Evolution v Creationism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I'm not blaming it on Galileo (though he didn't exactly help himself), I'm just saying you can't blame it one the apparently singular evil entity that is religion. It's just power politics, just like when Hitler banned Darwin's works (yes you're getting a Godwin), or when any authoritarian institution bans stuff that threatens its authority.

A reason to moan about religion? I don't think so. You have to look at what was really going on (and you know there's something else going on when I'm defending the Catholic Church :wink:)

---

Alright, alright, point taken. But you'll have to forgive me for discerning an emergent parallel between your views on recorded history and those on paleontology...

Proceed. :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Alright, alright, point taken. But you'll have to forgive me for discerning an emergent parallel between your views on recorded history and those on paleontology...

Proceed. :inquisitive:

---

Very well! Now... what were we talking about? :uhoh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Very well! Now... what were we talking about? :uhoh:

---

Before you spouted off made a subtle and true statement about the Galileo case, you were talking about the difference between faith and (organised) religion. Your point being that disgraceful human behaviour should not be blamed on faith, but rather on the human, and that (organised) religion is the vehicle of human intentions and interests rather than that of God's will.
:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

trolling

---

Look, my great-grandfather worked at Harland & Wolff before that side of my family moved to Govan, you know there's something up if I'm defending the RCC. In any case, I wasn't so much defending the RCC and pointing out that its flaws weren't due to religion but instead just a typical power-grabbing man-made institution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

trolling

---

Well he could have kept it in the scientific circles but he didn't. Wasn't really his fault since his views were already taking hold in the Church, he got caught up in Christian in-fighting more than anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

trolling

---

:rolleyes:

I enjoy the idea of Evolution co-existing with Creationism. Creationism can be shown throughout humanity. Your watch, your laptop, your t.v, all examples of creationism. The parts of a watch have their own function in order for the watch to work. And just like our bodies we rely on the function of several body parts. However we as a species evolve because our body has the availability to do that. (Adaptation). If technology can reach far enough we could make watches reproduce.

That what I don't understand why do people always think there is always only one solution.

To be fair though, technology EVOLVED through the many, many centuries by IMPROVING UPON EXISTING MODELS and allowing obsolete or less functional models to be NATURALLY SELECTED against.

The laptop computer did not appear out of dust one day. It took thousands of years of scientific progress and the evolution of human knowledge.

Even "intelligent design" requires evolution in this, the real world.

Where have I heard that before... :inquisitive:

Ah... the circumcision thread.

I know there's a joke here but I just woke up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

I know there's a joke here but I just woke up.

---

Really? I'm off to bed soon... how on earth do we always manage to be online at the same time with such a time difference? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Really? I'm off to bed soon... how on earth do we always manage to be online at the same time with such a time difference? :inquisitive:

---

Because you miss me, buttercup. ~:flirt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Because you miss me, buttercup. ~:flirt:

---

At least I've got your picture. :uhoh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

trolling post

---

I should like to hear how your Natural Philosophy intrudes upon my Theology, in view of the fact that "Science" can only measure and test the former, not the latter.

But in today's Science, "Theology" is nothing at all...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher Burgoyne

But in today's Science, "Theology" is nothing at all...

---

key part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

key part.

---

Of course. Pure scientifical knowledge gives no regard to Theology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher Burgoyne

But in today's Science, "Theology" is nothing at all...

---

Science is merely a method, one confined to Natural Philosophy. Currently the Academy issues (edit: no doctoral degrees) for "Science".

Now, the question is:

How does your natural theology impact on my Theology?

You could ask the reverse question, and it is just as valid.

Natural Philosophy and Theology are not related, except as avenues of human endeavor; Discoveries in one make little or no impact on the other.

If you were ask me "Why was the world created?" that is a very different question to "How". "How" does not answer why, but "How" is all "science" ever does, asks, tests or measures.

Therefore, scientific knowledge has no bearing on the existence of God. Further, if this is so it is possible accept all that has been discovered through the scientific method and still be a "Creationist".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

"How" does not answer why, but "How" is all "science" ever does, asks, tests or measures.

---

So tell me, why did God create the earth?

I'm not asking how - in six days or seven, by telepathy or with Polish hired labour. I'm asking why? For what reason?

If religion can answer the 'why' questions, this is surely the number one question on which to test it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

So tell me, why did God create the earth?

I'm not asking how - in six days or seven, by telepathy or with Polish hired labour. I'm asking why? For what reason?

If religion can answer the 'why' questions, this is surely the number one question on which to test it.

---

The basic number one arguement is,

"He wanted kids", of which he has untold millions upon billions

Being all powerful and all knowing doesn't keep you from being bored and lonely.

:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

"He wanted kids"

---

https://img43.imageshack.us/img43/9586/facepalm3.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

https://img43.imageshack.us/img43/9586/facepalm3.jpg

---

Well, I guess that proves kids actually are worth it. You have a couple, don't you Adrian?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Being all powerful and all knowing doesn't keep you from being bored and lonely.

:beam:

---

My next question would have been: why ffs did He have to create woman?
As always, your mere presence answers the question. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well, I guess that proves kids actually are worth it. You have a couple, don't you Adrian?

---

I am tempted to paraphrase Einstein on infinity here, but the mods might take issue.

I know this much. When I have kids, and they misbehave, I'm putting them in an oven for time out, just like God. And, I'm never letting them out of time out, just like God.

:bounce:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

I know this much. When I have kids, and they misbehave, I'm putting them in an oven for time out, just like God. And, I'm never letting them out of time out, just like God.

:bounce:

---

:laugh4:
Jezus Pizzaman, who created you? Now there's a guy I worship! :2thumbsup:

P.S. I'm still waiting for Sigurd to smite me.

Roadkill,

Quote:

---

That what I don't understand why do people always think there is always only one solution.

---

Because there is evidence of one but not the other... Might that be it?


SFTS,

Quote:

---

9 million

---

Why do you spam this thread? What does 9 million have to do with evolution or creationism?


Wakizashi, same question.


Sasaki Kojiro, I would ask the mods to clear the spam, but as the mods are evidently spaming...? Are you drunk or was that just a REALLY stupid post from you?


Rhyfelwyr and ATPG, save your flirting for PMs.






I've been gone a couple of ours and everyone including a mod have totally derailed the thread. Makes me wonder what level of debate this forum offers.

I'm with Adrian on Einsteinian infinity-theory here:wall:

:focus:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Wakizashi, same question.

---

Reminding a troll that he's trolling again. And for that matter, now that you bring it up, your entire last post technically counts as being off-topic, since you had to stop and tell us all we're off topic.

:oops:

EDIT: But, I'm a person who doesn't neglect my spirituality, nor the importance of science. I go along with another equally Einsteinian Theory of "Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Roadkill,

Because there is evidence of one but not the other... Might that be it?


SFTS,

Why do you spam this thread? What does 9 million have to do with evolution or creationism?


Wakizashi, same question.


Sasaki Kojiro, I would ask the mods to clear the spam, but as the mods are evidently spaming...? Are you drunk or was that just a REALLY stupid post from you?


Rhyfelwyr and ATPG, save your flirting for PMs.






I've been gone a couple of ours and everyone including a mod have totally derailed the thread. Makes me wonder what level of debate this forum offers.

I'm with Adrian on Einsteinian infinity-theory here:wall:

:focus:

---

you are wrong to expect more from a cre-evo thread.

Wow - what a mess.

I would appreciate if people would indeed stay on topic as the "evolution" of this thread is not going into a very good direction (and in this case I insist on evolution as "intelligent design" would not necessarily be an appropriate description for some of the stuff I had to go through and remove)

I went through the thread again and noticed several smoking craters where there once were words.

