Random Chance or Specific Design?

[2-0-Sixx]

@Mook,

In order for evolution to be science, it needs to be able to be observed and repeated. Evolution fits neither of these criteria.

I honestly believe that evolution has been observed. Of course we cant actually see it happening, but by studying fossils and creaters that live today, we can understand the process. Like I said before, and there is probably a reason why any of you nonbelievers didnt bring this point up, is that we have even found a species of snake that has tiny little legs in its skeleton. Why are they there? Why? Did god purposely create this species faulty? or is this creature evolving?

Answer me that question and the question I stated earlier.

Let me ask you this question. What evidence do you have for creationism? Are there any facts? Are there any signs of proof? Is there any real reason to believe? Now compare your answers to why someone believes in evolution and you will see how unbalanced the tables are.

 

[BaSICCally]

Okay, I will reply to the other questions later. Yet I will ask one question.

What scientific method can be practiced to prove that science is the ONLY answer to life? Can science prove it's own absolute power?


2-0-Sixx please answer this question...

 

[2-0-Sixx]

I dont think I should even answer your question considering the fact that we are debating evolution, but, whatever...

What scientific method can be practiced to prove that science is the ONLY answer to life? Can science prove it's own absolute power?

Well, hehe, I dont think there can be a scientific method to prove that science is the answer. I mean, shit, if its scientific, its science, right? So how can you use science to prove science? That just doesnt make any sense to me right now. But I will say this, without science, there would be no answers, no progress in life. Only speculation.

I will give that question more thought tomorrow, I have a stomache virus and I am on medication. Hopefully it will make sense then.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

here's a new perspective which can very well fit creationism and evolution into the same reality..........

Lets start with God. For those who don't know let us establish that which we can know about the divine. God is infinite, eternal (never born, never dies), unchanging, etc. We must accept these being traits of God, otherwise we would imply that God has an end, or that God is subject to time or change. And if we did, then we defeat the whole purpose of God. Anyway, if God be unchanging then the nature of God now must be the nature of God before, and for eternity. And as we see the world before us we realize that God's nature of creation isn't something that just arose one day when God decided or changed his mind about "non-creation". Because there is no "non-creation". God's nature of creating is eternal with his being. There will be no end to it and there was no beginning. There may have been a beginning to the forming or our solar system as we know it today. But, all the things which are here now always existed in some form or another. What is involved in this eternal process of creation evolves. As far as evolving from one species to the next, who knows for sure. Creationism doesn't go against evolution. It doesn't even go against the idea of random chance. That random chance existed only in a world of infinite possibilities, with these possibilities sprung life over billions of years. That infinity is God. It is not merely a blind concept of science. To say that it is is to completely show ignorance of what infinity really is. Infinity must be infinite in all aspects of things unlimited. That means intelligence to. So, really, depending on your point of view, it was both intelligence and randomness that gave birth to the world that we know. I feel what most of us think about creation is the idea literally portrayed in the bible of an "empty" existence with things all of the sudden being created. In reality, because creation never had a beginning, the creation of our world as we know it was merely an evolution of what was already here. I know longer see a difference between the terms creation and evolution. They work together.

 

[BaSICCally]

I will branch off of n9newunsixx, I will say that I don't see how evolution and a creator are seprate. They work together. I never said that evolution never occurs or is still not occuring. What I am trying to argue is that Evolution does not disprove Creation or a Creator. Science does not have that power. Science is not everything which was posted earlier. There was life way before science and will continue to live without science to this day. Technology is a WANT not a NEED. Humans do not need technology or science to live. Mabey our life spans and our health is greater by the advancments in science and the field of medicne. Yet there is still a NEED for an answer to the unknown. That is what religion answers for many people. Yet we are not arguing religion we are arguing the metaphysical nature of Creation.

How did societies and culture progress in history prior to science? Were they basically a bunch of chickens running around with their heads chopped off?
Only speculation? speculation is at the heart of evolution.

What science classes have you taken?
Why do Universities teach other subjects other then science, if science is the only thing out there?

