Discussion with buddhists....hope fellow Christians here can
-
you still have me?Originally posted by stupidissmart:For me, tis is probably the few hundred times I talked about evolution
I seemed to have talked about evolution one time or another with the regular people in the forum. Let me phrase back the word... It is evolution against creationism... but sad to say I am the overwhelming minority here tat suppot evolution. 
-
Yup, totally agree.Originally posted by vince69:Like I said in one of my earlier post, so many brilliant minds had debated about this topic for so many years, and no one had reach a conculsive result yet, so its unthinkable to expect us to reach any conclusion here.
All we can do is to state our own view point and leave it as it is, cause neither of us can really completely proof/disproof evolution or creationism (if all these brilliant minds can't do it, its unreasonable for us to expect ourselves to do it).
cheers and have a nice day everyone...
Cheers and may everyone have a good day. Let's make frens here, not enemies ok? -
wait a minute .. where is the science in creationism??Originally posted by vince69:The argument was to present both theory side by side to allow the students to be expose to both side and allow them to choose for themselves which side make sense for them. Its not about replacing Evolution theory in the text books. but the Liberals/Athesis insisted that Creation cannot be teach in schools on the basis the religion should not be taught in school, and the general thinking is that Creation have to talk about God, hence cannot be teach.
The common version of creation argues for a young Earth. Is the textbook gonna present evidence for a young earth? -
Forgot to add: Me 2!Originally posted by Icemoon:you still have me?
But let's be sensitive and tactful in e debate ok? -
ahhahaha. ignorant
right is right. and wrong is wrong. there is no such thing as tact and sensetivety crap
thats for fakes
cheers -
Like I said in one of my earlier post, so many brilliant minds had debated about this topic for so many years, and no one had reach a conculsive result yet, so its unthinkable to expect us to reach any conclusion here.
Frankly I do not agree with this statement. A conclusion had been reached by the science comittee but it is just tat the massess do not accept it. -
i think not, for like it was mentioned before by vince i think, if the conclusion was reached and it did support evolution, then it would not be called a theory anymore, it would be called a fact... so far I don't see any evolution fact people out there... go ask any scientist to say with absolute certainty that evolution holds true... i just wonder what answer you will get.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Frankly I do not agree with this statement. A conclusion had been reached by the science comittee but it is just tat the massess do not accept it. -
i think not, for like it was mentioned before by vince i think, if the conclusion was reached and it did support evolution, then it would not be called a theory anymore, it would be called a fact... so far I don't see any evolution fact people out there... go ask any scientist to say with absolute certainty that evolution holds true... i just wonder what answer you will get.
I have already mentioned many times tat the word "theory" in science is not the "theory" u use in normal days. It has been tested rigourously and never found to be false. It is a scientific FACT. I repeat. a THEORY is a FACT.
The word Evolution has been used to refer both to a fact and a theory. The existence of these two distinct meanings, and confusion over the relationship between and definitions of fact and theory in science, have often caused misunderstandings among laypeople about the scientific status of evolution.
Dictionary: Theory
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
The modern synthesis, like its Mendelian and Darwinian antecedents, is a scientific theory. When speaking casually, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion", and the word "fact" to signify true, or verifiably true, statements [39] In this sense, "theories" are opposed to "facts". In a more strict sense, though, fact and theory denote the epistemological status of knowledge; how the knowledge was obtained, what sort of knowledge it is. In science, fact tends to mean a datum, an observation, i.e., a fact is obtained by a fairly direct observation. In contrast, a theory is obtained by inference from a body of facts.
A theory is an attempt to identify and describe relationships between phenomena or things, and generates falsifiable predictions which can be tested through controlled experiments, or empirical observation. Provisional theories tend to be called hypotheses, and well tested theories, theories.
