Sayonara Posted January 22, 2004 Posted January 22, 2004 Do you know we got weaker? I'd have thought the average diet now is a lot better than it was 500,000 years ago, not to mention smaller parasite loads and a reduced number of impairments we can't counteract.
-Demosthenes- Posted January 22, 2004 Author Posted January 22, 2004 This is too compicated! That's why I like Creation! Maybe we could just say that we're here and we're happy.
Sayonara Posted January 22, 2004 Posted January 22, 2004 With creationism you will never learn anything new, and you won't be able to adapt to an ever-changing universe. That's probably its biggest flaw actually.
-Demosthenes- Posted January 22, 2004 Author Posted January 22, 2004 Pitty, but it allows us to be happy. There are plenty of other things to learn.
Sayonara Posted January 22, 2004 Posted January 22, 2004 I can't think of many instances where happiness inevitably goes unpunished. Personally, I'd consider myself to be wasting this precious life if I did not learn and adapt constantly. Creationism is fairly self-indulgent and hedonistic in this respect. Just like Sodom and Gomorrah. Makes you think.
-Demosthenes- Posted January 22, 2004 Author Posted January 22, 2004 What do you think Creationism is? Please explaine you version.
Sayonara Posted January 23, 2004 Posted January 23, 2004 It's just gone midnight here. I'm not typing out creationist doctrine when you can google for the same things as me (I'll be off to bed soon as it happens.) Can I ask what religious denomination you fall under (I'm just assuming you are religious of course, but you can hardly blame me.) [edit] As far as the actual question goes, I consider creationism to be hedonistic and self-satisfying because it allows one to lean back into a happy, unchanging, built-to-order world that requires no explanation, adaptation, or accountability - this is clearly not how the universe works.
dhahranian1401 Posted February 9, 2004 Posted February 9, 2004 All what science is, in my opinion, is one of the ways the human minds tries to make sense of this world. Art and philosophy are two other ways. In the case of science, the human mind has stumbed upon facts, such as "the Earth is round" and "the Earth orbits the sun". Stuff like Classical Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics...etc. are not nessecerly facts but they do make sense of things. Maybe sooner or later another scientific revolution will come and change everything. But the Earth will still be round
JaKiri Posted February 9, 2004 Posted February 9, 2004 dhahranian1401 said in post # :All what science is, in my opinion, is one of the ways the human minds tries to make sense of this world. Art and philosophy are two other ways. In the case of science, the human mind has stumbed upon facts, such as "the Earth is round" and "the Earth orbits the sun". Stuff like Classical Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics...etc. are not nessecerly facts but they do make sense of things. Maybe sooner or later another scientific revolution will come and change everything. But the Earth will still be round I'd say that's rather overvaluing art, and to an extent philosophy.
dhahranian1401 Posted February 9, 2004 Posted February 9, 2004 How you doin My perpous was not to compare "art" with "SCIENCE" and yes I guess what I just said is philosophy But isn't the topic at hand one of the biggest questions in philosophy?? Whether or whether not what we see of this world is actually this world?? Or is it just the way our senses respond to the world?? Are you with me on this
alt_f13 Posted February 13, 2004 Posted February 13, 2004 Creationism was thought up in a time when they wiped their arses with their left hands. Now, toilet paper wasn't all that hard to come up with. That's gotta say something about the minds that came up with Creationism. It's about as lazy and rudimentary as the notion that babies came from the cabbage patch. A simple, false explanation for simple people from a simple time, both resoundingly unsubstantiated and obsolete by the standards of today. I suppose Creationism works for people who cannot handle the complexities of evolution ( oh my, improvement of the species, I'd rather eat raw meat and live by the 10 commandments whose sole purpose was to direct complete and utter idiots in their everyday lives by threatening self-destructive behavior with *concequences* [ apperently those people didn't understand the concept of action-reaction so the smart people had to set out guidelines for non destructive living] ) Notice how most criminals are either stupid or have mental imbalances. That's who the 10 commandments were created for. (Note to self: lighten up.)
JaKiri Posted February 13, 2004 Posted February 13, 2004 dhahranian1401 said in post # :and yes I guess what I just said is philosophy No, I said you were overvaluing philosophy.
-Demosthenes- Posted February 16, 2004 Author Posted February 16, 2004 Evolution seems fine, and can coexist with creation. Everything was created and then it changed a bit, and here we are! They work together quite nicely actually. But back to the topic! What do you think of thought and it's effects of the environment.
mooeypoo Posted February 28, 2004 Posted February 28, 2004 Uhm, Wait, I don't think I understood you... I thought evolution contradicts creationism even for teh simple fact taht if creationism speaks about an intentional creation of the universe - then the fact we are changing (and it's not 'changed a bit', its quite a change) means that the thought wasn't perfect and needed modifications... Doesn't that contradicts a planned GODLY creation? If someone believes in evolution, then god might have made a mistake in his craetion if he needs to "fix" it all the time... Thats at least what I knew of creationism.. I might be wrong here ~moo
Sayonara Posted February 29, 2004 Posted February 29, 2004 Evolution doesn't necessarily preclude creationism because any divine entity worth its own weight in salt would give the life it created the capacity to adapt to changing conditions. Creationism does not necessarily preclude evolution because evolution does not have to explain the origins of life.
mooeypoo Posted February 29, 2004 Posted February 29, 2004 Gotcha. Sounds reasonable enough. Still a bit tricky, but I get the point.. Okay.