I have taken two science classes, I have yet to see what importance it plays in my daily activites. I know technology, the medicene all that other shit is critical. There is just more to life. Anybody on this board knows that.

Would humans exist without nature, or would nature exist without humans? How come animals don't need science to live? Aren't we animals to? what seperates us from animals?

Where I was going with the scientific method, is you say science is everything. Everything anybody knows is based soley around science. Well if I were to say I have a thousand dollars and you said let me see it. I would have to pull it out right and prove it? well science says it has a billion dollars but the bank account isnt showing the same balance as it says. Right? Strong claims require strong evidence. Science should be able to prove itself, which I argue it does not.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

@Basically,

Yet we are not arguing religion we are arguing the metaphysical nature of Creation.

NO, We are arguing EVOLUTION. Look at the thread! I never stated that evolution will answer where we came from. We were never arguing where we came from, only evolution.

I have taken a few science classes at school along with many other classes and I do my own research at home. I can see how you try your hardest to ignore science and even deny its power. Yes, your right, humans do not need technology to live, we could be savage cave men that we once were. You must understand humans and technology are one. Since the begining of man we learned to use technology to our advantage. Wether its a stone to light a fire or a satalite in space, its technology. Science. Science gives us answers. It gives us an understanding. Without it, we would still be filthy savages smart as a monkey. I dont understand how you can deny science or imply that it is useless. And what is this? Science is the only thing out there? When did I ever say science is the only thing? I never made this a war against religion and science, you did. And again, your last statement makes no sense at all.

@n9newunsixx,
Ok. You have not answered any of the questions. You have not told me WHY you believe in creationism nor have you stated if there are any facts to your beliefs. You have done nothing for this thread.

 

[BaSICCally]

SAVAGES HUH? we all would live like savages. Nice. I enjoy the wording. You stated it perfectly which will lead me to an argument. So you are saying the Native Americans lived like savages? are you better then the Native Americans? This was the exact mind set of the White Anglo-Saxon, who killed millions and millions of African American slaves and Native Americans in order to break them away from being savages and civilize them into the white anglo way of life. Same goes for the Irish people. They were the first of the imigrant groups to be called 'savages' and turned into indentured servents and slaves by the English. That is why many of them left Ireland and came to America. Not because they wanted to because they HAD to.

"stereoptypes of the Irish were perhaps as vicious as against black, that is, they were portrayed less than human. English prejudice against the Irish was imported to America and intesnsified; and in the context of evolutionary therories and the plife of African Americans, the English prejudice against the Irish imported to American amplified into vicious stereotypes of the Irish as subhuman, apelike, drunk hostile and immoral(Curtis,1971).
The Irish were described as a "missing link" between apes, Africans and the English (Aguirre and Turner).

"Without it, we would still be filthy savages smart as a monkey" 20-Sixx

am I a monkey?

 

[2-0-Sixx]

Ooooh, Im so sorry the word "savage" offended you so much.

I never said I am better then the native americans. But I will say that they did have some technology. Yes, it wasnt as advanced as other parts of the world but technology still existed. When I used the term "savages" I was reffering to "cavemen." And yes, I do believe they lived like "savages." You can take that however you want.

I love how you took one minor word I used in a reply and tried to use that against me while ignoring the points I made. Your relpy did nothing for this discussion. It did nothing for your arguements.

 

[BaSICCally]

What technology did the Native Americans have?

 

[2-0-Sixx]

well, technology is technology. It doesnt have to be advanced as it is today. Im sure the natives had tools and whatnot.

 

[BaSICCally]

yes they did have tools and what not. But what they did not need is science to show them how to make those tools or use them. It wasn't until the white people came over and changed their lifestyle.

