Let's Get (Meta)Physical! [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

TheRealEddie

01-05-2006, 04:13 AM

I usually love it when they discuss religion and politics but I find
the dabates regarding evolution vs creationism infuriating. I've
already bitched about this in another thread but its like comparing
apples and oranges. One is based in science and must (and has)
withstood constant critiques within its own community (scholars)
and supports observation of the real world around us, the other is
based in myth.There is no evidence of scientific merit that
supports the creation story. Thats why the scientific community threw
them out over a century ago.The
funny thing about ID supporters is that most of their points are
illogical. They point to the complexity of biological systems as proof
of an intelligent designer. They classical (and somewhat dissatisfying)
response is that the designer would most likely be even more complex
which forces to ask who created the creator? The truth is the
logic jump going from complexity to initelligent designer is flawed.
They look at the end result (complicated biology) and discount that
random mutations driven by natural selection could be the cause. Do
they do it through hard math or statistics? No. Because if you look at
the age of the earth as we have OBSERVED it to be, the duration of
hundreds of millions of years does not disprove evolution, and thus it
remains the best theory on the subject we have. So what do ID
proponents do? They attack things like carbon dating and other means
experimental means by which we have deduced the age of the earth. The
example of a million monkeys in a room randomly typing often comes
up, how long will it take them to write Hamlet? This is a terrible
example and is not applicable. Evolution didnt start with life as we
see it today in mind and try to create it from random mutations. There
is NO evidence of a pre-planned design intent. The Hamlet example
starts with Hamlet (a complex system) and looks at how might random
mutations would produce it. This example is driven by the notion of
intent, the intent to create a specific complex system. Point is, any
book that the monkeys would
produce is as unique as any other. Hamlet is just one element from the
space of possibilities. Its only special because we picked out that
element and identified it to be so. 
 Ok, now Im rambing...sorry. 

<img border="0" src="http://www.princeton.edu/%7Eeddie/webpics/PaulO_sig.jpg" />



This message was edited by TheRealEddie on 1-5-06 @ 8:33 AM

Foul_Mouth_Elmo

01-05-2006, 03:11 PM

quote:I usually love it when they discuss religion and politics but I find
the dabates regarding evolution vs creationism infuriating. I've
already bitched about this in another thread but its like comparing
apples and oranges. One is based in science and must (and has)
withstood constant critiques within its own community (scholars)
and supports observation of the real world around us, the other is
based in myth.There is no evidence of scientific merit that
supports the creation story. Thats why the scientific community threw
them out over a century ago.The
funny thing about ID supporters is that most of their points are
illogical. They point to the complexity of biological systems as proof
of an intelligent designer. They classical (and somewhat dissatisfying)
response is that the designer would most likely be even more complex
which forces to ask who created the creator? The truth is the
logic jump going from complexity to initelligent designer is flawed.
They look at the end result (complicated biology) and discount that
random mutations driven by natural selection could be the cause. Do
they do it through hard math or statistics? No. Because if you look at
the age of the earth as we have OBSERVED it to be, the duration of
hundreds of millions of years does not disprove evolution, and thus it
remains the best theory on the subject we have. So what do ID
proponents do? They attack things like carbon dating and other means
experimental means by which we have deduced the age of the earth. The
example of a million monkeys in a room randomly typing often comes
up, how long will it take them to write Hamlet? This is a terrible
example and is not applicable. Evolution didnt start with life as we
see it today in mind and try to create it from random mutations. There
is NO evidence of a pre-planned design intent. The Hamlet example
starts with Hamlet (a complex system) and looks at how might random
mutations would produce it. This example is driven by the notion of
intent, the intent to create a specific complex system. Point is, any
book that the monkeys would
produce is as unique as any other. Hamlet is just one element from the
space of possibilities. Its only special because we picked out that
element and identified it to be so. 
 Ok, now Im rambing...sorry. 

