toldailytopic: Theistic evolution: best arguments for, or against.

[some other dude]

It is funny how creationists become hardcore relativists when they are faced with that fact.

Is it? :idunno:

Creationists are welcome to their opinion,

I'm sure they're appreciative of your largesse. :chuckle:

as long as they do not try to pass their erroneous views as science in the schools.

"erroneous" in your opinion.

The shaman can also hold his opinion, still I will still claim that shamanism is a bunch of nonsense.

You are welcome to make any claims you like. :idunno:

 

[The Barbarian]

Sod writes:

Evidence that is interpreted one way by you and your ilk, and another way by others.

Sorry, the postmodernist notion that the past is whatever we want to make it out to be, doesn't fly with me. You're welcome to believe it, but it's all hooey.

See? I told you you'd be too befuddled to understand.

Even a befuddled old barbarian knows better than that.

 

[some other dude]

the past is whatever we want to make it out to be

Isn't that what you're doing by interpreting the evidence your way?

 

[noguru]

Isn't that what you're doing by interpreting the evidence your way?

Natural processes leave evidence. That is what we look at for an interpretation. Your interpretation is based upon a stringent view of Genesis where everything is assumed to be literal unless it is proven to you with 100% certainty that it is not literal. Why the double standard? Or do you use that same standard with every thing else you interpret in life?

 

[some other dude]

Natural processes leave evidence.

Which are open to interpretation.

You and barbie look at the evidence and say ":idea: Old earth and evolution!"

Stripe and Dave look at the same evidence and say ":idea: Young earth and creationism!"

 

[noguru]

Nog pretty well dissected the assumptions in your post, but it bears repeating that Darwin's great discovery was that it didn't happen randomly. That's why we can predict what will happen to a population under different forms of environment.

And the other important point is that you should avoid conflating designed things, made by creatures, with created things, made by God. Huge difference there. Turns out that even stone age people are very good at distinguishing design from natural things.

IDers, for some reason, have some a perceptual deficit in that regard.

Of course then we have people like Damian, who claim that is the random factors involved in nature that are proof of God. Yet these YECs love it when he gets on you like white on rice. It seems that desperate people will grasp at any straw.

 

[ideogenous_mover]

Like democracy, capitalism is recognized as a horrible system, just better than all the other horribler systems out there.

Interesting. Personally I think capitalism works better for animals than it might for the human race, but that's just my politics, I think on some level we ought to think of something better for ourselves than what the natural kingdom must endure.

So you do not believe nature to be an extension of the capitalist system? Why not?

You know in the 19th century Christians had found it absolutely shocking that an organism could go extinct after they read Darwin, much less that they could evolve.

T.H. Huxley and Darwin had said that "Nature is not an extension of the Christian moral universe." Does this moral universe in your view allow things to go extinct, is it also a capitalist moral universe? Surely these creatures did not survive because on some level, nature has a nature of being harsh.

 

[noguru]

Which are open to interpretation.

Yes, that is true. However, we must ask ourselves which methodology wil lead us to a situation where our interpretations are accurate.

As it turns out the YEC view is based upon a refusal to ackowledge that the 6 days of creation might not be an accurate historical account. So they have closed themselves off to a broader scope.

You and barbie look at the evidence and say ":idea: Old earth and evolution!"

The evidence is vast for this view, if one is not stringently tied to a literal interpretation of "the 6 days of creation" in Genesis.

Stripe and Dave look at the same evidence and say ":idea: Young earth and creationism!"

Only if one is stringently tied to a literal "6 days of creation".

 

[noguru]

Interesting. Personally I think capitalism works better for animals than it might for the human race, but that's just my politics, I think on some level we ought to think of something better for ourselves than what the natural kingdom must endure.

So you do not believe nature to be an extension of the capitalist system? Why not?

You know in the 19th century Christians had found it absolutely shocking that an organism could go extinct after they read Darwin, much less that they could evolve.

T.H. Huxley and Darwin had said that "Nature is not an extension of the Christian moral universe." Does this moral universe in your view allow things to go extinct, is it also a capitalist moral universe? Surely these creatures did not survive because on some level, nature has a nature of being harsh.

