EWright Posted July 31, 2005 Report Posted July 31, 2005 C1ay, I must say that your initial responses were uncalled for IMHO. I did not read past the first two pages because it was just repeated banter. His post DID address a scientific question... ok, lots of them. So if you want to take him on, then answer them. All of the questions he posed are answerable within a scientific context. He challenged science by asking for solutions to points he doesn't understand or that cause him to lean more towards creationism due to his understanding to them. If he were so close minded he would say 'this is the way it is' and would not ask for further answers. Personally, I too believe in God, even though I have theories about the origins of the universe. IMO science is only working to uncover the mysteries of how God brought it all into being in the first place. But I am open to that exploration. Please don't be so narrow minded that you can not address his question on a scientific basis if you are going to address it at all.
C1ay Posted August 1, 2005 Report Posted August 1, 2005 C1ay, I must say that your initial responses were uncalled for IMHO. Oh well! His initial statment is, "The more I study about Creation vs Evolution, the more I see Creation as the only answer." If you want to make a blanket claim as fact I will ask you for proof as well. I gave him my opinion on his questions in post 18. I see no point in trying to provide answers mankind has not found yet.
EWright Posted August 1, 2005 Report Posted August 1, 2005 What questions? I have only asked for proof that creation is the only answer. I personally believe the universe, matter and energy are infinite and have existed for eternity. I accept the possibility that some local event happened in the universe that people refer to as the big bang. I have no idea where life came from and neither does anyone else, anywhere. For all I know life has existed for eternity and it got carried to our solar system by some cosmic carrier from some distant galaxy. Many of your questions don't even have factual answers, only hypotheses. Many are questions that science is trying to find answers for. I don't have answers for all of your questions but what you don't realize is that it doesn't matter. My answers to your questions would not support your conclusions about creation and it would do nothing to change my belief about the infinite, eternal universe. Well this is the biggest piece of hypothetical guess work and lack of understanding or scientific support I have ever seen. What a hypocrite! As for his initial statment; I feel is was looking for answers, not stating what he sees as a fact. Personally, I'd be much more firm in saying that God exists. But it seemed to me that he was "searching" for the truths or challenging the questions in his mind, and I didn't see any scientists giving scientific answers.
C1ay Posted August 1, 2005 Report Posted August 1, 2005 I didn't see any scientists giving scientific answers.You must have missed this one.
EWright Posted August 1, 2005 Report Posted August 1, 2005 You must have missed this one. You are right, and I acknowledged that I did not read the entire post due to its length and repeated unproductive banter. Perhaps if you, C1ay, had posted an informational response in the first place I would have bothered to read further and gotten some actual information from the thread. Instead you chose to take the high road... or was it the low road... I guess it's all relative.... I think I've made my point.
infamous Posted August 1, 2005 Report Posted August 1, 2005 Instead you chose to take the high road... or was it the low road... I guess it's all relative.... I think I've made my point.I for one am here to testify that C1ay always takes the high road. I can't include everyone here within those parameters!!
C1ay Posted August 1, 2005 Report Posted August 1, 2005 Perhaps if you, C1ay, had posted an informational response in the first place I would have bothered to read further and gotten some actual information from the thread.I didn't see any point in trying to answer questions man has been seeking the answers to for millennia. Then again, I didn't see your answers either. Got a link?
goku Posted August 1, 2005 Report Posted August 1, 2005 why do people trust scientists?is it because everyone has carefully studied their experiments and conclusions?is it faith?are scientists the perfect example of a most honorable and trustworthy individual?why can't man and chimpanze breed?does it's distance from god make the answer more beleavable?
Skippy Posted August 1, 2005 Report Posted August 1, 2005 Please. Evolution is a fact, its mechanism is the only thing in question.How can one make such a nonsensical statement? Without verifiable evidence of the mechanism, no theory which requires such a mechanism can be called a fact.
Eclogite Posted August 1, 2005 Report Posted August 1, 2005 How can one make such a nonsensical statement? It is not nonsensical. Evolution - the change in the frequencies of alleles within a population over time - has been demonstrated almost ad infinitum. You are a biologist by training. How can you deny this simple fact? Without verifiable evidence of the mechanism, no theory which requires such a mechanism can be called a fact.So I guess gravity doesn't really exist then. But that is a side issue. The mechanism is important. The mechanism is what the deabtes (those of any value) are about. But whether or not we have the mechansim defined in detail the fact of evolution, as noted above, remains.