In this scientific sense, "facts" are what theories attempt to explain. So, for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship; for example, it is a "fact" that an apple will fall to the ground if it becomes dislodged from a branch and the "theory" which explains this is the current theory of gravitation. In the same way, heritable variation, natural selection, and response to selection (e.g. in domesticated plants and animals) are "facts", and the generalization or extrapolation beyond these phenomena, and the explanation for them, is the "theory of evolution". [40]
Evolutionary theory is powerfully predictive, and biological research relies extensively on it. The Modern evolutionary synthesis has replaced earlier explanations for the origin of species, including Lamarckism, and is currently the most powerful theory explaining biology. -
Me threeOriginally posted by invigorated:Forgot to add: Me 2!
But let's be sensitive and tactful in e debate ok?
-
Hmm...
-
Originally posted by laurence82:Hmm...
-
NuthingOriginally posted by neutral_onliner: 
Dont know why topic went into creationism vs evolution again -
Hey... u r rite hor... How comeOriginally posted by laurence82:Nuthing
Dont know why topic went into creationism vs evolution again -
by the whole science committee (*me bad, forget to ask, who make up this commitee? or are you refering to the entire scientific community instead) or a part of it?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Frankly I do not agree with this statement. A conclusion had been reached by the science comittee but it is just tat the massess do not accept it.
Its ok not to agree with me. what I would like you to do is to ask critical questions when you next read up on evolutions (on my part, I will do the same on creationism as well, and I must confess that I had been lazy on this, me bad)
These are the things I asked myself many years ago, when I am studying evolution. I hope you start thinking about/looking into them yourself
1)if life on earth begins with a single cell microbes, what does these single cell microbes came from? what determine what these microbes evolved into? space? this does not says how they appear yet, it simply says we don't know how it come about.
This is how one of the theory goes
"After the big bang, the planet earth begins to cool down, and life began to appears ... etc", sounds familar?
2) fossiles do not have things like skins, muscles, organs, sound, how do these scientists know how these fossiles look like, how they behave...etc?
based on the existing animals we have today, from their structure and looks and behaviour (that is the only things we have today)? ever wonder why these fossiles ended up looking at these animals we have today?
One of the method used is what is known as an Artist impression based on
1) the skeleton structure of the fossiles
2) compare these with what the animals we have (or had) before
3) create an artist impression of how they look like
4) based on how these referenced, deduce how the creature represented by the fossile would look like, how they behave, what type of diet they eat....etc
and.... this is your proof of how these creatures evolve into what we have (or had) today.
(note: no one had seen how these creature look like or how they behave before)
3) dating equipments/technique, what are the assumptions involved when using these various techniques? what are the limits of these equipment (carbon dating for example cannot go beyond certain number of years)
I am not saying the creationist camp have all their act together, no, far from it, neither have they argue their points conculsively yet. -
if life on earth begins with a single cell microbes, what does these single cell microbes came from? what determine what these microbes evolved into? space?
Where do the cell comes about ? Tis is not a question about evolution
Wat determines wat these microbes evolved into ? They evolved into something more "stable" tat can last through the times.fossiles do not have things like skins, muscles, organs, sound, how do these scientists know how these fossiles look like, how they behave...etc?
From the fossils. They r the bones of living beings From there it can be infer on how they look. So u believe tat animals have silly looking bones tat do not fit their body function ? The bones through time change significantly. If u do nto want to look at muscles etc, just comparing bones to bones from the different times u can conclude evolutiondating equipments/technique, what are the assumptions involved when using these various techniques? what are the limits of these equipment (carbon dating for example cannot go beyond certain number of years)
These dating machine match tree rings and many other types of dating mechanism. Talk about reliability, they canbe accurate to at least a few ten thousands years, which is more than the years in the bibleI am not saying the creationist camp have all their act together, no, far from it, neither have they argue their points conculsively yet
Why not ? Why do u think after so many years they still have nothing ? I think it is way unbelievable to see all the animals pop up within a day, each with varying age and quatity tat support other species instantaneously. More incredible is tat virus like SARS or nylon digesting bugs suddenly feed on nothing for all these years then suddenly sprung out and kill human and eat nylon. I am also surprise why does domesticated animals survive in the wild for so long since they r shown not capable to do tat. I am also surprise why no bones of modern tiger, cat or modern animals etc is found in the past. -
It does, if microbes evolved into something stable, what does these microbes evolve from? they don't just appear out of nowhere, do they?
