![]() |
|
Creation VS Evolution - Printable Version +- Southperry.net (https://www.southperry.net) +-- Forum: Social (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=14) +--- Forum: Current Events (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=55) +--- Thread: Creation VS Evolution (/showthread.php?tid=69714) |
Creation VS Evolution - xparasite9 - 2014-02-07 KhainiWest Wrote:but you looked at every post as a separate window rather than the entire building. And that's what I always do. Creation VS Evolution - VerrKol - 2014-02-07 Well I finally got a chance to watch the debate in it's entirety. I think both sides brought up some interesting points, but found the "science" supporting Creationism very lacking. I'll grant there are some inconsistencies in science methods, but that hardly discredits all the evidence. I also think Ham's insistence on differentiating the types of science was cumbersome and served to only confuse the discussion. The point that most resonated with me was the point that non-creationist scientists do indeed make assumptions and then use them to discredit creationist scientists. I think that people who believe in the literal word of the Bible are discriminated against and ridiculed for their beliefs unjustly. The first step to enlightenment in these types of discussions is understanding the limitations on human knowledge. That's why I'm agnostic despite my love of science and vehement dislike of most established religions. On a personal note, I found Bill Nye's use of his first cousin's son's death tasteless. I happen to have met this child. His name was Tommy and he did indeed die tragically from influenza. What does this have to do at all with the debate? Nothing. I'm probably just overreacting though Creation VS Evolution - KhainiWest - 2014-02-07 VerrKol Wrote:Well I finally got a chance to watch the debate in it's entirety. I think both sides brought up some interesting points, but found the "science" supporting Creationism very lacking. I'll grant there are some inconsistencies in science methods, but that hardly discredits all the evidence. I also think Ham's insistence on differentiating the types of science was cumbersome and served to only confuse the discussion. I've watched every debate between Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Bill nye and Neil Degrasse, for discussions like this, religions typically devolve into this semantics battle. What I do find interesting is the diving into philosophy because you start to realize a lot of our "social protocols" which stem from religion are still very much ingrained in us. VerrKol Wrote:The point that most resonated with me was the point that non-creationist scientists do indeed make assumptions and then use them to discredit creationist scientists. I think that people who believe in the literal word of the Bible are discriminated against and ridiculed for their beliefs unjustly. Yes this annoyed me too, which leads to the point that he lied about nothing changing his mind about his perspective, I can tell you right now what exactly would change his mind, a time machine. The fact his entire arguments foundation is "If I didn't see it first hand, you can't prove it" was so obnoxiously ridiculous he lost support on both sides of the table to be honest. A lot of people say bill nye was to hard on him, but that was probably the most calm and collected I've seen him in circumstances like this, that debate was really just like the super bowl this year, just a slam. Creation VS Evolution - Jazeon - 2014-02-07 VerrKol Wrote:but found the "science" supporting Creationism very lacking. That's the thing....it's quite improbable, that anyone will be able to find scientific evidence at an academic level on par with current criteria for conclusiveness that would adequately support creationism at our current level of knowledge, if we understood the exact science of creation we would (or at least try on that scale) reproduce it, but lack of understanding does not mean it does not exist. As my friend once mentioned, you can only talk about life in relation to your base knowledge, if what we are talking about is beyond our base knowledge then it's quite pointless to be trying to prove or disprove it, think about the example in history of when we thought the earth was flat, until we had the necessary knowledge,equipment and understanding to conclude definitively that yes the earth is round and not flat, people were killed, cursed, shamed and exiled for suggesting the former. Which is why i find people who completely disregard the options out there simply because of lack of evidence to be quite narrow minded given the history of earth and how humans have always held a stance until proven wrong when new tech was able to show further insight than before. In short we simply lack the resources at this point to conclude such a topic, or even be fair in discussion because yes we may have all we need to "prove" evolution to most people's satisfaction, but we do not have the necessary resources to prove creationism or better put as the scientific evidence of God, which is what is really needed to prove creationism. I would even go as far to say that quite simply if God could be defined by science.....He wouldn't really be much of a God now would he. Creation VS Evolution - Sardines - 2014-02-07 He can only be defined by old men with quill pens. Creation VS Evolution - Jazeon - 2014-02-07 Sardines Wrote:He can only be defined by old men with quill pens. Lol even they could only put what they knew in a human phrases which is still quite confusing. Creation VS Evolution - KhainiWest - 2014-02-07 Jazeon Wrote:Lol even they could only put what they knew in a human phrases which is still quite confusing. You don't