ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:09 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Er... not quite what I said...
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:22 am 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 2:52 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Earth
Actually, I didn't say evolution was debunked. I said Darwinian evolution was debunked, as in a certain kind and type of philosophical evolution which is based upon principles that have been proven to not exist in the first place. Please, again, don't mistake what I'm not saying for what I am.

Wrin, what you are referring to is called mirco-evolution. Yes, it works, in microscopic cases, however we have never found a form of macro-evolution, the case of one species changing to another. With micro-evolution, there's always the chance to return to the way it was in subsequent generations. With macro-evolution there is no chance because there is no self-replication... it requires two similar parties to create a wholly unique and unsimilar third from the give parts of the first two.

We can see what some believe to be evolution in human being or other creatures that are born 'strange'. The vast majority of the time, this produces what we call 'mutants', and in anything other than bacteria (or viruses) there has been no recorded evidence of any kind of benificial mutancy, unless you consider the loss of independance of fingers and toes for a fused flipper purely benificial. Even then, there is no evidence for a change in species... only a change in the form of the same species.

Darwinian evolution dictates that, based off of pangeans, meaning that if I build my muscles, my kid's will be naturally strong. What we had for quite some time, was Neo-Darwinism, which was essentially random genetic mutation based off of normal genetic material over time. The current evolutionary belief, however is Post Neo-Darwinism, which holds that we have genetic leaps, not gradual shift, completely altering a current species into another one in one generation. The current philosophical arguments are whether this happens as a part of a MEE (aka ELE), or the entirely new species just becomes continually more common as time goes on (ala the X-Men idea).

Again, I'm not trying to prove creationism is scientifically feasible, however Darwinian evolution is more rediculous, because it claims a scientific basis, when, in fact, all it had was pseudo-scientific conjecture that proved completely wrong. My point is that the original foundations for evolution are flawed, and that the theory isn't perfect yet. There is no honest scientist that will swear that evolution holds all the answers now... because it doesn't. It can't. In fact, honest scientists continue to state that there is much room for the theory to grow... they have to. It's called 'scientific theory' for that reason precisely. I fully agree with you Boss, and that, really, was one of my ultimate points: Science has not, and cannot currently, claim to have achieved final answers.

Finally, even given that evolution is proven to happen today, we'd have to prove, for creationist (like I am) that it happened in the past, which is patently impossible. We can conjecture, and point, and say 'well it's logical that...' but there is no way to prove it. Yes, this is a weak point in the argument, and I realize this, however as much as I hoped that others would convert to Christianity, this is not really the point of this thread (to convert anyone), unless I'm mistaken. Since ultimately, this entire line of arguments sprung from the problem with Adam... a supposedly 'fictional' progenitor. My entire purpose with this argument was to support the theory that yes, it was rational to say that Adam may have existed at one time or another. Heh, I apologize that it grew to such a large thing on its own, and am embarrassed that I was so easily side-tracked from the main issue, though it could be argued that... er... I'll just stop with that now.

ANYway.

Wrin, you wished to talk about Jesus of Nazareth Conflicted. What would you like to talk about concerning the issue, Wrin?

I'm not trying to debate the nature of truth, but rather to show that all things do have to come to faith, for an individual, even if not the rest of the world. Sorry, if that seemed misplaced, it was just one of many points, admittedly probably not the most well-written.

P.S. Moderator... I apologize for the length of the posts. I will try to keep them more consice. I'm not attempting to 'bludgeon' anyone, just bring evidence to bear. If you have any more tips on how I would improve as a person, feel free to PM them to me and I'll try to apply them. Outside of that: <Ahem>: "We apologize for the inconvenience."

Edited: because something I wrote (surprisingly...?) didn't make sense after the fact, several lines of thought were scattered and could be shaped up or rearranged to a more pleasing and flowing form, and I removed my notes to Wrin and Boss to the bottom.

Wrin: As far as the degradation of the Earth's magnetic field, it was a point only because, while I brought it up as one of several arguments, another indicated that it was a rediculous point and then I gave proof, etc. So really, I'm interested in all of the subjects, not just any one, so I'll go with yours. (Tossrock hasn't replied and you have, so I'm assuming he's not on the board at the moment, or his arguments have been satisfied and we can move on).

