Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Creation vs. Evolution (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter larry_boy_44
- Start date
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
Porkchop Sandwich
Footballguy
Mario Kart
Footballguy
So, you believe that this Big Bang, whether it is from God or some kind of evolution, happens to be the beginning of everything? Get off your high horse.
What if, and of course this is a "what if", the universe has always been here? Just so happens what we call the Big Bang just happens to be how we, humans, define what we can see with our technology?
We are all on a little marble in this vast ocean of space and you claim that we were created by some something X number of years ago? Who is grasping at straws? Who the hell are you to tell me I was created? I know how I got here. My parental units told me. I landed on their doorstep from a bird.
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
Shocking that Em is on the wrong side of this (or fishing).
Guys, this is exactly the problem. You can't just tell me that I'm wrong. You think this is a random blob. I think this is intelligent design. I respect your views, the problem is that you don't respect mine.
There's no sound proof for either side. It doesn't make sense to me that something could have a taste, a smell, a texture if there was no living beings to interact with it. I'm not even trying to say that God specifically designed humans but rather a blueprint to all of life that can spawn anywhere in the Universe.
There's no sound proof for either side. It doesn't make sense to me that something could have a taste, a smell, a texture if there was no living beings to interact with it. I'm not even trying to say that God specifically designed humans but rather a blueprint to all of life that can spawn anywhere in the Universe.
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu
Footballguy
joffer
Footballguy
this is like a modern day Gish Gallop, but I'll play. What do I think is a random blob? Please be specific. And try to remember that cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution are three completely different fields of study requiring completely different scientific theories. TIA
My apologies, I was too vague in what I was trying to argue I guess.
No, I don't think God magically created all the species at once. I'm more of a supporter of Intelligent Design than I am Creationism I suppose. I definitely feel as if life had to be specifically designed. I don't get how an organism could mutate to suddenly live off of oxygen through the air instead of gills from water.
I can see how smaller versions of an animal would be able to avoid predators therefore outlast the larger versions. I can see how birds with slimmer beaks could outlast birds with broad beaks causing the illusion of different types of birds in areas. Still in the midst of watching that video CTSU posted though.
No, I don't think God magically created all the species at once. I'm more of a supporter of Intelligent Design than I am Creationism I suppose. I definitely feel as if life had to be specifically designed. I don't get how an organism could mutate to suddenly live off of oxygen through the air instead of gills from water.
I can see how smaller versions of an animal would be able to avoid predators therefore outlast the larger versions. I can see how birds with slimmer beaks could outlast birds with broad beaks causing the illusion of different types of birds in areas. Still in the midst of watching that video CTSU posted though.
joffer
Footballguy
define suddenly. FYI, you had gill slits as an developing embryoHow about a organism evolving the ability to eat nylon only after it was invented in the 30s?
Last edited by a moderator:
fatness
Footballguy
proninja
Footballguy
Your entire argument is basically that since you don't understand how things work, that they must not work that way.
G
General Tso
Guest
The more I learn about the universe and quantum mechanics the more I am confused about what exactly "creationism" means. I assume it means that the univse was created by a God, but even that needs further refinement. Quantum particles can appear out of nowhere. Does that constitute creationism by a God?
Mario Kart
Footballguy
Mutation A. We're on like Mutation A x 10^100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
Josie Maran
Footballguy
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
I at least enjoyed embarrassing golddigger. This, not so much.
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
Science: we don't know...yet.Eminence said:
Religion: we don't know so it must be God.
timschochet
Footballguy
Golddigger was one of a kind, because he attempted to actually argue the science with you and Shining Path and MT. Rather than take the layman's path that Eminence and several others like him have, Golddigger would throw in scientific arguments, numbers, data. All of it was ridiculous of course, but it made for really fun reading when you guys would tear him apart. With Eminence, you could play 4 white guys and an Egyptian and you'd still be up by 50 at halftime.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think that would be an achievement test rather than an IQ test, but they'd do well on scientific achievement tests as well. (Especially Behe, who is a college biochemistry professor.)
Josie Maran
Footballguy
Probably some combination of plodding, [SIZE=14.4444446563721px]trudging,[/SIZE][SIZE=14.4444446563721px] [/SIZE]and galumphing.
rockaction
Footballguy
Way OT and it gets me every time I see your avatar: I had a friend who knew Josie Maran in high school. He said that she annoyed them. Dressed casual, couldn't really tell how hot she was. She was some guy's girlfriend out in SF and he just sort of laughed about how blasé they treated her. Like, "Oh, Josie's here. Great."