People of the Backroom, I beseech you listen! I say that this is physical evidence of the Wrath of the Almighty! Therefore I recommend we all follow the Commandments from On High:

Read and Weep

Beware and be sure to follow these Commandments for if you do not, you shall be surely smoted with teh penalty stick or worse, suffer in the burning pit of Ban-land! The horror! Should King Arthur gallop towards you on an invisible horse with his trusted servant Patsy following behind banging coconuts together, and offers to have you join him at his court at Spamalot, or to find the Troll-y Grail, please politely decline and say you've already got one! And finally, I wish to share a message from the Cattle Gods themselves:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i205.photobucket.com/albums/...aguy/beefy.jpg

Now, back on topic:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If one is to consider the idea of the species coming from two people, and only two people... one wonders where all the brides came from. But even from a scientific standpoint; how does a new species of human being evolve from apes? The answer is, in both cases: They don't; not without magic. So unless we caught us some lucky charms, or some really cute looking babes slid down the rainbow out of the sky, we needed a larger gene pool.

In nature, as we have observed so far, what doesn't seem to happen is that a male and a female example of a new species just pops out of thin air. What happens is that minor changes, mutations, and adaptations emerge from the random and natural process of passing on one's genes and replicating DNA over and over again a trillion times, and then those minor changes get passed on to the next generation. Sure, sometimes a minor change in genes results in, say, a totally different color pigment in the animal, or a major deformity in a limb, let's say. However, the change itself is not usually enough to cause the animal itself to be unable to pass on its genes to its own species. A butterfly with new, different colors doesn't yet have other examples of itself to reproduce with. So it reproduces with its own species, differently colored than itself, and those new color genes get passed on. And then we have a bunch more of those new colors. And if those creatures survive long enough to pass on their genes... now you have a new branch of the overall family tree.

If you consider tribes of proto-humans were already commonplace everywhere, then minor changes and adaptations took place to create what we would consider homo sapiens, and at the time, the changes were so minor you probably couldn't tell the difference. Case in point; the process didn't begin or end there. Even after humans evolved, they continued to change and adapt and now we have different color hair and skin and eyes and we live in different parts of the world and are more suited to some parts than others. And yet, we are all human beings still.

If a virus wiped out the "Caucasian" gene pool, humans would continue to evolve and look nothing like Caucasians, and one day, distant hyper-evolved scientists might observe the changes in humans from now until then and conclude they are so different, they might have been different species altogether. But even with radical changes to the gene pool by parts of the family tree dying off or new adaptations becoming quite popular, you're not really looking at a single "Adam" or a single "Eve" which turned apes into humans. You're looking at many different "Adams" passing on, over the course of millions of years, new and different genes which turned out to be better suited to the environment, like larger brains and less body hair, and more attractive faces. There was no single "Eve" because she had a mother as well, and by that logic, you could call her "Eve". And so on and so on until you get to our great-great-great-(times a hundred billion)-great grandmother, who was a single cell and totally unique, formed from phospholipid bilayers forming naturally around a mass of proteins which were highly reactive and created reactions which allowed self-replication, using the fuel of the natural environment of the planet itself. Not unlike fire spreading or crystal formation, it was a natural chemical reaction... much more highly complicated, but still based upon chemistry and physics.

In the end, that first cell was "Eve" and there was no "Adam" until the adaptation of having two sexes evolved. I guess Eve got lonely or decided she wanted some help spreading her particular DNA in a world filled with competing DNA.

Ooooh... long and rambly. Better spoiler it and hope no one reads it.

There was no "Adam" and "Eve" as we traditionally think of it... because if that were the case, there was severe, severe inbreeding and we are basically a bunch of birth defects gone horribly right.

Quote:

---

Ooooh... long and rambly. Better spoiler it and hope no one reads it.

---

Ah but you miss the later injection into the gene pool , the giants from on high . They came down and had lots of sex with humans because they like the food . But humans being humans liked the sex but didn't like the big fellas taking the food so they killed the giants .
But then of course the giants hadn't been killed and were evil and ungodly so when the really big fella got annoyed he killed them all too with his really big rainstorm(together with all the humans apart from a really amazingly good boat builder and his little family) which somewhat diminished the gene pool ever so slightly.
But then the gene pool expanded again because lo it is written there were more giants breeding with humans.
So what we really need to settle this debate is for a cretinist to dig up a fossilised giant.
It should be easy , after all they were all killed along with the dinosaurs in the flood so all the fossils should be together , well apart from those who were around after the flood but I think they must have been illegal immigrants so don't really have any standing despite being very tall.