And Boss: that seems like a rather low blow, your last comment. I was joking about the low blow with Jack Chick (although it's true, it was a jovial true), but I fail to understand why you'd like to point out a political issue on a religious debate. I'm sorry, but it's not the point here. I'm not out to debate politics, whether mine or others... that's just asking for even more trouble and hurt feelings (although I admit, so is religion in general). If anything I believe has offended you, I am sorry for that rift, but it can't be helped... it's what I believe. If anything I said hurt, offended, or insulted you, because it came across in a poor way, then I do apologize, and admit that I'm not always the most tactful (despite my name) nor eloquent writer. I did not intend for any bitterness to crop up, and I apologize in as much as it is my fault.

_________________
DNI'ed by Wrin (for editing a bunch) and Tomkat (for being longwinded)!
_____________________________________
If a wizard did it,
And if Ian did it,
And if Sarda is the wizard who did it,
Does that make Sarda Ian's alias?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:52 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4439
Location: You can't take the sky from me. Since I found Serenity.
Oh God. Not this shit.

Evolution is one of the best supported theories we have, period.

Quote:
I said Darwinian evolution was debunked, as in a certain kind and type of philosophical evolution which is based upon principles that have been proven to not exist in the first place.


As with all scientific theories. Only the most correct one is the one that gets defended by the scientific community. If you wish to fight a century and a half old theory be my guest. Though it comparable to fighting against the heliocentric model of the universe.

Quote:
however we have never found a form of macro-evolution, the case of one species changing to another.


This is untrue.

Quote:
it requires two similar parties to create a wholly unique and unsimilar third from the give parts of the first two.


This show a basic lack of understanding about how evolution works.

Quote:
We can see what some believe to be evolution in human being or other creatures that are born 'strange'. The vast majority of the time, this produces what we call 'mutants', and in anything other than bacteria (or viruses) there has been no recorded evidence of any kind of benificial mutancy, unless you consider the loss of independance of fingers and toes for a fused flipper purely benificial. Even then, there is no evidence for a change in species... only a change in the form of the same species.


This also show a basic lack of understanding about how evolution works.

Quote:
There is no honest scientist that will swear that evolution holds all the answers now... because it doesn't. It can't. In fact, honest scientists continue to state that there is much room for the theory to grow... they have to. It's called 'scientific theory' for that reason precisely. I fully agree with you Boss, and that, really, was one of my ultimate points: Science has not, and cannot currently, claim to have achieved final answers.


No scientific theory holds all the answers, yet. However, evolution holds all the answers that you raised questions for thus far.

Though I would like some backing for that "It can't" assertion. I'm calling bullshit.

Quote:
Finally, even given that evolution is proven to happen today, we'd have to prove, for creationist (like I am) that it happened in the past, which is patently impossible. We can conjecture, and point, and say 'well it's logical that...' but there is no way to prove it.


First you go from misunderstanding evolution to misunderstanding science itself. The standards of scientific proof are far less than that of mathematical proofs. You take Relativity for granted as true, even though there is far less evidence to support it.

Using that logic you can say, "Well, I made that particle go really fast and time sped up for it. But how do I *know* for a fact that it will happen tomorrow, or could have happened yesterday?"

That line of argument degenerates into intellectual masterbation. How can you be sure you are remember what just happened? Your memory only exists in your mind. Etc. Etc.

And our problem with your posts isn't the length. It's the formatting.

Add some whitespace and it should be fine.

If you wish for evidence just ask. I'm too lazy to gather it up if it's probably going to be ignored.

_________________
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Er... not quite what I said...
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:55 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:47 pm
Posts: 1168
tacticslion wrote:
And Boss: that seems like a rather low blow, your last comment. I was joking about the low blow with Jack Chick (although it's true, it was a jovial true), but I fail to understand why you'd like to point out a political issue on a religious debate. I'm sorry, but it's not the point here. I'm not out to debate politics, whether mine or others... that's just asking for even more trouble and hurt feelings (although I admit, so is religion in general). If anything I believe has offended you, I am sorry for that rift, but it can't be helped... it's what I believe. If anything I said hurt, offended, or insulted you, because it came across in a poor way, then I do apologize, and admit that I'm not always the most tactful (despite my name) nor eloquent writer. I did not intend for any bitterness to crop up, and I apologize in as much as it is my fault.

