Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Guyver

Scientific Evidence of Creationism

1,542 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Joemama

Oh I see...

Would you accept an external link as a rebuttal? Shall I link the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Perhaps you should start with Sunday School and from there the occult. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
aquatus1

What are you referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

If you believe in faith and stories, sure.

But that isn't the scientific position. That is just what you believe the scientific position is.

Here's another story for you. I'm a network engineer. Yesterday, I went to the administrative offices to check the connections because people weren't getting a good signal. The administrative secretary had some computer classes under her belt. She proceeded to spend the next half-hour telling me what I should be checking, who I should be calling, and what I should be doing, in order to get their connection back up and running.

:clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joemama

What are you referring to?

I was referring to the idea that in order to discuss evolution one has to take some prep courses and read everything available on the subject -which would be akin to suggesting you cannot discuss spirituality or creationism without first learning hebrew and studying jewish mysticism.

Edited by AnneOminous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

I was referring to the idea that in order to discuss evolution one has to take some prep courses and read everything available on the subject -which would be akin to suggesting you cannot discuss spirituality or creationism without first learning hebrew and studying jewish mysticism.

Not sure how you were born, but me nor any student of biology I've ever taught was born with the knowledge of evolution.

The neat thing about language and culture is it makes knowledge vertically transmissible. Naturally, you do have to take the time to learn something, to understand it.

Unfortunately for science, we don't get to understand how things work via divine revelation. We must endeavor to discover how they work, with a process we call the scientific method and our peers or those interested must spend some time reading to gain a basis of knowledge to be competent to understand it.

You are right however, you don't need to read anything on evolution to discuss-Whether that discussion can be done intelligently is another matter entirely.

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

If you believe in faith and stories, sure.

But that isn't the scientific position. That is just what you believe the scientific position is.

Here's another story for you. I'm a network engineer. Yesterday, I went to the administrative offices to check the connections because people weren't getting a good signal. The administrative secretary had some computer classes under her belt. She proceeded to spend the next half-hour telling me what I should be checking, who I should be calling, and what I should be doing, in order to get their connection back up and running.

Now that's a good story! I would like to hear the conclusion. How did you deal with that? Did you smile politely and nod, stare blankly, what? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

Now that's a good story! I would like to hear the conclusion. How did you deal with that? Did you smile politely and nod, stare blankly, what? :)

Not to step on toes but I imagine he would have taken the most logical path to fix said problem. What would you have done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

Not to step on toes but I imagine he would have taken the most logical path to fix said problem. What would you have done?

Probably would have smiled politely and nodded. I may have even gone a step further and thanked her for the input. Then, like Aquatus probably did, I would have gone about the business of doing my job and solving the problem - that I already knew how to do anyway. :)

Still, I'm curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

Probably would have smiled politely and nodded. I may have even gone a step further and thanked her for the input. Then, like Aquatus probably did, I would have gone about the business of doing my job and solving the problem - that I already knew how to do anyway. :)

Still, I'm curious.

What exactly are you curious about? I apologize as I'm not sure anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

I was referring to the idea that in order to discuss evolution one has to take some prep courses and read everything available on the subject -which would be akin to suggesting you cannot discuss spirituality or creationism without first learning hebrew and studying jewish mysticism.

You don't have to but you will not be able to keep up or add much intelligent to the debate..And quite frankly the point is we would love you too ...

but it requires some basic background... there are so many resources online one can grasp most anything and the academics on S the S vrs S will help out in any way they can...

generally most do not and or would not debate things they have no education in, they tend to stick with their areas of expertise......No one is born knowing the basics principles of a given discipline...

You can learn a lot here...:w00t:

Edited by S♥ ♥ ♥

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid

Well, we have an answer for it, it's just unscientific, and as you can tell by Cope's comments it goes over like a porkchop in a synagogue. Still, if one interprets Genesis figuratively rather than literally, there could be a more exciting explanation.