MortenS Posted August 1, 2005 Report Posted August 1, 2005 If you can keep two thoughts in the head at the same time, it is not as strange as you think Skippy: Gravity - theory of Gravity Things will keep falling down, no matter what we think the mechanism of gravity is Evolution - theory of evolution. Things will continue to evolve, no matter if it is caused by natural selection or a pink invisible unicorn magically creating new species and removing old When we use "evolution as a fact", we mean the fact that the composition of animals and plants have changed in the geological strata, that different organisms share morphological structure, that compostion of alleleles in populations change over time due and many other observations in nature that remains the same, no matter what theory we use to explain those observations. When we use "evolution as a theory" we refer to Darwins ideas of common descent, natural selection, the modern synthesis that incorporates modern genetics into darwinism, and all the other theorerical advances that have been made during the last 100 years or so.
Eclogite Posted August 1, 2005 Report Posted August 1, 2005 goku, your post seems quite general, and perhaps even off-topic, but here are my thoughts.why do people trust scientists?I have to ask 'which people trust scientists'? I don't trust scientists, but I don't distrust them either. I do trust the scientific method.is it because everyone has carefully studied their experiments and conclusions?When I accept the delcarations of scientists it is either because I have done exactly as you suggest, or, more often, because I know a large body of other scientists have scrutinised their work through the process of peer review.is it faith?Well, it is certainly not faith in my case, nor is it the case in any scientists that I know. Faith has no place in scientific conclusions. (Though it can be of inestimable value when struggling to amass and understand a bewildering variety of data. Faith that you, or another, will eventually make sense of it. And that is more like optimism based on prior experience than it is faith.)why can't man and chimpanze breed?For the same reason that artichokes and aardvarks can't breed. They are not only different species, they are different genera.does it's distance from god make the answer more beleavable?Distance from god - whatever that means - is irrelevant to the believability of the answer. Factual observations, relevant analysis and clear exposition of hypotheses determine believability. Tormod 1
Hawkens Posted August 1, 2005 Author Report Posted August 1, 2005 why do people trust scientists?There is nothing wrong with science. It's when you replace guessing with science is when trouble starts. I'm going to state this from the view of a person who believes in God and the 6 Day Creation....Now I have no ill will towards the people who believe in Evolution as a theory (meaning that we all formed froma single cell in the ocean). But I do fear it because it is an idea created by man to back the notion that there is no God. I believe that there are those who push this "theory" just to take credit from God. The Bible warns us of this.I see the entire theory of macroevolution based on a corrupt system. You can't tell who is really after the truth and who is after money any ways to discredit religion. The term "millions" and "billions" of years thrown around like a cheap suit and many scientists still argue over the age of the earth. Is it 6 to 10 thousand years old or 5 million? Somebody even took the time to answer my questions but how much was fact and how much was fiction?
C1ay Posted August 1, 2005 Report Posted August 1, 2005 But I do fear it because it is an idea created by man to back the notion that there is no God.Now that's funny since god is an idea created by man.
Eclogite Posted August 1, 2005 Report Posted August 1, 2005 Now I have no ill will towards the people who believe in Evolution as a theory (meaning that we all formed froma single cell in the ocean).That is not what evolution means. You appear to be talking more about abiogenesis, a completely different matter. But I do fear it because it is an idea created by man to back the notion that there is no God. Several palaeontologists I have known were devout christians. Evolution was most certainly not 'created' in an attempt to prove the non-existence of god, though I do not deny that a few hotheads have attempted to use it for that purpose. That, however, is not science and has nothing to do with evolution.Evolution was created as an idea to explain the observed facts. Period. You can't tell who is really after the truth and who is after money any ways to discredit religion. Those palaeontologists, biologists, biochemists, geologists, etc, involved in discerning evolution fall into two camps: those who are religious and see no conflict between their religion and the findings of science; those who are atheist and agnostic and couldn't give a rat's anus about religion. Neither group would behave in the way you suggest. Even if we admit, for arguments sake of a group who are motivated in this way - their motivation is irrelevant. Do their facts, observations and hypotheses stand up to objective, rigorous scrutiny? If they do, good, if not they are rejected. The term "millions" and "billions" of years thrown around like a cheap suit and many scientists still argue over the age of the earth. Is it 6 to 10 thousand years old or 5 million?Please quote me a single example in peer reviewed litereature from the last forty years in which scientists argue in a substantive way over the age of the Earth. It is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Yes, you can give or take a hundred million years or so either way, but that is the extent of any variation in the estimates over the last several decades. I say again, quote me a single example in peer reviewed litereature from the last forty years in which scientists argue in a substantive way over the age of the Earth.
Hawkens Posted August 1, 2005 Author Report Posted August 1, 2005 Now that's funny since god is an idea created by man.You have any scientific evdience to support this?I have no idea where life came from and neither does anyone else, anywhere.You have no idea where life came from but you insist God is an idea created by man? How can you know one but not the other?
Recommended Posts