<img border="0" src="http://www.princeton.edu/%7Eeddie/webpics/PaulO_sig.jpg" />



This message was edited by TheRealEddie on 1-5-06 @ 8:33 AM Begin your response here...First I would like to say I'm not a part of any religion,and I think both Creationism and Evolution have holes in there story,First off evolutionist say we come from monkeys,but they have something called 'The Missing Link"ok its "The Missing Link",it means its not there,so there is Your evoloution hole right there.Now 1 very popular creation story has God takeing a rib from a Man to make a Women,that don't sound right dose it.Now there is a story out there that sounds right,and both creation people nd Evolution people will like.Science has found that there is a good chance we all have one common ancesster,Yes its true look it up,that common ancesster they named her Eve,don't get all crazy now its just a name,these bone's that they found show that this Women's DNA match with every known race of Human alive today,and she was not a part of the Monkey line that we all learned about in school,She was of a different race then them.Like I said You dont belive Me look it up,its been on all the science channel's.So there You have it,if that storys true,it shows that Woman didn't come from a rip,and that Humans didn't come from Monkey's,not that Monkey's are bad I love all You Guy's,and You all are Monkey's.

TheRealEddie

01-05-2006, 04:01 PM

quote: First I would like to say I'm not a part of any
religion,and I think both Creationism and Evolution have holes in there
story,First off evolutionist say we come from monkeys,but they have
something called 'The Missing Link"ok its "The Missing Link",it means
its not there,so there is Your evoloution hole right there.Now 1 very
popular creation story has God takeing a rib from a Man to make a
Women,that don't sound right dose it.Now there is a story out there
that sounds right,and both creation people nd Evolution people will
like.Science has found that there is a good chance we all have one
common ancesster,Yes its true look it up,that common ancesster they
named her Eve,don't get all crazy now its just a name,these bone's that
they found show that this Women's DNA match with every known race of
Human alive today,and she was not a part of the Monkey line that we all
learned about in school,She was of a different race then them.Like I
said You dont belive Me look it up,its been on all the science
channel's.So there You have it,if that storys true,it shows that Woman
didn't come from a rip,and that Humans didn't come from Monkey's,not
that Monkey's are bad I love all You Guy's,and You all are Monkey's. 

 
Yes, we don't know everything yet, and as a theory, evolution is incomplete. The
truth is although we havent found the "missing link" we have been
slowly filling in the gaps. There are many fossilized records of some
species that appear to be close ancestors. All have been discounted as
THE missing link, but the search has been fruitful. The gaps are
narrowing all the time. If you want to see some very nice information (and pictures!) check out this
information from the <a href="http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html" target="_self">Smithsonian. 
</a> Also we did not evolve from "monkeys" per se.
Anthropologists suggest we have common ancestors. At some point the
family tree diverged. Here is some information about Mitochondrial Eve which is what I think you are referring to: 
1) Mitochondrial Eve is believed to have been
alive about 150,000 years ago. Now look at the Timeline at the
Smithsonian site I linked to. 150,000 years is about when they see Homo
Sapiens appearing. So I can see how you were confused about "Eve" being
the first women. However:2) Eve wasnt the ONLY human around. She was just a member of a larger population. 
3) She is one of the earliest homo sapiens we've found. 
4) Remeber, Eve was named Eve in reference to the creation story, not the other way around. Granted
I may be missing the subtle muppet logic, but how does any of this
serve as a counter argument against a theory of evolution? 
 
<a href="http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html" target="_self"></a>

