19-12-2002 00:40									#61
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH To me thats a reversal of what I meant earlier. I dont believe in evolution, but I do understand it as a scientific theory. I dont believe in creation (at all). In your comparison I would say that I believe in relativity since I dont truly understand it as a scientific theory (at least not in the way I understand the theory of evolution) but I do accept that experts do understand it. Voodoo is anoda ting man! I dont believe in Voodoo. Tis real! (Just not magic).

So if you don't feel you understand a theory you will take it on the word of experts that it is true, but if you feel you do understand a theory you won't believe it, even if the vast majority of experts accept it as true? Man, that seems so backwards to me...

	19-12-2002 00:43									#62
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I assume he means that he won't believe a theory that he understands, because he knows that the theory is valid (or invalid, in the case of a lousy theory like Creationism). If I "know" something, then I don't need to "believe" in it.

	19-12-2002 00:45									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov So if you don't feel you understand a theory you will take it on the word of experts that it is true,

Thats belief isnt it?

quote: but if you feel you do understand a theory you won't believe it, even if the vast majority of experts accept it as true? Man, that seems so backwards to me...

If I accept it as 'true', then I dont have to believe (in) it.

I'm just a backward sort of person I guess.

	19-12-2002 00:47									#64
	Remove this text

I'm with Boris on this one. There is undeniable evidence that it has occured. Natural Selection and Survival of the fittest are a part of reality - accept it. As to this being the origin of the species? That we cannot be absolutely sure of. That is why it is only a theory.

	19-12-2002 00:47									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Isn't accepting something is true the same as believing it to be true? Symantics, I suppose!

	19-12-2002 00:53									#66
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by loinburger As opposed to, say, Creationism, which has oodles of evidence that supports it.

For all you random probablility fanatics out there, do some research on Biblical prophecy and tell me what you think. Biblical record of God's creation is evidence enough.

quote: A scientific theory, like evolution, has supporting evidence and can be used to make predictions. When evidence contrary to the theory is presented, then the theory is modified or replaced by a theory that better fits the evidence. Creationism has a dearth of supporting evidence and cannot be used to make predictions, and in fact there exists a great deal of evidence that directly contradicts Creationism (particularly the more fundamentalist varieties of it). Claiming that evolution is wrong "because it's just a theory" merely demonstrates that the person making the claim doesn't understand the scientific process. Gravity is "just a theory," fer cryin out loud.

The phenomenon of gravitational attraction can be demonstrated in a laboratory environment. Name one scientific experiment that reproduces an evolutionary event.

	19-12-2002 00:56									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by ayronis I'm with Boris on this one. There is undeniable evidence that it has occured. Natural Selection and Survival of the fittest are a part of reality - accept it. As to this being the origin of the species? That we cannot be absolutely sure of. That is why it is only a theory.

Even evolutionists can't agree on natural selection and survival of the fittest. And we have plenty of "unfit" life forms still roaming about today.

The fossil record doesn't prove evolution. There has been no scientific recording of one species evolving into another. Until then, it remains a theory - consult the scientific method if you disagree.

	19-12-2002 01:03									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by FNBrown For all you random probablility fanatics out there, do some research on Biblical prophecy and tell me what you think. Biblical record of God's creation is evidence enough.

Numerous Biblical errors and contradictions are evidence enough that the Bible isn't infallible (or even particularly reliable), and that it therefore does not supercede scientific evidence.

quote: The phenomenon of gravitational attraction can be demonstrated in a laboratory environment. Name one scientific experiment that reproduces an evolutionary event.

You first -- name one scientific experiment that reproduces a Creation event. If you're going to reject evolution based on this criteria, you're also going to have to reject Creationism.

	19-12-2002 01:05									#69
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Do you dispute micro evolution FNBrown?

	19-12-2002 01:05									#70
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by FNBrown Even evolutionists can't agree on natural selection and survival of the fittest. And we have plenty of "unfit" life forms still roaming about today.

