Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 81
  1. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Near Atlanta, GA.
    Posts
    14,587
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    What I said was that evolution is not ONLY a theory. Evolution is both fact and theory... just like any other scientific endeavor that you care to name... such as gravity or global warming.

    That's MY clarification.
    I know dat. But every time I see this topic come up (I play on some other forums too) the "it's just a theory" position comes out, so I thought I'd go ahead and clear that up.

  2. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,844
    Ah. I am guilty of rushing to a rash conclusion then.

    Sorry.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  3. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,844
    But if one argues evolution explains our current existence, which I believe it does quite well, and then stretch it to include abiogenesis, then voila! We have a conflict in the works.
    Exactly.

    I find the position of both yourself and jmac to be eminently practical. If God exists, science is merely an investigation of... and even an admiration of, His work. This position retains flexibility as the knowledge base of man increases.

    It is when religion asks me to not believe what my eyes tell me that things get mucky.

    But, if I were ever to find God, I assure you that my belief would be much like yours. I would think that God would choose to manifest himself via the physical laws that he created; not with "magic" for example. To me, abiogenesis would not be a threat for the simple reason that the start of life on Earth was not the start of "all things" as it were.

    Interestingly, one could view the Big Bang much the same as evolution. We know it occured... because it is still occuring. But the theory, despite its name, is not necessarily about a violent event that started it... that's one theory. More accurately stated, all the Big Bang theory actually says is that the universe was, at one time, a lot hotter and denser than it is now. In other words, just as evolution is an explantion for the *development* of life and not necessarily the start of it, so it is with the Big Bang too. It is more about the development of the Universe than how it started.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  4. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Near Atlanta, GA.
    Posts
    14,587
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    Ah. I am guilty of rushing to a rash conclusion then.

    Sorry.
    Ain't no thang, prolly did look I was replying to you.

  5. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    20,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Schoen View Post
    I'm certain Balaam's donkey did not speak. (see Boots, I have read parts of the Bible ). Oh wait, I can't be saying these things. Crap, I forgot, I'm a Buddhist.
    LOL! You funny guy.

    And Balaam's donkey did indeed literally speak (however, possibly not for himself).
    No reserve. No retreat. No regrets.

    For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweetness the protected will never know.

    http://www.airwarvietnam.com/16thSOSGunners2.jpg

    Proud member of KA Club

  6. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    To me, abiogenesis would not be a threat for the simple reason that the start of life on Earth was not the start of "all things" as it were.
    I have no particular problems with abiogenesis either as it would also be allowed by thermodynamic law.

    And I don't have any problems with folks speculating on "intelligent design" as I have difficulty conceiving primordial soup making its way to human beings simply by a survival of the fittest regimen. But "intelligent design" is simply speculation at this point and should not be taught as science. Monotheists need not worry though.

  7. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Beautiful, Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love!
    Posts
    1,114

    One has to turn their back on science to believe the theory of evolution.

    That may seem like a strange statement, but science only deals with ideas that can be tested.

    Darwin stated that if the fossil record of the future did not find transitional fossils (links between species) then his theory must be discarded.

    That statement was made in the 1800's and yet today there are not transitional fossils.

    Science has in fact proven Yahweh's witness in Genesis to be correct and very exacting.

    Day one: In the beginning there was light, the Big Bang or Yahweh's creation.
    What could make light? The release of photons, like in a nuclear explosion like only Yahweh has seen.

    Day two: The earth a molten mass, slowly cools allowing the water to condense into liquid form, and the formation of an atmosphere.
    Water pools into seas, and dry land appears.

    Day three: With dry land, and an atmosphere to filter out harmful UV rays, and provide rain, vegetation explodes onto the scene.
    This is exactly as the fossil record shows, the oldest fossils contain only plant material.

    Day four: After millions of years of plant live absorbing Co2, the skys cleared allowing the sun, moon, and stars, to be seen and so making them signs in the sky to mark time and seasons.

    Day five: Life in the sea explodes, as well as birds in the sky.
    Also as the fossil record records all early animal life starting in the seas.

    Day six: Animals on the land, and the creation of man in Yahweh's image.
    This is also exactly as the fossil record shows.

    Yahweh said all creatures will multiply after their own kind. Just as the fossil record and our eyewitness account today proves. A man cannot come from an ape, our DNA proves we are not related in anyway. A dog can mate inter-species, a different dog will be born, but not a duck or cat.

    DNA does however show that all life forms are made of the same elements. This would be akin to clay being used to make a pot, a brick, or a statue, all are made of the same material, but are not related to one another in form, use, or character.

    The skeptic will say what about the cave man? Well what about the ape, and the monkey?

    The fossil record shows man like animals living 100,000 years ago, there were many of these man like animals the fossil record shows them dieing off, just like the dinosaurs.

    The Adam man was different than all other creatures, he was made in the image of Yahweh (God), but he recieved a conscience or breath from God.
    This made us different from all the other animals ever created.

    With the creation of Adam man came out of the caves, and build cities, just as archeology records.

    Day seven: Yahweh ceased creating, just as the record shows, there have not been any new mutations which have created a new better species.