<img border="0" src="http://www.princeton.edu/%7Eeddie/webpics/PaulO_sig.jpg" />



This message was edited by TheRealEddie on 1-5-06 @ 8:03 PM

EliSnow

01-05-2006, 05:35 PM

quote: Begin your response here...First I would like to say I'm not a part of any religion,and I think both Creationism and Evolution have holes in there story,First off evolutionist say we come from monkeys,but they have something called 'The Missing Link"ok its "The Missing Link",it means its not there,so there is Your evoloution hole right there.Actually, it just means we haven't found it yet.  It could still be there.  Just because we haven't found it yet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  At one point, we were incabable of discovering atoms, yet atoms still made up everything.<blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px">Now 1 very popular creation story has God takeing a rib from a Man to make a Women,that don't sound right dose it.Now there is a story out there that sounds right,and both creation people nd Evolution people will like.Science has found that there is a good chance we all have one common ancesster,Yes its true look it up,that common ancesster they named her Eve,don't get all crazy now its just a name,these bone's that they found show that this Women's DNA match with every known race of Human alive today,and she was not a part of the Monkey line that we all learned about in school,She was of a different race then them.Like I said You dont belive Me look it up,its been on all the science channel's.So there You have it,if that storys true,it shows that Woman didn't come from a rip,and that Humans didn't come from Monkey's,not that Monkey's are bad I love all You Guy's,and You all are Monkey's. [/quote]The point about this woman being a common "ancestor" of all humans doesn't sound right to me.  I can't imagine that she is a DNA match to everyone to suggest she was related to everyone.  Rather, its more likely that she shares DNA traits that are common to all homo sapiens.  However, I don't know for certain.  Mike The Science Teacher is this correct?  However, even if it were true, I do know this.  Evolution doesn't say that man came from monkeys.  Evoluation says that monkeys and man evolved from the same species (and that that species evolved from some earlier species all the way back up to single cell organisms).  As evolution allows for creation of new species from a "parent" species, there would have to be changes to DNA to differentiate the evolving branches of species.  As a result of such DNA changes,  the evolving branch of species that led to humans would have different DNA than the branch that led to monkeys.  So if this woman is a DNA match for all homo sapiens, but not for "monkeys" it could easily be due to the fact that she was far enough removed from the predecessor species for this to happen.  So evolution would still explain this.  I believe that's correct.  Mike? <img src="http://home.nyc.rr.com/bkemper/Snow1.jpg" border="0" /> Formerly MrTerrific

This message was edited by EliSnow on 1-5-06 @ 10:03 PM

EliSnow

01-05-2006, 05:36 PM

quote: Yes, we don't know everything yet, and as a theory, evolution is incomplete. The truth is although we havent found the "missing link" we have been slowly filling in the gaps. There are many fossilized records of some species that appear to be close ancestors. All have been discounted as THE missing link, but the search has been fruitful. The gaps are narrowing all the time. If you want to see some very nice information (and pictures!) check out this information from the <a href="http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html" target="_self">Smithsonian. </a>Also we did not evolve from "monkeys" per se. Anthropologists suggest we have common ancestors. At some point the family tree diverged. Here is some information about Mitochondrial Eve which is what I think you are referring to: 1) Mitochondrial Eve is believed to have been alive about 150,000 years ago. Now look at the Timeline at the Smithsonian site I linked to. 150,000 years is about when they see Homo Sapiens appearing. So I can see how you were confused about "Eve" being the first women. However:2) Eve wasnt the ONLY human around. She was just a member of a larger population. 3) She is one of the earliest homo sapiens we've found. 4) Remeber, Eve was named Eve in reference to the creation story, not the other way around. Granted I may be missing the subtle muppet logic, but how does any of this serve as a counter argument against a theory of evolution? What is the saying about great minds?  <img src="http://home.nyc.rr.com/bkemper/Snow1.jpg" border="0" /> Formerly MrTerrific

This message was edited by EliSnow on 1-5-06 @ 9:37 PM

EliSnow

01-05-2006, 06:19 PM

One last thing:quote: Begin your response here...First I would like to say I'm not a part of any religion,and I think both Creationism and Evolution have holes in there story, Any attempt to put creationism and evoluation on equal scientific standing based on the "holes" in the support for them is ridiculous.  The "holes" in creationism are equivalent to the Grand Canyon - it's is based on religious faith, i.e. belief without proof.  However, comparably the holes in evolution are like the holes on a golf course - there is plenty of evidence supporting evolution, with some missing pieces.  <img src="http://home.nyc.rr.com/bkemper/Snow1.jpg" border="0" /> Formerly MrTerrific 

