Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - liljp617

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 63
31
Debate & Discuss / Re: Atheistic Evolutionists, Logic, and Faith
« on: July 24, 2010, 08:33:01 am »Message ID: 211403
Too many anti-Christian Liberals have either forgotten or never learned where many of the concepts of tolerance and respect for human rights and dignity which they supposedly hold as virtues come from.

And many Christians forget or never learned where those concepts and virtues came from. They certainly didn't begin with the New Testament. I'm sorry if that's what you've convinced yourself to believe.  Please don't talk about "human rights and dignity" while implying Christianity has relentlessly promoted it in the past...history tells quite the opposite story.

Morality has the same origins for "anti-Christian Liberals" as it does for "Christian Conservatives."  Morality has natural origins.

32
Debate & Discuss / Re: Atheistic Evolutionists, Logic, and Faith
« on: July 19, 2010, 06:16:43 pm »Message ID: 209167
Quote
And frankly I've just grown tired of having a "discussion" with a random website from a self-claimed international evangelist.  It's close to "discussing" the topic by myself.  It would be just as easy for me to go find random doctoral dissertations from evolutionary biologists and take random quotes from them any time I wanted to counter something, but that's boring, and it's not a debate or discussion.

sorry for boring you mate.

us idiotic creationists will just never match up with the supreme intellect you apparently exude with every typed word  :notworthy:

You have a way of reading quite far into things and creating things that weren't said or implied.

The point is I would like to talk to you (or other people on the forum) and not random websites I could Google and find.  I want to know your position; I want your description of your position.  I don't want someone else to describe your position.

33
Off-Topic / Re: TOPIC: Are people inherently selfish?
« on: July 18, 2010, 08:58:58 pm »Message ID: 208715
It seems pretty obvious that it's not a black-and-white topic.  I don't think anybody really believes humans are innately truly altruistic, but humans also aren't innately truly selfish. 

We're a social group species and, like other social group species, we exhibit behavior that resembles morality and altruism.  Why?  Because it works -- it increases the probability of our own survival and the survival of those group members around us.  That doesn't mean we're not going to exhibit selfish behavior as well -- if we could ignore the modern world we live in and place ourselves back in the natural environments we came from, you would very likely see groups fighting each other in cases where resources are up for grabs (actually it's not even necessary that you ignore the modern world, but it makes the point more clearly).  Naturally, we still have some selfish motives when the situation is grave or our well-being depends on it.

I don't think it does much good to think of the topic as:  "We're either selfish or altruistic."  I think it's more beneficial to think of the topic as a spectrum

True Altruism <---------------------------------------------> True Selfishnesh

with varying degrees of altruism/selfishness in the middle.  As for the innateness, I would venture to it's quite related to genetics/nature as well as environment/nurture; I don't see any reason to think it's completely one or the other.

34
Debate & Discuss / Re: Atheistic Evolutionists, Logic, and Faith
« on: July 18, 2010, 01:57:47 pm »Message ID: 208548
Quote
However, if a person vocally takes a position on something, they should be prepared to discuss the facts, and they should prepare for and expect others to challenge their notions.  For that is the root of debate -- that you expect people to challenge your assertions.

well i don't think i implied anywhere that i expected anything other than a challenge....you were the first to dismiss me by the last statement you made. (no point in continuing the discussion). i countered with a similar statement and now you assume i don't understand the premise of what a debate is????????

I "dismissed" you because you seemed unsatisfied with the evidence staring you in the face that you adamantly claimed didn't exist.  There's nothing more I can do except outline and direct people to the evidence that has been directly observed -- I gave two clear proofs that you said didn't exist.  If you're not going to accept those two examples, I have a feeling nothing is going to convince you except something unrealistic and beyond extraordinary (ie walking into nature and watching a chimp give live birth to a human).  Thus, my comment about the discussion not having a future.

And frankly I've just grown tired of having a "discussion" with a random website from a self-claimed international evangelist.  It's close to "discussing" the topic by myself.  It would be just as easy for me to go find random doctoral dissertations from evolutionary biologists and take random quotes from them any time I wanted to counter something, but that's boring, and it's not a debate or discussion.

