Your Religion or Spirituality

There is no actual difference, despite efforts by Creationists (NOT "Christians"---the majority of Christians in the world accept the reality that life evolved from past forms to present forms) to make a difference between those terms. Enough "micro" gets you "macro."

 

I never think that is the point. I enjoy discussions because they bring up questions in my brain and wantings for me to know more about certain things.

Some people will never be "convinced". Still in talking to them new thoughts can be spawned by the people who are trying to do the "convincing".

Talking to Dolphan7 over the last few months has been a great experience that has spawned more questions and knowings in my life. Even though we are two people with two totally different beliefs talking to him has helped solidfy my beliefs with the new questions and even answers to some of his that came out.

 

I know, I was not trying to imply that it was a sole source of history.
Which is what I meant by it has yielded real characters and events.......

 

I agree with you bro. I think people look at debate in the wrong way. When I read a debate I learn and if I enter it I am not trying to score points so to speak I am creating a dialog and trying to find an understanding of someone else's point. In the process I am forced to question my own thoughts and ideas, do research etc. Sometimes I may take up new ideas but mostly I just enjoy the exchange of ideas. Sometimes I get pissed off but thats when I lose sight of why I am here.

 

No, because not everything can be proven but, IMO, the evidence of evolution disproves the basic tenants of the literal Genesis creation event.

 

I actually thought this was a thread where folks who wanted to, could describe their beliefs or non beliefs, I did not realize it was a debate thread, so I will step out of this one and leave the below link if any wish to check it out.....chuckling...t


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

http://www.icr.org/article/3754%20/

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=search&f_typeID=1

Some other neat articles on that site too...

 

It ALWAYS turns into a debate thread bro.

 

It's a bit of both, brother.

 

Yeah I know they do bro..that's why i'll step out...

 

I understand bro....as for the debate portion, it is an endless one, that neither side will ever agree or change on and will only eventually inflame/anger some till it gets out of hand, so I left a couple links that explains one side of it and will try not to get involved in the debate...tho debate is a good thing at times...this one tho just has been beat to a pulp, over the years, all over the place...

Another, the rapture....I do not believe the timing of the rapture is when the Baptists, conservative Christians do, tho I believe there will be one...but that is another of those debates that is endless.

...t

 

Pagan..what's up man, how is my favourite Heathen doing today...

I personally am looking forward to Ben Stein's film "Expelled" on what happens to desenters from the "Darwin is the only way", should be a hoot.

 

Aunt Ester...is that you???!!!!

Love your avatar.

 

Kind of a weird premise for a documentary, considering down south it seems science isn't taught at all. Evolution certainly isnt. I'll wait for it to come out on DVD.

 

"Seems" being the operative word.

Granted, it is not as sexy as South Florida going under water in 75 years...

 

What's that I can't hear you type louder little Nephew...

Waaay off topic, but youtube is great for watching the Metal Bands footage, Maiden Judas Priest, Megadeath...

Scratch Metallica off the list, those fellas are content Stalinists...

 

I think you missed that one bro!

 

This is not meant to offend in any way Dolphan, but who are trying to convince? Us, or yourself?

 

Men of [thephins.com], I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I read along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an posting with this inscription, 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.

The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for "'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, "'For we are indeed his offspring.'

Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.

Paul

 

Please add citations for the text you copied and only past one or two paragraphs so that we don't get in trouble

 

"True" is a word used for philosophies. Evolution has been supported by overwhelming evidence, which is why it's considered factual. The people who keep trying to take shots at it are not doing so in a scientific manner. They aren't proposing an alternative scientific theory to replace it, they're simply saying "We don't completely understand this part, so God must have done it."

 

What else would a creationist say?

Source?

The Center's Director is Dr. Stephen Meyer, who holds a Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science from Cambridge University.

The Center's Associate Director is Dr. John G. West, who holds a Ph.D. in Government from Claremont Graduate University and a B.A. in Communications from the University of Washington.
http://www.discovery.org/csc/aboutCSC.php​

Where is the list? I see a group of people who are history majors and government majors but I missed the list.

Watson is a creationist with a background in geology. His last major published piece of work was in the early 1900's.

Who is he? You need to provide references !

I'm not sure this supports your belief.

I don't see how this helps either but here's the whole quote:

"What is found in biology is mechanisms, mechanisms built with chemical components and that are often modified by other, later, mechanisms added to the earlier ones. ... Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." (Crick, F.H.C., "What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery," [1988], Penguin Books: London, 1990, reprint, p.138)

Sir Fred Hoyle was an astronomer with very controversial ideas in many areas of science, or so it would seem.

Here is another quote:

In his later years, Hoyle became a staunch critic of theories of chemical evolution used to explain the naturalistic origin of life. With Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle promoted the theory that life evolved in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on earth is driven by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets. In 1982, Hoyle presented Evolution from Space for the Royal Institution's Omni Lecture. After considering the very remote probability of evolution he concluded:
“ If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...[7] ”
Published in his 1982/1984 books Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup would grant little chance to evolutionary processes. He claimed:
The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.​

Hoyle, Fred, Evolution from Space, Omni Lecture, Royal Institution, London, January 12, 1982; Evolution from Space (1982) pp 27-28 ISBN 0894900838; Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (1984) ISBN 0671492632

Without citations, it is pointless to copy quotes from people few people have heard of. From what I can gather, he was a creationist who wrote a book entitled `The Blind Watchmaker,' [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.229.