This message was edited by EliSnow on 1-5-06 @ 10:23 PM

Death Metal Moe

01-05-2006, 06:45 PM

I am always more likely to hear the side that doesn't claim they know EVERYTHING, and the Evolution side is doing just that.  NO ONE will tell you they found every step out.  It's a mystery.  A challenge waiting for us to overcome.Religion has a nice, neatly packaged story with the fail safe "FAITH" out if the facts get in the way.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=njdmmoe">

<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<A HREF="http://thebigsexxxy.blogspot.com/">One Big SeXXXy Blog</A>
<A HREF="http://www.myspace.com/deathmetalmoe">Death Metal MySpace</A>

DTN

Foul_Mouth_Elmo

01-05-2006, 06:57 PM

quote: quote: First I would like to say I'm not a part of any
religion,and I think both Creationism and Evolution have holes in there
story,First off evolutionist say we come from monkeys,but they have
something called 'The Missing Link"ok its "The Missing Link",it means
its not there,so there is Your evoloution hole right there.Now 1 very
popular creation story has God takeing a rib from a Man to make a
Women,that don't sound right dose it.Now there is a story out there
that sounds right,and both creation people nd Evolution people will
like.Science has found that there is a good chance we all have one
common ancesster,Yes its true look it up,that common ancesster they
named her Eve,don't get all crazy now its just a name,these bone's that
they found show that this Women's DNA match with every known race of
Human alive today,and she was not a part of the Monkey line that we all
learned about in school,She was of a different race then them.Like I
said You dont belive Me look it up,its been on all the science
channel's.So there You have it,if that storys true,it shows that Woman
didn't come from a rip,and that Humans didn't come from Monkey's,not
that Monkey's are bad I love all You Guy's,and You all are Monkey's. 

 
Yes, we don't know everything yet, and as a theory, evolution is incomplete. The
truth is although we havent found the "missing link" we have been
slowly filling in the gaps. There are many fossilized records of some
species that appear to be close ancestors. All have been discounted as
THE missing link, but the search has been fruitful. The gaps are
narrowing all the time. If you want to see some very nice information (and pictures!) check out this
information from the <a target="_self" href="http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html">Smithsonian. 
</a> Also we did not evolve from "monkeys" per se.
Anthropologists suggest we have common ancestors. At some point the
family tree diverged. Here is some information about Mitochondrial Eve which is what I think you are referring to: 
1) Mitochondrial Eve is believed to have been
alive about 150,000 years ago. Now look at the Timeline at the
Smithsonian site I linked to. 150,000 years is about when they see Homo
Sapiens appearing. So I can see how you were confused about "Eve" being
the first women. However:2) Eve wasnt the ONLY human around. She was just a member of a larger population. 
3) She is one of the earliest homo sapiens we've found. 
4) Remeber, Eve was named Eve in reference to the creation story, not the other way around. Granted
I may be missing the subtle muppet logic, but how does any of this
serve as a counter argument against a theory of evolution? 
 
<a target="_self" href="http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html"></a>

<img border="0" src="http://www.princeton.edu/%7Eeddie/webpics/PaulO_sig.jpg" />



This message was edited by TheRealEddie on 1-5-06 @ 8:03 PM Begin your response here...It go's  against evolution because it's saying that most of these species were around at about the same time,and that they dont have that species that link's use all,that tell's Me that the old idea of evolution dosn't fit into this new info we have now.It's My owen belief that they will find a race of Asexual's that were the first Human's on this planet,I'm not jokeing or doing a bit,I do belive that,You people can all laugh now,but it's a theory and I'm sticking to it for now,but I have a open mind about all these stuff

TheRealEddie

01-05-2006, 07:18 PM

quote: It's a mystery. Cliched but I cant resist: "Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at
the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's
made up of two separate words - "mank" and
"ind". What do these words mean ? It's a
mystery, and that's why so is mankind." - Jack Handy <hr width="100%" size="2" />This board really needs some better trollers. No one has an educated counter point? <img border="0" src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/tongue.gif" />   <img border="0" src="http://www.princeton.edu/~eddie/webpics/linguo.jpg" /> 

This message was edited by TheRealEddie on 1-5-06 @ 11:26 PM

mendyweiss

01-05-2006, 08:27 PM

What exactly did a pussy evolve from?

