Clint Boyer
'Former' Snake slave
EXACTLY!
Since we don't have proof or understand the process then it must be MAGIC.
I've been trying to get some response other then "your theory can be proven wrong" but no takers.
-
Hello!
Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.
Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....
Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.
Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.
Captivity?
- Thread starter Charlie
- Start date
EXACTLY!
Since we don't have proof or understand the process then it must be MAGIC.
I've been trying to get some response other then "your theory can be proven wrong" but no takers.
CAV
Dazed and Cornfused
This really is nothing more than intellectual weightlifting
It all comes down to what you as an individual are willing to accept or not accept. The science, data and theory has been derived in the mind of a man. Nothing that has been presented in this argument is really absolute or irrefutable and any piece of "data" can be discredited as long as you are willing to do so. It is either taken at face value or it is dismissed outright. Rather simple isn’t it?
For me the plausibility of creation is unmistakable and undeniable; I can open my eyes and see it everyday and it is real to me. Others may not agree and I really could care less. As everyone is aware, if either theory was bulletproof, we wouldn't have spent the last week discussing and debating this topic.
Cav out!
It all comes down to what you as an individual are willing to accept or not accept. The science, data and theory has been derived in the mind of a man. Nothing that has been presented in this argument is really absolute or irrefutable and any piece of "data" can be discredited as long as you are willing to do so. It is either taken at face value or it is dismissed outright. Rather simple isn’t it?
For me the plausibility of creation is unmistakable and undeniable; I can open my eyes and see it everyday and it is real to me. Others may not agree and I really could care less. As everyone is aware, if either theory was bulletproof, we wouldn't have spent the last week discussing and debating this topic.
Cav out!
Last edited:
Clint Boyer
'Former' Snake slave
Yeah, I think we've beat this horse enough.
Honestly, I think life is amzing, I just don't buy into the "we don't know so someone had to invent it" theory.
Honestly, I think life is amzing, I just don't buy into the "we don't know so someone had to invent it" theory.
TrpnBils
22 is not enough snakes
I had to laugh when I read this. I've said several times during this discussion that evolution doesn't have an "end goal"... and the only other people I've seen mention that specifically were the "up-and-coming" biologists like myself and countMEout. That just goes to show something else I've said a few times now...people are only able to give useful opinions on stuff they've learned (through schooling or wherever, it doesn't matter), and we (the college crowd) are just relaying what the next generation of biologists is being taught. countMEout's comment was just one more example of that. :spinner:countMEout said:
I'm not saying that biologists 20 or 30 years ago don't know this, I'm just saying I think it's interesting to see the emphasis shift like it seems to have done over the years (not just from this example, but others that I've seen recently).
Edit: I just read the last two posts here and I'm glad to see this is finally settling...it's tiring when there is no right or wrong answer... :laugh:
TrpnBils
22 is not enough snakes
Well, I'm going by what ALL of my "random professors" are telling me, what I feel is true (there's that whole faith thing again), what I've seen myself, and through places like this. No matter who you are, you learn stuff from other people, and I sure as hell am not going to go out and recreate all of Darwin's experiments, etc. myself, so I think learning from someone who knows a whole lot more about it than me is the next best thing. Where did you get all your information from? All those things you cited online?? I think the internet is a dangerous place to go for information because anybody with half a brain can put up a webpage, write some stuff, and say it's true. That's a gamble you have to take when you decide whether to accept something as truth or not (regardless of where it came from). I'd rather rely on somebody that I know or myself and my own experiences rather than just get information from someone I've never met and just happened to find online.
You know, I really didn't think there was any possible way that the comment I made could cause further debate on anything...but what do I know?
You know, I really didn't think there was any possible way that the comment I made could cause further debate on anything...but what do I know?
Serpwidgets
New member
Whether or not you "believe" it is relatively unimportant.