No, I'm not angry about anything. I've been through most of these points of discussion before. I do wish this issue was purely scientific, but it isn't, and that is because the Creationists have politicized it. If you don't believe in that sort of thing, congratulations. You are more sensible--and honest--that most of the Creationist activists who stir up all the political trouble.

I would point out that the only dishonest thing I see in your letters (and it is probably unintentional) is equating the two statements "evolution is not a final answer" and "evolutionist is rediculous."

I repeat: no one thinks evolution has been disproven or discredited except creationists. The rest of society and pretty much the entire scientific community are perfectly happen with the concept of Deep Time and the Theory of evolution as the the basis for understanding the history of life on earth. All that changes is the details of the structure of ideas. When scientists discuss the various issues in evolutionary studies you mention, they don't argue that these disputes disprove the basic principles of evolution. They are only debating various mechanisms in the process.

A good-sized share of the people who answer "yes" as to whether they believe in creationism also answer "yes" when they are asked if asked if they believe in dinosaurs and a billion year-old earth, and whether science and not religion should be taught in science classes. They aren't stupid or confused by the problem as much as they simply <i>don't care</i>. It doesn't matter to them that the teaching science might contradict literal reading of the Bible. It doesn't affect their lives one iota, and they are perfectly willing to let the science teachers decide what is and isn't science.

So, we are on separate and divergent tracks here, different views of reality. It's a common thing in mordern culture.

_________________
"We are not going to die! And do you know why? Because Thomas is too pretty to die. And because I'm too stubborn to die. And most of all because tomorrow is Oktoberfest, Butters, and <i>polka will never die!</i>"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: I Am Not On The Offensive! :D
PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 6:50 am 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 2:52 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Earth
OE:
... er... what? No, seriously. Do you study science or are you just annoyed that someone disagreed with your favorite theory? I'm sorry, but this is a subject I've studied for quite some time from both sides of the equation. Regardless, this is quickly leaving the realm of the debate I've previously said I'd go on for Wrin (in fact, it's unrelated entirely). If we wish to continue this one, we might want to make yet another thread for it, specifically. I am working on a reply, however, I won't post it because it's not part of the debate at this time. In the reply, I'm paraphrasing our posts to save on space, if that's unacceptible, tell me and I'll go back and fix it. If you wish to discuss this otherwise, however, I think we need to split the topics up. :wink:

Boss:
Thank you for clarification, I was unable to tell. I've never intentionally stated that evolutionists are rediculous, only one specific evolutionary theory. Specifically Darwinian evolution, because it's based on a flawed scientific theory that has been proven false. Current evolutionary theory (Post Neo Darwinian evolution) is based off of scientific theories that are not proven false, but their original foundation (Darwinian evolution) was. That was the sum of my points. Politics was never part of it!

And yeah, but really, isn't it true whenever two or more religious ideals come together in the same place? It's an inherent divergence in the way people view reality. But that's another topic! :D

(Oh, and I'd love evidences and various other things. The truth is, however, I sincerely doubt we're going to convert anyone, espeically on the evolution/creation and this debate will probably go on as long as the forum does. I realize I'm fighting an uphill battle against most, if not all, of the rest of the forum. I'd also love formatting tips [how do I make paragraphs without leaving a space in between], so if you'd like feel free to PM them to me. Finally, I realized my posts were so long: I write alot.) :D

Edited: for clarity, content, and shortening (then slight relengthening).

_________________
DNI'ed by Wrin (for editing a bunch) and Tomkat (for being longwinded)!
_____________________________________
If a wizard did it,
And if Ian did it,
And if Sarda is the wizard who did it,
Does that make Sarda Ian's alias?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I Am Not On The Offensive! :D
PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:42 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1276
Location: Hanging in the endless void with nothing but entropy and fluff for company.
tacticslion wrote:
( ... long post ... )
Edited: for clarity, content, and shortening (then slight relengthening).


Alright, you've earned a DNI. You're not nearly annoying enough to initiate, your posts are well thought out, your only problem is that you ramble a little and need to keep it concise, and you've asked for help on that. Slap a DNI'd by Wrin in your sig, will ya' TC?

