Diversity remains a one way street

Status
Not open for further replies.
chcr said:
Darwin's theory pretty much states that adaptation is evolution (if it leads to a new species). Note that I find Darwin's theory to be inconsistent and far from complete. It was probably the best he could have done at the time but other sciences have advanced so much since his time.
Click to expand...

Adaptation is adaptation. We can agree on that. Now...if Darwin's theory is inconsistent and incomplete, then how come so many take it as 'gospel'?

Now...this is the first thing that we know, and can, considering the evidence, call a fact.

my listed source said:
The Modern Synthesis cannot account for the widespread evolutionary phenomenon known as convergence, nor can it explain the reason for sex.
Click to expand...

Convergence examples are located there. Sex (procreation, you animals) is self-explanatory.
 
Try "punctuated equilibrium" Gato. Read past all the crap and get to the meat though. It's how you can reconcile the steady progression of micro-evolution with the "sudden" (sudden being a relative term in geologic timescales) leaps in macro-evolution (which is what I thought we were discussing). It's kind of like the difference between Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics, although biology is significantly more advanced than physics. Most of what I've read in the last ten years says that no one who really understands whats going on in biology recently takes Darwinism as "gospel." There are exceptions of course, but they're rare in my experience. You're looking for "smoking gun" proof in a multibillion year timescale and you'll never get it. That doesn't make it wrong.
 
chcr said:
Try "punctuated equilibrium" Gato. Read past all the crap and get to the meat though. It's how you can reconcile the steady progression of micro-evolution with the "sudden" (sudden being a relative term in geologic timescales) leaps in macro-evolution (which is what I thought we were discussing). It's kind of like the difference between Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics, although biology is significantly more advanced than physics. Most of what I've read in the last ten years says that no one who really understands whats going on in biology recently takes Darwinism as "gospel." There are exceptions of course, but they're rare in my experience. You're looking for "smoking gun" proof in a multibillion year timescale and you'll never get it. That doesn't make it wrong.
Click to expand...

If I will never get it, that means it doesn't exist. ;)

Okay. Let's assume that evolution happens to fill a 'sudden void' in the ecological chain. How short of a 'burst' are we talking? 1,000 years...10,000 years...100,000 years...1,000,000 years? Now can we add the hoaxes that also came with the 'evolution theory'? Like this one, perhaps?
 
Gato_Solo said:
Nope. It's just a way to try and explain the universe. There is no more. You, and chcr are making it more complex than it is. ;) At this point, you have to, because you need to place your belief in science in a position above my belief in God. :shrug: Why this is such a difficult concept to get across, I'll never know.
Click to expand...




nope. It is as complex as we have made it out to be. I could do the same to you by saying it is that simple that God did everything but religion, like science, is quite complex.
 
I love the way the right wing coveniently changes the name of its issues to make them sound more plausable.

Creationism becomes Intelligent design

Rampant fear becomes Moral issues

Holocaust becomes final solution

You know that kind of thing.

Am I right in thinking that Intelligent design doesn't mention that god created everything. Does this mean that they may accept that aliens may have created earth. Would this in itself create moral dilemas, what if the aliens are pro choice socialist liberals.
 
Lopan, don't forget the original point of this thread. A person's right to believe one thing, while teaching another. I'd like to hear your opinion on that before you get too deep into the creation/evolution/guided evolution argument.
 
Professur said:
Lopan, don't forget the original point of this thread. A person's right to believe one thing, while teaching another. I'd like to hear your opinion on that before you get too deep into the creation/evolution/guided evolution argument.
Click to expand...

I don't fully get you, the original post suggested (in simplified terms) if you don't agree with pro choice, evolution etc then you must be a right wing lunatic.

I was merely picking up on the Intelligent design point. If a person is teaching something they don't believe in then maybe they are in the wrong profession.
 
Lopan said:
I don't fully get you, the original post suggested (in simplified terms) if you don't agree with pro choice, evolution etc then you must be a right wing lunatic.

I was merely picking up on the Intelligent design point. If a person is teaching something they don't believe in then maybe they are in the wrong profession.
Click to expand...

Well, that's an interesting concept. But should they be driven out of that profession because of it? Lord knows, I fix computers all day, and I'm firmly of the opinion that none of my customers should be allowed within 20 feet of one. Am I in the wrong profession?
 
If I may...

I only heard the notion of intelligent design this week.

Being an ardent believer in creation, I listened to the idea and concluded that it is nothing more than a watered down version of creation, one which advocates the same basic tenets but without the notion of God being the author, instead simply a "higher power".

To me, that translates to the same thing. I know AA and other programs refer to a "higher power" as a PC way of saying God. Or a way to make the atheists feel included in AA without them having to compromise their non-belief in God.

Therefore, to me intelligent design IS creation, with the notable exclusion of the word God. I see it as a compromised version of creation. Hence, intelligent design IS creation with a PC twist. Clever, eh?