Quantum theory is positively incomplete. It is not the universe's final answer because it cannot explain the cause of every observed phenomenon. But it is still a useful tool. It has greatly advanced our understanding of how a lot of things work, and is responsible for our development of technology that utilizes, among many other things, lasers which drive your CD/DVD players, and microwaves which heat your food and guide aircraft and tell cops you're speeding, and transistorized electronics which are vital for the construction of computer chips and many, many other forms of new electronic technology that has developed in the latter half of the 20th century. Had science completely dismissed it because it cannot prove everything ever all at once or because it could not immediately be integrated with relativity, we would have lost a massive amount of progress.
The theory of evolution is also a very useful tool. It provides a picture which helps us understand the relationships between different life forms, from members of the same species to members of different kingdoms. As a tool it has, and will continue to, significantly advance our understanding of biology and medicine. It does not matter whether or not it is a perfect account of what happened. What matters is how well it works as a tool. It works better than any other tool before it, and so far, any alternative proposed since. A literalist interpretation of the bible never has, and never will, help us to advance medical science. The theory of evolution, true or not, does.
Quantum theory is positively incomplete. It is not the universe's final answer because it cannot explain the cause of every observed phenomenon. But it is still a useful tool. It has greatly advanced our understanding of how a lot of things work, and is responsible for our development of technology that utilizes, among many other things, lasers which drive your CD/DVD players, and microwaves which heat your food and guide aircraft and tell cops you're speeding, and transistorized electronics which are vital for the construction of computer chips and many, many other forms of new electronic technology that has developed in the latter half of the 20th century. Had science completely dismissed it because it cannot prove everything ever all at once or because it could not immediately be integrated with relativity, we would have lost a massive amount of progress.
The theory of evolution is also a very useful tool. It provides a picture which helps us understand the relationships between different life forms, from members of the same species to members of different kingdoms. As a tool it has, and will continue to, significantly advance our understanding of biology and medicine. It does not matter whether or not it is a perfect account of what happened. What matters is how well it works as a tool. It works better than any other tool before it, and so far, any alternative proposed since. A literalist interpretation of the bible never has, and never will, help us to advance medical science. The theory of evolution, true or not, does.
jazzgeek
The Rule Of Thirds.
Intellectual Weightlifting? How many dendrites do you bench press?
By the same token, theologians like St. Augustine, Martin Luther, etc., spent their lives trying to make the understanding of the early Christian church more robust, easily understood, and all-encompassing. Their work has advanced faith.
So you see - ironic as it may seem - Christianity has evolved, too.
Agreed, to a point.
To quote from a Kurt Vonnegut character, "Fish got to swim, bird got to fly, man got to sit and wonder, "why, why, why?" Our ability to ask and contemplate the essential questions: what is life, how did we get here, and so on, have been the primary sources for great science, great faith, great art and great literature. It's that ability which separates us from all other life forms. (Well, that, and our complete lack of fear of vacuum cleaners. )
That's why I can't ever dismiss it as mere intellectual exercise. That's what the Sunday crossword puzzle is.
IMO, the 'seam' that science and faith share is the great desire to understand that "which passes all understanding". And like any seam, it can be ripped apart, or pulled tighter.
regards,
jazz
And until we meet Him, so has our perception of what, and who, Yahweh/Allah/God is.
Agreed.
Nope. Evolutionary biologists like Gould, Mayr, etc., spent their lives trying to make Darwin's hypotheses more robust, easily understood, and all-encompassing. Their work has advanced science
By the same token, theologians like St. Augustine, Martin Luther, etc., spent their lives trying to make the understanding of the early Christian church more robust, easily understood, and all-encompassing. Their work has advanced faith.
So you see - ironic as it may seem - Christianity has evolved, too.
I would like to think that Stephen Hawking feels the same way. It's just that his approach is different.
As everyone is aware, if either theory was bulletproof, we wouldn't have spent the last week discussing and debating this topic.
Agreed, to a point.
To quote from a Kurt Vonnegut character, "Fish got to swim, bird got to fly, man got to sit and wonder, "why, why, why?" Our ability to ask and contemplate the essential questions: what is life, how did we get here, and so on, have been the primary sources for great science, great faith, great art and great literature. It's that ability which separates us from all other life forms. (Well, that, and our complete lack of fear of vacuum cleaners.