_________________
~ Wrin
Labrat wrote:
As screwed up as the world is, it has to have been designed by comittee. Diskworld-style.

Jin wrote:
...I cursed at the computer screen for an hour and a half while striking it with my genitals.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:49 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 918
Location: Elsewhere
I revoke this DNI because lawlzevolutiondebating.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I Am Not On The Offensive! :D
PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 6:29 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4439
Location: You can't take the sky from me. Since I found Serenity.
tacticslion wrote:
{stuff}


Yes, I did study science. etc. etc.

There's already an evolution debate in this forum so bump that if you really care.

However, I will warn you that an anti-evolution debate is not one that you are capable of winning.

_________________
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:21 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 12:31 am
Posts: 1587
Location: Bay Area
Here's the short version:

The very well informed opinion of hundreds of thousands of scientists whose collective IQ would make your penis roll up on itself versus the very misinformed ideas of one guy who has some kind of love affair with his own internet voice.


Oh and back to your culpability thing: I don't give a fucking rat's ass if it's in the bible. That's actually more of a count against it in my book. I said it's retarded to judge someone based on the actions of others, and I've yet to see a good answer to that, or indeed my original problem of the Epicurean paradox. Like I said, original sin and all other arguments against the problem of evil boil down to that "mysterious ways" bullshit. I mean, if you're a christian, what about aborted fetuses? You guys believe they're life and soul and all that shit, and I'm pretty sure they haven't comitted any sins in the womb. So why are they "murdered"? Answer me this.

_________________
<img src="http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f340/Tossrock/sigreducedjx2-1.jpg">


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:58 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Midworld
Tossrock wrote:
Here's the short version:

The very well informed opinion of hundreds of thousands of scientists whose collective IQ would make your penis roll up on itself versus the very misinformed ideas of one guy who has some kind of love affair with his own internet voice.


Oh and back to your culpability thing: I don't give a fucking rat's ass if it's in the bible. That's actually more of a count against it in my book. I said it's retarded to judge someone based on the actions of others, and I've yet to see a good answer to that, or indeed my original problem of the Epicurean paradox. Like I said, original sin and all other arguments against the problem of evil boil down to that "mysterious ways" bullshit. I mean, if you're a christian, what about aborted fetuses? You guys believe they're life and soul and all that shit, and I'm pretty sure they haven't comitted any sins in the womb. So why are they "murdered"? Answer me this.


Toss, if you were on the other side of this issue, I'd lump you in with all the other christians I've tried to debate with to which Tactics has made himself an exception. You're rude, sarcastic, and profane, and it has no place in a debate, especially when your ideas are as unsupported as they are. You make mention of studies, yet provide no links. Tactics has the decency to quote scripture and history as his supporting evidence, so in the case of this debate, to an unbiased audience, he would win.

I also believe you're missing the greater implications of what he is saying, and they're worth noting. Unless you yourself have done experiments to prove evolution in every case, you are exactly the same as him. You /believe/ in evolution. Your proof comes from other people on which you must rely to be telling the truth. Tactics believes in Creation. His proof is the Bible. Point to me the fundamental difference between you believing in Evolution, and his belief in Creation. I doubt you can.

_________________
Go then. There are other worlds than these.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:17 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:57 am
Posts: 729
Location: everywhere and nowhere
Tossrock wrote:
You guys believe they're life and soul and all that shit, and I'm pretty sure they haven't comitted any sins in the womb. So why are they "murdered"? Answer me this.


They are "murdered" instead of terminated because they are a living being, with or without consiousness. If you are asking "why" it is because it is the right of the mother to determine whether or not she feels she is ready to raise a well adjusted child.

You are also correct in that they have no sin. I obviously have no idea where this is in scripture but I do believe that my pastor talked about how children who still have their innocence are accepted with or without accepting christ. I'm sure Tactics can back me up on this point.

_________________
“Justice is a cruel cruel truckload of pointy crapâ€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:29 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1276
Location: Hanging in the endless void with nothing but entropy and fluff for company.
Destroyer_of_ants wrote:
Tossrock wrote:
You guys believe they're life and soul and all that shit, and I'm pretty sure they haven't comitted any sins in the womb. So why are they "murdered"? Answer me this.