PS. Good answer by the way.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid

Enlighten me S...

From what did everything (or the first thing) begin?

This is nothing to do with evolution.

Wow! 100+ pages of discussion!

Well, at the risk of being called- 'late to the dance.' and not having read more than the first and last pages of this thread, it's always an interesting subject, no?

Not that there can be any resolution to it, this conversation might go on for hundreds more pages if the database will allow. Simply-- on either side of the argument it's a matter of faith. Skeptics will rarely admit it, but ultimately they just substitute one set of beliefs for another in the discussion of origins in particular, because "in the beginning" they weren't there, neither can they offer a reproducible experiment from hypothesis to explain the event.

One could argue that it takes only an equal amount, or even less faith to believe that it all came from God, versus the idea that it all came from nothing.

Just because you don't understand the scientific process, doesn't mean no-one does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Star of the Sea

When reading these old 'dredged up' topics it might be a bright idea to reserve judgment of any posts till you have reached the end.

Lol! Gordan Bennet! It might be ' a dredged up topic' for you, but there are people new here! I think it is a bright idea to let me be the judge of whether or not I would to make a comment on a post. So Guyver nice Post - I look forward to the next one.

Edited by Star of the Sea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor

Lol! Gordan Bennet! It might be ' a dredged up topic' for you, but there are people new here! I think it is a bright idea to let me be the judge of whether or not I would to make a comment on a post. So Guyver nice Post - I look forward to the next one.

We like to encourage people to keep the discussions 'up to date' simply because it can often help with the flow of things. You do, of course, have every right to comment on whatever you like, just be aware that you might not get the same response as you would if it were a new post; the author might have forgotten they even made the post in question, changed their opinion since, or left the forum all together. :tu:

Edited by Raptor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

Life just instantly appeared one day.

Life did not "just instantly appear." Living things evolve, but so do non-living things. The line between the living and the not-yet-alive is a broad one. Many things (viruses for example) are not clearly alive or clearly not alive. Non-living matter acquired the attributes of life very gradually and one at a time.

On the subject of the Big Bang. One can have the Big Bang without having life. Or, you have have "God" create the universe, and then let life evolve naturally. The two are not really related.

Actually, all Big Bang Theory says is that everywhere we look, we see an expanding universe. It is vey tempting to ask where did it all come from? But Big Bang Theory does not have the answer. Why? Because it can't reach back that far. There really is no theory that explains the origin of the universe. One could say "It was God," but that is only speculation because there is no evidence that there was a god involved. If one refuses to speculate, then the answer doesn't exist.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

Probably would have smiled politely and nodded. I may have even gone a step further and thanked her for the input. Then, like Aquatus probably did, I would have gone about the business of doing my job and solving the problem - that I already knew how to do anyway. :)

Still, I'm curious.

Well, I did do that, for about twenty minutes. Thing of it was that she didn't let up. She was truly convinced that I should be doing what she wanted me to do, because in her mind it made the most sense. And, to be perfectly honest, it did make sense...if you were in a position where you believe that the Information Technology department is one single amorphous group. If, on the other hand, you are part of the actual working environment, you know that within the department there are specialties, and one does not randomly call someone to do someone else's job.

So, she grew increasingly annoyed at my polite smile, and unfortunately, took my re-assurance that I was going to get her back up and running as a sign of impertinence. While maintaining an outwardly polite demeanor, she saw me off, and before I had returned to my department, my boss was waiting to hear my side of the story so he could address the complaint she emailed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

Lol! Gordan Bennet! It might be ' a dredged up topic' for you, but there are people new here! I think it is a bright idea to let me be the judge of whether or not I would to make a comment on a post. So Guyver nice Post - I look forward to the next one.

I wasn't of course, implying you should not post on an old post. I was pointing out, as Raptor eloquently put it, that often times the posters change views etc. Also, if you only read the first few 'arguments' of an old topic, you're likely to miss the rebuttals and comments of those posts as well.

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.