I say sweeping the pockets of the Dutchman was not Mob business!

suggums

01-05-2006, 08:45 PM

Did this thread become Evolution vs Creationism? Get this fucker back on track here.Gvac, you're one hundred percent right. It takes a some balls to discuss the topics they do, but I think we all benefit from a little more Pot Talk in our lives. It's nice to see Ron and sorta Fez cover "deep" subjects, and I'd love to see more intelligent discussion (especially considering they devote a segment a week to naptime football bets). Keep these shows coming!I especially liked Ron's theory about everything being connected; like some genocide in Africa having an influence on the conversation I have with my family during dinner. Neat stuff. 

<img border="0" src="http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/4237/suggumskilgore5id.jpg" />

This message was edited by suggums on 1-6-06 @ 12:48 AM

FUNKMAN

01-05-2006, 09:08 PM

I was thrown out of college for cheating on the metaphysics exam; I looked into the soul of the boy sitting next to me.

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/fm2_sig.jpg">

suggums

01-05-2006, 09:12 PM

Hey, were you that same kid who wrote "why not" on his philosophy final and got an A? 

<img src="http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/4237/suggumskilgore5id.jpg">

FUNKMAN

01-05-2006, 09:14 PM

no but one time i got constipated in math class and worked it out with a pencil

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/fm2_sig.jpg">

Mike Teacher

01-05-2006, 10:34 PM

The missing link idea went out at least a decade ago. The fossil evidence speaks unambiguously of the shifting populations of species, and how the branches were pruned.Wikipedia and a zillion other sites have nice tables of the evidence, and how the evidence is exploding over time as we get more and more samples that lie on the plains. Fossilization is so rare its amazing we have as much as we do, and we have a lot, and are finding more daily.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_link" target="_blank">Link to Non-Missing Link</a>The 'Eve' mentioned is not a person, but mitochondrial, and used to trace the evolution of early humans in the field of population genetics. It's evidence of evolution. ='Someting from Nothing' was brought up somewhere. This is an interesting concept, as the people who study QM find space-time to be a froth of particles popping in and out of existance, seemingly from nothing. There is also the school of thought that the Big Bang is this incarnation of the universe, possibly one of many, and that the universe has always existed, which can be a difficult concept, like infinity itself. If the universe always existed, no creation and no creator needed. If a god created the universe, the Q is begged, what created God, and a good answer might be god always existed. Next Q begged, If god why not the universe.  <img src="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/esig" border="0" />

This message was edited by Mike Teacher on 1-6-06 @ 2:35 AM

Foul_Mouth_Elmo

01-06-2006, 12:13 AM

quote:The missing link idea went out at least a decade ago. The fossil evidence speaks unambiguously of the shifting populations of species, and how the branches were pruned.Wikipedia and a zillion other sites have nice tables of the evidence, and how the evidence is exploding over time as we get more and more samples that lie on the plains. Fossilization is so rare its amazing we have as much as we do, and we have a lot, and are finding more daily.<a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_link">Link to Non-Missing Link</a>The 'Eve' mentioned is not a person, but mitochondrial, and used to trace the evolution of early humans in the field of population genetics. It's evidence of evolution. ='Someting from Nothing' was brought up somewhere. This is an interesting concept, as the people who study QM find space-time to be a froth of particles popping in and out of existance, seemingly from nothing. There is also the school of thought that the Big Bang is this incarnation of the universe, possibly one of many, and that the universe has always existed, which can be a difficult concept, like infinity itself. If the universe always existed, no creation and no creator needed. If a god created the universe, the Q is begged, what created God, and a good answer might be god always existed. Next Q begged, If god why not the universe. <img border="0" src="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/esig" />

This message was edited by Mike Teacher on 1-6-06 @ 2:35 AM Begin your response here...No Eve is evidence that there were many Humanoid species around at the same time,we are just one of the many.And You mean to tell Me that of all the animal's around leaveing fossil,they can't find one animal that link's anything to anything,come on that's a big hole,if You realy want to look at it,there is a good chance all life sprang from the water,think about it,if they ever got to the bottom of the ocean they would find that we all came from water,this planet was all water at first,so thats were all life came from,like I said use Your owen brain's people,don't think in the box,also ower bodies are like 70% water or something like that,I'm telling You I'm onto something here,"Asexual Mermaid's"That's It!!!................ no I'm jokeing around,but I realy do think life mite have come from the ocean,it was first You know.

