|
|
GTripp0012 01-08-2007, 09:20 PM It's just too much of a coincidence not to be from a higher design. The odds of all this being like this by coincidence is so astronomical I don't have enough space to place the odds. How can science honestly overcome those odds?Ultimately, my continuing belief in the Lord comes down to this. The theroy of evolution as it pertains to creating life says that life was begun through occurences of astronomically small probabilities. Ridiculously astronomically small. Would never, ever be duplicated again. But merely because it's possible, it's become a haven for "nonbelievers" who think that the Bible was a work of fiction.
The scientific method DEMANDS that an experiment be recreatable for it to be truly scientific. Evolution will likely never be recreated because of the nature of the theroy (A bunch of completely random occurences coming together just perfectly). So why Evolution would ever be passed off as "Scientific" is beyond me.
The much more logical explination is Creation, that instead of any random fluctuations of dumb luck, that there in fact IS a supremely intelligent being. Once it can be proven that creatures can be supremely intelligent (that is to have limitless knowledge), the rest of the Creation theroy makes perfect sense.
saden1 01-08-2007, 10:32 PM Ultimately, my continuing belief in the Lord comes down to this. The theroy of evolution as it pertains to creating life says that life was begun through occurences of astronomically small probabilities. Ridiculously astronomically small. Would never, ever be duplicated again. But merely because it's possible, it's become a haven for "nonbelievers" who think that the Bible was a work of fiction.
The scientific method DEMANDS that an experiment be recreatable for it to be truly scientific. Evolution will likely never be recreated because of the nature of the theroy (A bunch of completely random occurences coming together just perfectly). So why Evolution would ever be passed off as "Scientific" is beyond me.
The much more logical explination is Creation, that instead of any random fluctuations of dumb luck, that there in fact IS a supremely intelligent being.
Evolution is not random, it took billions of years.
Mutation is random in the sense that it's not anticipatory of what's needed. Natural selection is anything but random. Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don't survive. That's a non-random process. The animals that are best at whatever they do-hunting, flying, fishing, swimming, digging-whatever the species does, the individuals that are best at it are the ones that pass on the genes. It's because of this non-random process that lions are so good at hunting, antelopes so good at running away from lions, and fish are so good at swimming.
Evolution is akin to the learning processes we go throughout our lives. We learn from our mistakes and make sure we pass on lessons learned (ala traits) and skills to our descendants. It's how we get smarter. It's how we will continue to get smarter.
Once it can be proven that creatures can be supremely intelligent (that is to have limitless knowledge), the rest of the Creation theory makes perfect sense.
Limitless implies infinite and you cannot define infinity. In essence what you have just said is that creation theory can never be proven.
Schneed10 01-08-2007, 10:33 PM Schneed, how could you believe in evolution if you have never seen it happen. It has never been observed anywhere, not in a lab or in nature. Isn't that the same reason why you don't believe in God? I know some species have slightly changed to their environment, but they have never been changed into a new species. How could you then believe it if it has never been seen?
Because there are fossil records that show a gradual development of ancestral apes to homo sapien man. Again, getting back to that incredibly dumbfounding analogy, you don't need to see the wind to know it's there.
I don't need to see cro magnun man to realize that he looks an awful lot like a cross between a man and a gorilla. The scientists have studied the fossils, and the overwhelming majority of them agree that humans in their present form came from apes. I mean how else can you explain why chimpanzees are so similar to humans?
Getting to Saden's point about me chilling the F out, lucky for him I'm pretty much coming to the end of the conversation, because pretty much everything that can be said has been said. I can totally dig someone's viewpoint on faith; if you have it, that's fine and it's very noble. Jsarno is a good guy to debate with and I appreciate his views, because while he's religious and I respect him for it, he also acknowledges the overwhelming probability that evolution is on the money. I can agree to disagree with any religious viewpoint. But when someone refuses to believe evolution is probably right? I'm sorry. I find that ignorant. It's like ignoring the work of gaggles of scientists. It's intellectually lazy, and frankly just plain stupid.
Evolution is not a belief. It is a theory. Theories have evidence to support them, even though they cannot be proven. There is such thing as being 99% sure a theory is correct. Not everything is 100% sure, and not everything is 0% sure. It's impossible to get to 100% sure on evolution, we don't have time machines. But scientists are 99% sure evolution is on the money; despite the fact that many of those scientists are religious. There's no reason that religious belief and the theory of evolution can't coexist. One is a theory, the other is a belief. They'll only conflict if you're one of those morons who believes every single thing in the Bible (book of Genesis) is true. Thankfully, there aren't many of those people left in the world. Progress is good.
