because according to Christianity, this world was mad for man, we are not animals like everything else; we are the reason for existence. This, by the way, is absurd. Actually, you're quite wrong. Even if we WERE to take Genesis as literal fact, that book itself contradicts your assertion. (it also contradicts ITSELF, which any good Bible scholar will readily admit to you) Read it again if you doubt me. But then, I do not read Genesis as literal, as I explained before. And no, fortunately that does not go against the teachings of my church. I don't know what "the church" is that you are referring to. The Roman Catholic church in the traditional sense? If so, then you should know that the Roman Catholic church are also NOT bible literalists. As a matter of fact, most Protestant traditions also are not literalists...only the orthodox or fundamental sects of various denominations could truly be called that. The ONLY requirement to be a "Christian" is to repent and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. that's IT. ALL of the other stuff is religion, which, quite unfortunately, all too often gets very mixed up with faith by people with no wish to hear or even consider the possibility of changing their minds. And that statement unfortunately applies to BOTH sides of this argument, i fear. It seems to me that Chuteless has also lost sight of what it truly means to be Christian, moreso than some of the non-Christians on here! All that being said, please don't try to pigeonhole me into your narrow and incorrect view of Christianity. it's rather offensive, actually, especially after i've spent many many posts on this board articulately and calmly explaining my exact beliefs on this subject, with no intent to convert you or anyone else.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #131 August 6, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteMicro and macro is not misleading or irrelevant because it is the micro that is fact and the macro that is theory (currently). Do you understand the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution? The very fact (pun not intended) that you put (currently) in brackets implies that you think the theory could become a fact, which would mean that you did not understand the difference between fact and theory. The bracket implies that I think the theory could become a fact given future discoveries, technology, etc.... The very fact (pun not intended) that you don't understand how theories can become facts means you do not understand what a fact or theory is. YOU are seriously mistaken in YOUR understanding.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #132 August 6, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteDo you understand the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution? No, that's why I asked you to explain the difference. A reptile losing it's legs would be micro. A reptile becoming a mammal would be macro. Those are anecdotal examples. Please, explain the difference. What are the definitive characteristics that make macro-evolution different from micro-evolution? Micro evolution occurs within a species. Macro evolution occurs when a species becomes a completely different species (that is incapable of interbreeding). Your definition breaks down completely when applied to something that reproduces asexually.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #133 August 6, 2008 QuoteIn scientific terms, evolution is the only game in town; there is no other side to the story. At least, nothing else makes any damned sense.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #134 August 6, 2008 QuoteActually, you're quite wrong. Even if we WERE to take Genesis as literal fact, that book itself contradicts your assertion. (it also contradicts ITSELF, which any good Bible scholar will readily admit to you) Read it again if you doubt me. But then, I do not read Genesis as literal, as I explained before. And no, fortunately that does not go against the teachings of my church. I don't know what "the church" is that you are referring to. The Roman Catholic church in the traditional sense? If so, then you should know that the Roman Catholic church are also NOT bible literalists. As a matter of fact, most Protestant traditions also are not literalists...only the orthodox or fundamental sects of various denominations could truly be called that. So the bible is just a guideline, something for everyone to interpret for themselves? God must be real unfair, he invented us with our individual minds, gives us this book that doesn't make sense and has faults, only allows a small proportion of us to be able to read it, more than half of the world’s population probably has not much of a clue about it, gives us many other options of religions..... Do I need to go on, you are putting your energy into a lie my gullible friend, sorry but that is the truth. Don’t think that I don't believe in a divine source of life, but Christianity is a lie, there is no two ways about it, if you can't see it you are blind. The pope knows it, the bishops know it, but hey, if all you guys believe and they keep getting their pay cheques then it is all good right? If the church is so divine, why does it need money, the root of all evil?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #135 August 6, 2008 QuoteBut then, I do not read Genesis as literal, as I explained before. Neither do I. QuoteThe ONLY requirement to be a "Christian" is to repent and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. Now you see I don't take that literally either. At least I'm consistent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #136 August 6, 2008 If God made mankind in the very same state, originally, in which we now exist (per Creationism), and evolution is bunk, WHY THE FUCK DO MEN HAVE NIPPLES?! