Discussion: Evolution

[C.F. Kane]

Quick question CF ... current scientific explanation of Gravity is that the force that causes it is called ...

And the Heliocentric model wasn't in scripture. Got to hate when someone takes something and tries to make more of it then is in the text ... I think they were called scientists at the time ...

Wait, are you trying to debunk the Theory of Gravity?

 

[Angry Sentinel]

LOL. I'm sure you believe that.
I was merely pointing out the fact that I posed questions. simple.
why is interpretation out of the question.

obvious.

you can interpret a given portion of scripture to suit your needs.

Wow, so let me get this straight… whatever YOUR interpretation ….err I mean ‘meaning’ you give the scriptures would be the accurate, correct, and God honest ‘INTENT’ of the scriptures. And you know this because you were inspired by God when you read them? You know this because your spirit was moved hundreds of years through time to be there when he inspired the prophets who wrote them?

Don’t get me wrong, I know that you are saying, that I may try to USE scripture to suit some belief I subscribe to. But in all LOGICAL thinking how can we know for CERTAIN that your interpretation is not meant to do the same to contradict my ideas?

wow, that was a HUUUUUGE block of text on why you won't answer.
a little redundant but awesome to read it was twisty turny and full of suspense.

will he answer the questions?
will he not?
I was on the edge of my seat, and it's am office chair so it was really uncomfortable.

Yes it is, thank you *takes bow* glad I could be so amusing. I try not to go with the obvious. I mean, come on Sparkle these are your words… “I AM NOT LOOKING FOR A MEANINGFUL CONVERSATION with someone whose beliefs”….blah, blah, blah. And since you liked my last production, maybe it would help you if the shoe were on the other foot.

Angry Sentinel: Everything you say makes you an idiot, now answer these questions.

Mr. Sparkle: What? But I’m and idiot, or so you believe. What good would it do for us to do 15 rounds back and forth when you’ve already told me you won’t believe a word I say and that your intent is meaninglessness?

Angry Sentinel: Hahahaha, so all that meant is that you won’t answer them. See, I told you that you’re an idiot.

Albert Einstein: E=mc2, and I didn’t even finish High school.

Rest of SHH poster: Ok, one of these two examples doesn’t belong in the logic category.

LOL, no.
I didn't contradict myself, however you seem to have rather poor reading comprehension.

Evolution IS a theory.
however, and, try to keep up here.
the basis for it is FACT not BELIEF like the basis for YOUR argument?

that clear enough.
good to know that instead of answering you kept looking for threads to pull at, sadly, you failed
now that I've told you "which one it is" I'm guessing you have a bunch of super-special answers ready for me right....Aesop?

Aaah YES, this is the part I’ve been waiting to get to… now try to keep up… even those so-called ‘facts’ that support evolution, are made by fallible men. In ‘fact’, some of the very ‘facts’, that were originally introduced to support evolution have since been ‘debunked’ in favor of NEW ‘facts’ to support evolution. That’s how Science works, with just as big of a disclaimer as any of our other BELIEFS. So, since you like mathematic equations so much, here’s one, if A and B are congruent, and B and C are congruent, then aren’t C and A also congruent. Now, you tell me, how is that SOOO different again?

Not hard to pull at threads when the shirt looks more like a ball of yarn than a shirt.

No AS, I don't think I would debate a dude that thinks the we should kill black people because they are beneath us, seriously.
blind belief is the bane of any "discussion"
see, this is the key difference between one side and the other.
I can accept the hand of a deity in nature.
you can't accept evolution as part of god's (or your deity of choice) plan.

And you know what, if you truly believe that you already know this is how they feel, then I could see why you would not WANT (Ahem… *points to previous section of this post, where there is another good example of this*)to debate/ discuss the issue with them… but that does not make it silly.

I haven't pointed to any "selective" evidence, and I have only supported ONE theory that has a ton of FACTS behind it.
can you say the same.
you can't, otherwise it wouldn't be faith.
see, that' were we part company.

Aaha… Now we get to another problem of our misunderstanding, I never said WHAT I believed in, I only hinted that it was different from you. Actually, I don’t deny evolution in total. I just believe that evolution only provides some ‘possible’ deeper understanding of creationism. Further more, this is the reason I caution you about throwing around man’s so-called facts, because if there is a God, and he/she/it created(in what ever way) all this, then my ‘open-mindedness’ tells me, WE DON’T KNOW JACK..