Natural selection? I mean, I know SF is crazy, and this fool (love him), but this homer, I mean, ####...
/endstory
//truestory, too
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Worst than that for these guys...
These guys also argue that God is micro managing the process, "pulling the string", making changes as we go, etc.
In other words these guys argue that God couldn't get to our universe the way he wanted without correcting his mistakes and omissions along the way. Hey, you can still petition God to correct mistakes that you find and even try to convince him to change his mind about things.
So which is more ridiculous? The science? Or the theology?
(Oh, and call it ridiculous also, but I'm still a believer,)
Last edited by a moderator:
joffer
Footballguy
Try this - http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_04There's also a good documentary on YouTube called "your inner fish"
proninja
Footballguy
cstu
Footballguy
MC Gas Money
Footballguy
That is way too advanced. He needs to start with something like "one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish".
joffer
Footballguy
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/12/01/367699124/does-it-matter-who-accepts-evolution
Since 1982, Gallup has been tracking the American public's views on human origins, providing three mutually exclusive options from which to choose. According to the most recent poll, 42 percent of Americans endorse the idea that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years or so, 31 percent say that humans evolved over millions of years with God guiding the process, and 19 percent say that humans evolved over millions of years with no role for God at all.
These numbers suggest a deeply divided nation, which helps explain why questions about human origins have been contentious in the context of public school education and beyond. But a new report* by sociologist Jonathan Hill argues that the Gallup numbers have been painting a misleading picture of what Americans truly believe — and of how invested they are in their views.
Hill asked a representative sample of more than 3,000 Americans detailed questions about their beliefs concerning human origins and he found that many people's views fall within the cracks of the standard Gallup poll options. For example, according to the new report, a majority of creationists believe that God created humans in their present form — but this majority doesn't believe that it occurred within the 10,000-year window that closest Gallup poll option allows. Hill also found that when given the option, a considerable 39 percent of his sample said they were unsure or held views that defied simple classification — for example, rejecting the view that humans evolved from earlier species as well as the idea that humans were created by God.
The most surprising finding from Hill's report is that, for many Americans, not much hangs on getting it right when it comes to our evolutionary past. Hill asked respondents how important it is to them personally to have "correct" beliefs about human origins. He found that a majority — 56 percent — indicated that it was "not at all," "not very," or only "somewhat" important to them to have the right beliefs. This percentage, however, was not uniform across groups of respondents. Some 64 percent of creationists (who made up 37 percent of the sample) indicated that having the right beliefs was "very" or "extremely" important. The percentages were lower for all other groups: 35 percent for those who endorsed theistic evolution (16 percent of the sample), 48 percent for those who endorsed atheistic evolution (9 percent of the sample), and 23 percent for those who were unsure or didn't fall into the preceding categories (39 percent of the sample).
At first blush, these levels of apathy or ambivalence seem hard to reconcile with the sense that questions of human origins are fraught with cultural tension. But they might also point to what that tension is really about — not (just) the question of whether and how our species evolved, but broader epistemic and moral values. Debates about evolution and creation are in no small part, I suspect, about how we can come to have knowledge of the world and of ourselves in the first place. Through sacred texts? Through the testimony of religious authorities? Through personal revelation? Or through systematic empirical investigation and reason — that is, through science and philosophical argumentation?
Identifying as a creationist or accepting evolution might communicate more than an isolated belief about human origins — it might signal something about a person's approach to the world, including the values and sources of evidence that she thinks should guide public policy, law enforcement, biomedical research, and so on. In fact, those respondents in Hill's survey who said that beliefs about human origins were "very" or "extremely" important frequently raised ideas about evidence and authority in their responses. Among the most common themes were appeals to God and the bible among creationists, and subscribing to facts and reason among those who espoused evolution without godly intervention.
This, I think, is why it really matters who accepts evolution: Questions of human origins aren't uniquely at stake. There's a broader cultural conversation folded into the mix, and it's one that involves some of our deepest and most consequential commitments.
Of course, it also matters who accepts evolution for more immediate and practical reasons. Antibiotic resistance is a common example: How we use antibiotics affects selection pressures on bacteria, with consequences for how they evolve and the risk of inadvertently creating superbugs. Less commonly known is that through a similar process, cancer treatment affects the evolution of cancer cells within an organism, an insight with potential implications for current practices in cancer therapy. And understanding the ecological impacts of climate change similarly requires an evolutionary perspective. These cases — and many others — illustrate why it matters that the voting, fossil-fuel burning, antibiotic-using public accept evolution.