-Demosthenes- Posted March 1, 2004 Author Posted March 1, 2004 "Doesn't that contradicts a planned GODLY creation? If someone believes in evolution, then god might have made a mistake in his craetion if he needs to "fix" it all the time..." Our purpose in life is to be better.
atinymonkey Posted March 1, 2004 Posted March 1, 2004 Really? How do you plan to evolve yourself? I'd recommend radioactive milkshakes.
mooeypoo Posted March 2, 2004 Posted March 2, 2004 Man, I BEG YOU PLEASE When you use quotes -- COPY PASTE my words, don't quote your own interpretation as my words. Its UNTRUE, extremely biased and totally unfair. PLEASE please don't insert YOUR WORDS into MY MOUTH. Thankyou. Now, about your statements: Too bad you don't WANT to evolve, you're going to anyways. Actually, not exactly "you" -- but your kids, and grand kids and great great grand kids and great great GREAt great grand kids and so on. It's nature. It's also happening today. YOU are extremely different than the people that lived 100 generations ago. Not to mention to biblical humans. It just happens, you don't need to agree to go through that process. You keep throwing "our purpose" sentences. I don't think I ever talked about humanity's purpose. I actually don't believe science is asking that question of "what is our purpose" because it tends to be a bit empty. It doesn't quite matter humanity purpose, if ANYTHING - what matters is the individual's own purpose, and then it's not humanity anymore anyways. What does important in science is *less* the "WHY" it's more the "HOW" which on MANY occasions this is the big difference between scientific thinking and religious thinking. I am agnostic. I won't tell you what you believe in is wrong, because I don't believe a personal truth CAN be wrong, I *will* tell you though that you are using sentences that are not explanations, nor they are logical. They are also EXTREMELY tautological. If we'd go by your statements, our discussion would look more like "Yes it is!!! / No, it isn't!!! / YES!!!!! / NOOOOO!!!! / yes yes yes yes yes!!! / no no no no no!!" and so on. They're tautological and PERSONAL and therefore hard to discuss, not because they're not true (whatever is your personal truth is your own truth!) but because they're not SCIENTIFICAL. I could also tell you I believe we were made by a higher power to be pawns in their chess game. You can either believe it or you don't, the fact is - you can't REALLY argue about it because it is tautological. Any question you will ask will give you a dead-end answer like "because the gods are bored" or "because these are the god's moves" or "now god black-pawns is winning". It's TAUTOLOGICAL. Impossible to debate, and impossible to deny *and* impossible to prove. Perhaps if you BASE your statement on logic, you'll get more answers - or perhaps convince people you are right. Either way, I would need a WHOLE LOT MORE than a "we are here to do this and this period." sentence in order to start changing my life and believing. Sorry, but that's my view of things. ~moo
JaKiri Posted March 2, 2004 Posted March 2, 2004 Sayonara³ said in post # :Evolution doesn't necessarily preclude creationism because any divine entity worth its own weight in salt would give the life it created the capacity to adapt to changing conditions. If you define a creationist as someone who believes the world was created by a god, then you're right. If you're referring to the more popular definition (people who believe in the absolute truth of Genesis) then you're not.
JaKiri Posted March 2, 2004 Posted March 2, 2004 Sayonara³ said in post # :Hence "doesn't necessarily". It's imprecise phrasing. You're implying that it 'might, but might not!', when it DOES or DOES NOT, depending on the definition of the word.
-Demosthenes- Posted March 2, 2004 Author Posted March 2, 2004 Man, I BEG YOUPLEASE When you use quotes -- COPY PASTE my words, don't quote your own interpretation as my words. Its UNTRUE, extremely biased and totally unfair. PLEASE please don't insert YOUR WORDS into MY MOUTH. When did I quote you wrong? My quote in reply #69 is exactly taken from reply #66, copied and pasted. It was taken out of it's contexted but I didn't think it mattered much because it was it's own paragraph, for this I am sorry. Too bad you don't WANT to evolve, you're going to anyways. Actually, not exactly "you" -- but your kids, and grand kids and great great grand kids and great great GREAt great grand kids and so on. It's nature. It's also happening today. This is a direct quote also, I promise, from re;y #72. I never said that I did not want to evolve, but that doesn't matter because I never will, as you said my kids and grandkids and ect. will evolve slightly in relation to me, but I will not. In religion there isn't much we can debate, just argue mostly.
Sayonara Posted March 2, 2004 Posted March 2, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post # :It's imprecise phrasing. You're implying that it 'might, but might not!', when it DOES or DOES NOT, depending on the definition of the word. Since I don't recognise creationism as a workable universal mechanism, as far as I am concerned it "might, but might not" depending on with whom I am arguing, not about what I am arguing. Conditional, not imprecise. The point of the post was to dispell the myth of the creationism<>evolution false dilemma. Mission accomplished.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now