I'm done on this topic. I part by saying religion is great. I don't believe in it, but if you do, good for you. Evolution however, is not a belief. It is a theory. And if you refuse to consider the overwhelming evidence in favor of it, then you truly are ignorant.
Redskinhog1963 01-08-2007, 10:51 PM god says he made man in his image.but he never said what that image was!
is'nt it plausable that after he created us in his image,we evolved out of his image to our current image???
RobH4413 01-09-2007, 03:18 AM My favorite argument for a "god" was the first cause argument. I've always loved it...
You woke up this morning because your alarm clock went off. Your alive because your parents had sex. Your parents are alive because their parents had sex.
Every cause has an effect, and if you trace every cause further and further back through time, to the big bang for instance, what happened before that?
What was the "First Cause" to set everything in motion.
It proves that reason itself is flawed, we live in a foward flowing "time" where every action has a re-action. The problem is that time cannot exist, it's a figment of our silly little brains, and an eternal entity is the logical explanation.
However I just proved that logic is flawed in itself... so now I proved that I can't prove anything, so that leaves me with catch 22 after catch 22. It's funny thinking we can actually know something... but the truth is... we can't "know" anything in the true sense of the word.
It's 2:00am. I'm going to bed.
SmootSmack 01-09-2007, 03:29 AM When in doubt, consult the Simpsons
YouTube - The Simpsons - Myth of Creation (http://youtube.com/watch?v=QeqeNisXE2k)
YouTube - An Unbiased Comparison (http://youtube.com/watch?v=YKaaW8qtJ2U)
jsarno 01-09-2007, 04:03 PM I also have the MBA in Finance. I also majored in math in college.
Masters or not, you're wrong.
Your previous post to this one had nothing to say about the content of my post...but I do agree with your assessment of evolution, and yes I am fully aware of how that happened. Just saying there is a bunch of holes. I think my whole point eluded you.
About this post...I am not...you'd know this if you tried my system. Funny how you're too afraid to even try. I gave you proof that it can work, and you ignored it. So yes, we are done with this subject because you're not willing to even look at the evidence.
ps- congrats on the MBA...I know it was the hardest thing I have done in my life, and I feel to do it you have to be a special person. Although I have to work twice as hard at school for some reason as others. That's why I feel it's an astronomical accomplishment.
SmootSmack 01-09-2007, 04:06 PM ps- congrats on the MBA...I know it was the hardest thing I have done in my life, and I feel to do it you have to be a special person. Although I have to work twice as hard at school for some reason as others. That's why I feel it's an astronomical accomplishment.
Matty and I are special too! So is JoeRedskin, but in a different kind of way. But I always thought the hardest part of the MBA was getting in.
Ok, back to the Evolution Revolution
jsarno 01-09-2007, 04:07 PM Just wondering, where is it that your work begins at 2:00 pm New Mexico time? That's an interesting finance job. Sales maybe?
Actually it started at 3:30pm...I closed last night. Check out my profile...I am a restaurant manager for Chilis. Closes go from 3:30pm to 1:00am ish, 2:00am on friday and saturday night. Opens go from 7:30am to 5:30pm ish. This is why you'll notice I have some very early posts (2am) and sporatic appearances on here cause I work all the damn time. I'm wanting to get out of the business and back to banking.
jsarno 01-09-2007, 04:11 PM My favorite argument for a "god" was the first cause argument. I've always loved it...
You woke up this morning because your alarm clock went off. Your alive because your parents had sex. Your parents are alive because their parents had sex.
Every cause has an effect, and if you trace every cause further and further back through time, to the big bang for instance, what happened before that?
What was the "First Cause" to set everything in motion.
It proves that reason itself is flawed, we live in a foward flowing "time" where every action has a re-action. The problem is that time cannot exist, it's a figment of our silly little brains, and an eternal entity is the logical explanation.
However I just proved that logic is flawed in itself... so now I proved that I can't prove anything, so that leaves me with catch 22 after catch 22. It's funny thinking we can actually know something... but the truth is... we can't "know" anything in the true sense of the word.
It's 2:00am. I'm going to bed.
This is a very good post. I often come to that conclusion and amuse myself by my conclusions. I have been round-abouts touching on this, but you summed it up well. Good post.
|