Reply With Quote
Evolution is happening. How it's happening is what's up for debate.
To prove the theory of Evolution you need fossils,bones,and false Carbon dating to insure you stay in the Science books.
To prove Alternative Design you just need to open your eyes.
Evolution is happening. How it's happening is what's up for debate.
LOL conjecture and mythology isn't science.
http://dailycurrant.com/2012/08/30/b...lenges-debate/
An excerpt from our Daily Currant:
After briefly discussing his show, the Smithsonian anchors asked Nye about Akin's recent accusation. The normally genial Nye wasted no time venting his rage about the comments:
"Look, these people they're ing re ed. Rape can't cause pregnancy? Breastmilk cures sexuality? I caused a hurricane by challenging creationism? Who can possibly take these people seriously anymore?"
The slightly uncomfortable anchors then tried to change the subject, but Nye persisted:
"It used to be these Republicans didn't believe in global warming or evolution. That was bad enough. Now they don't even believe in egg + sperm = baby. Where does Todd Akin think babies come from? Does he think there are separate storks for people who were raped and people who weren't? "
"Hey look over there! It's the rape stork. It drops its babies directly at the orphanage."
"He's a ing idiot. Just a plain ing idiot. I'm sorry - I don't say that word very often - but it happens to fit in this case. He's just a ing idiot."
As the stunned anchors hurriedly tried to wind the conversation down and cut to commercial, Nye stared directly into the camera and issued a challenge to his new-found rival:
"So Todd I got an offer for you. You and me. Any time. Any place. Debating science mano- a-mano. I'll bring the facts, and you bring the Vaseline. Because your ass is gonna ing need it when I'm done whipping."
What's wrong WC? You felt compelled to argue line for line but not compelled to respond to this?So God is the former. The former god. Here I was thinking "creator" for some odd reason.
I haven't read the term "intelligent design" in the Bible. It's completely fabricated as forced modification to creationism from Genesis that simply does not interface well.
Rev. 4:11 says, "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Are you trying to assert that the god of the bible isn't considered, by Christians, to be the creator of man? Are you trying to assert that the Bible doesn't say God created man in his own image?
What's the point of saying that without expounding?
In Genesis 1:27 we are told that God created man. The verb to create is the Hebrew bara. In Genesis 2:7 the Bible says God formed man (Hebrew asah). Since both of these verses speak of God creating man, we find that man was both created and formed.
Right and you speak fluent Hebrew.
In your stance there is no need for god. Occam's razor therefore eliminates the concept out of necessity. All you are doing is saying "god did it" to anything discovered as fact, and though the Jews by and large rejected evolution as heresy (rabbis who obviously also didn't understand the Torah as well as you), suddenly it's now become compatible through mental gymnastics and word wrangling. Keep holding on to that dogma, despite the speed of the boat of science that's dragging you through life.
What a badass"So Todd I got an offer for you. You and me. Any time. Any place. Debating science mano- a-mano. I'll bring the facts, and you bring the Vaseline. Because your ass is gonna ing need it when I'm done whipping."
Why should I? What I said went completely over your head, so far, I'm not going to take the time.
I will say again, the Bible we know is not accurate.
I am not stating that such things like Intelligent Design are real. I am saying that a real scientist will accept that they could be, and are not disproved.
What we know of science and what the Torah says are not in conflict, and we don't know enough about science to say the the Torah is wrong. You simply have to accept that the Hebrew and Chaldean words did not all mean as interpreted to English.
A simple example is "Thou shalt not kill." The proper translation for the word used as "kill" should be "murder."
The word for "Adam" in the creation is a different word than the word "Adam" when the story of human interaction starts. In the creation, it means "mankind." It is not a proper name. In the story of Adam/Eve/Cain/Able, the word used is a proper name.
It's absolutely useless to continue such a debate with someone so ignorant of the Bible.
A real scientist doesn't deal with magic, so Crea--I mean, "Intelligent Design" should never enter the discussion.
If I take a Bic Lighter back in time to the Salem Massachusetts, and use it, think I might get burned at the stake for using witchcraft?
Who's to say that magic isn't science? Just a science beyond what we understand.
Lots of people in this thread are going to . I will pray for you.
Nah, it's magic and has no place in a scientific setting.
If you want to talk about God, you can do so at mass.
I see you are just a troll.
Goodbye.
But keep calling me a troll because you have no real response. Like I said in my previous post, if you want to talk about God, go to Church. Keep it out of a scientific discussion.
Why choose to have your beliefs influenced on writings that deem the universe to have man's ambition in mind? Seems a bit convenient that a place as big as the universe chooses to have an advanced breed of monkey on a minor planet in the boonies of a average galaxy as the central focus of this existence. Our species is a period on the end of this planet's timeline alone. The universe was around way before we came about and will be around long after we go extinct.
No, you can't disprove that an omnipotent being that cares about all life exists. You're right, but it's a weak argument you have going for you. We have yet to find anything with the slightest bit of evidence that happens to transcend the boundaries of math and physics that we know of. Even the elusive higgs boson was discovered. Everything points away from deities having the responsibility of creating things from nothing.
Would it kill you to know that anything that's happened on this planet was pretty much purposeless?
congrats for destroying a thread where everybody responded within 10-13 minutes.
Give one example of observed macro evolution.