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #137 August 6, 2008 QuoteBut then, I do not read Genesis as literal, as I explained before. And no, fortunately that does not go against the teachings of my church. I don't know what "the church" is that you are referring to. The Roman Catholic church in the traditional sense? If so, then you should know that the Roman Catholic church are also NOT bible literalists. As a matter of fact, most Protestant traditions also are not literalists... I firmly believe that the only reason so many sects of Christianity have abandoned bible literalism is because in an age of intelligence, reason, and questioning, THEY WOULD LOOK RIDICULOUS trying to hold onto literal interpretations of the bible. So now, to save face, they mumble, "Oh, uh, sure, uh, yeah, um, it was never meant to be taken literally! Of course not! Heh, don't be silly!" If there weren't so many intelligent, articulate detractors in the world, free (despite the church's best efforts) to contradict the church, the religious people would all still be saying that the bible is to be taken literally. Who do you think you're kidding?Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #138 August 6, 2008 Quote God must be real unfair, he invented us with our individual minds, gives us this book that doesn't make sense and has faults, only allows a small proportion of us to be able to read it, more than half of the world’s population probably has not much of a clue about it, gives us many other options of religions..... Do I need to go on, you are putting your energy into a lie my gullible friend, sorry but that is the truth. Don’t think that I don't believe in a divine source of life, but Christianity is a lie, there is no two ways about it, if you can't see it you are blind. You and I are in serious agreement about all of that. Well said. I always thought it particularly cruel of "God" to require people to accept Jesus in order to have an afterlife in Heaven; but then to leave so very many people in the world UNREACHED by the WORD?! Fuck, that's cruel. Just because God's distribution system doesn't manage to span the globe that God himself made in only a day, they suffer for all eternity. Hey, what a great God! Watta guy! P.S. If a guy went to confession on Sunday, committed sins on Friday, and would have gone to confession again on Sunday but gets MURDERED on Saturday in a state of SIN, he goes to hell, right? But his murderer gets to languish on Death Row for 22 years, finds Jesus, confesses his sins, accepts the Savior, and goes to Heaven. THIS is the TRIPE that you people believe is the system set up by a fair, all-knowing, loving, forgiving God? Wow. I was thinking of these flaws in the myth back when I was in 6th grade. I hadn't even had my first logic class by then!Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #139 August 6, 2008 Quote Actually, you're quite wrong. Even if we WERE to take Genesis as literal fact, that book itself contradicts your assertion. (it also contradicts ITSELF, which any good Bible scholar will readily admit to you) Read it again if you doubt me. Heh. "Bible scholar." "GOOD Bible scholar"! Contemplating such a person makes me think of people who devote their lives to making a true study of the nuances and intricacies of something like basketball... as though it fuckin' matters! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #140 August 6, 2008 Hey, I was just thunderstruck with a great idea. I'm going to read "The Wind in the Willows" a few hundred times, and devote all my focus to becoming a "The Wind in the Willows" scholar. I hope to be able to bring enlightenment, joy, and eternal paradise to all mankind through the wisdom I believe I will acquire from my devoted study. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #141 August 6, 2008 Quote Contemplating such a person makes me think of people who devote their lives to making a true study of the nuances and intricacies of something like basketball... as though it fuckin' matters! Nah not basketball. Theology as a subject is more on a par with something like Medieval Golf Course Management or Klingon History. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #142 August 6, 2008 OK, we'll go with Klingon History for $1000, Alex.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #143 August 6, 2008 QuoteThe absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Many scientific theories had no evidence until someone proved it right. We should not abandon a theory due to a lack of evidence. Our understanding of our world is limited. no theory of nature is ever "proved" -- all are best possible working hypotheses and their quality measured by consistency with reproducible experiment or repeated observation. That gives you measures of probability or confidence. Weighing physical evidence and logical coherence against each other it should be something like creationism: 0.000000000000000000000000000001 evolution: 99.999999999999999999999999999999 ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #144 August 6, 2008 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/04/ED6D124QS1.DTL"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #145 August 6, 2008 i see that any sort of informed or polite discussion on this matter is fruitless. Note that I have not