So, had I been a respondent in Hill's poll, I likely would have found myself in the minority who think it matters that we get it right when it comes to human origins — not just because it's important to me personally, but because it's important for the human species.
Since 1982, Gallup has been tracking the American public's views on human origins, providing three mutually exclusive options from which to choose. According to the most recent poll, 42 percent of Americans endorse the idea that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years or so, 31 percent say that humans evolved over millions of years with God guiding the process, and 19 percent say that humans evolved over millions of years with no role for God at all.
These numbers suggest a deeply divided nation, which helps explain why questions about human origins have been contentious in the context of public school education and beyond. But a new report* by sociologist Jonathan Hill argues that the Gallup numbers have been painting a misleading picture of what Americans truly believe — and of how invested they are in their views.
Hill asked a representative sample of more than 3,000 Americans detailed questions about their beliefs concerning human origins and he found that many people's views fall within the cracks of the standard Gallup poll options. For example, according to the new report, a majority of creationists believe that God created humans in their present form — but this majority doesn't believe that it occurred within the 10,000-year window that closest Gallup poll option allows. Hill also found that when given the option, a considerable 39 percent of his sample said they were unsure or held views that defied simple classification — for example, rejecting the view that humans evolved from earlier species as well as the idea that humans were created by God.
The most surprising finding from Hill's report is that, for many Americans, not much hangs on getting it right when it comes to our evolutionary past. Hill asked respondents how important it is to them personally to have "correct" beliefs about human origins. He found that a majority — 56 percent — indicated that it was "not at all," "not very," or only "somewhat" important to them to have the right beliefs. This percentage, however, was not uniform across groups of respondents. Some 64 percent of creationists (who made up 37 percent of the sample) indicated that having the right beliefs was "very" or "extremely" important. The percentages were lower for all other groups: 35 percent for those who endorsed theistic evolution (16 percent of the sample), 48 percent for those who endorsed atheistic evolution (9 percent of the sample), and 23 percent for those who were unsure or didn't fall into the preceding categories (39 percent of the sample).
At first blush, these levels of apathy or ambivalence seem hard to reconcile with the sense that questions of human origins are fraught with cultural tension. But they might also point to what that tension is really about — not (just) the question of whether and how our species evolved, but broader epistemic and moral values. Debates about evolution and creation are in no small part, I suspect, about how we can come to have knowledge of the world and of ourselves in the first place. Through sacred texts? Through the testimony of religious authorities? Through personal revelation? Or through systematic empirical investigation and reason — that is, through science and philosophical argumentation?
Identifying as a creationist or accepting evolution might communicate more than an isolated belief about human origins — it might signal something about a person's approach to the world, including the values and sources of evidence that she thinks should guide public policy, law enforcement, biomedical research, and so on. In fact, those respondents in Hill's survey who said that beliefs about human origins were "very" or "extremely" important frequently raised ideas about evidence and authority in their responses. Among the most common themes were appeals to God and the bible among creationists, and subscribing to facts and reason among those who espoused evolution without godly intervention.
This, I think, is why it really matters who accepts evolution: Questions of human origins aren't uniquely at stake. There's a broader cultural conversation folded into the mix, and it's one that involves some of our deepest and most consequential commitments.
Of course, it also matters who accepts evolution for more immediate and practical reasons. Antibiotic resistance is a common example: How we use antibiotics affects selection pressures on bacteria, with consequences for how they evolve and the risk of inadvertently creating superbugs. Less commonly known is that through a similar process, cancer treatment affects the evolution of cancer cells within an organism, an insight with potential implications for current practices in cancer therapy. And understanding the ecological impacts of climate change similarly requires an evolutionary perspective. These cases — and many others — illustrate why it matters that the voting, fossil-fuel burning, antibiotic-using public accept evolution.
So, had I been a respondent in Hill's poll, I likely would have found myself in the minority who think it matters that we get it right when it comes to human origins — not just because it's important to me personally, but because it's important for the human species.
CBusAlex
Footballguy
How anyone can look at #2 and still believe in intelligent design by a kind and loving god is beyond my comprehension.
cstu
Footballguy
Evolution scares Christians since they feel that if the Bible is wrong about Adam and Eve that it invalidates the rest of the book.