Quote
i can't state all the facts here on this forum. so i posted links to my references and tried to pull out information from my references that i thought most clearly represented my position. there was plenty more on the difference between micro and macro evolution. i apologize for assuming that you used my referenced links to get a better grasp of my position. or perhaps you just "glanced" through??  ;)

I'll repeat for fun:  There is no difference in the scientific community.  Biologists don't distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution, except to break up areas of research, because microevolution and macroevolution are the same process on different time scales.  They are not separate events.  The context in which the words are being used is here is incorrect -- it would have the reader believe that microevolution and macroevolution are two fundamentally different processes.  They are not.  It would have the reader believe there is some imaginary line drawn between micro- and macroevolution.  There is not.

This is not my position, this is the position of the scientific community.  If the scientific community that studies this material doesn't distinguish between the two except in very specific instances, why would I be concerned with the misuse of the words that comes from the creationist party?

It doesn't matter anyway.  Even if I allow the misuse of the words, both "kinds of evolution" have been observed.  That's all that really matters in this section of the debate.

35
Debate & Discuss / Re: Atheistic Evolutionists, Logic, and Faith
« on: July 17, 2010, 09:43:07 pm »Message ID: 208311
Quote
If the only proof you're going to accept is something ridiculous like walking into nature and seeing a chimp give birth to a human, then there's no point in continuing the discussion.

If the theory you're willing to accept, that is clearly flawed and unreasonable, just to justify there is no God, then there's no point in continuing the discussion.

You stated there was no proof of macroevolution; I referenced two clear examples, among the numerous, and gave enough details where you could easily find more information on the experiments if you desired to.  I can't help if you're unsatisfied -- macroevolution has been observed.



The premise that evolution occurred and continues to occur has little to do with my lack of belief in your god.  Belief or non-belief in deities is currently not a scientific issue or question, but a philosophical one.  It is a question I've mulled over for years, and my conclusion has been shaped by much more than a single scientific theory (of which I knew extremely little about prior to my claims of being atheist).

I was a practicing Christian for over half my life, and I have taken ample time to research Christianity and numerous other religions (Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, Jainism, Buddhism, African traditional religions, Native American philosophies, Confucianism, etc.).  I've read all or portions of the Bible, Quran/Hadith, the Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita, and Buddhavacana, among others.

I find the subject interesting; I find the history interesting; I find the great differences in metaphysical ideas interesting, even within certain religions; I find how certain historical events and social constructs shaped these religions interesting; I find how these religions shaped history and social constructs interesting.  I've put in the time to look at these religions with an open mind.

And naturally I came to a personal conclusion:  That mankind has continuously desired to explain that which it could not explain rationally.  Mankind turned to the metaphysical, and for centuries and centuries these answers sufficed, because there was no way to approach the questions any more rationally than through the metaphysical path.  Times have changed.  Answers are being given.  The knowledge gap has continuously closed.  So long as technology continues to improve and the desire to explain remains, that gap will continue to close.

As I said before, I couldn't care less what you do or don't believe.  It doesn't effect me in the least bit, there's a very slim chance I'll ever be near you.  However, if a person vocally takes a position on something, they should be prepared to discuss the facts, and they should prepare for and expect others to challenge their notions.  For that is the root of debate -- that you expect people to challenge your assertions.

36
Debate & Discuss / Re: Atheistic Evolutionists, Logic, and Faith
« on: July 17, 2010, 05:48:30 pm »Message ID: 208185
and your argument about the difference or (non difference) between micro macro evolution is clearly your refusal to look at facts. microevolution has been proven....macroevolution has not.

I just referenced two direct examples where we have literally watched speciation occur -- speciation IS macroevolution.

If the only proof you're going to accept is something ridiculous like walking into nature and seeing a chimp give birth to a human, then there's no point in continuing the discussion.

37
Debate & Discuss / Re: Atheistic Evolutionists, Logic, and Faith
« on: July 16, 2010, 09:38:34 pm »Message ID: 207810
Quote
Mr. Wiggs is lumping multiple fields of science into a single theory.  The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, which is what is most often referred to in biology, is the not the same as cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, or Earth's geological evolution.  They're different topics of research found in quite different fields of science, and evidence for each topic varies.  It does us no good to discuss evolution by natural selection alongside cosmic evolution.

his premise for lumping them together in this list is to point out the different types of evolution. they are all labeled as being a branch of evolution and he wanted to distinguish to the reader that simply using the term 'evolution' can cause friction when you don't understand which branch you are referring to.

I must have completely overlooked that one, because it doesn't seem to be implied anywhere.  It seems he's merely setting himself up to attack on the micro vs macro point.

Quote
Quote
Continuing: You simply can't openly accept that microevolution occurs and then decline that macroevolution occurs.  They're the exact same thing -- merely on a different time scale.  The mechanisms for microevolution are precisely the same for macroevolution.  Scientists break evolution into these categories so it's easier to study and research, not because they're different occurrences.  Evolution by natural selection is evolution by natural selection; if you accept that evolution occurs by natural selection on a small scale, then given a large scale, it will continue to happen.

the definitions listed for micro and macro clearly have distinctions and are NOT the same(from the article)microevolution to the creationist is the limited variation that can be expressed by the genome of a “species’ or family of plants or animals. It is the variation in the alleles of a genome as they are expressed in sexual reproduction and the mixing of alleles that occurs. These alleles are mostly not the product of mutations, but rather reside in the total genome of a population. See the genetics section for a further treatment of alleles in a genome.
 The Evolutionist sees microevolution as the cornerstone of evolutionary theory. They believe that it is billions of microevolution mutations in the genome, creating new alleles, and natural selection preserving those changes that is the process of evolution.
Creationists do not see microevolution as being able to drive the massive information gain that needs to occur for evolution to be possible, that is the ameoba to man evolution concept. Microevolution changes mainly occur through the practice of selective breeding. There are no “mutations” in selective breeding or in genome adaptation to the environment.  The complex changes that occur are already in the genome and are merely being brought out from human or environmental pressure.

Not to be rude, but I'm not interested in what microevolution and macroevolution are to the creationist.  The words are quite readily defined by the scientific community in the event that they're used (which is somewhat rare if you speak to evolutionary biologists -- they rarely distinguish what "type" of evolution they're talking about, because they're only separated for research purposes).

To biologists, there is no difference between the two.  In modern evolutionary synthesis, the two mechanisms operate at various scales to cause changes within species (micro) as well as speciation (macro), the only difference being time.  You cannot say evolution occurs in one sentence and then say evolution doesn't occur in the next sentence.  Evolution is evolution -- if it occurs, it occurs.  If it doesn't, it doesn't.  It can't be both ways.  You can't accept that allopatric or peripatric isolation causes species to gradually change century after century, then say those changes aren't going to lead to those species not interbreeding anymore (speciation).  The reason you can't say that is because we have watched it happen.  If you accept that evolution occurs in the smaller time scale, it follows that these changes are going to stack and lead to changes at and above the species level.  Again, we have watched it happen.

Quote
Quote
er well it's a scientific theory.  Observable?  We have observed evolution in nature and labs.  Repeated experiments?  Sure have.  Falsifiability?  Sure is.  The challenge that evolution is unfalsifiable has been made countless times over the years and the theory has continuously passed the test.  You can read of these examples at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Evolution_is_unfalsifiable

Lack real proof?  The Peppered Moth in England during the Industrial Revolution.  Microbial evolution -- antibiotic resistance, vaccine resistance, immune system resistance, superbugs, etc.  Diane Dodd's experiment with fruit flies.  Darwin's finches.  European gulls.  The list goes on and on.

the lack of proof referred to here is based on the lack of ability to observe and is referring to the evolutionists theories of the beginning of life and the history of the universe (not the observable and undenied facts of microevolution). the author (in my interpretation) was saying evolutionists use microevolution as a bluff for the validity and proof of evidence for the other branches. the history of the universe was not observable.

the peppered moth and the other things you mentioned are all examples of a species whose DNA was not added to but merely scrambled. they are examples of changes within a species but cannot be shoved into explaining the origins of life. and on top of the fact that the study on the peppered moth was already proven to have staged photos.

Now surely you can see the obvious point -- you don't have to be present for something to have a pretty damn good idea of how it went down. What you need is evidence...and it's there.  (The argument is bad, so I won't take on the point beyond this:  Who observed god(s) creating the universe?  I guess it didn't happen?)

The biological Theory of Evolution makes no claims on Cosmic Evolution or how life began.  Again, those are quite separate fields of research.  It does no good to discuss them alongside the Theory of Evolution, it would merely cause confusion.  If you want to discuss the other topics, I'd be happy to, but this isn't the thread for it.

There is no addition of DNA needed for speciation to occur.  Speciation is mostly defined by reproductive isolation.  I referenced Diane Dodd's experiment with fruit flies above -- Dodd took fruit flies from a single population, divided them into two groups, and applied allopatric speciation. She fed the two groups different diets (we'll call them Diet A and Diet B) and after many generations attempted to allow the two groups to breed. The two groups, however, did not breed -- the flies on Diet A bred with other flies on Diet A, and flies on Diet B bred with other flies on Diet B. No more interbreeding...speciation.  Speciation is macroevolution.

Another example is in the plant genus Tragopogon, where two diploid parents produced a tetraploid offspring that could not longer reproduce with its parent species.  Speciation.  Macroevolution.

I could continue, but I suppose it doesn't make any difference how many examples are given.

As for the photos, they were not staged to prove the truth of the event.  The backgrounds were merely made in a way to illustrate the crypsis of the moth morphs.  Most photos of insects are staged because insects are small and very difficult to photograph well.  Moths, in particular, are nearly impossible because they're sparse and, in this case, well camouflaged.  The differences between the staged and unstaged photos are quite small anyway.

Quote
Quote
Everyone knows religious evangelists and church leaders around the world from various religions say some absolutely ridiculous, wacky, heinous nonsense.  I wouldn't take what Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, or Pat Robertson says as the mindset or world view held by every Christian in the world.  Likewise, it would be silly to take what Lewontin says here as the mindset of all scientists and proponents of science.

i wouldn't assume that one statement encompasses all of science opinion. however this is one statement out of many that have come from evolutionists that shows how they are only willing to think within the box of evolution.
Quote from http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/think/psych.shtml
The strength behind the argument for evolution is based solely on intimidation and creating shame in the minds of those who oppose it. What evolution lacks in facts, they more than make up for in psychology and manipulation. When an evolutionist enters into an argument where creation and evolution are in conflict, they frequently precede the debate by laying the groundwork by defining the parameters in which you are allowed to think. You are allowed to think freely as long as you think inside the evolutionary box. This box is defined on the premise that evolutionary origins must be true and our current state has been achieved through that evolutionary origin. Thinking is encouraged as long as it does not take you outside of this box. The box is defined by two supposed facts: our evolutionary origin and our current evolutionary state.

Well for one, as has been pointed out, Mr. Wiggs is guilty of the same thing he criticizes others of.

For two, this is just a silly take on the whole thing.  If you ask an evolutionary biologist what he/she thinks of evolution, he/she is probably going to give you quite a definitive, perhaps authoritarian, answer.  What exactly do you expect?  

That would be like me walking up to a televangelist and asking him how he feels about the resurrection of Jesus.  Then, when he replies in a way that makes his views unquestionable and authoritarian, I make the goofy claim that he's only capable of thinking inside the "Christianity box."

Quote
but i have to say thank you to all my non believing friends here because you challenged me to think and find truth for myself and take into consideration that my beliefs were wrong. so i did, i read your posts, i watched videos, i even went to the library and i went to PRO evolution and atheism websites and sources..... and i find evolution wanting, i find creationism to be more true to me now than it was before....in the words of George H. Smith in his speech ‘Atheism: The Case Against God’, "one has nothing to fear and everything to gain from the honest pursuit of truth. It can never be against your interest to know what the truth is."

I would expect nothing less.  I don't care what you believe or don't believe.  All I care is that people know and understand the facts and evidence if they intend to discuss a topic.  They can do what they wish with that evidence.  Hurts me none.

38
Debate & Discuss / Re: Debunking Near Death Experiences (NDEs)
« on: July 16, 2010, 06:32:30 pm »Message ID: 207746
I beg no one to respond to the above post...

39
Debate & Discuss / Re: Atheistic Evolutionists, Logic, and Faith
« on: July 16, 2010, 05:01:11 pm »Message ID: 207717
Excerpts taken from http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

I'll ignore the source for the sake of discussion.

Quote
Science. According to the Oxford Dictionary science is "A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain."
 

The process is for a postulate is first formulated and then announced.  Then there are three things about this postulate that must be true before it can be considered a theory.

   1. The postulate must be observable.
   2. The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification
   3. The postulate must withstand a falsifiability test, or an experiment conceived which the failure of the experiment would disprove the postulate.

Quite agree.

Quote
As Evolutionists have never observed any of the first four supposed evolutions they assume are true, they only talk about the last micro-evolution and try to define it as all five!   They constantly point out micro-evolution as being the proof of all the other four.

   1. Cosmic Evolution – Their Cosmology or how the Universe came into being.
   2. Stellar Evolution – How the stars, galaxies etc. formed
   3. Earth’s Evolution – How the Sun and the planets formed in our solar system.
   4. Macroevolution – The postulate that says all life formed from earlier organized non-life and through some form of mutation, natural selection, and enormous amounts of time.
  5. Microevolution – The limited variation that takes place in a species or families complex gene pool or genome.

We run into some problems here.  

Mr. Wiggs is lumping multiple fields of science into a single theory.  The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, which is what is most often referred to in biology, is the not the same as cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, or Earth's geological evolution.  They're different topics of research found in quite different fields of science, and evidence for each topic varies.  It does us no good to discuss evolution by natural selection alongside cosmic evolution.

Continuing: You simply can't openly accept that microevolution occurs and then decline that macroevolution occurs.  They're the exact same thing -- merely on a different time scale.  The mechanisms for microevolution are precisely the same for macroevolution.  Scientists break evolution into these categories so it's easier to study and research, not because they're different occurrences.  Evolution by natural selection is evolution by natural selection; if you accept that evolution occurs by natural selection on a small scale, then given a large scale, it will continue to happen.

Quote
From the points given above it shows us that both evolution and creation are postulates.  Neither have much of a chance of becoming a theory because of the difficulty of observing events that happened in the distant past and trying to have those events become repeatable.  When evolutionists become dogmatic in their speech as if evolution had been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, they are talking about micro-evolution and they are bluffing because they lack real proof.

er well it's a scientific theory.  Observable?  We have observed evolution in nature and labs.  Repeated experiments?  Sure have.  Falsifiability?  Sure is.  The challenge that evolution is unfalsifiable has been made countless times over the years and the theory has continuously passed the test.  You can read of these examples at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Evolution_is_unfalsifiable

Lack real proof?  The Peppered Moth in England during the Industrial Revolution.  Microbial evolution -- antibiotic resistance, vaccine resistance, immune system resistance, superbugs, etc.  Diane Dodd's experiment with fruit flies.  Darwin's finches.  European gulls.  The list goes on and on.

Quote
Dr. Richard Lewontin, a geneticist, (a self proclaimed Marxist) , is a renowned champion of neo-“Darwinism and one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.  He wrote the following comment. (Italics were in the original)

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.”
Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

Dr. Lewontin makes it very clear “science” (evolution) may not be the best option, but it is the only option for no other option will be allowed.  That is not a scientific statement, but a philosophical statement.  In fact, this statement says that the philosophy of materialism or atheism is at the basis of science or evolution. I thought ‘scientists’ were to ob objective about the data and just follow the figures to the truth, whatever that was?  But Dr. Lewontin says that is not the truth, that there is a bigger truth than science and that is materialism or atheism.

This one hurt the brain.  He takes one individual scientist's speech to speak for every single scientist in the world?  Let's be serious here...

Everyone knows religious evangelists and church leaders around the world from various religions say some absolutely ridiculous, wacky, heinous nonsense.  I wouldn't take what Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, or Pat Robertson says as the mindset or world view held by every Christian in the world.  Likewise, it would be silly to take what Lewontin says here as the mindset of all scientists and proponents of science.

How Mr. Wiggs recapped Lewontin's quote is precisely what should be said -- it is Lewontin's personal philosophy on science and nothing more.

40
Debate & Discuss / Re: Atheistic Evolutionists, Logic, and Faith
« on: July 16, 2010, 04:14:55 pm »Message ID: 207696
I'm sorry for sounding mean, but it is EXTREMELY freaking frustrating dealing with people who mire scientific facts and denounce all of the progress we as a species have made thus far.

Don't bother with him/her (rwdeese).  Purposely trolling/flamebaiting.  Evidenced by the lack of response when I showed their math and proposal was baseless gibberish in the recent global warming thread.  Also evidenced by the ridiculous claims made in every post that are fundamentally factually false.

Waste of time and energy.  Use your brain for better things.

41
Debate & Discuss / Re: Atheistic Evolutionists, Logic, and Faith
« on: July 16, 2010, 12:36:59 pm »Message ID: 207608
yep you're a smart cookie lol!

i found an interesting video today. tell me what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3-6gFBpXdM

The videos main premise is irreducible complexity, which is a core proposal of intelligent design.  It basically says that life is too complex to have arisen through natural selection, and thus life was designed by some intelligent creator -- nonsense logic to say the least.  Michael Behe's common arguments for irreducible complexity involve blood clots, the eye, and flagella.  All of which have been shown can arise naturally:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Stated_examples

The video references the mouse trap in particular.  The idea has been broken down by John H. McDonald and he has shown that a mouse trap can still function as a mouse trap with parts missing.  He also shows how the addition of smaller parts can then induce previously added parts to function differently (and perhaps more efficiently):  http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html


Intelligent Design is a nonscientific argument.  It is the purest form of pseudoscience "on the market."  Its entire foundation rests on multiple fallacies -- argument from ignorance, god of the gaps, false dilemma, etc.

42
Debate & Discuss / Re: Where do you go after death?
« on: July 16, 2010, 11:00:23 am »Message ID: 207574
probably montana

43
Debate & Discuss / Re: Atheistic Evolutionists, Logic, and Faith
« on: July 15, 2010, 02:35:24 pm »Message ID: 207209
you make a valid point liljp and i concede that faith and belief are two different things.

it doesn't change the FACT however that evolution is still considered a theory. since darwin presented the theory all those long long years ago, it is still defined as a theory because it cannot be proven to be 100% correct. there are evidences that support the theory and there also evidences that disprove the theory.

so until it can be completely proven it is only theory.

i would think that if science was going to prove it, after all this time....they would have done it. but it is my BELIEF that they never will prove it because i have seen science fail to prove it time and again. there is substantial evidence and reasoning to hold this belief, because i hold it on the basis that i have seen science fail to prove evolution as an infallible truth.

To state what should be obvious by now: The word theory, as used in science, carries a completely different meaning compared to the every day usage of the word theory.  There is no such thing as "just a theory" in science.  It's not just a guess that a handful of scientists thought sounded nice.  It takes a great deal of evidence, observation, and experiment, combined with the scrutiny of peer-review, for a proposal to achieve the level of scientific theory.

There are many scientific theories I would imagine you have no issue with -- Germ Theory, the idea that microorganisms (germs) are the cause of many diseases and illnesses.  Cell Theory, the idea that cells are the basic unit of structure of all living organisms; also describes the structure and function of cells.  Circuit Theory, which describes the process of how electrical/pneumatic/hydraulic circuits function.  Plate Tectonic Theory, the idea that the Earth is made up of a series of individual plates and that these plates move.

Germ and Cell Theory are at the core of every medical procedure and medication out there.  I would assume you have little problem going to the doctor when you have strep throat and getting an antibiotic for it.  How that antibiotic functions is based "only on theory."  Every time you flip your lights or computer on, you're making use of Circuit Theory.  The cause of earthquakes and many volcanic eruptions is tied in with Plate Tectonic Theory.  Is there a reason you don't cut these theories down solely on the basis of being "just theories?"


On a side note, the word theory in "Theory of Evolution" is not meant to imply a toss-up between whether evolution occurs or not -- it is plain fact that evolution occurs, we have witnessed it first-hand in both labs and nature on numerous occasions.  The word theory in this context is in reference to how the entire process works and all the factors involved in that process.  That knowledge is not yet completely fulfilled.  In a similar fashion, gravity remains a theory (Gravitational Theory) in that scientists are still attempting to fully understand the mathematics and reasons behind why the force of gravity behaves as it does.  To be clear, it is a law that objects with mass attract each other, but the exact reasons this force occurs and the mathematics behind it is theory.

The word theory in these cases describes what's going on behind the picture.  It is not a testament to whether the event occurs or not; we're well aware that the events occur.  The theory aspect is a testament to the forces and processes that contribute to and cause the event, which are often not 100% known or explained in the case of a scientific theory.  Thus, it remains under the label of scientific theory until those forces and processes are explained.



(feel free to show the evidence disproving the Theory of Evolution -- please no nonsensical pseudo-science either from Mr. Hovind or those like him)

44
Debate & Discuss / Re: 100 Reasons why Evolution is Stupid
« on: July 15, 2010, 09:39:05 am »Message ID: 207073
How it happened?  He set it up lol...he's a scam artist, and unfortunately for him, got caught.

45
Debate & Discuss / Re: Atheistic Evolutionists, Logic, and Faith
« on: July 14, 2010, 11:24:45 pm »Message ID: 206907
i see that a lot of debates about evolution vs creationism come down to first cause. i am seeing that atheistic evolutionists think that although science hasn't found a first cause, they will inevitably find one.
creationists think the first cause was a creator i.e. God of the bible.

creationists have faith that God was the first cause
atheistic evolutionists have faith that science will figure it out

mind you, this is just my observation  ;)

On a quite important first note:  Evolution has nothing to do with a "first cause."  The Theory of Evolution makes no claims on the "first cause" and makes no attempt to explain how life arose on Earth -- that is a different field of biology.  It merely provides an explanation (backed by observation and undeniable evidence) for the diversity and unity of all known life on this planet.

Continuing...

People throw the word faith around unnecessarily "/

There's a clear difference between faith and belief:

I believe the chair I'm sitting in isn't going to break.  That is obviously a belief I hold; it is not faith-based though.  I have quite substantial evidence and reasoning to hold this belief.  

I hold this belief on the basis that I have sat in many chairs over the years, none of which have broken under my weight.  I've seen countless numbers of people sit in similar chairs, none of which have I witnessed breaking under the weight of others.  I understand the structure of a chair, its intended purpose, and the reputation chairs have when it comes to them randomly breaking.

A faith-based belief would be never having seen a chair in my life, never sitting in a chair, never witnessing other people sit in a chair, having no knowledge of how chairs are built, etc. and still believing chairs very, very rarely randomly break just from people sitting down on them.  That is a faith-based belief, because it lacks evidence or reason.  How could I reasonably believe chairs rarely do or don't break randomly if I have absolutely zero experience with or observations of them?

To connect:

Science, especially modern, has continuously closed the knowledge gap that religion, spiritualism, and other metaphysical claims used to own (weather, geological events such as earthquakes and volcanoes, famine, plague, etc.).  I believe this trend will continue.  That requires no faith to believe -- science has proven time and again that it can bridge this knowledge gap given time and technological advancements.  The evidence that scientific thought is capable of this is there...the trend has been building for decade upon decade.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 63