)That's why I can't ever dismiss it as mere intellectual exercise. That's what the Sunday crossword puzzle is.
IMO, the 'seam' that science and faith share is the great desire to understand that "which passes all understanding". And like any seam, it can be ripped apart, or pulled tighter.
regards,
jazz
jazzgeek
The Rule Of Thirds.
TrpnBils said:
OK, is it just me, or does the phrase "random professor" sound like the faculty is drawing straws daily in the lounge to see who gets to teach what?
Now granted, that's how substitute teachers get their gigs.
"Good morning, class. Although I've devoted 30 years of my life to the writings of Homer and Aeschylus, for the next hour I'll be covering.....ketones. Don't miss the convocation next week when Professor Jones from the School of Music talks about elasticity of demand."
regards,
jazz
Serpwidgets
New member
For those who are interested in learning about the latest in computer modeling/simulation of evolution, this is an interesting page: http://devolab.cse.msu.edu/software/avida/background.php
They also mention on that page that evolution is a consequence of three things: replication, mutation, and competition. Doesn't matter whether it's biological or electronic or whatever other "units" you are talking about.
They also mention on that page that evolution is a consequence of three things: replication, mutation, and competition. Doesn't matter whether it's biological or electronic or whatever other "units" you are talking about.
CooterJohannson
Nascar fan
Well I be a munkeys uncle! That shorenuf was interestin readin. It put me rat to sleep! You boys must really like arguin!
That shorenuf was interestin readin. It put me rat to sleep! You boys must really like arguin!How do you know...
In addition, since you believe in evolution then explain how man is the only species with morals.
How do you know that only "humans" have morals. And what are morals exactly?
Every species that lives in social groups will have its own behavioral taboos and cues. Every animal within that species will understand what the taboos and cues are. In many cases the individual has to learn the meanings of these behaviors. And, individuals from different ranges or regions, but of the same species, will have dialects, per se in these behavioral taboos and cues that are different from other groups of other regions or ranges.
You honestly believe the mental capacity for abstract thought just suddenly appeared from a monkey millions of years ago? If that were true, then logically there would be other species as well, not just one. Now while some humans have digressed to a point, no monkey has yet come forward to that degree.
I don't think there was ever a flash bang of any kind of intellectual ability in any primate. The capacity occurrs as a spectrum of ability. A range of high ability to low ability within individuals and within species. Besides, you have not witnessed every accomplished and proven mental feat in every individual or every species that has displayed evidence of such.
RE: CoCo the gorilla, Alex the African Grey, an anonymous crow that created a tool using its own intellect that enabled it to get a bucket of food out of a tube.
None of us can live inside the heads of another species. So, how can anyone be so convinced that there is no comparable thought processes, of any kind in any non-human? When was the last time you were able to bounce sound into your brain and see the composition, form and substance of an object? Dolphins do it all the time. When was the last time you were able to see a warm body through sensors above your lips? When was the last time you secured a meal by following its electrical impulses? When was the last time you used your homing instinct to read the magnetic fields of the planet to find your way home from thousands of miles away? When was the last time you carried your children out of a burning building , in your mouth, one by one, even though everytime you went in you got burned more severely? When was the last time you predicted a tsunami and headed for dry ground before it hit? There is a whole universe of existence that we,as humans will never experience or even have an inkling about. Most of us don't even know it exists. Does it matter? Are we superior? I think we are still very primative and haven't evolved much at all.
BTW, There is proof of other species of humans. They couldn't adapt to the changes and died out.
In addition, since you believe in evolution then explain how man is the only species with morals.
How do you know that only "humans" have morals. And what are morals exactly?
Every species that lives in social groups will have its own behavioral taboos and cues. Every animal within that species will understand what the taboos and cues are. In many cases the individual has to learn the meanings of these behaviors. And, individuals from different ranges or regions, but of the same species, will have dialects, per se in these behavioral taboos and cues that are different from other groups of other regions or ranges.
You honestly believe the mental capacity for abstract thought just suddenly appeared from a monkey millions of years ago? If that were true, then logically there would be other species as well, not just one. Now while some humans have digressed to a point, no monkey has yet come forward to that degree.
I don't think there was ever a flash bang of any kind of intellectual ability in any primate. The capacity occurrs as a spectrum of ability. A range of high ability to low ability within individuals and within species. Besides, you have not witnessed every accomplished and proven mental feat in every individual or every species that has displayed evidence of such.
RE: CoCo the gorilla, Alex the African Grey, an anonymous crow that created a tool using its own intellect that enabled it to get a bucket of food out of a tube.
None of us can live inside the heads of another species. So, how can anyone be so convinced that there is no comparable thought processes, of any kind in any non-human? When was the last time you were able to bounce sound into your brain and see the composition, form and substance of an object? Dolphins do it all the time. When was the last time you were able to see a warm body through sensors above your lips? When was the last time you secured a meal by following its electrical impulses? When was the last time you used your homing instinct to read the magnetic fields of the planet to find your way home from thousands of miles away? When was the last time you carried your children out of a burning building , in your mouth, one by one, even though everytime you went in you got burned more severely? When was the last time you predicted a tsunami and headed for dry ground before it hit? There is a whole universe of existence that we,as humans will never experience or even have an inkling about. Most of us don't even know it exists. Does it matter? Are we superior? I think we are still very primative and haven't evolved much at all.
BTW, There is proof of other species of humans. They couldn't adapt to the changes and died out.
I think the only way for humans to "evolve" is to evolve in thought, ideas, perception and understanding. This means science. But the scientist with no creativity is not going anywhere interesting.
I have no problem reconciling the Creator with what we know of creation. Seven days is God's time, not ours. One day to God might be like a billion to us. Evolution-there are definite mechanisms for the development of life in place. The planet itself evolves and changes. There are the laws of physics, chemical laws, qhantum physics, string theory, the "Big Bang", quasars, miracles, exquisitely harmonized biological machines and ecosystems. They fail, they rise up again. These are God's mechanisims. Our privilage in being human is that we can investigate and find understandings-our knowledge evolves. It can all collapse and be lost too, like it has more than once. Right now humans have placed themselves in an extremely vulnerable position. If our technology was to fail tomorrow and be lost, most of us alive today would be dead within a month. Technology is not biological. It can't repair or reproduce itself. I'd bet money that our dogs, cats, swine, cattle, horses and captive snakes will do just fine without us. Superiority? It's an illusion, a temporal illusion.
EEgads! Enough already.
I have no problem reconciling the Creator with what we know of creation. Seven days is God's time, not ours. One day to God might be like a billion to us. Evolution-there are definite mechanisms for the development of life in place. The planet itself evolves and changes. There are the laws of physics, chemical laws, qhantum physics, string theory, the "Big Bang", quasars, miracles, exquisitely harmonized biological machines and ecosystems. They fail, they rise up again. These are God's mechanisims. Our privilage in being human is that we can investigate and find understandings-our knowledge evolves. It can all collapse and be lost too, like it has more than once. Right now humans have placed themselves in an extremely vulnerable position. If our technology was to fail tomorrow and be lost, most of us alive today would be dead within a month. Technology is not biological. It can't repair or reproduce itself. I'd bet money that our dogs, cats, swine, cattle, horses and captive snakes will do just fine without us. Superiority? It's an illusion, a temporal illusion.
EEgads! Enough already.
Itsnowingcorns
Stuffy Brit
I obviously didn't word that completely right, I meant a CB snake that has the same colouration as a wild one.
Clint Boyer
'Former' Snake slave
So why was it written as seven days? Many people take that as fact. The same way they believe Noah loaded one pair of every creature on earth (that would be one pair of every specie in existence today) in a boat. That was proven impossible for the time period.
My point is that the information compiled in that manuscript is highly subjective. Interpreted in order to make sense according to who's reading it. Words, written by man to explain the unknown. Stories passed down through time from humans who "spin" ideas into truths.
Again, I'm not supporting the evolution concept. I just tend to believe in realism. I believe it if it makes sense and so far I see no evidence of a creator in existence today. I tried to believe at one point in time because I feared for my soul. I got no response.