In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins - Page 29

Farsight001 · #**421** Jun 25, '12, 3:38 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffalo

You won't find much because they don't have much. The artistic renderings go much further than the actual evidence allows.

In the future, you should at least do a google search before making such claims. I highly suggest you do it now and then put your foot firmly in your mouth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffalo

Please show the number of morphological changes necessary.

Stop your game playing buffalo. He was asking questions. You don't quote a question and make a demand. That's your attempt to stay on the attack and avoid addressing the tough questions that we all know you can't answer. You're trying to divert and redirect the conversation, and mold it in the manner in which you want it to go. It doesn't work like that, so quit trying. It's deceptive and misleading at the very least.

gcharles · #**422** Jun 25, '12, 3:46 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tqualey

Hi, Gcharles,

It appears to me that you are simply rambling on rather then simply answering the questions I have given you. This is sometimes identified as evasion. If this is your intent, please, continue to ramble - but, note such posts are usually not helpful to a thread that seeks dialogue.

I await your response.

God bless

exnihilo · #**423** Jun 25, '12, 3:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lost Wanderer

How is that deceptive to anyone? You want deceptive? Try supposedly creating the world in a fantasy fashion and then somewhere in the middle, we went from a land of saints and dragons to a land of urbanite stupidity. THAT is deceptive. What's deceptive is making people think that real life, the reality I know a lot of people (including myself) scorn and despise, is indeed just some big, mystical cover-up by science while underneath, it's actually an Evangelical version of Azeroth.

You wanna know what happens if somehow, God proves you people right? Guys like me would have a really BIG bone to pick with Him (as soon as I pick up some courses in spellcraft while I'm at it :P). You would not like how guys like me feel forced to put up the mundane of daily life, only to realize we could've been living the real-life versions of our MMORPG characters.

If could be perceived as deceptive because it can be seen to obscure God. Of course if that is how God made the world then it would not be deceptive since He is not a deceiver. The point I'd really like to make is this issue is viewed through our own imaginations of how we think God should work and thus making ourselves God which is the root of sin.

Real life is not the banalities of everyday living. Real life is your mind with its awesome powers to imagine. Real life is knowing the Eternal God. God has His reasons for making the world as He did. The best thing to do is simply accept that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lost Wanderer

You speak of Greek philosophers and scientists but you're ignoring the fact that these are the same people who also questioned the existence of a bearded man upon on the mountain who threw thunderbolts, slept with their women, and fathered heroes of legend.

What next? You're going to tell me the Chimera and the Hydra were real too?

I dont think Aristotle or Pythagoras wrote about those things but I have to admit I'm not familiar with either man's entire body of work. Based on your objection modern science is just as worthless because some people in our culture also write fictional books. Just because a culture has fantasy, myth or just plain wacky elements does not mean some people in that culture are not very scientific in the modern sense.

gcharles · #**424** Jun 25, '12, 3:55 pm

So quoting from the bible is rambling. As Solomon has askwed what's new under the sun? This is what the chuirch fathers believed. Do you believe you evolved from a monkey? Do you even know what empirical evidence is? As I asked where is any empirical evidence that there is speciation evolution. Please inform us. I'm sure Richard Dawkins would appreciate it. List your questions one by one. I believe you need to get off the baby milk. Catholics are the ones who approved books to go into the bible. What else in the bible don't you believe in? Tell me are you a Progressive Catholic?

vz71 · #**425** Jun 25, '12, 5:07 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farsight001

Have you heard of the "species problem"? Basically, there are no real defined species with obviously drawn lines of difference. They are all blurred together via tiny changes from generation to generation. We give divisions and organize traits to help us understand and categorize, but they're not truly there. It all just flows together.

No, I have not heard of this problem.

But it seems a big one. If we do not have a clear definition for 'species' then it would be very hard to explain how a different species came about.

vz71 · #**426** Jun 25, '12, 5:13 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farsight001

You can see what? None of those quotes say God does not exist or that God is not behind it all guiding it.

Sure they do.
We have superfluous theology and spirituality:

Quote:

“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

And we have the denial of God's plan...

Quote:

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed.. D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

vz71 · #**427** Jun 25, '12, 5:16 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farsight001

Incorrect. Not only can it, but it has. We have observed gradual change in numerous species and guided and re-created it in laboratories for decades.

Really?
Please send links to this research.

samiam1611 · #**428** Jun 25, '12, 5:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by vz71

No, I have not heard of this problem.