Yes they do. And what "unfit" life forms. They are obviously successful at what they are doing, whether in the case of the humans you are referring to 'sponging off the state'...we live in a more nurture-based society now.

quote: The fossil record doesn't prove evolution. There has been no scientific recording of one species evolving into another. Until then, it remains a theory - consult the scientific method if you disagree.

You have just proven your gross ignorance. One species does not 'evolve' to another, it is a far more gradual and punctuated process. Evolution is a long, slow process.

But this aside, what do you make of the acquisition of antibiotic resistance by bacteria? This is a major survival characteristic developed in response to environmental pressure. What is your take on this?

	19-12-2002 01:06									#71
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by FNBrown Even evolutionists can't agree on natural selection and survival of the fittest.

Creationists can't even agree on the age of the earth.

quote: And we have plenty of "unfit" life forms still roaming about today.

Define "unfit," and provide an example of an unfit life form. Or continue to make bald assertions, if you prefer.

	19-12-2002 01:07									#72
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

The fossil record doesn't need to prove evolution. We can observe instances of natural selection on a smaller scale among resistant viruses and bacteria.

These smaller instances are proof that the environment influences the traits among groups of organisms. Same with Darwin's birds.

An isolated area(Galapagos) with a relatively homogenous population still had various traits that appeared in response to long-term environmental pressures. Can we directly observe them? No.

However, because they were still relatively similar overall, one can attribute their "branching" to genetic diversity in the face of environmental and other pressure.

	19-12-2002 01:17									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by DetroitDave However, because they were still relatively similar overall, one can attribute their "branching" to genetic diversity in the face of environmental and other pressure.

No no no, the Lord High Magic Poo-bah did it.

	19-12-2002 01:21									#74
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by loinburger Numerous Biblical errors and contradictions are evidence enough that the Bible isn't infallible (or even particularly reliable), and that it therefore does not supercede scientific evidence.

Name one contradiction.

	19-12-2002 01:22									#75
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Provost Harrison Yes they do. And what "unfit" life forms. They are obviously successful at what they are doing, whether in the case of the humans you are referring to 'sponging off the state'...we live in a more nurture-based society now. You have just proven your gross ignorance. One species does not 'evolve' to another, it is a far more gradual and punctuated process. Evolution is a long, slow process. But this aside, what do you make of the acquisition of antibiotic resistance by bacteria? This is a major survival characteristic developed in response to environmental pressure. What is your take on this?

Antibiotic resistance isn't evolution.

	19-12-2002 01:25									#76
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by FNBrown Antibiotic resistance isn't evolution.

So what is it then. It involves modification by mutation and selection of the phenotypic traits of the bacterium through...so, what is it. The cellular machinery of a bacterium is essentially the same as our own.

	19-12-2002 01:26									#77
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

It is if they didn't have it, and then their progeny did have it...

	19-12-2002 01:27									#78
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by FNBrown The Theory of Evolution is just that... a theory. There are no facts to prove it.

Oh really?

Take fossil records for example. That is evidence... and micro-evolution. I am not to knowledable about science but there is certainly a hundred more things to prove evolution. Creationism is just completely built up a foundation of lies and contradictions.

How old is the earth? Some creationists say 6,000, some say 10,000 and some say 12,000 years old.

But they do not know they theory (creationism) has already been disproven by ice core driling that shows weather patterns from millions and millions of years ago... so how can the world be 6,000 years old when ice core evidence (which is infalliable) shows otherwise?

	19-12-2002 01:27									#79
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Antibiotic resistance isn't evolution.

correct. Its selection, not an evolution. But selection leads to an evolution in that species in the long term

EDIT: damn people respond fast... added in quote to reduce confusion...

