Proof of Evolution
- Thread starter Vaiyen
- Start date
theliverevolution
New member
Sigh. Can we stop arguing about whether God exists and get back to topic on evolution?
predz23
New member
growlingsoulpup
New member
I'm sorry if it came across that way, but which part of my sentence was arrogant and condescending?
no one can explain God. no one can fully understand God..the only way to know God is to experience God. so let's just stick to stuff we can explain, like the topic at hand - evolution...we don't wanna digress into something that will probably last 10x the number of pages here...
ymmak
New member
Errr, amoeba? Multicellular? You sure? This is embarrassing!
A counter question: if we find an organism, similar to the whales on planet earth, on another planet, and the physical and genetic characteristics of that organism is similar to whales and other land-dwelling mammals on earth, will you hypothesize that the alien organism is evolved from land-dwelling mammals on earth? If not, will you have a little more doubt that whales descended from land-dwelling mammals?
By now, your blood may be boiling because you thought that the above question is really nonsensical. Similarly, hypothetical questions like "will aliens be worshiping God/Jesus/Buddha/Guanyin/Lord Krishna/ErLangShen/Jade Emperor?" and "if God created life, who create God?" certainly makes the blood of followers boil.
If you insist that I provide a proof that God exist (whether in this thread or in any other religion-related thread), so sorry I cannot, I concede defeat. It is fine if you call me a loser or a fool, it doesnt matter, because the existence of God is really my own personal conviction, doesnt have anything to do with you. Similarly, the existence of God probably should not be a concern for you at all, because you already have a preconceptual impression that God doesnt exist. So, why did you bother asking God-related questions? So it appears to me that you are asking such questions out of spite, rather than to generate intelligent discussion. If you really want to know more, you might want to direct your questions to a student majoring in theology.
Look, this thread is about "proof of evolution", and anything related to the proof of evolution may be contributed here. Yes, once in a while, there is digression, but I noticed that the past 15 posts or so were not really in line with the original discussion on "proof of evolution". By asking questions like "where is God, ask Him to show himself", is really not a question, but more like a spite for those who believe in a God. We should be pitting wits against wits, facts against facts, but seeing how low you have descended just to have the last say, doesnt reflect well on your debating skills and intelligence.
Where have all your mojos about "whales from land-dwelling mammals" or similar discussions gone to? Your earlier posts had displayed substance, but your later posts are more form than substance. Get back on track. If you want to challenge my knowledge of biology, evolution, science, I dont mind, and even if I lose, I dont mind, as there is always something to learn from a healthy debate. But if you continue to ask those "who created God?" questions, I think any discussion with you will be redudant.
And the "Big claims require big evidence, not lack of evidence from the other party." statement was probably the most contradictory statement that came from you. Do you dare admit that you yourself have not attempt to disprove creationism, just to win the case for yourself?
Last edited:
ymmak
New member
How is stating the definition of God arrogant and condescending? Care to explain? Or are you implying that God is arrogant and condescending?
Morlock
New member
just found this article about dishonest debating:
http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html
1.Name calling
2.Changing the subject
.
4.Citing irrelevant facts or logic
.
.
.
14. Stereotyping: debater “proves” his point about a particular person by citing a stereotype that supposedly applies to the group that opponent is a member of; dismissing criticism by academic researchers by citing Ivory Tower stereotypes is an example of this debate tactic
.
.
.
21.Straw man: debater attacks an argument that is easy to refute but which is also an argument that no one has made in the debate.
sounds familiar?
http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html
1.Name calling
2.Changing the subject
.
4.Citing irrelevant facts or logic
.
.
.
14. Stereotyping: debater “proves” his point about a particular person by citing a stereotype that supposedly applies to the group that opponent is a member of; dismissing criticism by academic researchers by citing Ivory Tower stereotypes is an example of this debate tactic
.
.
.
21.Straw man: debater attacks an argument that is easy to refute but which is also an argument that no one has made in the debate.
sounds familiar?
Last edited:
hifi_killer
New member
In Angels & Demons, Dan Brown used quantum physics and general relativity to explain and describe god as a 'singularity' - infinite . If remember correctly it say something like infinite energy is required in fusion of anti-matter and matter particles that results in a huge explosion 'and there was light'
But then again, thats Dan Brown..
Last edited:
predz23
New member
Oh man HAHAHA Man that was an epic fail on my side, i was thinking more of slug things and stuff lol my bad
Definitely not, maybe those land dwelling animals on that planet share many genetic commonalities with earth because of similar environment etc. But not similar in a way that they could be directly related from another planet. its more like apples and oranges. apples might grow on earth and oranges on planet x, still somewhat the same, but still different
Nah, I was just saying those stuff because they popped up randomly while I was writing, thought I'd share the idea If the one true God exists every intelligent life throughout the universe should be worshiping the same god bla bla bla etc. No more god talk now!