You are also correct in that they have no sin. I obviously have no idea where this is in scripture but I do believe that my pastor talked about how children who still have their innocence are accepted with or without accepting christ. I'm sure Tactics can back me up on this point.


There are many varying standpoints on whether or not unborn or otherwise "innocent" children go to heaven, and I don't have one of them so I'll leave that alone. I am interested, though, in what you think of animals?

DoE wrote:
They are "murdered" instead of terminated because they are a living being, with or without consiousness.

_________________
~ Wrin
Labrat wrote:
As screwed up as the world is, it has to have been designed by comittee. Diskworld-style.

Jin wrote:
...I cursed at the computer screen for an hour and a half while striking it with my genitals.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 10:06 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:57 am
Posts: 729
Location: everywhere and nowhere
Obviously I am a man of my word so now I am bound to-killing any living thing = murder, including livestock and plants.

So yes in accordance with my previous post if you kill an animal it is murder but it is necessary just like some people believe that killing fetus' for stem cell research is necessary.

_________________
“Justice is a cruel cruel truckload of pointy crapâ€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 11:02 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1276
Location: Hanging in the endless void with nothing but entropy and fluff for company.
Destroyer_of_ants wrote:
Obviously I am a man of my word so now I am bound to-killing any living thing = murder, including livestock and plants.

So yes in accordance with my previous post if you kill an animal it is murder but it is necessary just like some people believe that killing fetus' for stem cell research is necessary.


...or you could default to the biblical definition(s) of murder, in which only things with souls can be murdered and since the Bible said only people have souls than it's alright to maim the animals. But I digress. IMO killing for any reason other than necessity is immoral.

_________________
~ Wrin
Labrat wrote:
As screwed up as the world is, it has to have been designed by comittee. Diskworld-style.

Jin wrote:
...I cursed at the computer screen for an hour and a half while striking it with my genitals.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 11:10 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Midworld
Wrin wrote:
Destroyer_of_ants wrote:
Obviously I am a man of my word so now I am bound to-killing any living thing = murder, including livestock and plants.

So yes in accordance with my previous post if you kill an animal it is murder but it is necessary just like some people believe that killing fetus' for stem cell research is necessary.


...or you could default to the biblical definition(s) of murder, in which only things with souls can be murdered and since the Bible said only people have souls than it's alright to maim the animals. But I digress. IMO killing for any reason other than necessity is immoral.


Or you could take the scientific version of a soul, sentience, and say the exact same thing. But then you get to the question of whether feti are sentient, which is really what this whole thing is about anyway.

And DoA, feel free to revise your ideas if new information conflicts with them. It's the smart thing to do.

_________________
Go then. There are other worlds than these.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 11:32 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:47 pm
Posts: 1168
Jasper wrote:
I also believe you're missing the greater implications of what he is saying, and they're worth noting. Unless you yourself have done experiments to prove evolution in every case, you are exactly the same as him. You /believe/ in evolution. Your proof comes from other people on which you must rely to be telling the truth. Tactics believes in Creation. His proof is the Bible. Point to me the fundamental difference between you believing in Evolution, and his belief in Creation. I doubt you can.

If you take that broad a view of what can be the source of an opinion/judgment/belief, than having a discussion on any topic is pointless. Welcome to the world of postmodernist philosophy and moral relativism.

Discussions in this forum, and, in theory, any discussion by people part of what we loosely call Western Culture, assumes common rules of argument and evidence. If you don't feel you or anyone else can make distinctions between good evidence and bad evidence, you've left the world of Jesuit, Greek, Hebrew, and Confucian logic. The only way left to resolve a dispute is to bully or club the other guy into submission. Good luck hanging out with the pomo's down at Berkeley.

The Bible, in the minds of Biblical literalists, is God's word, the ultimate source of truth, and its words automatically trump any other evidence. To everyone else (about 95% of the world's population) it is just another historical source, better than some and worse than others. As a source for evidence concerning natural philosophy (including physics and biology) it is nineteen centuries out of date, pretty much worthless.

As I pointed out above, the evidence for evolution as a basic framework of ideas (what scientists mean by theory) has been accumulating for a hundred and fifty years. Creation theory and ID theory were around two hundred years ago. Their supporters tried using Western philosophical methods (now known as "the scientific method') to defend it, but their arguments and evidence were not up to the job. If modern Evangelicals want to restart that discussion, they have to provide better evidence than did the 19th Century creationists.