Origin of Life:

We already talked about Hoyle. He believes that life came from outer space.


I am going to stop here because I shouldn't have to have to dig up where you copied this stuff . Please provide citations when you copy other people's works. Plagiarism is a pet peeve of mine and I know it was not intentional but we need to fix it.

 

To anyone who first seeks to discredit scientists or engineers who question evolution, you are missing the point. The point is that scientists are questioning evolution. It does not matter that they believe in creation - that does not disqualify them. Michael Behe, Michael Denton, Henry Morris, Duane Gish, and many many more are highly credentialed in the various fields of science.

Many who question evolution, or some portions of it, are still believers in evolutionary theory such as Stephen Gould.

The point is many scientists, no matter their bias, question evolutionary theory, or some portions of it.

The second point is the stonewalling going on within the scientific community wherein one has to believe in evolution lock stock and barrel in order to be considered "in the club". It is indeed a good ol boys network. That isn't science, that is indoctrination. Or as least it has been. Things are changing and many are jumping ship.

So the obvious question is "Why are they abandoning evolution?"

Because there is no proof.

There is no research, discovery, experiment etc...... that shows a mechanism that creates new DNA in an organism in nature. That would demonstrate that species jumping marco-evolutions is plausible and possible. It just isn't there.

 

Who the heck are these people you are talking about? There were no citations and, bro be honest, the majority of the people you went to for "evidence" were either non-scientists or nut cases. I don't see your point.

Viruses on meteors are the source of life on earth? Is that what you believe?

Again, don't plagiarize other people's work.

 

I cant imagine using Richard Dawkins of all people as support for the beliefs of creationism. The guy is one of the most outspoken atheist of our time and has said that creationism is a "preposterous, mind-shrinking falsehood". We're talking about a guy who said evolution is among the most certain things that science has produced. Any quote from him that even hints that he is questioning evolution or favoring a creator must be taken completely out of context.

 

What I find that posts are made by cutting and pasting from pro-this or anti-that sites and is done so with no real understanding about copied text or the context and it is often done with proper citation. That gets me because they are short changing themselves and the folks they hope to educate.

I would prefer to see posts that are original or, at the least, posts in context with proper citation.

 

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.

http://www.y-origins.com/quotes.htm

 

Nevermind. I found it. More plagiarism

http://www.y-origins.com/quotes.htm

Sites get sued for this kind of thing. Please help us out guys.

 

I dont really understand what all these quotes prove. If I quote 50 scientists who say creationism is fantasy and that evolution is the best explanation we currently have does that mean you'll relent and admit it's true?

 

that's not all of them, nor are the citations present on the page you linked. I'd appreciate if you didn't accuse me of plagarism, I gave the proper citations to the works that are quoted, many of which are available online.

Were you plagiarizing when you posted the youtube links? Are they your original works? Were they properly cited for the information or misinformation they provided? Are we allowed to post quotations from scientists who's work and words are published for the purpose of being properly cited? Is that plagiarism?

 

There have been accusations that "christians" are anti-science or otherwise fools who deny the "evidence" that science provides against creation. I gave some citations for people who are inclined to, may search for themselves.

It is my point that the presuppositions that people take to their personal analysis of evidence determines what facts they accept and what they believe is true.

 

There's no proof of God either, does that mean you'll abandon him?

There is no research, discovery, experiment etc...... that shows God exists. It just isn't there.

Just showing you again how pretty much EVERY argument you use against evolution can be used against your own beliefs.

 

What evidence would you accept? Are you a strong atheist or a weak atheist?

 

Which is exactly what I've been telling him for years now. To make claims that other beliefs or sciences are "lies" and "have no proof" when your own beliefs have none either is just a tad silly, don't you think?

I'm not an athiest at all bro. Contrary to what some think, people do worship other Gods and Goddesses than the God of the Bible.

And what evidence would I accept? Something NOT from the Bible or a Christian website. Tangible proof. But then again, I'm not looking for any proof of the Christian God. Everyone is entitled to have their beliefs and their faith, no matter which path they follow.

What I AM looking for is for certain members of your flock to stop telling everyone how everything else is false when there IS no way of proving your way is true.

Not much to ask.

 

Bro, you did plagiarize. You copied entire web pages without citation. That is plagiarism and a copyright violation.

Posting Youtube is not plagiarism because the link to the original file is embedded in the link. Don't believe me, then click the image frame to any Youtube video and prepare to be transported to the original video. Youtube specifically provides for this legal use of their material:

http://youtube.com/t/terms

Two important issues here: plagiarism and violation of the fair use of material. If you use someone else's material, you have to cite it and you are not allowed to use whole pages of information without permission. Instead, use a paragraph or two and provide a link.

 

Is it plagarism when one doesn't claim credit for the work as one's own?

 

Not so, there is plenty of evidence that Jesus did exist.

 

Yes. If I write a paper and copy the work of Dickens but never specifically claim it is mine, have I stolen the work from the author?

Here is the definition that is commonly used:

http://www.plagiarism.org/learning_center/what_is_plagiarism.html

 

And I would say that there is a difference between writing a paper for a grade, or a paycheck, and merely posting an opinion piece on the Web, wherein there is little room footnotes and citations.

One really should link to a source though, to not do so removes a post from the pantheon of existing writing and making a post one's own opinion and nothing more.

 

There may be a difference in the eyes of the poster but not as far as the law is concerned. It takes little effort to post a URL and, in doing so, give credit to the original author.