Evolution is a Religious Issue

I'm curious why you're moving on so soon. When you referred to the "nature and tone of these forums", what did you mean?--Percy

Quetzal,
Thank you for the tone of your reply. I agree with your position. Unfortunately, I do not have the available time to contribute thoughtful, detailed, documented positions and back them up in a manner that would be acceptable to me regardless of how my posts were to be received.In light of this, I apologize for posting. I had no intention to post a "hit and run" as it has been called, and I certainly did not intend to waste anybody's time.I would suggest though that dialogue is encouraged when the general tenor of the forum is more akin to your and Gary's posts. Personally, I find condscension and invectiveness to be rather off putting."Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks."Regards,
Bryan

Perhaps I jumped a bit quickly.

Well, my Internet friend, I hope that if at some point you do find the time, you take us up on our offer. I like nothing better than a genial discussion on science (well, biology anyway - physics and cosmology make my head hurt and what I know about geology comes from an ancient course called "Environmental Geology"). There are several creationist posters here - even Young Earthers - whose style of posting makes them a very welcome addition to the forum. I will accept your word that you didn't know what you were getting into by sticking your head into a lion's den as it were. I do hope you'll lurk occasionally - you might find the science threads especially enlightening. We have a number of exceptional practicing scientists in various disciplines who post here on a regular basis.In any event, best of luck and hope to see you around.

Brad is our beloved resident John Nash; possibly brilliant but nobody can quite tell.

As useless as it might be to ask: What is the true nature and tone of these forums?And if you're looking for a forum with a different flavor, try http://www.debatingchristianity.com. They have discussions on evolution/creation over there, too.[edit: whoops, I didn't realize that my question had been more or less answered. never mind.]This message has been edited by Aximili23, 02-06-2005 23:14 AM

Yes, I know what you mean. At this moment I'm delaying going to work just to participate in this forum.But if you do find the time, I'm interested to know why you think this is a God issue. Clearly, some issues are matters of faith and religion, such as the teachings of Jesus, or human salvation. I'd like to hear your thoughts on why evolution/creation also falls under this category.

I don't know what "invective" you are talking about but there is plenty of condescension in your oww original post.Consider this:

quote:

---

3. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It's a bit late, so I'm not going to elaborate. A rudimentary understanding of physics, I hope, will render this citation self-evident.

---

Do you REALLY beleive that practically every working biologist lacks even a rudimentary understanding of physics ?The fact is that you are citing a complete falsehood while dismissing even the possibility that it could be wrong.

SCHRAFINATOR "If we walk into our house after a long day at work, and we see that the door lock was jimmied, all the jewelry and electronics are missing, can we conclude that we were burgled, even though we didn't see it? And, when the crime scene is processed, can we not gather evidence such as fingerprints, tire tracks, footprints, and other evidence left behind by the perpetrator that you would accept as inferred evidence of who did the crime, and perhaps other crimes, if they could be matched?"I hate to be picky but both sides to this debate can use these types of arguments. I mean, a creationist could then say"If we are walking along the street and come across a painting, car, building, fence ect ect can we conclude that someone made them even if we didnt see them do it?"Thats all i wanted to say, i wasnt attacking you shrafinator its just that i dont think those arguments are valid because pretty much anyone can use them.

You are correct in that similar arguments can be used. The point is that the old "were you there" argument is not meaningful.That is the point the Schraf was making.The next issue is are we making good use of the available information and drawing logical conclusions from it.In both the examples given we can, with a lot of good reasons, conclude that indeed someone did it. We know that these are the kinds of things known "someones" do and we can even find "someones" who do those kind of thing.That is no use to a creationist argument when they don't have evidence of the someone and the other side has evidence that the things being pointed to can arise without any someone being involved at all.Again, you missed the point that was being discussed. It seems however that you agree with Schraf on that point.It is just that the "were you there" argument is so obviously stupid that it is a surprise that people would actually bring it up.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-14-2005 13:46 AM

I imagine that what you'll be criticized for is the fact that you substitute ridicule for argument. Maybe you want to work on that. There is no variation "within genotype." Each variant is a new genotype. To be more clear, the word "genotype" refers to an individual variant within a species.And, in fact, these are the same thing. Variation among genotypes means variation of complexity. Variation of complexity, of course, means that some things will be more complex than their ancestors, and some will be less, if that is possible. (Some living things are so simple that they cannot be simpler, so variation in complexity can only proceed "upward." Of course, in total, this variation is outwards, not upwards, which is exactly what evolution proposes.) To the contrary; it's observed repeatedly. Its even employed in the fields of computer science and engineering to develop complex systems - systems too complex to have been designed. ... an accurate scientific model supported by evidence and observation from almost every field of inquiry, a model that is far more parsimonious than any proposed alternative. The second law says that the avaliable energy to do work decreases in a closed system. How do you feel this applies to evolution?You speak of a "rudimentary understanding"; what's hilarious is that you possess, apparently, no understanding of physics, chemistry, or biology, rudimentary or otherwise. The second law makes evolution possible - ensures that it will occur, in fact - not prohibits it.

Both Creationists and Evolutionists are religious people. You see you have to believe in the Bible and believe that it is true(however it makes more sense than the THEORY of evolution) or if you are an Evolutionist you have to believe that the theory of evolution is true. Cause there is not one scrap of evedence for the THEORY of evolution. In fact the guy on this web site is offering $250,000 to anyone with solid proof of evolution. Dinosaur Adventure Land Check it out!

But we don't believe it's "true". We believe its an accurate model of the development of life on Earth. And we don't need faith for this position, because we have evidence, instead."Faith" is when you believe without evidence, like having faith in the existence of God or His authorship of the Bible. Evolutionists have evidence for evolution, which is why they accept it; hence they do not have faith in the theory.No faith is needed in science. Do you know that Kent Hovind doesn't actually have the money? What does that say about someone, that would make that kind of "bet" with no ability to back it up? I don't find that very Christian, do you?

quote:

---

Both Creationists and Evolutionists are religious people. You see you have to believe in the Bible and believe that it is true(however it makes more sense than the THEORY of evolution) or if you are an Evolutionist you have to believe that the theory of evolution is true. Cause there is not one scrap of evedence for the THEORY of evolution. In fact the guy on this web site is offering $250,000 to anyone with solid proof of evolution. Dinosaur Adventure Land Check it out!

---

Wow how can a man called Dr.Dino be wrong!Oh wait it's not that fraud Kent Hovind is it? The guy with the most laughable diploma mill Phd known to man? (the one with no title, pictures stuck into it with sellotape and no actual contribution to knowledge?)

quote:

---

Cause there is not one scrap of evedence for the THEORY of evolution

---

The other people on the fishing boat (ss Hit'n'run) couldn't believe it! The man had stripped naked, covered himself in bait and jumped into the cold cold waters. As one the sharks moved in for the kill.....

There is not one scrap of evidence for the THEORY of evolution. Show me some. And even if Hovind does't have the money mabey that's because you don't have any evidence to show.