Science and Religion: Creationism/Evolution Thread

#26
#26
turambar85 said:
Okay. Again. I don't. That is cosmology. New thread.

Thanks for playing!
Click to expand...

So inorder to play your game, we must start by having preexisting inorganic material???? Your just trying to start at a point where you feel more comfortable.
 
#27
#27
Oldvol75 said:
So inorder to play your game, we must start by having preexisting inorganic material???? Your just trying to start at a point where you feel more comfortable.
Click to expand...

No! I am not! I am wanting to talk about evolution. I am fine talking about cosmology - but it is often just speculative metaphysics anyway. If you want to talk about that, fine. But, it is in a cosmology thread. I keep telling you that evolution and cosmology are 100% distinct enterprises.
 
#28
#28
turambar85 said:
Again, differentiation is good. I said if a kid is raised in a certain way, you can almost guarantee they will be christians. I did not say that if a person is christian, they were raised a certain way. My claim only logically pertains (and conversationally pertains) to a particular subset of Christians.
Click to expand...

Thats news to me. I didn't know Christians came in subsets! You're a real break it down kid of guy!
 
#29
#29
Clear the air for me 85.

Why did you feel you were a christian when you did feel that way? Was it due to your family? Do you feel like you where told that you were, because you were raised that way? Did you feel like the decision was not your own?

Im trying to understand why I disagree with you on this subject.
 
#30
#30
Oldvol75 said:
Thats news to me. I didn't know Christians came in subsets! You're a real break it down kid of guy!
Click to expand...

Christians weren't all raised differently? God man, come on. I am making a claim about how you can raise people to be a certain way (until the end of childhood at least) in certain conditions. Of course that is a claim about a subset, and of course the subset exists.

Now, can we get back to (or to) evolution? This isn't the religious thread.
 
#31
#31
BeecherVol said:
Clear the air for me 85.

Why did you feel you were a christian when you did feel that way? Was it due to your family? Do you feel like you where told that you were, because you were raised that way? Did you feel like the decision was not your own?

Im trying to understand why I disagree with you on this subject.
Click to expand...

The cause of my belief was my family. Without that upbringing it never would have happened. I believed via birthright. I never had a choice. It wasn't even possible to believe god didn't exist until adulthood - I think i was incapable of entertaining the hypothesis.
 
#32
#32
Ok, OV, let me try to help you.

You could mean a couple things. If, when you ask about pre-evolutionary theory, you mean completely inorganic materials, such as rocks...then you mean cosmology. That isn't relevant at all. If you mean the origins of the basic materials (i.e., amino acids or RNA) then you are reasonably asking a biology question, and we can talk about it here.
 
#33
#33
turambar85 said:
No! I am not! I am wanting to talk about evolution. I am fine talking about cosmology - but it is often just speculative metaphysics anyway. If you want to talk about that, fine. But, it is in a cosmology thread. I keep telling you that evolution and cosmology are 100% distinct enterprises.
Click to expand...

85, How shall I phrase this????? For the stuff to evolve, it had to have a beginning for its initial evolution from one to another. Not from the middle somewhere where, as in another thread, in the 17th century man's average height was 5'-6" and now is 5'-9".

You are supposed to be the superior person here because, as you say, you want the truth told! Why can you not take it back to the first thing evolving? If its settled science now, there had to be a beginning. Afterall, you are the one trying to convince others that your way is the only way. Fill in the blanks for us unedumacated simpletons!
 
#34
#34
turambar85 said:
The cause of my belief was my family. Without that upbringing it never would have happened. I believed via birthright. I never had a choice. It wasn't even possible to believe god didn't exist until adulthood - I think i was incapable of entertaining the hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Ok.

We were raised similar, but that did not put my name in the book. I made that decision for myself.
 
#35
#35
turambar85 said:
Ok, OV, let me try to help you.

You could mean a couple things. If, when you ask about pre-evolutionary theory, you mean completely inorganic materials, such as rocks...then you mean cosmology. That isn't relevant at all. If you mean the origins of the basic materials (i.e., amino acids or RNA) then you are reasonably asking a biology question, and we can talk about it here.
Click to expand...

Finally you understand, I could care less where a rock comes from. Unless of course its thrown at me.
 
#36
#36
Oldvol75 said:
85, How shall I phrase this????? For the stuff to evolve, it had to have a beginning for its initial evolution from one to another. Not from the middle somewhere where, as in another thread, in the 17th century man's average height was 5'-6" and now is 5'-9".

You are supposed to be the superior person here because, as you say, you want the truth told! Why can you not take it back to the first thing evolving? If its settled science now, there had to be a beginning. Afterall, you are the one trying to convince others that your way is the only way. Fill in the blanks for us unedumacated simpletons!
Click to expand...

See above.

If you meant the second choice...we can talk here. And, if you did...you have my apologies. But, when you say simply "inorganic abiotic materials, it sounds like you are talking about the origin of rocks and stars. That wouldn't be evolutionary theory at all, and nor is it related. I should have been on the lookout for that linguistic holdup. Again, if so, my bad.
 
#37
#37
Oldvol75 said:
Finally you understand, I could care less where a rock comes from. Unless of course its thrown at me.
Click to expand...

Okay, good. Like I said...this is partially my fault. But, I hope you can understand how I could confuse the phrase "inorganic matter" with the cosmological endeavor of explaining the origin of inorganic matter! :p
 
#38
#38
turambar85 said:
Ok, OV, let me try to help you.

You could mean a couple things. If, when you ask about pre-evolutionary theory, you mean completely inorganic materials, such as rocks...then you mean cosmology. That isn't relevant at all. If you mean the origins of the basic materials (i.e., amino acids or RNA) then you are reasonably asking a biology question, and we can talk about it here.
Click to expand...

Ok 85 tell us.:whistling:

:p
 
#40
#40
turambar85 said:
Christians weren't all raised differently? God man, come on. I am making a claim about how you can raise people to be a certain way (until the end of childhood at least) in certain conditions. Of course that is a claim about a subset, and of course the subset exists.

Now, can we get back to (or to) evolution? This isn't the religious thread.
Click to expand...

So when you make religious statements we are to ignore them! Gotcha!!!!

Christian, a person that has excepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, and has been "Born Again". Not much of a subset there.
 
#41
#41
BeecherVol said:
Ok 85 tell us.:whistling:

:p
Click to expand...

Well, there have been many scientific experiments trying to show the replicability of the origin of the building blocks of life by simulating the early earth atmosphere. Miller did it in the 50's...though now there is controversy as to whether his conditions were correct. Regardless, they have been more successful by instating what we now believe to be the early atmospheric conditions. In fact, in 1828 (a looong time ago) Wohler synthesized organic molecules from inorganic materials. The process of going from inorganic to organic isn't controversial in and of itself.
 
#42
#42
Evolution - is a fact??
Even the strongest supporters refer to it as a theory. No direct observable evidence exists to support it. No proof that any species has ever evolved into another. The fossil record shows species suddenly appearing and then disappearing; not morphing into something else. It’s a convenient way to get where we are without positing a creator , so we can operate the “scientific method” without theological arguments creeping into the conversation but beyond that its about as valid as “spontaneous generation”
 
#43
#43
i find it fun that evolution has become such a hot-topic as "IT HATES JESUS!"

the original theories never said one thing or another about religion being true or false....and never made the original attempts to disprove anything on that also
 
#44
#44
1974Vol said:
Evolution - is a fact??
Even the strongest supporters refer to it as a theory. No direct observable evidence exists to support it. No proof that any species has ever evolved into another. The fossil record shows species suddenly appearing and then disappearing; not morphing into something else. It’s a convenient way to get where we are without positing a creator , so we can operate the “scientific method” without theological arguments creeping into the conversation but beyond that its about as valid as “spontaneous generation”
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Gravity is referred to as a theory, but gravity is a fact. The fact is that evolution occurs. The theory is the mechanism. Also, bear in mind that scientific theory means nothing like the common usage.
 
#45
#45
1974Vol said:
Evolution - is a fact??
Even the strongest supporters refer to it as a theory. No direct observable evidence exists to support it. No proof that any species has ever evolved into another. The fossil record shows species suddenly appearing and then disappearing; not morphing into something else. It’s a convenient way to get where we are without positing a creator , so we can operate the “scientific method” without theological arguments creeping into the conversation but beyond that its about as valid as “spontaneous generation”
Click to expand...

Where did that like button go when you need it??? This will have to do::good!:
 
#46
#46
1974Vol said:
Evolution - is a fact??
Even the strongest supporters refer to it as a theory. No direct observable evidence exists to support it. No proof that any species has ever evolved into another. The fossil record shows species suddenly appearing and then disappearing; not morphing into something else. It’s a convenient way to get where we are without positing a creator , so we can operate the “scientific method” without theological arguments creeping into the conversation but beyond that its about as valid as “spontaneous generation”
Click to expand...

francis collins- director of the NIH, leader of the Human Genome Project, and a self-described Evangelical Christian- says that doubting evolution is like doubting the earth orbits the sun... so you might not be as bold in your dissent
 
#47
#47
1974Vol said:
Evolution - is a fact??
Even the strongest supporters refer to it as a theory. No direct observable evidence exists to support it. No proof that any species has ever evolved into another. The fossil record shows species suddenly appearing and then disappearing; not morphing into something else. It’s a convenient way to get where we are without positing a creator , so we can operate the “scientific method” without theological arguments creeping into the conversation but beyond that its about as valid as “spontaneous generation”
Click to expand...

you pay someone enough they'll call gravity a theory too

the whole idea of calling something - or well everything - in science a "theory" is to say "we believe this right now, but something else might come along later to change, edit, or possibly even prove this false" it doesn't mean anything's more false than true or any such thing (that occurs when something becomes called a disproven theory)

the whole point in that is science is very fluid and realizes that what is used one day could be changed the next, so it refuses to make anything absolute, so as to allow the correct changes to be made when newer discoveries are made

example: we know for certain pretty much that electricity causes a magnetic force, but we still call the ideas about that electromagnetic theory (i'm rusty on the proper title, so i apologize in advance)
 
#48
#48
True about Darwin never directly addressing religion, but it was his attempt to offer a theory of how we got here without there having been the necessity of a creator. I don't have an issue with that, just the assertion that Evolution is anymore than a proven theory than say the Big Bang. There is no evidence to support the idea that lower species evolve into higher life forms. There is wide variation within species owing to environment and recently human "tinkering" but there is not one demonstration of one species evolving into another.
 
#49
#49
turambar85 said:
Not exactly. Gravity is referred to as a theory, but gravity is a fact. The fact is that evolution occurs. The theory is the mechanism. Also, bear in mind that scientific theory means nothing like the common usage.
Click to expand...

Theory, new word for truth???? Nothing like changing a word to make it fit your beliefs!
 
#50
#50
turambar85 said:
Not exactly. Gravity is referred to as a theory, but gravity is a fact. The fact is that evolution occurs. The theory is the mechanism. Also, bear in mind that scientific theory means nothing like the common usage.
Click to expand...

Kinda of broad.

If you descibe getting old, as evolution I agree. And similar type things.

Does that make me an evolutionist?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top