But it seems a big one. If we do not have a clear definition for 'species' then it would be very hard to explain how a different species came about.

I mentioned the species problem in post 323, remember, when we were talking about reproduction? Here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

St Francis · #**429** Jun 25, '12, 6:05 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farsight001

Incorrect. Not only can it, but it has. We have observed gradual change in numerous species and guided and re-created it in laboratories for decades.

You do realize that when a scientist "guides and recreates in laboratories" that there is an Intelligent Designer involved?

Farsight001 · #**430** Jun 25, '12, 6:33 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by vz71

No, I have not heard of this problem.

But it seems a big one. If we do not have a clear definition for 'species' then it would be very hard to explain how a different species came about.

It's not hard to explain how a different species came about. Let me rephrase. There is a line, it's just vague and blurry. Obviously, a cow and a lizard are different species. A wolf and a dog are different species. But the more similar two creatures get, such as a golden retriever and a Labrador retriever, the more difficult it is to see the line because evolution flows like a river. It's not a set of stairs. The point I was trying to make is that it flows, which is why a wolf does not pop out a dauchsund. Over thousands of years and thousands of generations, tiny changes add up and eventually you see the difference. For short lives species such as bacterias, it could take a matter of months instead of thousands of years. (it depends on an organism's age of reproductive maturity)

Farsight001 · #**431** Jun 25, '12, 6:34 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by vz71

Sure they do.
We have superfluous theology and spirituality:

And we have the denial of God's plan...

All I can say is that you very very clearly do not understand the quotes you are citing.

Farsight001 · #**432** Jun 25, '12, 6:37 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by St Francis

You do realize that when a scientist "guides and recreates in laboratories" that there is an Intelligent Designer involved?

Sure. But it's still evolution. They guide it by creating the environment in which it lives, but the organisms adapt to that environment through random mutation and natural selection on their own. The Intelligent Design movement explicitly denies evolution, even evolution guided in such a way, stating very clearly that animals appear on earth as is and do not evolve at all.

Farsight001 · #**433** Jun 25, '12, 6:42 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by vz71

Really?
Please send links to this research.

I don't know why you would need links. It's been in the news for decades. I'll look for links in the next few days. I've got homework and unpacking that takes priority. If someone else doesn't provide (though I think someone will), keep on me about it because I randomly lose interest in a topic at times.

**edwest2** · #**434** Jun 25, '12, 6:58 pm

There is zero evidence of this happening. None.

Let's say we need millions of years for these gradual changes to take place, and once a little change occurs, what? It gets passed on? Suppose the possessor of the tiny new trait dies before it reproduces?

From the smallest dog to the largest - they're all dogs. From all the different races of human beings, they're all human beings.

After that, you've just got wishful thinking.

I've given up on those who claim to speak for science and scientists who study past biology; i.e. dead things. I'm only going to trust what the Church has to say, because I've decided the following: the reason this fact bothers some people has, in many cases, nothing to do with science.

Peace,
Ed

Farsight001 · #**435** Jun 25, '12, 9:46 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwest2

There is zero evidence of this happening. None.

Once again, you should really do at the very least a google search for this evidence before you blindly and ignorantly claim there is none. The library near me literally has a room full of papers from studies and experiments about this.

Quote:

Let's say we need millions of years for these gradual changes to take place, and once a little change occurs, what? It gets passed on? Suppose the possessor of the tiny new trait dies before it reproduces?

No one said we need millions of years. We need thousands of generations. You ask these rhetorical questions assuming there is no answer for them, when there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for each of them. Yes, once a change occurs, it tends to get passed on. If the possessor of the change dies before it reproduces, then it does not pass on its trait, obviously. But if the new trait increases survivability or capacity to reproduce, then it has an increased chance to be passed on. Sometimes it doesn't get passed on, but more often it does, and that's all that's needed.

Quote:

From the smallest dog to the largest - they're all dogs. From all the different races of human beings, they're all human beings.

But "dog" is not a species, so this is completely irrelevant and expresses nothing more than a complete and utter ignorance as to what evolution actually is.

Quote:

I've given up on those who claim to speak for science and scientists who study past biology; i.e. dead things. I'm only going to trust what the Church has to say, because I've decided the following: the reason this fact bothers some people has, in many cases, nothing to do with science.

An interesting sentiment considering, first, that the Church is not authoritative on matters of science, but rather only faith and morals, and two, the church pretty much says that scientists know what they're talking about, so, in reality, your refusal to trust scientists is, by extension, a refusal to to trust what the Church has to say.