80% of Jews are able to reconcile this by not taking the Torah literally, but roughly half of all Christians aren't ready to do that.
timschochet
Footballguy
The only thing that study proves is that no matter what the contentious political or cultural issue, the majority of the public has no opinion, no knowledge and doesn't care . Most of the time.
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
Those are some truly frightening numbers. Regardless of how apathetic we are on the subject, this suggests that somewhere between 42% - 73% of us don't accept basic science.joffer said:
I don't think things are quite that bleak.
First, natural selection and common descent aren't all that basic; they're actually kind of complicated, which is why we didn't figure it out until the mid-nineteenth century (long after we figured out planetary motion, optics, and other things that most people also still don't understand). So we might say that somewhere between 42% and 73% of us don't understand moderately complicated science.
More than that, though, I suspect that a lot of people aren't answering the poll as if it were a question about facts regarding natural history, but are instead answering it as if it's asking, "In the current ideological conflict between good Christians and swellheaded elitist academic secularists, are you willing to concede that the [SIZE=14.4444446563721px]swellheaded elitist academic secularists actually have a point[/SIZE]?"
They're not giving answers that deny science because they're trying to be accurate; they're answering that way because they care less about accuracy in a stupid poll than they do about refusing to concede points to groups they don't like.
I think it's similar to what Scott Alexander wrote about polls concerning police misconduct after the Ferguson shooting:
You can see that after the Ferguson shooting, the average American became a little less likely to believe that blacks were treated equally in the criminal justice system. This makes sense, since the Ferguson shooting was a much-publicized example of the criminal justice system treating a black person unfairly.
But when you break the results down by race, a different picture emerges. White people were actually a little more likely to believe the justice system was fair after the shooting. Why? I mean, if there was no change, you could chalk it up to white people believing the police’s story that the officer involved felt threatened and made a split-second bad decision that had nothing to do with race. That could explain no change just fine. But being more convinced that justice is color-blind? What could explain that?
My guess – before Ferguson, at least a few people interpreted this as an honest question about race and justice. After Ferguson, everyone mutually agreed it was about politics.
...
Anyone who thought that the question in that poll was just a simple honest question about criminal justice was very quickly disabused of that notion. It was a giant Referendum On Everything, a “do you think the Blue Tribe is right on every issue and the Red Tribe is terrible and stupid, or vice versa?” And it turns out many people who when asked about criminal justice will just give the obvious answer, have much stronger and less predictable feelings about Giant Referenda On Everything.
Last edited by a moderator:
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
I think the premise is that all life is kind of special. It's not that God did or didn't do anything for whatever purpose.Life, especially complex life is very uniquely special in the Universe. At least from what we can see.
I think that until we find solid proof of extraterrestrial life can we begin to discount that we may be heaven sent. Do you guys contest that there may be a similar human life with society, technology, etc on a planet somewhere in the universe?
Because I would believe of evolution is true and that the Universe is expanding infinitely, that it would have to happen over millions of years, no?
I know that space is huge and many things are common but we know life is not.
Last edited by a moderator:
joffer
Footballguy
really didn't follow this, but are you saying if some type of life is found elsewhere, it would make it more likely that life is specially designed? Or only if we discover life similar to that which is on this planet (e.g. DNA based)?
matuski
Footballguy
Early Language Skills: Your Babbling Babe By six months, your baby's simple "oohs" and "aaahs" are beginning to morph into vowel-consonant combos... It's unlikely that your baby attaches any meaning to his babbles, but these sounds are important nonetheless. All those "la-la-la's" and "ah-ga-ga's" are a big step toward real words and conversations, so listen up and be proud of his accomplishment!
The opposite. I'd postulate that if we found other complex life it would negate any idea that we and Earth are anything special.
The absence of other life on other planets at least from what we can see, is what makes creationism or the idea that humans are special in any sense, plausible.
Even finding a planet full of dogs somewhere would help dispel the notion that we are special. But the lack of any other life, even some bacteria or something if anything is somewhat promising.
MC Gas Money
Footballguy
joffer
Footballguy
again, you seem to be of the opinion that the theory evolution says something about the origin of life. It does not. And your ability to understand and articulate the science of evolution on this planet should be irrelevant and completely separate from the lack of discovery of extra-terrestrial life thus far.
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
"If it's just us, what an awful waste of space"
In other words, why would a creator create the vast universe, if he was only going to use one pale, blue dot? And why would his book(s) only talk about an extremely localized area on the relatively large surface of said blue dot? Perhaps its because the people who wrote those books only knew about their little part of the planet in their little part of the universe.