You were playing a game of semantics as if the Bible doesn't call God the creator of man. You are trying to say that evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive because of that misinformation. You responded that I don't understand ancient Hebrew as if you do.
I am well versed in the exegesis of the Bible. I don't need to debate it from an apologist standpoint in order to be viable.
Accurate as far as based in reality or as far as translation of the original text?
I will say again, the Bible we know is not accurate.
No real scientist (No true Scotsman fallacy) would accept that it "could be". They will accept the scientific process, of which none exists for determining the supernatural.I am not stating that such things like Intelligent Design are real. I am saying that a real scientist will accept that they could be, and are not disproved.
They certainly are in conflict. It requires poetic license and revisionist history to claim otherwise. Finding parallels in the words of the Bible or Torah to modern understanding of science would be interesting if the religious community saw it, oh.. 2000 or so years ago instead of waiting for the scientific community to publish it's findings on the matter before saying "yeah, we know that, that's what the Bible says".What we know of science and what the Torah says are not in conflict, and we don't know enough about science to say the the Torah is wrong. You simply have to accept that the Hebrew and Chaldean words did not all mean as interpreted to English.
It's certainly not what was taught, and now that you claim understanding of the Torah that just happens to match science, I will have to call you out on it. Where were these revelations when Darwin first published his book Origin of Species? Why didn't the Jewish community rally in support and claim he was only proving what the Torah says?
Do you really believe people 3000+ years ago knew about evolution when they were killing people for being possessed by demons?
, that was happening in America just a few hundred years ago.
Your argument is scattered. You claim we could have been put here by an advanced race. You then claim creationism doesn't conflict with evolution and that the original Torah is misunderstood, as if it speaks of evolutionary processes. That means you either think humans are indeed evolving or that the Torah is also full of . I mean, if an advanced race put us here, how does that jive with evolution? If it doesn't, how does the Torah even come into play since, according to you, it jives with evolution?
I don't need exegesis.A simple example is "Thou shalt not kill." The proper translation for the word used as "kill" should be "murder."
OkThe word for "Adam" in the creation is a different word than the word "Adam" when the story of human interaction starts. In the creation, it means "mankind." It is not a proper name. In the story of Adam/Eve/Cain/Able, the word used is a proper name.
I am certain I know as much about the Bible as you. Since you allow that an advanced race put humans here, then I don't get why you think proper exegesis of the Bible does anything to prove that evolution doesn't conflict with the Bible. It certainly does. The word "created" was used and you've danced around that little factoid.It's absolutely useless to continue such a debate with someone so ignorant of the Bible.
Eventually though, all that matters is that the religious folks come to grips with the fact that science has showed them the err of their ways and that science is causing them to re-examine their long held belief system, and for those hangers on who pretend there's some compatibility with mysticism and science, the world must be a colder place.
Creationism: We were put here intentionally by God
Darwinian Evolution: We are here by chance, through random mutations.
Yes religion/ID and evolution are in direct conflict.
Last edited by DMC; 09-01-2012 at 09:51 PM.
Micro and Macro in terms of evolution are just by words for creationists to try to find a part of evolution that they can disagree with.
Bacteria evolve. They develop a resistance to antibiotics.
How well do you understand phylogenetics?
Like all forms of life, bacteria undergo evolution. Evolution is a slow and gradual process, and it was the person of Charles Darwin, combining keen observation with a sharp mind, who first described the principles of evolution. Had microbiology existed in those days, then he would certainly have used bacteria to illustrate his ideas. Since bacteria are relatively simple forms of life, and have a short generation time, evolutionary processes can be observed directly, as opposed to most other life forms. The study of bacterial evolution has resulted in many insights of general biological processes, and modern research still uses bacteria as a model to study evolution. Evolution is based on three principles:
As organisms reproduce, more offspring will be formed than can survive. This causes compe ion for sources of energy and habitat. Only the fittest organisms will survive.
During cell division, minute changes will be introduced in the offspring. Such mutations will generate genetic diversity among the offspring.
The result of these two processes, compe ion and diversity, is a selection pressure that will favour certain populations that are best qualified to survive. Over time, this will result in notable changes of a species.
http://bacteriamuseum.org/cms/Evolut...-bacteria.html
1. Humans created the concept of magic. It's not an en y in and of itself. Basically it doesn't exist outside of our imaginations.
2. Why then propose it as a separate en y that's just misunderstood?
QUOTE=DMC;6097072]
Yes religion/ID and evolution are in direct conflict.[/QUOTE
You left out AD Alternative Design
Last edited by mouse; 09-01-2012 at 10:14 PM.
I left out a host of other bull because there's absolutely zero reason to include it.
So you say.
Why is it so difficult to find open minded posters to debate with that don't have to curse like some NY cab driver stuck in traffic ?
It doesn't matter if you can't stand the Bible or if you can't stand the narrow minded Atheist. Must you low IQ smack talkers turn every Evoultion or religious debate into a school yard rumble?
Just make your point or comment and leave your smack bat in the bat bag so we can move forward in a civil and semi intelligent manner.
On a side note any poster here who really thinks a snail from two billion years ago can evolve into a human and land a unmanned spacecraft on Mars to me is a fool.
Yeah but you were booted from college so it's no surprise.
Was mouse trying to be ironic with that post? I don't think he's smart enough for that, though.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions