 |
|
|
Scifi and Fantasy Forum: Off-Topic Conversations: Evolution. Is it just a theory.:
Archive through Apr 07, 2004
Archive through Apr 07, 2004
We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!
PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS
Incidentally, i never suggested that creation and evolution are in opposition what i meant, perhaps i should have worded it differently, again my mistake, is you believe in evolution and not in creation whereas some people might believe in creation and not in evolution, i.e. they have opposite opinions.
Look, there is one fact that we most both agree on, and that is, at some point, we are going to die, there is no getting out of it, however, if there is life after death, which i'm pretty sure there is, with some God like creature or all powerful force, or whatever it may be, then i feel re-assured, i am comforted by the fact that when i pop my clogs, it hasn't all been in vain, my life has been worthwhile, i have done the right thing at the right time, i have made correct decisions, i have tried to be honest and truthful (maybe not all the time...)and fair, is this such a bad thing ?
If i am ignorant, then so be it, but here is a hypothetical(spelling?) situation, suppose tomorrow the world is about to end, is it not worth while believing, just in case the creationists are right ?
of course if the evolutionists are right then "oh bugger!!!"
Posted By:  Aldan Apr 06, 2004 - 03:45 pm |       | correct spelling, Mr.B.
why thankyou Aldan, its good to know that the members of Spec. Vis. are always ready to help...
yes my spelling is atroshus !
| Posted By: Aldan Apr 06, 2004 - 09:40 pm | | *Aldan grins*
I'm sure that you already know that it's only "atrocious".
| Posted By: Adam Apr 07, 2004 - 12:50 am | | [quote]
Every scientific idea that people have had since the basics of "fire is hot" "water is wet" etc. has eventually been proven wrong.
[/quote]
This is incorrect. "Scientists" (ie. those who learn via the scientific method) have only been around for a couple of centuries. Fire is still hot. Water is still wet.
[quote]
At one time, scientists said "The world is flat."
[/quote]
Actually it was a religious organisation which maintained that belief, and was proven wrong.
[quote]
I bring up this point just to say that CURRENT scientific "FACT" is quite possibly JUST AS CORRECT AS THE FACT THAT THE WORLD IS FLAT. Is it? Is it not?
[/quote]
No, it's not.
[quote]
"Prove to me that there is no God, and I'll prove to you that there IS."
[/quote]
You can't prove a negative. However, the burden of proof remains, always, on those making a claim of existence or of some state. Eg: If you claim something exists, it's up to you to prove it. If you claim the moon is really a giant meatball with mozarella on it, it's your task to prove it. It is not up to everyone else to prove you wrong.
| Posted By: Adam Apr 07, 2004 - 12:53 am | | "My mistake Adam, I am not a biologist/chemist/insertyourown-isthere, perhaps what I should have said, whatever collection of amino acids that began in the primordial soup, but is that not just arguing semantics?"
The first life was most likely single strips of RNA. Nobody can say this is a certainty. However, the evidence DOES support the current working model. No evidence supports the Creationist model. Naturally you are free to believe whichever one you think is more likely.
"Like I said, I do not have the answer, Evolution has all the facts, all the proven data, but are there not holes, blank spaces that need filling in?"
There absolutely are gaps and things left to discover. However, the fact remains that one model has supporting evidence, and the other does not.
| Posted By: Adam Apr 07, 2004 - 12:57 am | | "Look, there is one fact that we most both agree on, and that is, at some point, we are going to die, there is no getting out of it, however, if there is life after death, which i'm pretty sure there is, with some God like creature or all powerful force, or whatever it may be, then i feel re-assured, i am comforted by the fact that when i pop my clogs, it hasn't all been in vain, my life has been worthwhile, i have done the right thing at the right time, i have made correct decisions, i have tried to be honest and truthful (maybe not all the time...)and fair, is this such a bad thing?"
I have no idea what you base such a belief on, but I don't see it is intrinsically bad. Personally I don't require such an emotional crutch. When I die, my body will feed the worms. Every atom in me was noce part of a star. Eventually, the Earth will be swallowed in the Sun's supernova expansion, and with a great explosion my atoms will again fly through the universe, eventually to coagulate in some other clouds of dust, opssibly to form new stars and planets. In material terms, I am immortal. Ultimately, I will give everything I am back to the universe. I'm quite pleased with that.
But if you're going to die, and thats it, i.e. there is no afterlife in the traditional or stereotypical sense then what's the point ? I mean all you get at the end of your life is a "bye bye and thanks for all the fish !" regardless of how hard or easy it is.
Although I do accept evolution, mostly, I am sorry I can't subscribe to your opinion, and moreover I won't. I do not accept that when I croak, thats it. I firmly believe the body has a spirit or soul, and that when I die, I will be off on some adventure somewhere wherever that may be.
You may call me niave(Spelling?), but hey, thats the way it is, and after all, that's what FAITH is all about, but I have to say that if the creationists are right, then you'll be pretty hacked off when you die, however if the evolutionists are right, it won't make much difference, cos I'll be dead and won't know any better, so I win both ways
hehe !!!
[quote]
I bring up this point just to say that CURRENT scientific "FACT" is quite possibly JUST AS CORRECT AS THE FACT THAT THE WORLD IS FLAT. Is it? Is it not?
[/quote]
No, it's not.
You really do take things literally Adam, I think Aldan was just making comparisons between ideas that were believed to be fact in the past with what is believed now, in the future, joe bloggs may come along and say something that may disprove some fact that is considered unequivocal now.
e.g. one hundred years scientist A may say X = Y, that is fact, now, Scientist B comes along and says no X = Z not Y, and yet in the future scientist C may come along and say X = Y + Z.
The comment about the world being flat was acedemic to the statement, if that makes sense!
that should be one hundred years ago !
| Posted By: Adam Apr 07, 2004 - 03:04 am | | "But if you're going to die, and thats it, i.e. there is no afterlife in the traditional or stereotypical sense then what's the point?"
Why should life automatically have a point? We simply exist. The only reason for it is chemistry, biology, physics. Apart from that, we are individuals, and the only "point" to life is what we choose for ourselves.
"I mean all you get at the end of your life is a "bye bye and thanks for all the fish !" regardless of how hard or easy it is."
Correct. A good person and a bad person have equal chances of being struck by lightning. There is no universal justice. Anyone can get hit by a truck at any time. There is no reward. I do not require a reward. I need no threat of hell nor promise of paradise to make me be civil to those around me. I do not use such things as an excuse to persecute or divide. My reward exists in being what I wish to be, and hopefully in laeving this world without having made it worse.
"I do not accept that when I croak, thats it."
I have no idea why you need such reassurance. After al, you'll be dead then, and feeling good or bad won't matter. However, of course it's up to you. If you need such reassurance to get you through, then I hope it helps. Heck, sometimes I almost believe there may be, somewhere, honest politicians trying to manipulate the world around them for the good of their fellow humans. Crazy, huh?
"... but I have to say that if the creationists are right, then you'll be pretty hacked off when you die..."
I think it would be funny if those guys from California with the purple handkerchiefs on their heads were right.
purple handkerchiefs ???
it's not a case of "needing" reassurance, it's a question of faith, either you believe in god (or whatever it may be) or you don't, I do not use this belief in something beyond my death as an emotional crutch, although some may. My father-in-law is a complete athiest, and thats good enough for him, I am not, I believe, but I am open to question, I am willing to see anothers point of view, and accept their ideas.
You say there is no evidence to support creation, I say there is, just look around the world, I think there is divinity in everything, from a piece of music by Mozart or the Beetles, to the Monalisa, or an Aston Martin DB7 Vantage (I imagine driving one of these would make one feel like a god), or in watching England stuff Australia in the Rugby World Cup. Creation is all about perception, how one perceives the world and oneself and how they fit in with that world.
| Posted By: Adam Apr 07, 2004 - 06:15 am | | "purple handkerchiefs???"
Some guys in California had the idea that if they committed suicide when this comet was passing by, the aliens (in teh comet's tail) would take them along for a ride. They wore black pyjamas and purple rags on their heads. That was faith. Belief without reason.