devolved into senseless and petty attacks on YOUR beliefs (this is pointed to all who are attacking me and lumping me with people like chuteless, not just you, birdlike). Have i tried to convert you? Have I said you're going to hell for not being a christian? Have i said you're ridiculous, idiotic, or blind? If someone totally neutral came in here and read these posts, who would look like the assholes? would you be happier if i made fun of atheism and told you all you were going straight to hell and that you should repent and all that? Would you rather i DID try to convert you? Sounds like that's what you've come to expect, and can't see a difference even if it's thrown in your face. For that i am sorry. All I have done is try to explain, from a Christian point of view, how science and faith are NOT mutually exclusive. All YOU have done is rant at me, called my beliefs stupid, and presented no evidence (which scientists, myself being one of them, are usually quite fond of) or no logical coherent argument to the contrary. Honestly, it sounds to me like you're scared. You're scared of the possibility that science and faith CAN co-exist, and are doing your best to make sure that doesn't happen. At least not peacefully. Or you're scared that you met a Christian who doesn't fit your stereotype. So which is it? As for the bible scholar crack...I started reading the bible when i was an atheist. Know thine enemy and all that. Oh yeah, did i mention i used to be an atheist? Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #146 August 6, 2008 Quotehttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/04/ED6D124QS1.DTL To find out what I really mean, ask billvon Hey, Billvon, what does THIS non-sequitur mean?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #147 August 6, 2008 Quote Thus, a theory could become a fact when the ideas of the theory are confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. How is this incorrect? Theories are not just fuzzy, uncertain ideas that are a step on the path towards becoming facts. A theory is not a fact, and a fact is not a theory. A fact is an observation, something that can be seen to be true or false with little or no interpretation. A theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones. Theories explain facts. They do not become facts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy_Copland 0 #148 August 6, 2008 QuoteUnless you can question your own beliefs you have no right to question the beliefs of others Rings true on this forum with some folks.1338 People aint made of nothin' but water and shit. Until morale improves, the beatings will continue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #149 August 6, 2008 Quote... Many scientific theories had no evidence until someone proved it right.... Science is based upon falsifiable hypotheses, not on proof. Science is about proving things wrong, not proving them right. Science doesn't prove anything positively, and never says "this is the truth", because science can only disprove. Anyone trying to claim that science = proof doesn't understand science. Quote The power of the scientific method lies in "disproof" - falsifiability. For example, Rutherford used the data collected from X-rays passing through materials to disprove Bohr's hypothesis that atoms are single spheres of matter. Kepler used careful observations of the planets' motion to disprove that they move in a circle around the sun. They move in an ellipse, not a circle. Galileo used a variety of experiments to disprove that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones. There are many other famous "disproofs" in science... When presented with an idea, a hypothesis, ask yourself, "Can this be disproven? Is it faslifiable?" You will find that experiments and observations do not prove anything to be the truth. The best they can do is support an idea. When a hypothesis has stood the test of falsifiablity, often many times and in many ways, it takes on the status of a theory. Theories grow from successful hypotheses and usually encompass a grand unifying idea that cements together many observations, experiments and thoughts into a succinct description or process. http://www.synapses.co.uk/evolve/lec1d.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #150 August 6, 2008 QuoteI just watched this news clip http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/20080805/video/vwl-world-primates-facing-extinction-15af341.html in which they take Darwins theory of evolution as fact. Do you feel that this piece should have been less biased towards evolution and mentioned the other side of the story with equal regard? Should evolution be the one and only accepted theory? Is it time to consign Creationism to the history books? What a lot of creationists seem to forget is that evolution is not inherently atheistic. It doesn't explain how life got here, just what happened to it once it arrived. Creationism doesn't really seem to be about creation, but rather, about disproving evolution. Because there is no proof for creation, Creationists attempt to indirectly prove it by disproving evolution, going with the logic of "if not A, then B". The "scientific creationist's" logic is that if they can disprove the Theory of Evolution then "scientific creationism" is the only explanation left for how we got here. However, it is impossible to prove one theory by disproving another. Disproving evolution does not validate creationism. Ruling out evolution does not automatically rule in creationism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