We may have met Jack, we may even ‘think’ we know him, but compared to how that deity knows Jack… please!

it is an issue, therefore it must be put aside.
because again.
when it comes to scripture it has been pretty much said that it is the word of god.
who are you to Interpret his words.
don't get offended now but don't you think it the height of presumption to come up with "no, what god meant to say was this...."

I don't think god would dig that.

As in the first part of my post, I only question your remarks about ‘interpretation’ because even scholars (these are religious scientist who also claim to know facts) can’t agree on quite a few interpretations of the bible. I think on certain scriptures, in all fairness, you have to be able to say… “Ok, we have several possible translations for this part”. I mean, seriously, does any language translate directly into another? Words are funny, all these writings have been translated from some other language.

So, no, I’m not saying, “what God meant to say was”.
I’m saying, “hey, we may not really know exactly what God was saying here”. Now I don’t mean to sound offensive, but don’t you think that this is more ‘humble’ and even LESS presumptuous than what you have?

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Wow, so let me get this straight… whatever YOUR interpretation ….err I mean ‘meaning’ you give the scriptures would be the accurate, correct, and God honest ‘INTENT’ of the scriptures. And you know this because you were inspired by God when you read them? You know this because your spirit was moved hundreds of years through time to be there when he inspired the prophets who wrote them?

Don’t get me wrong, I know that you are saying, that I may try to USE scripture to suit some belief I subscribe to. But in all LOGICAL thinking how can we know for CERTAIN that your interpretation is not meant to do the same to contradict my ideas?

because I'm NOT interpreting the "perfect word of god"
there's no room for interpretation as the bible was meant to be taken literally.

Yes it is, thank you *takes bow* glad I could be so amusing. I try not to go with the obvious. I mean, come on Sparkle these are your words… “I AM NOT LOOKING FOR A MEANINGFUL CONVERSATION with someone whose beliefs”….blah, blah, blah. And since you liked my last production, maybe it would help you if the shoe were on the other foot.

Angry Sentinel: Everything you say makes you an idiot, now answer these questions.

Mr. Sparkle: What? But I’m and idiot, or so you believe. What good would it do for us to do 15 rounds back and forth when you’ve already told me you won’t believe a word I say and that your intent is meaninglessness?

Angry Sentinel: Hahahaha, so all that meant is that you won’t answer them. See, I told you that you’re an idiot.

Albert Einstein: E=mc2, and I didn’t even finish High school.

Rest of SHH poster: Ok, one of these two examples doesn’t belong in the logic category.

see, this is just smoke and mirrors man.
quit.....

Stalin.
ahahahahaha! get it? Stalin? HUh? huh? *nudges*

Aaah YES, this is the part I’ve been waiting to get to… now try to keep up… even those so-called ‘facts’ that support evolution, are made by fallible men. In ‘fact’, some of the very ‘facts’, that were originally introduced to support evolution have since been ‘debunked’ in favor of NEW ‘facts’ to support evolution. That’s how Science works, with just as big of a disclaimer as any of our other BELIEFS. So, since you like mathematic equations so much, here’s one, if A and B are congruent, and B and C are congruent, then aren’t C and A also congruent. Now, you tell me, how is that SOOO different again?

the basic framework of evolution has remained the same.
see, this is the difference between the two.
you got lost, and I don't blame you, it's hard to be able to separate belief from science.
but believe me, they are VERY different.
I'd try to explain it but, c'mon......

Not hard to pull at threads when the shirt looks more like a ball of yarn than a shirt.

yes, this would sound awesome if it wasn't so apparent that you are very much out of your depth in this discussion and I don't mean to sound condescending or mean.
it's just how I am, so that's how it comes out.
you have done nothing but ot runn around in circles trying to avoid the issue at hand.
seriously man, don't you see it?