So far, nothing remotely like this has been presented. The fact that there are holes in traditional or modern evolutionary theory is largely irrelevant. The scientific method doesn't require perfection, only a constant striving to explain the imperfections. Point out holes and gaps is a waste of time unless you have a plausible body of theory as an alternative and evidence to back it up.

For examples of how this process works, I would suggest any sound popular book on one of these three topics: the history of plate tectonics (continental drift); modern catastrophe theory and "extinction events," particularly the KT event that wiped out the dinosaurs; and the proof of pre-Folsum human emigration to the Americas. All three of these stories are great dramas of science, with heroes, victims, and villains struggling to advance or protect science as they understand it.

_________________
"We are not going to die! And do you know why? Because Thomas is too pretty to die. And because I'm too stubborn to die. And most of all because tomorrow is Oktoberfest, Butters, and <i>polka will never die!</i>"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 11:43 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Midworld
And again someone missed my point entirely. I'm not saying we can't know anything. Far from it. What I'm saying is that there is no difference between Tactics and Toss, in that they both believe something that they have been told by others, rather than study it themselves. Actually, if I remember correctly, this is in fact Tactics' field of study, so he actually has a leg up on Toss in this department. He's providing evidence. Toss is not.

The fact that I believe Toss is correct, and not Tactics, has no effect whatsoever on the fact that Toss is debating very poorly, and Tactics is debating (relatively) very well. Don't be so quick to defend your position that you miss when someone else supports it.

Also: If you're going to dismiss biblical references as 'poor evidence', make sure you support that position. Note that 'Of course it's not good evidence, it's the Bible' is not considered support, as it's tantamount to a Christian saying 'Of course the Bible's right, God wrote it'.

_________________
Go then. There are other worlds than these.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Woah...
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:56 pm 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 2:52 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Earth
Jasper: :)
Thank you for your kindness, grace and words of encouragement. I appreciate your honesty and candidness, as well as your fair-handedness.

Boss: :confused:
The entire purpose of 'pointing out holes' was only to point out how my own philosophy, though it too has 'holes' to some ways of thinking, might be just as logical. My body of evidence is some scripture, logic, and science, however it seems irrelevant to you, and I'm sorry for that, but apparently our views of reality just cannot mix.

Tossrock: :(
I'm sorry that you feel that nothing from the Bible, my source of belief, is admissable evidence, especially concerning the nature of God, which is the ultimate point on the question of evil, or the 'Epicurean Paradox', if you prefer. If that is so, then there is no reason for further discussion on the matter as nothing either I or you can say will move the matter one way or the other. Thank you for your honesty and for challenging my beliefs, it's refreshing and good to go over such things again. Nonetheless, Jasper is correct: please be civil, or there can be no dialogue.

Omipotent Entity: :oops:
I owe you a public apology for publicly criticizing and questioning your credentials. When you first questioned me, I responded in kind, and I'm sorry, I was wrong. I would be interested, but do not require, your sources of study: interested because I like this kind of information, but unrequired because I don't wish to insult you further.

Destroyer_of_ants: :wink:
There is a passage in Revelation, I believe, referencing the White Throne judgement of those who never had the opportunity to hear of Jesus. There is a great amount of debate on what this judgement is, and how it works. There are also many references to Jesus loving children, and using them as examples, claiming that we had to become like them (pure and innocent) in order to come to the kingdom of heaven. Many use these arguments, as well as others, to show that those who are murdered in such a manner go to heaven. Myself, I cannot fully state with certainty one way or the other, though I have leanings toward 'they are innocent', as I've seen evidence both ways, but I believe in God's justice, and trust Him in His decisions, one way or the other.

Wrin: 8)
As far as I can tell Biblically speaking, your interpretations are correct. However, your secondary opinion is also generally backed up by the scripture. Those who destroy any kind of life wantonly for no reason other than love of killing are considered cruel and evil (immoral).

