In Response to Re: Spiritual Poker? : Yes have read it and studied it bud. Dont understand the last line you write? I wont lecture you bud. All the literature is out there too read. But am not a creationalist or an evolutionist. But fwiw evoloution is no more comprehensive fact than creationalism is. I actually belive there is room for both and neither (:p) Posted by AMYBR
Now i know i will not get an intelligent conversation when someone writes that! now have you really studied any form of biology lol??
@elsadog WHAT :S ???? il just shoot myself in the head now shall i.
In Response to Re: Spiritual Poker? : Now i know i will not get an intelligent conversation when someone writes that! now have you really studied any form of biology lol?? @elsadog WHAT :S ???? il just shoot myself in the head now shall i. Posted by WHOAMI196
Dont know if you realise how rude that is? Your making a pretty big assumption because somebody has a different pov than you - especially as my POV was inclusive.
Key word in my post was "comprehensive". Any person who knows the topic is aware that evoloution is far from a fool proof/fully resolved theory.
In Response to Re: Spiritual Poker? : Dont know if you realise how rude that is? Your making a pretty big assumption because somebody has a different pov than you - especially as my POV was inclusive. Key word in my post was "comprehensive" . Any person who knows the topic is aware that evoloution is far from a fool proof/fully resolved theory. Posted by AMYBR
I find it shocking that you compare creationism to evolution(or in a level playing field), evolution has a stack of evidence, and i could fill a few pages of this thread on it, creationism cannot improve theory wise, it full of hocus pocus wizardry and its getting extremely embarrassing to even talk to someone about it.
One of my heroes is richard dawkins this one of his videos, there hundreds out there enjoy ..
I don't think anybody can 100% say evolution has been fully proven. No where near in fact. There's so much I could go into this but I don't want to do it here. I didn't start the thread with this intention.
@stokefc.. what do you mean may I ask? Do you mean humans created the myth of God to give them something to believe in because they weren't strong enough to believe there's nothing out there? Because that's what I used to think. But then when I actually looked into how amazing everything is, how precise certain things are which a lot people don't look into, that's where I got interested. Fair enough, right now you're happy and that's the most important thing. However, in my honest opinion, I believe everybody will go through this spiritual journey (as crazy as that sounds). It doesn't have to be in this lifetime, it could be in your next, because I believe like I said earlier, us on earth is only one stage of our path, your soul will go on. Us, as humans, aren't very intelligent compared to other entities. It's obvious, we get so much wrong. How the world is RIGHT NOW is evidence. Economically the world is in a huge mess, and that's only the start, there's so much corruption, the people in charge doing anything for money. They'd do unbelievable things to go to war for oil, but that's just the way the world is right now.
ANOTHER INTERESTING TOPIC: Aliens!!! Who believes in aliens and who doesn't?
In Response to Re: Spiritual Poker? : I find it shocking that you compare creationism to evolution(or in a level playing field), evolution has a stack of evidence, and i could fill a few pages of this thread on it, creationism cannot improve theory wise, it full of hocus pocus wizardry and its getting extremely embarrassing to even talk to someone about it. One of my heroes is richard dawkins this one of his videos, there hundreds out there enjoy .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qkeAODh-cc Posted by WHOAMI196
I didnt do this at all I said "evoloution is no more comprehensive fact than creationalism is" and "Even (and especially) Darwin knew his theory of evolution was deeply flawed".
However I should have likely used the word "potentially" somewhere in the latter one. There are people out there who would (and will) argue just as passionately from the other side of the fence bud.
We can debate learnt and assumed knowledge til kingdom come, what may count as evidence and what may count as hocus pocus.
My personal views ae adaptave and inclusive, rather than rigid and exclusive. I certainly wouldnt go out of my way to be rude to someone who held a different view though.
I agree that creationalism is a bit of a joke/farce. But equally I believe evoloution has become a one size fits all philosophy and has been widely accepted, where people dont always fully realise that it is a THEORY rather than immutable infallible fact. Once accepted as fact it kind of inhibits people from thinking too deeply I feel. (Perhaps just as creationism once did...... ... ....)
But either way dont know exactly what we are arguing about, other than you thinking anyone who doesnt buy the book is immediately mentally challenged??
Myeh, def aliens though. Of innumerable types that we likely wouldnt even have the ability to recognise as being alive.