Where do the cell comes about ? Tis is not a question about evolution
Wat determines wat these microbes evolved into ? They evolved into something more "stable" tat can last through the times.
infer based on? what can be done is to infer based on what can be seen. if just by comparing bones to bones, then how to determine if they are not just related and not evolve into? the based assumption for this: evolution theory, since the theory of evolution is in the assumption, it cannot be used to prove evolution theory. (science : you cannot use an assumption to prove itself)
From the fossils. They r the bones of living beings From there it can be infer on how they look. So u believe tat animals have silly looking bones tat do not fit their body function ? The bones through time change significantly. If u do nto want to look at muscles etc, just comparing bones to bones from the different times u can conclude evolutionThese dating machine match tree rings and many other types of dating mechanism. Talk about reliability, they canbe accurate to at least a few ten thousands years, which is more than the years in the bible
this show that there exist limitations on these equipments.
I did not say they have nothing, I say what they have is not conclusive, in that not the entire scientific community had accepted them yet, still in debate stage.
Why not ? Why do u think after so many years they still have nothing ? -
microbes becoming more stable.
hrmmm.....humans seem to become more and more unstable these days....i wonder why...like killing their fellow mates without reason, taking a shotgun and start pounding away in school....
seems like evolution theory feeds itself into an inevitable dung hill. -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
fact
I have already mentioned many times tat the word "theory" in science is not the "theory" u use in normal days. It has been tested rigourously and never found to be false. It is a scientific FACT. I repeat. a THEORY is a FACT.
[b]The word Evolution has been used to refer both to a fact and a theory. The existence of these two distinct meanings, and confusion over the relationship between and definitions of fact and theory in science, have often caused misunderstandings among laypeople about the scientific status of evolution.
Dictionary: Theory
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
The modern synthesis, like its Mendelian and Darwinian antecedents, is a scientific theory. When speaking casually, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion", and the word "fact" to signify true, or verifiably true, statements [39] In this sense, "theories" are opposed to "facts". In a more strict sense, though, fact and theory denote the epistemological status of knowledge; how the knowledge was obtained, what sort of knowledge it is. In science, fact tends to mean a datum, an observation, i.e., a fact is obtained by a fairly direct observation. In contrast, a theory is obtained by inference from a body of facts.
A theory is an attempt to identify and describe relationships between phenomena or things, and generates falsifiable predictions which can be tested through controlled experiments, or empirical observation. Provisional theories tend to be called hypotheses, and well tested theories, theories.
In this scientific sense, "facts" are what theories attempt to explain. So, for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship; for example, it is a "fact" that an apple will fall to the ground if it becomes dislodged from a branch and the "theory" which explains this is the current theory of gravitation. In the same way, heritable variation, natural selection, and response to selection (e.g. in domesticated plants and animals) are "facts", and the generalization or extrapolation beyond these phenomena, and the explanation for them, is the "theory of evolution". [40]
Evolutionary theory is powerfully predictive, and biological research relies extensively on it. The Modern evolutionary synthesis has replaced earlier explanations for the origin of species, including Lamarckism, and is currently the most powerful theory explaining biology.
[/b]
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
Law.
The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.
theory
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
It is obvious from your post that you only take what suits you. In the definition of theory, you convinently left out those which I have highlighted for your information, a theory is NOT fact. it is speculation or an assumption based on limited information or knowledge. Even if we did take your original definition of theory, if you read it carefully, it says that a theory is a set of statements used to make PREDICTIONS about natural phenomena. I would not call a prediction a fact. Far from the truth.
leaving aside christianity, the best case scenario that you would get is that both creationism and evolution are both theories, so you have a stalemate.