	19-12-2002 01:27									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

The bible does appear to be fallible, but that's okay. I used to be of the belief that it's absolutely necessary that the bible be entirely infallible. But I have realized that the existence of a fallible Bible necessitates the discovery of God's pure truths be saved for those who actively search them out.
Of course, that's not say that the Bible is hogwash. Quite on the contrary, it's a very sacred book. The overwhelming majority of which is inspired by none other than God himself. This fallible bible however makes it necessary that people not blindly accept whatever is the trendy dogma of the time, and actively search out the truth themselves.

	19-12-2002 01:28									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by FNBrown Name one contradiction.

The order of Creation is given differently within the first few books of Genesis. They couldn't even start it without a contradiction.

	19-12-2002 01:31									#82
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by monkspider The bible does appear to be fallible, but that's okay. I used to be of the belief that it's absolutely necessary that the bible be entirely infallible. But I have realized that the existence of a fallible Bible necessitates the discovery of God's pure truths be saved for those who actively search them out. Of course, that's not say that the Bible is hogwash. Quite on the contrary, it's a very sacred book. The overwhelming majority of which is inspired by none other than God himself. This fallible bible however makes it necessary that people not blindly accept whatever is the trendy dogma of the time, and actively search out the truth themselves.

And you think science at its current state is infallible?

Im a believer of science, I have to admit. It takes faith to also believe in science. Tfaith comes from our ability to trust our senses, logic and math to lead us to the truth. Who said those things arent fallible anyway?

	19-12-2002 01:33									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Isn't accepting something is true the same as believing it to be true? Symantics, I suppose!

You could say I'm just playing with symantics but I would argue that its a matter of degree. I might believe that god exists (for example). That type of belief requires no evidence. On the other end of the scale I accept that atoms exist i.e. that their existance is a 'fact'. But to me that too is a belief, but it is a belief that I can test in a scientific manner. Somewhere in the middle are ideas such as relativity that are far beyond my expertise to truly test and that require my belief in others expertise and opinion.

	19-12-2002 01:34									#84
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I am also a believer in science, but science must be questioned to. Science isn't infallible but it provides a better reason to the order and processes of the universe than religion or the belief in god does.

	19-12-2002 01:36									#85
	Inflate your Upload Space

The contradiction within the bible is quite irrelevant. Whether God exists or not, or whether God gave a message to some prophet to write the bible, it is ultimately written by a man. Man who is suceptible to lies deceit and exaggeration. To point out that this writer made a contradiction within his own writing does not prove/disprove the existance of God.

	19-12-2002 01:36									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by FNBrown Name one contradiction.

Genesis 1:25-27, Humans are created after the other animals.
Genesis 2:18-19, Out of the ground God forms each animal and brings it before Adam to name.

How could Adam name the animals as they were created if he was created after them?

	19-12-2002 01:37									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Provost Harrison So what is it then. It involves modification by mutation and selection of the phenotypic traits of the bacterium through...so, what is it. The cellular machinery of a bacterium is essentially the same as our own.

So, you're saying that over a process of millions (billions?) of years, said bacterium, given the proper environmental stimulus, will eventually evolve into an intelligent bipedal life form?

	19-12-2002 01:37									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Science IS always questioned, that's what makes it science. Peer review isn't rubber stamping, you know.

Creationists hold to a dogma they view as unquestionable because they take on faith it is God's doing, and questioning God is not allowed. That's why it's not science.

However, Creationism doesn't stand up under scientific observation. Evolution, so far, has. Ergo it is a scientifically valid theory, Creationism is not.

	19-12-2002 01:38									#89
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Evolution also has been updated numerous times (based on new findings) since its discovery by Charles Darwin.

	19-12-2002 01:39									#90
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Fez I am also a believer in science, but science must be questioned to. Science isn't infallible but it provides a better reason to the order and processes of the universe than religion or the belief in god does.

I dont think science is necesarily a "better" reason. To me that sounds like someone who already believes in God telling me God is a better reason.

If you beleive in God, you expect God's will to answer the mysteries within this universe

If you believe and trust in your ability to observe and reason, you expect your reasoning and observations to answer the mysteries within this universe.

Different approach. same result.