 

[Snubnoze]

Like I said before, evolution is NOT a religion. Evolution is not something someone came up with to DISPROVE other beliefs. Evolution is a process of explaining HOW WE CAME TO BE AS A SPECIES.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

@2-0-Sixx

I'm sorry you don't see the connection I am making. Perhaps you should discuss it with BaSICCally. He seems to grasp what I am saying. Unfortunately, for you, I am not saying what you want to hear and niether am I saying that which you can argue against. I just put a new perspective on things, as I usually do. I am just showing a reconciliation between the topics of creation and evolution. Thats what I do, reconcile. And actually, it helps this thread more than just arguing bacc and forth one point or the other. Your goal, obviously is for supremity in your concept. Sorry I haven't played into that goal. If you are trying to expand your mind instead of glorifying old half-sided concepts you may come to understand why I am on this quest for reconciliation. What I wrote has everything to do with this thread. but you can find your own answers. I'm just going to attempt to put new light on this old subject........................WUN

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

BaSICCally is right, we didn't need science to know how to use the tools we made. But, science itself is a tool. Its a tool for understanding our world. Just as is philosophy and religion. Science, philosophy and religion are all just tools for defining our reality. No one of these tools embodies the full reality of things. They are all used to describe our ever-growing reality. It isn't that one tool is the right one and the others are wrong. They are just different perspectives of the same reality. Sorry for using the word "reality" so much in this message (LOL).........................WUN

 

[2-0-Sixx]

^^^You got me all wrong pal. I do see what your saying. Its just that I don’t feel you. I honestly believe what you are saying has little to do with my questions. Look and read what I asked, then read what you replied with.

That’s all good if you trying to put new light on this topic. That’s fine with me. But my point is that you never answered my questions, you only danced around them, as do most all Theists.

I do see what your saying man. I enjoy reading your reply’s and I like some of what you said. I disagree with most of it, but I like it.

I know longer see a difference between the terms creation and evolution. They work together.

I only wish more theists would think the same way. When debating evolution with theists, I am usually careful not to bring up god or "where did we come from?" After all, we are debating evolution. I asked Basiccally about creationism because I was trying to make a point, which was that; there is proof or evidence for evolution, and none for creationism. It really goes back to my belief on what is rational and what is not.

Anywayz, with that said, I would like to ask you to have a discussion with me on the other thread "why do you believe in god?" That’s a topic a little more interesting, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

@2-0-Sixx

There is no dancing around the subject. I clearly stated that I believe in both creation and evolution. That is your answer.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

Yes. You clearly stated that you believe in both creation and evolution, but you did not answer my questions.

Let me ask you this question. What evidence do you have for creationism? Are there any facts? Are there any signs of proof? Is there any real reason to believe?

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

And what questions would those be?

I was merely touching upon the basis of the subject.

The subject is creationism versus evolution.

I simply established another perspective of it. Instead of "creationism versus evolution", I suggested "creationism and evolution".

You know how it goes. This is what I do. If you can't see it from other perspectives then you may find yourself arguing the half of things. And there is no reconciliation in that. You will not prove yourself purely right or wrong. And the discussion becomes pointless. Never-ending in a circle of duality until one realizes the whole from whence all the many parts came.........................WUN

 

[2-0-Sixx]

I quoted the questions.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

I'm sorry, I don't see any questions that I have not already answered. If I have missed something, please bring it to my attention.

The idea of creation taken literally in the bible is irrational. I agree with you there. But, I already explained the true nature of creation in my first message on this thread. What is said in the bible about creation is only representing the basic idea of existence. Think of it as a truly beginningless creation. Thats what I described in my first message. I'm sure you would agree when I say, you can not take the bible literally on every point. This new idea of "creation" is just as rational as evolution because it no longer opposes evolution theory. And, from an objective point, it disregards any human sentimentality attributed to the creator and creation. All those things are added effect. Its like if I was a scientist and I said, "such and such animal evolved over millions of years to become such and such we know today". And then I added, "And it was good". What the hell did that last statement have to do with facts? Nothing apparently. Its just added effect. So, I propose that you look over what I wrote in my first message if you aren't sure of what I meant. I try to come as objectively as possible, especially when speaking to an atheist. I, myself, went from being an atheist to being somewhere inbetween that and a pure believer in God when I realized what atheists do. They go out of their way to disprove God. As people we should all keep our minds open to new concepts. I realized I had no reason to try and disprove God, and in actuality I wasn't really disproving God. I was only disproving a single concept of God. I know this thread is about evolution and creationism so I will stop talking about God. I just wanted to show you how I came away from being an atheist.