I thought the God question were relevant, because creationists claim intelligent design is behind everything. but I kinda used the word designer instead of God himself. If I did write God sometimes, I think I was getting caught up in writing and trying to keep up with all these replies that I might have forgotten to use the word designer/creator instead of god himself.
yeah again the attacks on "God" were not to attack your own personal beliefs on him and his son Jesus etc. They were to attack the creationists idea of the 'creator' and 'designer' of all life. I only said designer is more complex than the design, so the designer needs a designer too. which is more of a question critiquing Creationism (because remember, creationism pretends to be an actual science), and not to attack the philosophical and religious
Yeah I think the debate train derailed once I asked the creator/creation question randomly, and then I answered taypeng81 saying something about his pastor, but he meant it more in a friendly manner. And I always asked who created the creator, because again, its about creationists claiming it was design etc. I was not attacking Jesus, or Muhammed, or Buddha personally
No I'm not contradicting myself because
Creationists: have no evidence for creationism, have no evidence against evolution and depend on the lack of evidence in certain parts of evolution
Me: I provide evidence against creationism and provide evidence for evolution
to conclude, creationists have no evidence for what they're against nor for what they support. But me and other evolutionists provide evidence for what we support, and are against.
ymmak
New member
Please... this discussion has been a little out of hand, no? Whether or not you believe in God, creationism, religion etc, pls get back into the main discussion and not digress too much. Try not to encourage any more religion-related discussion here. Let's be fair to those who genuinely want to discuss about evolution.
ymmak
New member
I think the God question is not relevant here, because as mentioned earlier, the existence of God is really a personal decision, which cannot be contested by any logic or reasons. Since you dont believe in God, why bother? Neither of us here are theologians, so unless we have a deeper understanding on religion, I think any other religion-related discussion will not be fruitful, in regards to the original topic of this tread.
However, the discussion on evolution is different. The idea of evolution is not as abstract or "faith-based" as that of religion, but it can be suggested or inferred from facts or discoveries. So anyone who study biology before, or read extensively on evolution from other sources, can contribute fruitfully to this thread. Whether these facts can fully or partially support evolution, logical or not, credible or not, is questionable. Whether or not we buy into these evidence, this is debatable. The extent of evolution and the degree of variety it can generate, is contentious. Since the main purpose of this thread is to evaluate the various proofs supporting evolution, we should keep it as just that.
Maybe you are right, some creationists here have brought in the religion-related discussions and claim that intelligent design is behind everthing, and you are annoyed by it. But if you are confident that the facts that you have contributed are more relevant and substantial than those religion-related ones, then you could have pay little attention to them or just ignore them totally.
Even though, I believe in God and creationism, have you noticed that my posts have very limited God-related discussion, and I have been quick to avoid these discussions as much as I can (I did get tempted to give my 1 or 2 cent about my views on religion on a few occasion, but I hope I dont have to go into that again in the subsequent discussions). Also, noticed that I have not claim outrightly that God created the world? The bulk of my discussion is focused on discussing the validity, interpretations and significance of the proofs of evolution.
Your earlier posts, that were mainly on evolution only, were great work, good read and worthy of discussion, and I believe many of us will like to see more of those. A discussion on religion will just dilute those great discussions on evolution. Digressing too much is like fighting a battle on many fronts. Watch out.
I do not know from where you have this impression that creationism pretends to be an actual science, and if I am not mistaken, you are the only one in this thread to feel this way. And I do not know why you will assume that the creator himself needs to be created. You might as well say that the creator could have been evolved from a "pre-creator" or something like that. And what proofs do you have against creationism, they seem more like a lack of it, because even I dont know how to prove to you that creationism is the absolute truth. Haha, you do not have to answer these questions. No more religion-related stuff, remember?
And I do not know why you like to villainize creationists, are they all that evil?
Last edited:
Morlock
New member
Yeah Lets just stick to Proofs of Evolution please! no one has even proven that the earth is actually 4.6 billion years old yet... Based on what I have read so far, this conclusion by most Evolutionist scientist was based more on popular vote rather that actual facts. The only body of science that I see that really tackles this question is Geologiest Evolutionists by using Radio metric dating. but I already have shown that radio metric dating has to assume a lot of things before making a conclusion. Although Radio metric dating seem to be accurate when dating a few thousand years but no one really knows if it would still be accurate when you are talking about billions of years. And yet most people claim that an old earth is a fact. based on what?
In my opinion, (My opinion only) this is because evolutionist has to have billions of years in order to prove the thoery. because statistically that is the only plausible way to prove evolution.
In my opinion, (My opinion only) this is because evolutionist has to have billions of years in order to prove the thoery. because statistically that is the only plausible way to prove evolution.
There is a clear air of superiority when you compare the Abrahamic religions to the other religions.