In General: :bang:
I am not, have not been, and would not attempt to prove evolution false. Instead, I've attempted to present a reasonable alternitive. Apparently this is taken as a militant action on my part against evolutionary theory, as well as a political one. This reaction is rather confusing, because to me, I was not attempting to start this, yet others obviously have taken it this way. Again, let me reitterate: my goal has never been to destroy or otherwise negate evolution. I do not believe in it, but this does not mean I'm 'out to get' evolution or disprove it. My goal is, and has always been, to show the logic and reasoning behind my own beliefs. If that has threatened you or made you feel hurt in any way, I apologize... but my beliefs stand, as does my reasoning.

Finally: :-?
Currently, this seems to be shaping up to be a flame war, or at least a time of bruised egos and/or feelings. I apologize that I let it reach this stage and blame myself at least in part. I am not conceeding the debate, but instead suggesting a time off of it. I will gladly continue to answer questions to the best of my ability, if they are asked of me, and I will continue to frequent the debate forum. I do not think that this topic should be locked, as it's produced some interesting conversation and questions.

Any further questions posted to debate creation/evolution on this topic will be ignored by me, as it is obviously a very sensitive subject for a number of people, and they are emotionally invested in it.

I recommend to all those who think I am trying to undermine evolution to re-read my statements and attempt to understand it from my point of view, as I believe I have now understood it from yours. If I am wrong, PM me, and I will again attempt to understand you. Please do not flame, as this is what I am trying to avoid. Any flames will be deleted and ignored, as they are neither civil, nor useful in any form.

Edited for my own forgetfulness and my lack of grace with words. And to add emotes, because they're cute.

_________________
DNI'ed by Wrin (for editing a bunch) and Tomkat (for being longwinded)!
_____________________________________
If a wizard did it,
And if Ian did it,
And if Sarda is the wizard who did it,
Does that make Sarda Ian's alias?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:15 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 12:31 am
Posts: 1587
Location: Bay Area
:oops: - Jasper, you're entirely right.

I debate poorly when filled with rage, and creationism...

Yeah.

Tactics, I'm sorry, I was indeed being an asshole. You're still wrong but you're certainly entitled to a civil discourse, and just because I feel like being lazy and mean shouldn't mean you have to deal with my crassness.


As to my own relation to studies proving evolution, I've met and talked to a professor at UCSD who did several studies involving microevolution in successive generations of fruitflies. I'd say that's pretty good, seeing as macroevolution can't be proven in experimental form without several hundred millenia at your disposal. Where you draw the line between faith and evidence is really a matter of semantics and opinion. I'd say I'm on the evidence side, although I certainly admit I haven't been showing it.

Saying what I mean in a nice way:

Not everything in the Bible is bad. Jesus had some pretty nice ideas. But just because something is in there doesn't mean it's right. There are tons¹ (Gasp citing evidence) of things in the bible that I'm sure you'd disagree with, so simply because Original Sin is in the bible doesn't mean it's a great idea philosophically.

¹Exodus 21:20-27, Exodus 34:26, and that's just a pair of examples that I looked up in about 5 seconds

_________________
<img src="http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f340/Tossrock/sigreducedjx2-1.jpg">


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 8:58 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 6793
Location: OI!
Radio wrote:
I revoke this DNI because lawlzevolutiondebating.


I re-instate it.

-Kitty

_________________
No. Antidisestablishmentarianism. Enigma. Muraena. Pundit. Malaise. Clusterfuck. Hootenanny.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:56 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1276
Location: Hanging in the endless void with nothing but entropy and fluff for company.
Tomkat wrote:
Radio wrote:
I revoke this DNI because lawlzevolutiondebating.


I re-instate it.

-Kitty


(light-hearted tone) I dare anyone to try and revoke my DNI other than me in the first place, especially in a joking way. ;)

Anyway, I'm going to try and bait you back into the debate TL, but in a smaller and more controlled fashion. I only want your opinion on this one thing to start, so if you would indulge me it would be great. Are you of the opinion that evolution is not the source of the things we see around us, or that it never happens? My mother in particular thinks that either God made the universe so that things would evolve to this (and presumably some future) point or that there was a creation event after which evolution started to take place. It's fine if you don't want to answer, but it would be cool if you would.

_________________
~ Wrin
Labrat wrote:
As screwed up as the world is, it has to have been designed by comittee. Diskworld-style.

Jin wrote:
...I cursed at the computer screen for an hour and a half while striking it with my genitals.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group