TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- creationism vs evolution
Pages (10): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 »

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit that would suck lol

That is one of the creationist's talking points. Seriously..

there needs to be another side for a discussion to occur. or some positions regarding alternative theories.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit there needs to be another side for a discussion to occur. or some positions regarding alternative theories.

Flood Geology! It's a real theory dammit!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology

i was watching futurama last night to fall asleep & they showed this part & i thought of this thread [it's not in spanish]:



anyway- i found this article amusing, schools in kansas can now teach intelligent design. the picture they put in the article is ultra lol.

edit: forgot to paste the article-

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-11-08-kansas-science-standards_x.htm

quote:

Originally posted by yukii

LMAO!!!

i wish there were a creationist in this thread

lol:http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090805090815AA90wh3

this was a good point:



here is the full 2 hour video, twas very interesting i suggest it for listening or watching before bed

intresting counters there.

I was talking to an intelligent friend of mine, Mechanical engineer, teaches physics and what not. We had a creationst vs evolution argument and basically he brought on some nonsense that hind legs appearing on a whale (femurs) were simply mutations just like conjoined twins or something. He could not abide by the laws of parsimony so instead went full circle with his illogical claim that ancestral traits didn't exist and could not be brought back. Essentially this is because all species on earth appeared at the same time within 10,000 years.

this argument reminded me of this hogwash

http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.c...mutant-fin.html


I continued to mention that some snakes retain pelvic bones as vestigial organs remaining from their ancestors. Again another faulty mutation which just so happens to be resilliant within certain species.

There was no convincing him. lol

okay, does he know he himself has ancestral remnants? if he does, then does he consider where they came from?

why do we have the power to wiggle our ears
-have wisdom teeth
-have a tail bone
-have an appendix

God just put it there just in case of an emergency. they are all just a bunch of mutations that happen to everyone.. it's funny how they tie evolution with that picture:

Your talks of useless appendices is blasphemy!

God gave us an appendix because he had extra.

quote:

Originally posted by yukii okay, does he know he himself has ancestral remnants? if he does, then does he consider where they came from? why do we have the power to wiggle our ears -have wisdom teeth -have a tail bone -have an appendix God just put it there just in case of an emergency. they are all just a bunch of mutations that happen to everyone.. it's funny how they tie evolution with that picture:

right i mentioned the ACTUAL tail argument, and why on earth would whales be designed with lungs. Is god so cruel to make them have to resurface every once in a while lol. couldn't he just have given them gills?


His argument is that god simply makes creatures, humans are not perfect me and you both have imperfections.

all a load of bullox.

He would rather believe those anomalies are simply meaningless random mutations.

He doesn't really have an argument, just a few, slightly cohesive farts that only kind of make sense because of our highly transmissive social sphere.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit His argument is that god simply makes creatures, humans are not perfect me and you both have imperfections.

next time you can tell him that your friend said he has AWESOME scientific arguments

if he's a physics major, i wonder how he endured all the painful hours of blasphemous biology classes and their dumb theories on evolution.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On He doesn't really have an argument, just a few, slightly cohesive farts that only kind of make sense because of our highly transmissive social sphere.

shouldn't imperfections lead to evidence of non intelligent design?

when you have a blocked mindset its impossible to convince. A creationist will always win against an evolutionist since creationist rely on faith while evolutionists rely on fact. Albeit there are still many gaps into understanding evoltion at the chemical and early genetic level.

nucleotides to RNA?
Abiogenesis? chemical evolution.

There are alot of theories and ideas put out there but nothing really conclusive and this leads to inconclusiveness for the full theory of evoltion from the chemical level.

quote:

Originally posted by yukii next time you can tell him that your friend said he has AWESOME scientific arguments if he's a physics major, i wonder how he endured all the painful hours of blasphemous biology classes and their dumb theories on evolution.

he teaches high school physics in my old highschool grade 12. Not to be confused with a physics major lol.


But he is knowledgeable in the field and being a mechanical engineer you would think he would have "faith" in the scientific arguments. His profession depends on it!. Then again he did resort to teaching high school and is overqualified for the job.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit right i mentioned the ACTUAL tail argument, and why on earth would whales be designed with lungs. Is god so cruel to make them have to resurface every once in a while lol. couldn't he just have given them gills? His argument is that god simply makes creatures, humans are not perfect me and you both have imperfections. all a load of bullox. He would rather believe those anomalies are simply meaningless random mutations.

I don't know how someone whose profession depends on the fact that the world is rational can completely contradict this principle in their view of creation. When someone rejects logic that way, logical argument becomes useless. It's clearly an emotional position based on preserving the world-view that he has had instilled in him.
I think you would have more success arguing with him about the nature of the bible as a historical document and that taking scripture literally is perhaps against the spirit of Christianity. If you got him to admit that a great part of the bible is not literally "God's word" you might make more progress with the scientific arguments.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit shouldn't imperfections lead to evidence of non intelligent design? when you have a blocked mindset its impossible to convince. A creationist will always win against an evolutionist since creationist rely on faith while evolutionists rely on fact. Albeit there are still many gaps into understanding evoltion at the chemical and early genetic level. nucleotides to RNA? Abiogenesis? chemical evolution. There are alot of theories and ideas put out there but nothing really conclusive and this leads to inconclusiveness for the full theory of evoltion from the chemical level.

Well what's your basis for a perfect theory? A quaint and complete little notion that we were made in 7 days and dinosaurs were put on Earth to test our faith? Yeah, put a fucking ribbon on it, it's done. This is essentially a battle between faith and science - the difference is that science can become more complete and can develop - faith shall always remain the same fragile little trinket, shattered by a moment of reasonable doubt.

sorry for posting so many pix. i just couldn't stop laughing when i saw this :



and of course...

soooooooooo puuuuuuuurdy lol

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Well what's your basis for a perfect theory? A quaint and complete little notion that we were made in 7 days and dinosaurs were put on Earth to test our faith? Yeah, put a fucking ribbon on it, it's done. This is essentially a battle between faith and science - the difference is that science can become more complete and can develop - faith shall always remain the same fragile little trinket, shattered by a moment of reasonable doubt.

This conflict only arises if you presuppose that scripture has a place in trying to answer scientific questions. This is an assumption that seems true for many in the US. Most religious people I know here are happy to accept science and let religion help them with their spiritual/moral questions, which are outside the realm of science. The very fact that there are places where this conflict between science and faith (which most enlightened people - religious or not - have left in the renaissance) even exists is sickening to me.

One thing that still puzzles me is if there was no intelligent design then why is our species the only known rational one?

i was recomended to read this

The Science of God - Dr. Gerald Schroeder

any opinions. sounds like hogwash to me

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7143844201875642538

quote:

Originally posted by wotyzoid One thing that still puzzles me is if there was no intelligent design then why is our species the only known rational one?

The universe is a big frakkin place and our little corner of existence is ridiculously insignificant..

proof: http://tranceaddict.com/forums/show...5&forumid=16&s=

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.