|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2004 4:15 am
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2004 6:32 am
You guys go on as your correct. No, really, you do. Many people think that evolution is likely because there is so much evidence that directly supports it-
The theory of evolution is based on several discoveries, such as fossils and genetics.
The theory of creation is based on the presumption that a design designates a designer.
There is much evidence which directly implies that the theory of evolution is correct.
The difference between science and pseudo-science is that with science, you're looking to explain unknowns.
With pseudo-science, you've already got your conclusions, and you're looking to prove it, even at the cost of ignoring obvious evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2005 11:41 pm
I heard an interesting story the other day.
Two people come across a patch of land containing flowers and weeds. The following discussion ensues:
1. A gardener must tend this plot...
2. I don't think so. Look, it's full of weeds.
1. The gardener must like those weeds. They are nice, aren't they?
2. Those weeds grow around here all by themselves, anyway, I've talked to people who live around here, and noone told me athing about seeing any gardener at work.
1. Well, the gardener must have been here when everyone was asleep.
They take turns watching, day and night, but no gardener is seen. Person 1 explains this fact by supposing that the gardener must be invisible. They set up an electric alarm system sensitive to heat, and patrol with bloodhounds, but there's no reaction from either. Person 1 is still not convinced.
1. The gardner is not only invisible, but undetectable to the alarm system, and without odour the bloodhounds could smell.
2. I'm getting fed up with your argument. Your gardener is supposed to be invisible and completely undetectable to anyone, and is supposed to have planted things the way they would have grown anyway. What makes him defferent from no gardener at all?
The analogy here is to arguments about god's existence... that things would have happened the way they did if there was no god that created Earth, and that there's no difference between a god that creates the Earth, and no god at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
God is supposed to have created the Earth around 6000 years ago, making everything seem as though the Earth probably came about earlier? Why would he make a world that seems older than it is, to test people's faith, and then punish people who looked at the evidence in a reasonable way?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 3:48 am
The truth is that there can't be any evidence to suggest that there is a guy pulling all the strings. It's a mistake to believe either way. I don't believe in anything, but I learn natural laws so that I can apply that knowledge in useful ways. The theory of evolution is in accordance with natural laws, and so I assume that it will always hold true, as I do with any natural laws.
The application of evolution is selective breeding. In this case, people had the technology before they new how it worked, exactly. The same can be said about fire. We've used fire for millenia, but only in the past one hundred years do we actually understand how it works. So it is with all things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:27 am
The argument about the gardener isn't about gods existence, it's about gods interaction.
But, in any case, I think that theres more evidence for evolution, especially what shows up in fossils, fossils which the creationists have deemed "A plan to sort out the believers from the misbelievers"
Yeah. Sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:01 pm
Lol, fossil experts must be doing the devil's work...
The problem is in inflexible people who consider any change to the bible or other similar texts, an affront. It's funny how people in power can get away with things like that, interpreting things the way they choose, ultimately damning the religion itself.
And really there are people on both sides who go on as if they are right. I think most of the time it's just because we haven't seen any conclusive proof one way or the other. Why? Because all odds are that none exists..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:42 pm
Mytharis The argument about the gardener isn't about gods existence, it's about gods interaction. But, in any case, I think that theres more evidence for evolution, especially what shows up in fossils, fossils which the creationists have deemed "A plan to sort out the believers from the misbelievers" Yeah. Sure. No. The gardener's argument is about a deity's existence altogether, in the way I see it at least. Saying God exists but has never, ever, ever contributed to anything is like saying there exists a gardener but he does not tend to this lot, he has not planted anything in this lot, he is unrelated to this lot. But he is this lot's gardener. A most useless statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:13 am
Well, the gardener thing was just a story, which I thought was relevent, because Creationists tend to think that in order for life to be complex, it must have been designed. But a designer is not necessary, only a cause.
Anyway, I'm quite sure that people who deny evolution entirely are either delusional or have misconceptions. Few of the people who deny evolution have any idea what the theory is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:08 pm
Yamato Aijou Mytharis The argument about the gardener isn't about gods existence, it's about gods interaction. But, in any case, I think that theres more evidence for evolution, especially what shows up in fossils, fossils which the creationists have deemed "A plan to sort out the believers from the misbelievers" Yeah. Sure. No. The gardener's argument is about a deity's existence altogether, in the way I see it at least. Saying God exists but has never, ever, ever contributed to anything is like saying there exists a gardener but he does not tend to this lot, he has not planted anything in this lot, he is unrelated to this lot. But he is this lot's gardener. A most useless statement. Gah. I must not have been thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:00 pm
What boggles my mind is that they believe the T REX was an herbavore, and was still alive up untill 10,000 years ago!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 6:18 pm
Sasuke_Aurora What boggles my mind is that they believe the T REX was an herbavore, and was still alive up untill 10,000 years ago!!!!! Oo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 7:24 am
Dark Duei Sasuke_Aurora What boggles my mind is that they believe the T REX was an herbavore, and was still alive up untill 10,000 years ago!!!!! Oo They don't all believe that. Most seem to think the world began 6,000 years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 6:55 am
how could the world have been created 6000 years ago?! i just can't understand how anyone takes that as a fact. do they discredit the existence of chinese or egyptian culture before 4000 b.c.e? it's just absurd to me. bah... i need some breakfast. domokun
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 7:28 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 2:46 pm
Mechanism I heard an interesting story the other day. Two people come across a patch of land containing flowers and weeds. The following discussion ensues:1. A gardener must tend this plot... 2. I don't think so. Look, it's full of weeds. 1. The gardener must like those weeds. They are nice, aren't they? 2. Those weeds grow around here all by themselves, anyway, I've talked to people who live around here, and noone told me athing about seeing any gardener at work. 1. Well, the gardener must have been here when everyone was asleep. They take turns watching, day and night, but no gardener is seen. Person 1 explains this fact by supposing that the gardener must be invisible. They set up an electric alarm system sensitive to heat, and patrol with bloodhounds, but there's no reaction from either. Person 1 is still not convinced.1. The gardner is not only invisible, but undetectable to the alarm system, and without odour the bloodhounds could smell. 2. I'm getting fed up with your argument. Your gardener is supposed to be invisible and completely undetectable to anyone, and is supposed to have planted things the way they would have grown anyway. What makes him defferent from no gardener at all? The analogy here is to arguments about god's existence... that things would have happened the way they did if there was no god that created Earth, and that there's no difference between a god that creates the Earth, and no god at all. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- God is supposed to have created the Earth around 6000 years ago, making everything seem as though the Earth probably came about earlier? Why would he make a world that seems older than it is, to test people's faith, and then punish people who looked at the evidence in a reasonable way?Incorrect. The earth is presumed to be 9,000 years old, the Bible being presumed to be a 7,000 year span of time. Besides, have you ever considered that the Bible only includes what's important for us to know? How do you know that the Earth wasn't around longer. All it says in Genesis is that the earth was void and shapeless. It's quite possible that there might have been people that inhabited the earth before us, that God wiped them out. Very possible, but we won't know until we die now, will we? Did you ever think about that? Don't assume with so little evidence or knoledge of what you speak that you are correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