"You say there is no evidence to support creation, I say there is, just look around the world, I think there is divinity in everything, from a piece of music by Mozart or the Beetles, to the Monalisa, or an Aston Martin DB7 Vantage (I imagine driving one of these would make one feel like a god), or in watching England stuff Australia in the Rugby World Cup."
Well, the thing is, that's not evidence. That's something entirely different. There is no evidence to support Creationism.
I disagree
| Posted By: Aldan Apr 07, 2004 - 07:34 am | | Just because one person takes an idea too far doesn't mean that the idea is bad. It means that the person who listened to the idea and thought "Oh. This means that I need to go and commit suicide so that I can be taken up into the alien ship" needed to see a psychologist for some serious help. That is the case with ANY suicidal person. Religious zealotry goes hand in hand with agnostic zealotry, or whatever you have decided that your ideas should be placed, and I don't like zealotry since any form of it tends to close the mind of the zealot to any other ideas in relation to the zealotry.
Parades and rain.
well said Aldan
yes I am bored, it's Wednesday afternoon, I am stuck at work, and there's nothing else to do, except post...
| Posted By: Aldan Apr 07, 2004 - 08:26 am | | Is it raining right now? This is the time for it where you are... but of course, ANY time is the time for it in GBR...
Its funny you should ask, but it is raining, I am currently working at BBC Radio Cumbria, a radio station for old people and farmers, they have really bad programmes... "The Lamb Bank" for farmers who have lost their sheep... I kid you not !
Anyway, it always rains in the lake district, although it is a lovely place to visit !
"You can't prove a negative. However, the burden of proof remains, always, on those making a claim of existence or of some state. Eg: If you claim something exists, it's up to you to prove it. If you claim the moon is really a giant meatball with mozarella on it, it's your task to prove it. It is not up to everyone else to prove you wrong."
True, this is, in fact, the basis of the scientific method (and any other analytical reasoning - this is the general premise for philosophy as well).
"I have no idea what you base such a belief on, but I don't see it is intrinsically bad. Personally I don't require such an emotional crutch."
That is not an emotional crutch, Adam. It would be nice to know all things that exist and don't exist. While I happen to agree with you on many of the things you say, I do want to bring up a few points. Many people have suffered with diseases - diabetes for instance, and Parkinsons, and fibromyalgia - to be told that their ailments "didn't exist" and were all in their heads. Guess what - the ailments existed. But science had not discovered or proven them yet. While the scientific method MUST approach from the standpoint of nothing unproven exists, that is only a scientific distiction. There have been many things that have existed that went scientifically unproven for a long time. Those things did not suddenly pop into existence because we finally managed to figure them out. The fault, in those cases, rested not with the existence of the diseases, nor with the premise of the science, but with the human beings who were using previously proven science as the sole defining law in the universe.
Science depends upon imagination. Without imagination, there is nothing for us to attempt to "prove" - it is imagination that allows us to realize that something may be different from what we commonly think. It is science that allows us to prove it. To refer to that inspiration as an "emotional crutch" is, in my opinion, short-sighted.
As far as something after death, I've seen enough that, for me, it is proven. That is not the same as scientific proof, but it is enough for me. I trust my own eyes and the eyes of others around - and the effects were certainly observable, but not reproducable in a controlled environment. But perhaps they will be some day, when someone brighter than I am figures out how to do so. There was a time when splitting an atom would have been deemed impossible too. But the simple fact is, it was always possible, we simply did not have the knowledge to do it.
I think there is more to the physical world than we understand. I think there is more to the spiritual world than we understand. And I think to assume otherwise, as we have done repeatedly in the past, is simply human arrogance. We have decided that we knew all there was to know over and over throughout history. Over and over, we've been proven wrong.
| Posted By: Starfire Apr 07, 2004 - 08:42 am | | I will never understand why people keep revisiting this dead horse of a debate. You know I have seen it on every messageboard I visit. I feel very much the way you do about the the whole thing Mr.B. I just don't understand why people want to argue about it. Is anyone really going to change anyone's mind? I like to visit sites like Dr. Dino and answers in Genesis. They have a lot of good info. If someone disagrees when they log on to the site or watch the Kent Hovind Video series they will not let any argument so matter how good sway them. So can we all say we believe what we believe?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion
