Evolution

[marauder_77868]

You asked the question...all I'm saying is that one unproven theory is being chosen over another and presented as fact. I am also saying that there is an agenda behind it. I'm not saying that creationists don't have an agenda as well, but I'd like for there to at least be some truth in the other side in acknowledging that evolution is not a proven theory and should not be taught as scientific fact, nor given preferential treatment over other theories and/or beliefs that we hold concerning the origin of life.

[Nickintex]

That's funny. Anti-evolutionists never answer the fossil question.

[marauder_77868]

Well, I was trying to answer the original question in as succinct and honest a way that I could. I wasn't trying to argue the underlying issue. That said, I believe in dinosaurs and mammoths and other now extinct animals...I just don't believe that the timeline put forth by pro-evolutionists is correct. By the way...using a term like anti-evolutionist is a passive aggressive way of referring to creationists. It would be like me calling the pro-choice side in the abortion issue "pro-death", as pro-life people are often called anti-choice by the other side. I know its used perhaps unintentionally here, but with all due respect I'd much rather see you make your point with ideas rather than terminology and connotations.

[Nickintex]

[Nickintex]

For those who are interested in the idea of alternate evolution, here's a great page that provides a fictional look at an Earth where dinosaurs continued to dominate the Earth past the Cretaceous age. Whether you believe in the theory or not, it's an awesome page featuring an alternate Earth.:

http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a0000265/Spec/

[Mzungu]

There is a certain element of faith that will always be involved. I can provide links to scientific evidence and hypotheses and theories which are just as well documented as evolution, if not more so. That's not the point.

Charles, you said this in the Separation of Church and State thread.

Since it is the point in this thread, could you post those links? I'd be interested in reading them.

Thanks.

[wesleydnunder]

I'd like to see those links as well, Charles. Also, when Darwin wrote his book, was it meant to be an attack or merely how he saw things? I've heard this before from other Creationists, that evolution is meant to attack something. I never saw it that way.

Mark

[marauder_77868]

Yes....I'll post them. I spent some time researching yesterday and I had them all pasted yesterday in a word file and then decided not to go that route. I didn't keep them so I'll try to recreate that list a little later on today for you.

[Mzungu]

Great. Looking forward to it. :)

[nacra99]

That's funny. Anti-evolutionists never answer the fossil question.

This opens up another debate. Old Earth or Young Earth.

In fact, scientists (from both sides) have actually put forward a lot of good evidence (not from the bible!!) regarding the fossil record & fossils in support of the young earth theory (which just happens to be anti-evolution). I know of several professors who, in their research produced results that support the young earth theory, but the moment they try to get published, they lose tenure. Hence i know personally a handful of scientists in liberal colleges that are so afraid to go public about their findings, just in case they lose tenure. I guess creation scientists' PhD's are just not as good as the PhD's of evolutionary scientists.

I'd describe it here, but i'm afraid that the moment i open my mouth, the proponents of evolution might just simply blow me off and call me names like bigoted, closed-minded, silly, backward, bible thumping, stupid, insane, ignorant, SOB's as they always and as highlighted in the TIMES article "Creationism: God's Gift To The Ignorant" (May 21, 2005) have instead of debating the facts with me... and that makes me very sad

I would never ever attack anyone's character or intelligence level during any debate and it hurts very much when people don't offer you the same courtesy.

[wesleydnunder]

This opens up another debate. Old Earth or Young Earth.

In fact, scientists (from both sides) have actually put forward a lot of good evidence (not from the bible!!) regarding the fossil record & fossils in support of the young earth theory (which just happens to be anti-evolution). I know of several professors who, in their research produced results that support the young earth theory, but the moment they try to get published, they lose tenure. Hence i know personally a handful of scientists in liberal colleges that are so afraid to go public about their findings, just in case they lose tenure. I guess creation scientists' PhD's are just not as good as the PhD's of evolutionary scientists.

I'd describe it here, but i'm afraid that the moment i open my mouth, the proponents of evolution might just simply blow me off and call me names like bigoted, closed-minded, silly, backward, bible thumping, stupid, insane, ignorant, SOB's as they always and as highlighted in the TIMES article "Creationism: God's Gift To The Ignorant" (May 21, 2005) have instead of debating the facts with me... and that makes me very sad

I would never ever attack anyone's character or intelligence level during any debate and it hurts very much when people don't offer you the same courtesy.

So you're going to pre-emptively NOT produce any back-up evidence from fear of what someone might call you? Don't worry about that, nacra. Traci has very specifically stated that if someone starts personal attacks, they're out of here. So never fear, this place is being watched closer than the paintings in the Louvre. I personally would love to see/read some evidence of the young earth theories. We got your back, man. We may agree to disagree, but we're not gonna start puttin' each other down.

Mark

[Mzungu]

So you're going to pre-emptively NOT produce any back-up evidence from fear of what someone might call you? Don't worry about that, nacra. Traci has very specifically stated that if someone starts personal attacks, they're out of here. So never fear, this place is being watched closer than the paintings in the Louvre. I personally would love to see/read some evidence of the young earth theories. We got your back, man. We may agree to disagree, but we're not gonna start puttin' each other down.

Mark

+1!

[nacra99]

As for morality, that has evolved too. What was once accepted as moral; fratricide and patricide for instance in the ancient Nordic cultures, is no longer. What is moral to us is what society accepts as a whole as being right and good for us. When something no longer fits society's idea of righteousness, it goes away; cannibalism.

You know, i can't help but think that the concept that morality evolves is quite disturbing. That means to say that there is no such thing as absolute morality. Which means morality is nothing more than an opinion, that changes with the opinions and needs of people. If that is the case, then nobody has the right to say that anyone else's morality is absolutely wrong. Which means that Hitler's morality is no more right or wrong than say...Ghandi.

Here's what i am getting at... You say "What is moral to us is what society accepts as a whole as being right and good for us."
The problem is that when we look back at the moralities of past cultures that may be socially acceptable then compared to now, the question is are those cultures absolutely wrong?

Take for example it was very common for ancient greek MEN to have intercourse with very young pre-pubecent boys. Is it wrong for them to do so?
If the answer is YES, then morality cannot be relative (i.e evolving).
If some say the answer is "NO it is not wrong to have intercourse with pre-pubecent boys: , then i very sincerely question their moralities of those who can even say that it is not wrong to have intercourse with pre-pubecent boys..
If the answer is "I think it's wrong now but its ok back then because that was their society's culture to have intercourse with children, and who am i to impose my morality on their culture", then this is extremely dangerous because in that case we should also condone Hitler's actions because "who are we to impose our morality" on the nazi culture (who we know was very predominant in german society at that time.)

Here's the rub... Evolution is amoral (different from immoral). Evolution makes no distinction on morality. If, morality as you said is nothing more than a product of social - biological evolution, then it is not absolute (i.e it is relative). If that is the case, then nobody has the right to disagree with the morals of other cultures. It is not absolutely wrong for hitler to try to wipe out the jews, it is not absolutely wrong for Iran to demand that israel gets wiped off the face of the earth, it is not absolutely wrong for radical religions to behead our citizens and it certainly is not absolutely wrong for Saddam Hussein to wipe out the minority kurdish culture from his land. After all, who are we to impose our western morality on another culture?

I agree that culture and practices can change over time & history, but to say that communism is not absolutely wrong back then as it is now, it is folly.

[imagirlgeek]

Traci has very specifically stated that if someone starts personal attacks, they're out of here. So never fear, this place is being watched closer than the paintings in the Louvre.

It's true.

[Nickintex]

We got your back, man. We may agree to disagree, but we're not gonna start puttin' each other down.

Mark

+1
So far I have not gotten any death threats for being a gay, hispanic, agnostic, democratic, evolutionist...who believes in dinosaurs.