Probably because he refuses to see the influence and similarities between Spencer's views on economics and Darwin's idea of natural selection.

And in reality the natural forces behind these things are the same. However with animals who have a great capacity for learned behavior, an industrialized economic infrastucture, and use a monetary currency to purchase goods, more education and less offspring lead to a better economic climate. Whereas, in the natural world the number of offspring serve as the only real currency in regard to the proliferation of a breeding population.

 

[eameece]

I know.


Hear what? The evidence that species adapt to their environments, aka micro-evolution?

I firmly believe we were created to adapt to our environments.

There is plenty of evidence to support this.

Why make a statement like this, and not provide any evidence? What is the evidence we were "created" to adapt to our environments?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Right, the YEC model proposes that only two and fourteen (for clean animals) of each kind were taken upon the ark. IOW, only 2 individuals for all the ring species (like cats, dogs, bears, seagulls...) on earth were taken, and perhaps even up to the class or family level for some types of organisms. Then all the biodiversity we see today evolved in the last few thousand years.

The correct numbers are 2 pairs of each kind of unclean animals and 7 pairs of each kind of clean animals.

 

[ideogenous_mover]

Probably because he refuses to see the influence and similarities between Spencer's views on economics and Darwin's idea of natural selection.

And in reality the natural forces behind these things are the same. However with animals who have a great capacity for learned behavior, an industrialized economic infrastucture, and use a monetary currency to purchase goods, more education and less offspring lead to a better economic climate. Whereas, in the natural world the number of offspring serve as the only real currency in regard to the proliferation of a breeding population.

- will ponder that

 

[noguru]

The correct numbers are 2 pairs of each kind of unclean animals and 7 pairs of each kind of clean animals.

I know, thanks.

 

[eameece]

Bible says God created the Earth and all in it in six days from nothing. :idunno:

But since the Sun was not even created on the first day, there was no way to say what a day was. It could have been billions of years as the scientists say.

There was no Sun until the fourth day, and thus no way to measure how long a day is.

Juts because the Bible says something, why does that make it true?

Yours is the kind of Republican authoritarianism that is turning our country into an oligarchy, or worse.

 

[eameece]

No barbie. Stripe (and others here) are unwilling to accept the way you say He did it.

It's an important distinction, one that I'm sure will be too difficult for your befuddled mind to comprehend. :idunno:

And one that also applies to you, "Stripe (and others here)," but the befuddled minds of dinosaurs can't comprehend that.

 

[noguru]

- will ponder that

Well there are some other factors with humans that I did not mention.

1.) Humans invest more into nurturing fewer offspring and less into producing large numbers of offspring than most other animals.

2.) There are also other technological advances and a couple of natural occurrences prior to industrialization which paved the way for urbanization and industrialization.

A good book which outlines many of these is "The Ascent of Man" by Jacob Bronowski.

 

[eameece]

Which are open to interpretation.

You and barbie look at the evidence and say ":idea: Old earth and evolution!"

Stripe and Dave look at the same evidence and say ":idea: Young earth and creationism!"

Which only goes to show some people know how to look at evidence and some don't. :readthis:

Hey, I wonder which crowd are the ones trained to look at evidence, and which are not? :idea:

Safe to say it is not a group of dinosaurs! :mock:

 

[some other dude]

And one that also applies to you, "Stripe (and others here)," but the befuddled minds of dinosaurs can't comprehend that.

Are you retarded?

 

[some other dude]

There was no Sun until the fourth day, and thus no way to measure how long a day is.

You need light and dark.

Genesis 1
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Nothing there about needing the sun.

Maybe you are retarded. :think:

 

[eameece]

You need light and dark.





Nothing there about needing the sun.

Maybe you are retarded. :think:

Humans are smarter than dinosaurs. Case example; eameece and SOD.

Without the Sun, there's no indication of how long a "day" is. Time is provided by the movements of the Sun and planets, and from no other source.

Uh, case closed Barney!