Raven, in answer to your inquiry...that is one of the questions I grappled with for a long time. I will admit...despite the fact that I am a Christian, I have an enormous issue with the entire notion of infinity. It frankly frightens me to try and conceive the entire notion of anything being endless, and thus presumably beginning-less. I still am not 100% comfortable with the idea. I have asked the same question you ask many many times. It snags in the logic chambers of my brain. I ask, "If the notion of Christians being saved to heaven, and being there forever, time without end, is correct...then why were we created at all? What will we do in heaven forever and ever?" It keeps me up at night when I dwell on it. My mind simnply cannot fathom the concept of infinity. This leads to questions about where God came from, the nature of His existence...things you and others ask often.

I do not have an answer to those questions. I can only pass along the things I have been told when I ask them. I am sure they will not provide you with any real sense of having the question answered, but it's all I have ever been able to learn on the topic.

All I can say to the issue is...God is. He is infinite, He was there in the beginning and will be there in the end. He is alpha and Omega. Simply put, God is God.

That will most likely not be an acceptable answer to your question, but it's all I have. Accept it or deny it as you will. Hopefully someone else can answer this better than I.
 
Have you ever read "History of the world in 10.5 chapters" by Julian Barnes. It grapples with the Heaven and the eternity issue.

I always wondered how people of different faiths reconcile the differences of death and creation. The Hindu story of creation is far more interesting than the christian version.

From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu's navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu's servant, Brahma. He awaited the Lord's command.

Vishnu spoke to his servant: 'It is time to begin.' Brahma bowed. Vishnu commanded: 'Create the world.'

http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-hindu.htm

Is there more than one heaven? There seems to be some correlation between creation stories so maybe heaven can be whatever you want.

Atheists may get their wish not to go to any afterlife and merely dissapear into the void.

Although I have noticed one thing. A scientific "theory" is very different to a faith "theory". They shouldn't be compared and contrasted.
 
Lopan said:
Although I have noticed one thing. A scientific "theory" is very different to a faith "theory". They shouldn't be compared and contrasted.
Click to expand...

Thank you, thank you very much. :D
 
chcr said:
Thank you, thank you very much. :D
Click to expand...

Okay...One more time. Evolution, a theory, is based on faith in the 'facts', which have been in dispute since the theory was developed. Note the word 'faith'. Creation is based on faith in a higher power. Note the word 'faith'. Facts can, and have, been changed to fit the current mode of study, or current results of any study which uses them. Faith in a higher being does not change to suit the current mode of study...now...you can deny this statement, you can reformulate this statement, or you can say this statement is true. If you agree that this statement is true, then why do so many vocal people disrespect religion? Why is it allowable to bash religion and not, say, Shroedinger's equation? That's what this whole thread was originally about, anyway...
 
Gato_Solo said:
Okay...One more time. Evolution, a theory, is based on faith in the 'facts', which have been in dispute since the theory was developed. Note the word 'faith'. Creation is based on faith in a higher power. Note the word 'faith'. Facts can, and have, been changed to fit the current mode of study, or current results of any study which uses them. Faith in a higher being does not change to suit the current mode of study...now...you can deny this statement, you can reformulate this statement, or you can say this statement is true. If you agree that this statement is true, then why do so many vocal people disrespect religion? Why is it allowable to bash religion and not, say, Shroedinger's equation? That's what this whole thread was originally about, anyway...
Click to expand...
*sigh*

"Okay, one more time..."

It's my opinion that you are completely mistaken about this. It will continue to be my opinion for reasons I have rehearsed more than once. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, why then am I not entitled to mine? "Faith" in science is not the same as "faith" in the supernatural. It never was, it never will be. You can (and will) continue to believe it is, just as I can (and will) continue to believe you are mistaken. Thanks for playing. Please continue on without me if you wish.
 
chcr said:
*sigh*

"Okay, one more time..."

It's my opinion that you are completely mistaken about this. It will continue to be my opinion for reasons I have rehearsed more than once. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, why then am I not entitled to mine? "Faith" in science is not the same as "faith" in the supernatural. It never was, it never will be. You can (and will) continue to believe it is, just as I can (and will) continue to believe you are mistaken. Thanks for playing. Please continue on without me if you wish.
Click to expand...

horse.gif


You're not the one getting ganged up on here, are ya'?

1. I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion. I only stated that faith was faith, whether you rely on science, or you rely on a higher being. Look up the definition for faith. It's the same thing...unless you've decided that one word can have two meanings. :shrug:

2. I never said that science was a bad thing. You may have implied that, but that's on you, not me.

3. I will say this...there is nothing wrong with thinking differently. That's how most 'discoveries' are made. The application of those discoveries, however, is up for debate. I suggest you read Gonz's original post, and ruminate on it a bit before answering again. You may not agree with the fact that faith is faith, regardless of where it lay, but you must agree that his original point is valid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top