A calm debate

[SurlyPIG]

you said ID is a bad theory? And how are you to know?

There's more evidence and fewer holes. I'm not talking about the origins of the universe, emp. I'm talking about what happens here, on our planet. How life began. How life continues. As far as I care, ID is just another way of saying creationism. It's a desperate attempt to fit obsolete religion into today's modern, sceintific, sensical society. Creationism trembles before things like Darwin's Law.

"Yes, of course, when atheists can't find an answer for something they always say:

"Well, science will explain it in the future!" "

lol, you are right, Edric. They do say that.

Interesting. And when did I say that???

Yes it does. Please explain to me how all matter and energy in this universe got here.

I don't know about Acriku, but I'm not talking about the origins of the universe. I am not so arrogant as to think I can know such things. You can't even theorize anything reputable yet. Sure, any theist will OF COURSE immediately know that God is responsible, and come up with a "scientific theory" to support themselves {insert laugh here} but they know as little as the mainstream scientists at this point. Our scope of the universe is utterly pathetic at this point in human sceince. Maybe someday we'll know, maybe we won't. You already know what I think of this, so don't include me in your generalizations about atheism. In fact, don't even MAKE generalizations about atheism. It's been said dozens of times before, but we are too variant a group of people for your stereotypes. I do not wish to be held in the same light as some guy who thinks he knows there's seven universii or some anarchistic hedonist.

EDRIC:

"Yes, of course, when atheists can't find an answer for something they always say: "Well, science will explain it in the future!" "

Funny. When did I say this?

[emprworm]

"Creationism trembles before things like Darwin's Law."

ROFL! Ok, man, that was tooo funny.. LOL, I seriously laughed out loud that time- as in audible in time and space laughing. Ha ha!! More. Please gimme more!!

Ace, how did life begin again? I would like you to explain how. Thanks.

[Acriku]

I don't know about Acriku, but I'm not talking about the origins of the universe.

I don't think I said I knew about the origins of the universe. So now you know about me :)

And edric was first saying what an atheist would say, I replied, and then your last quote was what he responded.

[emprworm]

will someone please explain to me how intelligence could evolve from chaos?

[Edric O]

Edric, you just have no reason to think science will not answer our questions in the future.

This is equivalent to saying "how do you know God does not exist?"

Acriku, your arguments are getting hypocritical. On the one hand, you proclaim that nothing should be believed without proof, and on the other hand you make statements like "but how do you know this ISN'T so?" That's basically saying you can claim anything you want as pure truth, and it's up to me to disprove it.

You are using the exact same theist arguments that you are so completely against... ::)

[emprworm]

"Edric, you just have no reason to think science will not answer our questions in the future."

And you have no reason to think that it will.

[emprworm]

Edric, you raise a very fine point.

Basically, what Acriku is claiming is:

All truth can be known through the six senses

the problem with making that claim is that Acriku must have knowledge beyond the 6 senses in order to say it. That very statement itself cannot be known through the 6 senses, therefore it is Self-invalidating.

[Acriku]

Emprworm, 6 senses? Is the 6th one the sense of humor?

I have never made a claim that we will know all truth. But think about it, or as much as you can without totally dismissing the argument because of your hardcore beliefs, in one DECADE we have gone into space. A decade! Think of what we can accomplish in hundreds of years! Thousands! Millions! I have no question in my mind that technology will keep on advancing, questions keep being answered, and humanity still thriving. Call it optimistic but we have not come to the end, and we all all the time in the world to answer those questions.

[nemafakei]

As I recall, the last thread in which I explained how intelligent life could evolve was locked...

So let's narrow your problem down: heres a few starters...

Do you agree that random mutations occur in reproduction?

Do you agree that there is therefore variation within any species?

Do you agree that natural selection can occur to remove elements of a species?

Do you agree with the principles of evolution within a species?

Do you agree that overdiversification can lead to reproductive incompatibility within a species?

Do you agree with the principles of evolution to the extent that it can split species up into other species?

Do you agree that when this happens over long periods of time, more and more genetically complex species can arise?

Do you agree that intelligence is genetically based?

[Edric O]

But think about it, or as much as you can without totally dismissing the argument because of your hardcore beliefs, in one DECADE we have gone into space. A decade! Think of what we can accomplish in hundreds of years! Thousands! Millions! I have no question in my mind that technology will keep on advancing, questions keep being answered, and humanity still thriving. Call it optimistic but we have not come to the end, and we all all the time in the world to answer those questions.

First of all, this entire assumption of yours is just based on wishful thinking. You can't predict the future, and you can't predict how science will evolve.

But that's not all. You claim we'll eventually find an ATHEIST answer for everything. That is blind faith in the power of atheist science. How do you know that the scientific answer we will find will not be a theist one?

You're basically saying: "I know science will find the answer, and I know that answer will exclude God."

Well, how could you possibly know that? It's blind faith, my friend, nothing but blind faith.

[Acriku]

Oh really? I don't remember making such claims. Science progression doesn't mean atheistic science progression. Last time I checked science was neither theistic or atheistic.

And remember when I said "call it optimistic"? And you just did. Thank for for obeying me :)

[TMA_1]

It isnt the issue weather or not certain portions of evolution are faith based. We have the same faith based system. The point is, is that the future will show that we make questions and guesses about the future, but that life itself has all the answers to these questions. That evolution is a guess at the answer. Scientists just think its the best guess (educated). Scientists though thought that the sun revolved around the earth.

Our God is the "unknown" God. The God of questions. God almost never gives us answers. If you guys knew (those who are questioning God)and studied the bible with the holy spirit like us believers do, you would understand. Job asked and asked for the reason why he was being tortured. You know what he got in return? questions in return. Do you know how nature works job? do you keep it in beautiful control? do you know every single person that ever lived and that will live in the future? You see the point is, When you surrender to GOd. You learn your place and realize that God wont share with us every detail. You mimic bratty children that want to know why on every single detail. Western culture has really pumped up the notion that curiosity is a good thing. Well I dont think so.

[Acriku]

Evolution is based on faith as much as gravity is based on faith :)

Scientists think that evolution is the best guess as to how life developed, scientists think that the theory of gravity is the best guess as to why things fall, scientists think that the theory of relativity is the best guess as to the motion of particles moving closer to speed of light...You get my point. Just because it is their best guess, does not make it false, and does not make it true.

What scientist thought the sun revolved around the earth? Anyways, their methods in the past and resources were very different than today. Does not take any credibility away from any scientist.

[TMA_1]

and that doesnt take credability away from a scientist now that uses evolution as his or her theory. As long as they dont have an emotional or intellectual bent on it like some of you guys do. You see where I am coming from?

[Acriku]

I believe we all are emotional freaks, some with better control than others :)

[emprworm]

Evolution is based on faith as much as gravity is based on faith

uhhh...I can observe gravity directly. I can test it, predict it, repeat it, and watch it.

And how many observances of one species evolving into another species have you witnessed?

How many "life" from "non life" events have you witnessed?

lol

[TMA_1]

totally my good jovial joe... lol :D weird aint I? lol

[Acriku]

I can test evolution if I had the equipment a scientist does, and the knowledge it requires to test it. I can observe it. I can repeat it. I don't know if I can predict it though, kinda random. And since when does evolution explain how life came from nonlife? It is how life developed, not how life started.

[emprworm]

you mean you can actually watch one species evolve into a different species? I didn't know such a thing has ever been observed.

kindly share with me a few examples. (i'm sure they must be numerous)

::)

[Acriku]

Shall we answer Nema's post please? It's on the previous page. And no I have not observed a species into another, but that is not required to witness evolution.

[TMA_1]

well you know the incident with the weebles? or the vernishes kanits.lol nah evolution on a grand scale cannot be tested in a lab. that is a fact.there is supposed indirect evidence though.

[Acriku]

It cannot be tested only by the sole fact that we haven't been here long enough.

[emprworm]

"And no I have not observed a species into another, but that is not required to witness evolution."

Yes it is. In other words, unlike Gravity, one species evolving into another species has never been witnessed, let alone tested and repeated.

[Acriku]

Acriku: No it isn't.

Emprworm: Yes it is.

Acriku: No it isn't.

Emprworm: Yes it is.

Acriku: No it isn't.

Emprworm: Yes it is.

Acriku: No it isn't.

Emprworm: Yes it is.

Acriku: No it isn't.

Emprworm: Yes it is.

Why is it? What is your definition of evolution? And what is your response to nema's questions?

[emprworm]

well, Acriku, then lets take your statements:

Since evolution does not require one species to evolve into another, then where does that leave you?

#1. Emprworm: Does the theory of evolution require one species to evolve into another?

Acriku: ___________ ?

(if yes, then proceed to #2)

#2. Well, since evolution requires one species to evolve into another, and since neither you nor anyone else has ever seen this happen, upon what grounds can you say it is empirically observed (as gravity is)?

answer the questions. If #1 is NO, then you can skip #2.

note: I really couldnt care less about the evolution of adaption (micro-evolution). If you claim evolotion of SPECIES then it requires one species to evolve into another, or are you claiming here and now before all of us that you do not believe in evolution of SPECIES (macro-evolution)?

Micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution without the direct observation that true science demands.