And you know what, if you truly believe that you already know this is how they feel, then I could see why you would not WANT (Ahem… *points to previous section of this post, where there is another good example of this*)to debate/ discuss the issue with them… but that does not make it silly.

yes, yes it does, I already told you why.
I will state it one last time for both our sakes.
the theory of evolution does not disprove the existence of god.
merely that the bible is a neat set of stories (mistranslated incomplete stories) that were all awesome and useful in days long past.
however, some people would rather say that the theory of evolution is a belief rather than accept the aforementioned "fictionesque"nature of the bible.

do you see the difference?

Aaha… Now we get to another problem of our misunderstanding, I never said WHAT I believed in, I only hinted that it was different from you. Actually, I don’t deny evolution in total. I just believe that evolution only provides some ‘possible’ deeper understanding of creationism. Further more, this is the reason I caution you about throwing around man’s so-called facts, because if there is a God, and he/she/it created(in what ever way) all this, then my ‘open-mindedness’ tells me, WE DON’T KNOW JACK..

yes, being open minded is super special awesome.
however.
and, again...keep up with me here.
"man's facts" built your computer.
it's not built on belief, and not built on wishes and portents.
man's facts made all of what you used today.
infact, if it wasn't for man's (fallible, fallible man) facts, the bible woudn't even be available for us to discuss.
Ironic I know.
the disdain for science is mind-blowing

We may have met Jack, we may even ‘think’ we know him, but compared to how that deity knows Jack… please!

yet, the deity created things, quantifiable things and to doubt that while existencial and probably revolutionary would completely stagnate any further research and development.
and I'd like a car that runs on solar power in the next decade thank you.

As in the first part of my post, I only question your remarks about ‘interpretation’ because even scholars (these are religious scientist who also claim to know facts) can’t agree on quite a few interpretations of the bible. I think on certain scriptures, in all fairness, you have to be able to say… “Ok, we have several possible translations for this part”. I mean, seriously, does any language translate directly into another? Words are funny, all these writings have been translated from some other language.

which makes you wonder why god's perfect word isn't less vague huh?

So, no, I’m not saying, “what God meant to say was”.
I’m saying, “hey, we may not really know exactly what God was saying here”. Now I don’t mean to sound offensive, but don’t you think that this is more ‘humble’ and even LESS presumptuous than what you have?

no, not really, I'm saying we use the bible as god intended.

 

[Venomfan]

Why do whales have vestigal legs on their bellies?

they need those so they can reproduce, they wouldnt be able to without them

i'm sure we have tail bones and appendixes for a reason too?

there are muscles attached to your tailbone that u NEED to do certain things that you ahem, need to do. and saying that your tailbone is proof we once had a tail but didnt need it and got rid of it.... dont you think a tail would be awfully usefull?

appendixes also do things, i cant remember what though. sure you dont need it to live, but you dont need your arms or legs either to live

 

[Carcharodon]

Hey, I think I have the answer to the whole debate, but I have to give it in the form of a riddle to make the point really hit home:

What do you get when you cross an owl with a bungee cord?

 

[Mr Sparkle]

stretchy owls that sound like rubber bands when they hoot

"HoooooooooooooooT"

 

[Carcharodon]

stretchy owls that sound like rubber bands when they hoot

"HoooooooooooooooT"

Oh, close...

 

[raybia]

because I'm NOT interpreting the "perfect word of god"
there's no room for interpretation as the bible was meant to be taken literally.

Have to disagree with you on that Mr. Sparkle. Even most thelogians and religious scholars know the bible is mostly symbolic and is to be interpret to arrive at its spiritual meaning in order to aid readers in solving life's problems.

 

[raybia]

http://www.playfuls.com/news_004717_Darwin_vs_GOD_Round_2007_Kansas_Declares_Darwin_the_Winner.html

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Have to disagree with you on that Mr. Sparkle. Even most thelogians and religious scholars know the bible is mostly symbolic and is to be interpret to arrive at its spiritual meaning in order to aid readers in solving life's problems.

yes, yes....they know that now.
in the past that was blasphemy.

 

[raybia]

yes, yes....they know that now.
in the past that was blasphemy.

You may have me there.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

yes, yes....they know that now.
in the past that was blasphemy.

During the Middle Ages...quiet possibly. During the time when the Bible was being redacted and existed in oral tradition. I doubt it.