Mike Teacher

01-06-2006, 04:15 AM

Begin your response here...No Eve is evidence that there were many Humanoid species around at the same time,we are just one of the many.And You mean to tell Me that of all the animal's around leaveing fossil,they can't find one animal that link's anything to anything,=Did you go to wikipedia and see the different charts? It shows the links you say don't exist. At least you got the 'many humanoid species' part right, which again, is evidence for evolution from a common ancestor. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. Please go look at the evidence before asking for 'one animal'; the museuems and universities of the world have shelves groan with these fossils. Don't ask what fossils. Do the research, then ask again. This is an old creationist thing, 'show me a fossil between these two things' so, science presents a fossil. The creationist response is to now see two gaps to be filled, and with each additional fossil discovery, the creationist sees another gap to be filled. In the end they demand the fossil evidence for every species that ever inhabited earth, and if you know fossilization, again, its amazing we have the full, rich fossil series we do have.And the fossils are one of dozens of other areas of evidence, that all point to evolution.The challenge to anyone who says the fossils are wrong/dont exist: Offer your evidence for a creation. This is exactly what the judge asked for with those who wanted ID taught, where is the evidence you build this on? And they have none, just the old tired 'evolution cant be right, it doesnt have all the fossils'I'd like to hear an alternate theory for how we got here, and its evidence. 

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/esig">

Death Metal Moe

01-06-2006, 06:10 AM

Let's just flag Aliens down who populated out planet and ask them!

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=njdmmoe">

<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<A HREF="http://thebigsexxxy.blogspot.com/">One Big SeXXXy Blog</A>
<A HREF="http://www.myspace.com/deathmetalmoe">Death Metal MySpace</A>

DTN

EliSnow

01-06-2006, 06:13 AM

quote: I said use Your owen brain's people,don't think in the box,also ower bodies are like 70% water or something like that,I'm telling You I'm onto something here,"Asexual Mermaid's"That's It!!!. I love to take instruction on using my brain and thinking from someone who spells "own" and "our" with "owe" in the middle.  Now, I know there are typos.  I sure have had my share, but no typo explains "ower" as "our." 

<img src =http://home.nyc.rr.com/bkemper/Snow1.jpg>

Formerly MrTerrific

Mike Teacher

01-06-2006, 07:25 AM

Again, and its not  PC thing, its something I believe in, but 'm not shitting on anone, or anone's belief. FME we can go round and round, there are plenty of places where evolution isnt figured out, if for you, that means theres another way, more power to ya. The 'Creatio-Evolution thing, however it was spelled by someone else, hey, thats pretty close to what I believe in. I'm not atheist, I just dont see God as any human-like thing, or like anything we an even begin to imagine. There are forces and powers and energies out there that we are utterly clueless about, and it's in our nature to figure this out.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/esig">

TheRealEddie

01-06-2006, 09:20 AM

For me, the question of a god (or gods) comes down to the notion of
an entitity with intent and self-awareness. Mike, I'm not sure how you
define the "creator" but as far as I am aware, I have never seen any
evidence of intent or self-awareness. As are you, I'm fairly well
versed in topics such as QM which attempt to model and understand the
makeup and laws of our universe. However, as mind blowing as the topic
can be which often can approach the super-natural in that things that
occur at the QM level are so different than what we can observe at the
human scale, I've never seen anything to suggest this notion of intent
or self-awareness. I am not an atheis either, for there is
not enough evidence to say that there is no creator. On the question of
a creator I cant get myself to go much further than "I don't know"
given what we know on the subject. Even further, I can go with the notion that it is
very well possible that things can be such that as humans we are unable
to really understand the nature of a creator. That the notions such as
"intent" or "self-awareness" are HUMAN ideas that just dont translate
at the level of a creator. But again, I don't see real evidence to go
one way or the other <img border="0" src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/unsure.gif" /> So,
I guess I'm asking the room, can you describe your notion of a creator?
Does it necessarily imply intent or self-awareness? Or again, do you
think these notions of awareness and intent and other human
characterstic extrapolations may not be meaningful at the level of a
creator. Sadly, for me I've never been convinced one way or the other. 