A fact my friend is a REAL occurence, one that is demonstrated to exist and be known to exist. So far evolution has demonstrated neither. There are still too many holes in the theory for it to be accepted as fact. If you want to believe that you were created from many chance mutations and that you evolved from monkies, be my guest, i will not pursue this topic any further with you. I think you should give your evolution speil a rest. We all know your stand, do we will take unker CE's stand to agree to disagree.. Shalom. -
It does, if microbes evolved into something stable, what does these microbes evolve from? they don't just appear out of nowhere, do they?
The origin of life is a different issue with evolution. I do not know why tis topic is suddenly link to origin of life. However here r some possibilities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
As said, tis is a totally different issue with evolution Furthermore, I can bet u can't give a conclusive answer to origin of life as well.infer based on? what can be done is to infer based on what can be seen. if just by comparing bones to bones, then how to determine if they are not just related and not evolve into? the based assumption for this: evolution theory, since the theory of evolution is in the assumption, it cannot be used to prove evolution theory. (science : you cannot use an assumption to prove itself)
Tis is because the many sets of bones r shown to be gradually evolving tothe state they r in now. As said, if u can find the bone of a modern animal believed to be evolved from the other bones in the past, it will refute the theory of evolution. However no such bones r found. I repeat, if anyone can find the bones of a modern domesticated cat/dog/pig/cow in the past, u get yourself nominated for a nobel prize. However NO ONE have found tis contradiction. How do u explain the phenomenon why modern animals bones cannot be found in the past ? Furthermore, evolution is built on thousands of examples and evidence, some including the living.this show that there exist limitations on these equipments.
There is a limitation for everything in the world. I have shown it is relaible enoughI did not say they have nothing, I say what they have is not conclusive, in that not the entire scientific community had accepted them yet, still in debate stage.
Com'on, wat do they have ? Evolution give a few thousands examples and evidence, why can't creationism give 1 ? As said before, the whole scientific committee has already accepted evolution. U still can't show a scientific website from a reputable scientific organisation tat claims it is still in debate. I am still waiting.hrmmm.....humans seem to become more and more unstable these days....i wonder why...like killing their fellow mates without reason, taking a shotgun and start pounding away in school....
it is foolish to compare human behavior to evolution bacuse evolution is about physical change, not behavior. -
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.It is obvious from your post that you only take what suits you. In the definition of theory, you convinently left out those which I have highlighted for your information, a theory is NOT fact. it is speculation or an assumption based on limited information or knowledge. Even if we did take your original definition of theory, if you read it carefully, it says that a theory is a set of statements used to make PREDICTIONS about natural phenomena. I would not call a prediction a fact. Far from the truth.
I have said many times tat theory, from a scientific view, meant
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
THE KEY WORD IS SCIENTIFIC SENSE. The word "theory" can mean the other common layman sense but for usage in SCIENTIFIC FIELD, it meant the above. The definition of debate is the meaning of the word in SCIENTIFIC FIELD.
Please for goodness sake read the wiki definition of "theory" first.PREDICTIONS about natural phenomena. I would not call a prediction a fact
predicting
To state, tell about, or make known in advance, especially on the basis of special knowledge
THEORY can make PREDICTION, and in the grammatical sense it is about to KNOW IN ADVANCE FACTS THAT IS GONNA OCCUR due to basis of special knowledge (theory of evolution). If theory does not hold water, u cannot use it for prediction. THEORIES can TELL FACTS EVEN BEFORE IT OCCURS. Can creationism even remotely do tat ? NO.
It is not stalemate, it is checkmate. -
Note: Evolution is not repeatable, hence the part on repeatedly tested is not true, its not tested, its repeatedly deduced.
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
repeatedly tested means, you can take one set of premise, to another lab, independantly conduct the test, and come out with the same result.
can evolution be used to make prediction? predict what? evolution is used by certain people in the scientific community to explain the past, not predict the future. Past means happens already. evolution cannot predict what is going to happen, in fact it does not even explain how the past happens, it just says, it happened.
THE KEY WORD IS SCIENTIFIC SENSE. The word "theory" can mean the other common layman sense but for usage in SCIENTIFIC FIELD, it meant the above. The definition of debate is the meaning of the word in SCIENTIFIC FIELD.
Please for goodness sake read the wiki definition of "theory" first.
quote
REDICTIONS about natural phenomena. I would not call a prediction a fact
predicting
To state, tell about, or make known in advance, especially on the basis of special knowledge
THEORY can make PREDICTION, and in the grammatical sense it is about to KNOW IN ADVANCE FACTS THAT IS GONNA OCCUR due to basis of special knowledge (theory of evolution). If theory does not hold water, u cannot use it for prediction. THEORIES can TELL FACTS EVEN BEFORE IT OCCURS. Can creationism even remotely do tat ? NO.
It is not stalemate, it is checkmate.
based on your explaination, are you saying evolution is not even a theory?
since theory can be use to make prediction, and evolution cannot. -
Note: Evolution is not repeatable, hence the part on repeatedly tested is not true, its not tested, its repeatedly deduced.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/sep97.html
repeatedly tested means, you can take one set of premise, to another lab, independantly conduct the test, and come out with the same result.
If you think the scientific method is about "proof," then you don't understand the scientific method. Nothing is science is "proven," even the most basic and fundamental things we've learned from science. "Proof" only exists in logic and mathematics; what science has is evidence. In the case of evolution, the evidence most clearly weighs in its favor. Science doesn't proclaim evolution a "fact" with casual ease; it does so with over a century of evidence and investigation backing it upcan evolution be used to make prediction? predict what?
As for predictions made by evolution, there are lots and they are observed. For example, evolutionary theory predicts that intermediate forms should be found between major categories of biological life. We've found many of those, the most famous of which is Archaeopteryx, which has features in common with both modern birds and reptiles. Since then, we've found other intermediate forms which are either more "bird-like" or more "reptile-like" than Archaeopteryx
Evolutionary theory makes predictions. For example, it predicts that we should not find mammalian fossils in rocks from the Devonian Period. Guess what? We don't.
BY the way. Where is the repuatable scientific website tat shows scientists r still in conflict over evolution vs creationism ? I am still waiting -
oh of course, i am foolish...since when am i intelligent ?Originally posted by stupidissmart:it is foolish to compare human behavior to evolution bacuse evolution is about physical change, not behavior.
correct me if i am wrong k...
are you saying that physical change got nothing to do with human behaviour and vice versa ? So Darwin's theory explain clearly a part of being human (physical) but well, according to you, i guess it is "OK" to leave out the "condition" of being human ? -
are you saying that physical change got nothing to do with human behaviour and vice versa ? So Darwin's theory explain clearly a part of being human (physical) but well, according to you, i guess it is "OK" to leave out the "condition" of being human ?
I am saying human behavior has nothing to do with evolution. And tat is it. Evolution is not meant to explain human behavior. Full stop. Tat is it. Using it to explain human behavior is the same as using medicine to solve a problem of gravity. Why don't u use the theory of atomic to solve maths problem like 1+1 ? U r confused with the scope of evolution -
i'm undecided on this debate. but to say that Intelligent Design can be thrown out is a tad rash. I did a quick search in an academic database on ID and these were the articles that came up on the first page
Robert T. Pennock, ed., Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 2001.
Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross, CreationismÂ’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of
Intelligent Design. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Keith B. Miller, ed., Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. Grand Rapids, MI: William
B. Eerdmans, 2003.
Kenneth R. Miller, Finding DarwinÂ’s God. New York: Harper Collins, 1999.
Using Intelligent Design Theory to Guide Scientific Research
Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute
May 10, 2004
anyway, how can we jump to the conclusion that ID or evolution is a fact when the scientific community is still debating this topic. Let the scientist crack their heads over this debate and just take a back sit since neither of us is equip to conduct the proper research in this area.