 

[mwm1331]

Reading the bible as symbolism became heresy when the catholic church assumed power. Prior to that the Gnostics believed exactly that. However the first pope was anti-gnostic, having only barely won his election against a gnostic, and such beliefs became heresy.

 

[Canadian Rider]

Wait, are you trying to debunk the Theory of Gravity?

You used Gravity as an example for the purpose of proving that people who read the bible do not have an understanding of basic Science. I could be wrong but that was how I read your comment, in conjunction with the remark about the Heliocentric theorem.

My question back to you was that Gravity is not a great example. Gravity is a force and we have an understanding of what it is through observable phenomenon and we believe that we understand what causes the "effect" of gravity that we witness.

What is currently not understood is the exact nature of the "force" of Gravity and thus it is part of the problem that faces science in the quest for a Grand Unified theory that can explain what "energy" is behind the various forces at work.

It was a remark that perhaps the example you chose was a poor one as that we don't have a complete grasp on what Gravity is as a force.

That was the comment. I know all about it ... everytime I look at the scale I see it working!

 

[raybia]

Reading the bible as symbolism became heresy when the catholic church assumed power. Prior to that the Gnostics believed exactly that. However the first pope was anti-gnostic, having only barely won his election against a gnostic, and such beliefs became heresy.

Heresy for the common people in order to keep them ignorance and in a constant state of oppression.

 

[Canadian Rider]

Reading the bible as symbolism became heresy when the catholic church assumed power. Prior to that the Gnostics believed exactly that. However the first pope was anti-gnostic, having only barely won his election against a gnostic, and such beliefs became heresy.

Nice Summary MWM. You managed to avoid the whole point that Gnostics had beliefs that were not in the majority.

As well that the Jews held the literal interpretation of the majority of the Pentateuch as well.

Nothing in biblical history is simple or as cut and dried as we would like it to be.

The wide range of approaches to Theology around the world would show that there are those who support the Literal and those who don't.

It is not a simple Western philisophy that has been adopted by some in the east, but rather those in the west going back to earlier beliefs that were held to be true.

 

[mwm1331]

Heresy for the common people in order to keep them ignorance and in a constant state of oppression.

Actually it was more about having a common doctrine. The problem with the gnostics, from a organisational point of view, is that everyone had thier own intepertation of christianity based on thier own gnosis. Its really hard to create a organisation when everyone in it is able to create thier own personal religon.
Its actually a good thing that didn't become the dominant form of christianity, if it had, there probably wouldn't be any chrsitians today. Or any america, or a europe.

 

[Canadian Rider]

Have to disagree with you on that Mr. Sparkle. Even most thelogians and religious scholars know the bible is mostly symbolic and is to be interpret to arrive at its spiritual meaning in order to aid readers in solving life's problems.

That is a broad statement Raybia that is perhaps not completely accurate.

Many theologians from various groups fall on one side or the other.

Those that believe the initial parts of the Bible to be "story" only and those that believe it is a literal translation of God's intent.

There are academic professors and writers on both sides, but the percentage would be difficult to gauge accurately.

Certainly Evangelical christians fall mostly in the Literal Camp, but there are those who are of the Jewish faith and others who believe it to be literal.

 

[Carcharodon]

:heart:

 

[SuperFerret]

These threads always lead to the most fun.

 

[Carcharodon]

These threads always lead to the most fun.

I agree. Half the time these threads were the only reason I'd be posting at all.

 

[SuperFerret]

Unfortunately, I have nothing to discuss here, except for the nature of the thread itself.

 

[Shemtov]

Evolution is bull.
If you take a bacteria it will multiply into over a million in a year or so.
And yet, after all these genrations, thousands of them that scientists have observed not ONE bacteria has changed species.

 

[SuperFerret]

Even though those bacteria don't change species in the most literal sense, you expose that sample to an antibiotic and in a year the newborn bacterium are resistant or immune to the antibiotic that killed thousands of their ancestors.

 

[Shemtov]

Even though those bacteria don't change species in the most literal sense, you expose that sample to an antibiotic and in a year the newborn bacterium are resistant or immune to the antibiotic that killed thousands of their ancestors.

Well, Thats Microevolution (in-species changes)
However, You would think Scientests would have seen at least one example of Macroevolution (out of species changes) given that after 30 years a bacterium would have 262800 genrations of progeny.