In Response to Re: Spiritual Poker? : I didnt do this at all I said "evoloution is no more comprehensive fact than creationalism is" and "Even (and especially) Darwin knew his theory of evolution was deeply flawed". However I should have likely used the word "potentially" somewhere in the latter one. There are people out there who would (and will) argue just as passionately from the other side of the fence bud. We can debate learnt and assumed knowledge til kingdom come, what may count as evidence and what may count as hocus pocus. My personal views ae adaptave and inclusive, rather than rigid and exclusive. I certainly wouldnt go out of my way to be rude to someone who held a different view though. I agree that creationalism is a bit of a joke/farce. But equally I believe evoloution has become a one size fits all philosophy and has been widely accepted, where people dont always fully realise that it is a THEORY rather than immutable infallible fact. Once accepted as fact it kind of inhibits people from thinking too deeply I feel. (Perhaps just as creationism once did...... ... ....) But either way dont know exactly what we are arguing about, other than you thinking anyone who doesnt buy the book is immediately mentally challenged?? Myeh, def aliens though. Of innumerable types that we likely wouldnt even have the ability to recognise as being alive. Posted by AMYBR
7. Evolution is Only A Theory
All branches of science are based on theories, which are grounded in testable hypothesis and explain a large and diverse body of facts about the world. A theory is considered robust if it consistently predicts new phenomena that are subsequently observed. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are explanatory ideas about those data. Constructs and other non-testable statements are not a part of science. The theory of evolution meets all the criteria of good science, as determined by Judge William Overton in the Arkansas creationism trial:
It is guided by natural law.
It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law.
It is testable against the empirical world.
Its conclusions are tentative.
It is testable and falsifiable.
If you can find fossil mammals in the same geological strata as trilobites then evolution would be falsified. No one has ever found such contradictory data.
Gravity is only a 'theory' but I don't see you floating.
Has to be said, theres a **** of a lot of intelligent debate on this forum at times, whichever side of the debate you sit. And people think we are all nerds and gambling addicts betting our house on the turn of a card eh !
In Response to Re: Spiritual Poker? : 7. Evolution is Only A Theory All branches of science are based on theories, which are grounded in testable hypothesis and explain a large and diverse body of facts about the world. A theory is considered robust if it consistently predicts new phenomena that are subsequently observed. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are explanatory ideas about those data. Constructs and other non-testable statements are not a part of science. The theory of evolution meets all the criteria of good science, as determined by Judge William Overton in the Arkansas creationism trial: It is guided by natural law. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law. It is testable against the empirical world. Its conclusions are tentative. It is testable and falsifiable. If you can find fossil mammals in the same geological strata as trilobites then evolution would be falsified. No one has ever found such contradictory data. Gravity is only a 'theory' but I don't see you floating. Posted by Mohican
Really just massively beside the point. Plenty of contrary docs out there for me to click & paste also . Gravity not even comparable scientifically to evolution fwiw,
Seems to be some confusion, am not saying I dont believe in evoloution, nor am I trying to discredit it.
Was talking of the way it has been delivered and blindly accepted as fact as a whole, as though it is immutable, inclusive and without holes or flaws - which it isnt and was never put forth as.
In a way your kind of making my point for me. Some people are blindly religious and wont hear anything to challenge their doctrine - Many people have similar feelings towards the theory of evolution being challenged.
I personally believe that we should let anyone think what they want BUT i could not trust someones judgement who believed the world started less than 5000 years ago.
"If God is willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. If he is able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. If he is both able and willing? Then why is there evil? If he is neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus
In Response to Re: Spiritual Poker? : Are you serious or just trying to play devils advocate? How many examples /studies have proved evolution correct . The answer is thousands from all corners of the world . And then we come to evolution and the proof shown for this , big fat zero . Posted by jonjo75
Bit of devils advocate bit of my own personal view. Again, not disputing evolution, was sharing my personal view on its acceptance and delivery. All the literature is out there, read through some of it - look at multiple sources of information
Let me put it this way and I'll be done with it:
Origin of species was published 150 years ago. As a species we have had countless belief systems surrounding our origin since the dawn of time based on religion/belief. Is Darwins theory of evolution going to be the final theory that we as a species explore/accept? Very very doubtful. It is our best guess with the information that we have at hand, Origin was not published as a complete or inclusive theory. Darwin himself openly stated it was potentially theoretical and that imagination was needed. Like most people, I like to think for myself. I dont hear the word evoloution and automatically associate it with fact or science as has become the norm. Just as I dont when I hear the word creationism. But it (evolution) obviously holds a lot more water than creationism, I never said otherwise.
EDIT: Sorry Jonjo the above was a reply to your original post.
In Response to Re: Spiritual Poker? : Bit of devils advocate bit of my own personal view. Again, not disputing evolution, was sharing my personal view on its acceptance and delivery. All the literature is out there, read through some of it - look at multiple sources of information Let me put it this way and I'll be done with it: Origin of species was published 150 years ago. As a species we have had countless belief systems surrounding our origin since the dawn of time based on religion/belief. Is Darwins theory of evolution going to be the final theory that we as a species explore/accept? Very very doubtful. It is our best guess with the information that we have at hand, Origin was not published as a complete or inclusive theory. Darwin himself openly stated it was potentially theoretical and that imagination was needed. Like most people, I like to think for myself. I dont hear the word evoloution and automatically associate it with fact or science as has become the norm. Just as I dont when I hear the word creationism. But it (evolution) obviously holds a lot more water than creationism, I never said otherwise. EDIT : Sorry Jonjo the above was a reply to your original post. Posted by AMYBR
I deleted this post because i didnt want it to come across as a pesonall atack on anyone ( and i wasnt happy with how i worded it), i do honestly believe that spirituallity gives peace to some people but as i say i could not trust the judgement of someone who has blind faith .
But what about blind faith in evolution? (lol really sorry couldnt help it)
Lets make that rhetorical
I dont believe that being religious makes a person lean towards creationalism any more than being an athiest means you have to be an evolutionist. Seem to be more matters concerning intellect and spirituality. I am happy to blend the two theories.
Comments
Dont know if you realise how rude that is? Your making a pretty big assumption because somebody has a different pov than you - especially as my POV was inclusive.
Key word in my post was "comprehensive". Any person who knows the topic is aware that evoloution is far from a fool proof/fully resolved theory.
However I should have likely used the word "potentially" somewhere in the latter one. There are people out there who would (and will) argue just as passionately from the other side of the fence bud.
We can debate learnt and assumed knowledge til kingdom come, what may count as evidence and what may count as hocus pocus.
My personal views ae adaptave and inclusive, rather than rigid and exclusive. I certainly wouldnt go out of my way to be rude to someone who held a different view though.
I agree that creationalism is a bit of a joke/farce. But equally I believe evoloution has become a one size fits all philosophy and has been widely accepted, where people dont always fully realise that it is a THEORY rather than immutable infallible fact. Once accepted as fact it kind of inhibits people from thinking too deeply I feel. (Perhaps just as creationism once did...... ... ....)
But either way dont know exactly what we are arguing about, other than you thinking anyone who doesnt buy the book is immediately mentally challenged??
Myeh, def aliens though. Of innumerable types that we likely wouldnt even have the ability to recognise as being alive.
7. Evolution is Only A Theory
All branches of science are based on theories, which are grounded in testable hypothesis and explain a large and diverse body of facts about the world. A theory is considered robust if it consistently predicts new phenomena that are subsequently observed. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are explanatory ideas about those data. Constructs and other non-testable statements are not a part of science. The theory of evolution meets all the criteria of good science, as determined by Judge William Overton in the Arkansas creationism trial:
If you can find fossil mammals in the same geological strata as trilobites then evolution would be falsified. No one has ever found such contradictory data.
Gravity is only a 'theory' but I don't see you floating.
Seems to be some confusion, am not saying I dont believe in evoloution, nor am I trying to discredit it.
Was talking of the way it has been delivered and blindly accepted as fact as a whole, as though it is immutable, inclusive and without holes or flaws - which it isnt and was never put forth as.
In a way your kind of making my point for me. Some people are blindly religious and wont hear anything to challenge their doctrine - Many people have similar feelings towards the theory of evolution being challenged.
Let me put it this way and I'll be done with it:
Origin of species was published 150 years ago. As a species we have had countless belief systems surrounding our origin since the dawn of time based on religion/belief. Is Darwins theory of evolution going to be the final theory that we as a species explore/accept? Very very doubtful. It is our best guess with the information that we have at hand, Origin was not published as a complete or inclusive theory. Darwin himself openly stated it was potentially theoretical and that imagination was needed. Like most people, I like to think for myself. I dont hear the word evoloution and automatically associate it with fact or science as has become the norm. Just as I dont when I hear the word creationism. But it (evolution) obviously holds a lot more water than creationism, I never said otherwise.
EDIT: Sorry Jonjo the above was a reply to your original post.
But what about blind faith in evolution?
Lets make that rhetorical
I dont believe that being religious makes a person lean towards creationalism any more than being an athiest means you have to be an evolutionist. Seem to be more matters concerning intellect and spirituality. I am happy to blend the two theories.