<img border="0" src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheRealEddie" />

This message was edited by TheRealEddie on 1-6-06 @ 3:23 PM

Foul_Mouth_Elmo

01-06-2006, 10:13 AM

quote:quote: I said use Your owen brain's people,don't think in the box,also ower bodies are like 70% water or something like that,I'm telling You I'm onto something here,"Asexual Mermaid's"That's It!!!. I love to take instruction on using my brain and thinking from someone who spells "own" and "our" with "owe" in the middle. Now, I know there are typos. I sure have had my share, but no typo explains "ower" as "our." 

<img border="0" src="http://home.nyc.rr.com/bkemper/Snow1.jpg" />

Formerly MrTerrific Begin your response here...A Man I'm not bashing You,I'm just telling You that there are many hole's in the Evo thing,just like there are many hole,s on what the other side belive's,You all talk about people who belive in religion just based on belief,I see you evo Guy's doing the same,it's just a belief right now,not a fact yet,can it be one day,yes it maybe,but here and now it's not,and You have to stop crying about it,Your all in the same boat the way I see it.I'm not jokeing when I talk about "Revolution"that's what We all need,We need to come together and look for the truth,both side's will find the truth when they come together,You have science finding out that there mite have been a flood that coverd the earth at some point,religion is finding out that there "In The Beginning"story sound's alot like the "Big Bang".......... You see what I'm saying,both side's are saying the same thing in some way's,they just see it different,and that's not saying that all that religion and science say's is fact,we all know or should know that religion and science are political machine's,and that' one reason way were not finding out everything now,both side's are holding info back from use,and this info could very well be the missing pieces We need,it's all about the dollor Man,the Science and Religion Guy's don't want those Book's changed,it would take to much time and Money,better to leave the people beliveing what's already there......... "IN THE BOX" get out of there People.

EliSnow

01-07-2006, 06:42 AM

quote: Begin your response here...A Man I'm not bashing You,I'm just telling You that there are many hole's in the Evo thing,just like there are many hole,s on what the other side belive's, You all talk about people who belive in religion just based on belief,I see you evo Guy's doing the same,it's just a belief right now,not a fact yet,can it be one day,yes it maybe,but here and now it's not,and You have to stop crying about it,Your all in the same boat the way I see it.I'm not jokeing when I talk about "Revolution"that's what We all need,We need to come together and look for the truth,both side's will find the truth when they come together,You have science finding out that there mite have been a flood that coverd the earth at some point,religion is finding out that there "In The Beginning"story sound's alot like the "Big Bang".......... You see what I'm saying,both side's are saying the same thing in some way's,they just see it different,and that's not saying that all that religion and science say's is fact,we all know or should know that religion and science are political machine's,and that' one reason way were not finding out everything now,both side's are holding info back from use,and this info could very well be the missing pieces We need,it's all about the dollor Man,the Science and Religion Guy's don't want those Book's changed,it would take to much time and Money,better to leave the people beliveing what's already there......... "IN THE BOX" get out of there People. <blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px">[/quote]Again, your attempt to equate creationist theory and evolution theory is flawed.  Any "holes" in evolution theory is not like there are holes in creationist theory.  There is no proof or evidence of creatinist theory - it's based on a religious belief without proof.However, there is wide-scale proof behind evoludion.  Thus, "belief" in evolution theory is based upon evidence; not faith.Also, as more evidence pours in, scientists are willing to consider the evidence and alter their theories to accomodate the evidence.  Backers of creationsit theory maintain their belief despite proof to the opposite.

<img src =http://home.nyc.rr.com/bkemper/Snow1.jpg>

Formerly MrTerrific