It is obvious that you are comparing the other religions unfavourably, when you talk about their "created gods".
It is condescending to the believers of those faiths.
ymmak you do not see it perhaps because you're Christian?
Just 3 examples to throw out your misconceptions, and show that they're not that different.
But it is more for everyone's knowledge here.
From Hinduism,
Brahman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman
Brahman (bráhman) is the unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe.
...described Brahman as infinite Being, infinite Consciousness, and infinite Bliss. Brahman is regarded as the source and essence of the material universe
While Brahman lies behind the sum total of the objective universe, some human minds boggle at any attempt to explain it with only the tools provided by reason. Brahman is beyond the senses, beyond the mind, beyond intelligence, beyond imagination. Indeed, the highest idea is that Brahman transcends and includes time, causation and space, and thus can never be known in the same material sense as one traditionally 'understands' a given concept or object
From Zen Buddhism,
the Unborn
http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/bankei_zen_master.html
All things are perfectly resolved in the Unborn - the Eternal, Absolute, Open, Infinite Awareness.
From Taoism,
Tao
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao
Tao both precedes and encompasses the universe. As with other nondualistic philosophies, all the observable objects in the world - referred to in the Tao Te Ching as 'the named' or 'the ten thousand things' - are considered to be manifestations of Tao, and can only operate within the boundaries of Tao. Tao is, by contrast, often referred to as 'the nameless', because neither it nor its principles can ever be adequately expressed in words.
"There was something undefined and complete, existing before Heaven and Earth. How still it was, how formless, standing alone and undergoing no change, reaching everywhere with no danger of being exhausted. It may be regarded as the mother of all things."
Ok now?
I will not post anymore on this matter as the intended topic is evolution.
Last edited:
ymmak
New member
The reason why I dont feel that way is not because I am a Christian, but because I do not see how the meaning of "arrogant and condescending" apply to just the definition of God, because the definition of God in Abrahamic religion is really as what growlingsoupup described. A definition, is just a definition, nothing near to arrogant or condescending.
I guess I know why you said "arrogant and condescending", maybe because prior to growlingsoupup's post, someone said something to the effect of "created gods" or "idols" or something like that seem to belittle the other religion. I skipped most of the religious talk here, so I probably didnt get that. Anyway, so sorry if you feel that way.
The failure to define God in the context of other religion, may probably be a mistake on growlingsoupup's part, additional info from Vaiyen will give a broader and more useful definition.
I guess I know why you said "arrogant and condescending", maybe because prior to growlingsoupup's post, someone said something to the effect of "created gods" or "idols" or something like that seem to belittle the other religion. I skipped most of the religious talk here, so I probably didnt get that. Anyway, so sorry if you feel that way.
The failure to define God in the context of other religion, may probably be a mistake on growlingsoupup's part, additional info from Vaiyen will give a broader and more useful definition.
growlingsoulpup
New member
I'm afraid you've got me horribly wrong. The creation stories I'm referring to are within the mythologies themselves, not within sociocultural contexts of "created deities". One example would be the legend of Sun Wukong from Chinese mythology: the story of his origin from a rock is well documented. That's the sort of creation I'm referring to. If you interpreted it as a condescending post towards other religions I apologise, that was not my intention.
Mobius
New member
Proof of evolution -
The human species have evolved from fighting each other with real weapons to become warriors who fight with their computer keyboard
Weapon Warriors ===evolved to===> Keyboard Warriors
*Disclaimer*
All the above is tongue in cheek, pls don't take it seriously =d
The human species have evolved from fighting each other with real weapons to become warriors who fight with their computer keyboard
Weapon Warriors ===evolved to===> Keyboard Warriors
*Disclaimer*
All the above is tongue in cheek, pls don't take it seriously =d
predz23
New member
I got the idea that creationism pretends to be an actual science from american creationists. Lets start another off topic battle, the increasing influence of america hahaha. The modern idea of creationism came from America I think... Some states went all the way to the school board, to force science teachers to teach creationism and to downgrade the validity of evolution. And this works because they are well funded, well organized, well supported and a very sneaky bunch
Now, if you believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, made in 6 days, by a creator, if you believe Adam and Eve walked the earth with dinosaurs and that evolution is completely false and try your best to make people believe evolution is unproven, by itself a religion and that its evil....Then you're a creationist
If you believe in evolution, but believe there's a God, then you believe in creation e.g where the world came from, where life came from etc. But that doesn't make you a creationist
I just find it hard to believe that Singaporeans, in Singapore (which is pretty damn developed as a country and city), in the 21th century, using scientific products everyday, still question the well accepted, well proven theory of evolution.
Scientists still argue about evolution, but not about the theory itself. They argue about the evolution of certain things, how things evolved, whether or not whales evolved from mammals etc. But not evolution itself.