    The first law of thermodynamics states that things tend to wear down, loose infomation.

    There is no recorded mutation in the genome that has ever increased informantion in the genetic make up of living creature, all mutations in fact reduce the genetic information of a cell. Mutations create defective animals, or ones that are sterile.

    Scientists until the 1850's believed as Aristotle that the Universe was eternal, our modern science has proved the bible, all scientists today believe there was a beginning they call it the Big Bang.

    Read the 2002 MIT physics annual, it states that we do not know why the Big Bang happened, what happen before the bang, just that it banged.

    Finally language needs a designer, no one would listen to Chinese, and seen the written form, and think that the Chinese had not over thousands of years perfected their language. Just as with our 26 letters in the alpabet English is not a complex language designed over thousands of years.

    But we have not problem believing the language of DNA with billions of charaters just happened, that it was not designed by someone of infinite knowledge. Then again humans are just that arrogant.

    If you were lost in the woods with no signs of humankind, you stumble about, suddenly you find a button on the ground next to a daisy, you pick up the button. You know instantly the button was created by a human, but the daisey with thousand of complex chemicals and a life force just happened by itself, just chance combinations of chemicals.

    Just in case any doubters want to learn what the fossil record really shows, and what science really has discovered, get yourself a copy of "The Science of God" by Gerald L. Schroeder, he is a scientist at MIT.

  8. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,844
    Quote Originally Posted by AtticAce View Post
    Darwin stated that if the fossil record of the future did not find transitional fossils (links between species) then his theory must be discarded.
    You have missed the ENTIRE point of my post.

    BTW... you could not be more wrong. Not only are there many transitionals... we have complete records of a species going from point A to point B. In fact, we even have modern examples of "speciation". It's all in the science journals, my friend.

    Let's say that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is proved to be flat out wrong tomorrow.

    All that would mean is that we would need a new theory to explain the FACT of evolution.

    You see... theories explain facts. That's what science is. And it helps us to make things better once we understand why.

    The simple folks who first made bronze had absolutely NO idea what they were doing. They only knew that it worked. Eventually man got curious as to WHY it worked. The observation that kicked off this science was "if we combine two (or more) metals together, we get a new one that is stronger than either of the old ones". Then we explored the whys.. and now we know how it works. Not perfectly... but we do. That' why we can make advanced metals today when we could not right off the bat.

    Again... all of science begins with an observation. Darwin and most of the rest of us observe that simple life forms were here before more complex ones. And since NO ONE has yet observed life popping out of thin air... we can only assume that the more complex forms CAME from the simpler ones.

    If you wish to state that Darwin's Theory is incorrect as to HOW this occured... be my guest. Please let is hear YOUR theory as to how it did. Now this should be fun.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  9. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Eastern Washington
    Posts
    2,990
    Quote Originally Posted by bootlen View Post
    LOL! You funny guy.

    And Balaam's donkey did indeed literally speak (however, possibly not for himself).
    This passage brings me great relief. If God can use a dumbass, then he can surely use me too. :

    2 Peter 2:15-16
    15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16 But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man’s voice forbad the madness of the prophet.
    The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.
    TB
    Everyone knows something I don't.

    2 Chronicles 7:14
    14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

  10. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    5,651
    This seems more complex than necessary.
    Science uses scientific method to prove or disprove a theory. Most important in this method is peer review.

    God on the other hand cannot be proven or disproven so God or religion is not science and doesn't belong in a science class.

    I also don't know why religious people would want non-believers teaching religion. They should keep it in church where it can be protected and not tested.
    Tracers work both ways.

  11. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by hvacker View Post
    I also don't know why religious people would want non-believers teaching religion
    No, they don't want atheists teaching God doesn't exist. Note the significance of this distinction.

    Quote Originally Posted by hvacker View Post
    They should keep it in church where it can be protected and not tested.
    Wrong! Scientific testing of religion improves religion. At one time, Apollo was responsible for our sun, and God made Earth the center of the universe. We know these things to be false. IMHO, science will help the religious understand what the prophets have been stating all along.

    If the religious elect to ignore science, they might as well bounce around half-naked in front of the Monolith swinging clubs.

  12. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Schoen View Post
    No, they don't want atheists teaching God doesn't exist. Note the significance of this distinction.
    Impartial science will never do this as we have agreed. Yet, "men with agendas" seem to be a problem on both sides I agree.

    Wrong! Scientific testing of religion improves religion. At one time, Apollo was responsible for our sun, and God made Earth the center of the universe. We know these things to be false. IMHO, science will help the religious understand what the prophets have been stating all along.

    If the religious elect to ignore science, they might as well bounce around half-naked in front of the Monolith swinging clubs.
    Nice post. We may disagree on some things but I wish that more Christians held this view.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  13. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    4,917
    Quote Originally Posted by bigjohn79 View Post
    Where do you stand??
    Well, in order to teach Biology, you need to insert the important theories. Those of Lamarck, and Darwin. Without those, modern biology is a moot point.


    Period.


    Unless the bible, Quran, or any other religious book can prove biology in another facet that is testable to todays scientific standards, their theory stands in the face of "less than factual"...


    Period.


    You asked.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event