find it odd that a lot of things that put you to hell are because of social conventions of that time period? Just like the complexity of god may not be able to be explained in conventional science, I believe such an entity would not be as petty to demand such a thing as worship [video=youtube;dOjV_BzlzWI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOjV_BzlzWI[/video] Creation VS Evolution - xparasite9 - 2014-02-07 KhainiWest Wrote:You don't find it odd that a lot of things that put you to hell are because of social conventions of that time period?Which begat which though? Was it social conventions that formed the laws, or the laws that formed the social conventions? Bear in mind that during antiquity, the social conventions you speak of weren't quite universal or even widespread. The tribes of Israel conducted themselves in a manner quite distinct from their neighbors, and even maintained a distinct outward appearance. Intentionally being so different caused them a great deal of persecution, yet time and time again they held fast to their customs, even to the point of death. KhainiWest Wrote:Just like the complexity of god may not be able to be explained in conventional science, I believe such an entity would not be as petty to demand such a thing as worshipon the flipside, why wouldn't all that owe their very existence to a divine being be singing unending praise? We don't even have to get into the hypothetical metaphysical entities that may or may not exist though. What about your earthly progenitors who brought you into this world and raised you into what you are today? When was the last time you spoke to your mother? Why haven't you called her recently? Creation VS Evolution - KhainiWest - 2014-02-07 xparasite9 Wrote:Which begat which though? Was it social conventions that formed the laws, or the laws that formed the social conventions? Bear in mind that during antiquity, the social conventions you speak of weren't quite universal or even widespread. The tribes of Israel conducted themselves in a manner quite distinct from their neighbors, and even maintained a distinct outward appearance. Intentionally being so different caused them a great deal of persecution, yet time and time again they held fast to their customs, even to the point of death. Considering the counsel that actually wrote the bible felt they had the authority to omit sections based on their own perspective, I can confidently say the bible was heavily influenced by social conventions and not hte source of those conventions. xparasite9 Wrote:on the flipside, why wouldn't all that owe their very existence to a divine being be singing unending praise? Take into context the size relativity. We are made by the most common materials the universe itself has to offer, I can say with certainty to suggest we are the only life in the universe is the most ridiculous, egotistical thing a person can say. Now let's just look at our cultures, how many religions do you think they are? A lot. Each division has a different strict way of worship, as strict as revolving your round to stroking yoru deity's ego, to as passive as, live your life with consideration. Now, let's take the possibility of other life, which leads to other subcultures of worship which I can almost gurrantee. Now go to a beach dig your hands into the sand, for each grain multiply it by a million, and tell me how much significance you find from all those billions of pieces of sand telling you 'THANK YOU FOR LIFE". You start to lose appreciation of that, especially at that scale, by what? A f`ucking hour? My parents are two people, with two children who can praise them for allowing me to exist, and they don't ask me to worship them, why would god ask the same of his byproducts which ranges in billions of zeroes. You can always fall back to "He's god", but that doesn't change or challenge my perspective. Creation VS Evolution - xparasite9 - 2014-02-07 KhainiWest Wrote:Take into context the size relativity. We are made by the most common materials the universe itself has to offerWell you're already wrong there. KhainiWest Wrote:Now let's just look at our cultures, how many religions do you think they are? A lot. Each division has a different strict way of worship, as strict as revolving your round to stroking yoru deity's ego, to as passive as, live your life with consideration.What about indifferentism? KhainiWest Wrote:Now, let's take the possibility of other life, which leads to other subcultures of worship which I can almost gurrantee. Now go to a beach dig your hands into the sand, for each grain multiply it by a million, and tell me how much significance you find from all those billions of pieces of sand telling you 'THANK YOU FOR LIFE". You start to lose appreciation of that, especially at that scale, by what? A f`ucking hour?Your perspective is inherently flawed and limited because you are human, constrained to a limited lifetime, which means you have to prioritize everything to an arbitrary scale of how relevant it is to you. To an infinite being, there is no need to do that, so everything is of significance. Creation VS Evolution - KhainiWest - 2014-02-07 xparasite9 Wrote:Well you're already wrong there. You're a cloud. See how useless that statement is? That's how useless your statement is. Put up what you believe the correct answer is so I can tell you you're wrong. Because I know in fact that I am right. xparasite9 Wrote:What about indifferentism? Irrelevant, a god would not ask you to cherish life then tell another section to sacrifice it in his name, it's all about the interpretations and social conventions of each culture influencing their perspective of what a deity wants. xparasite9 Wrote:Your perspective is inherently flawed and limited because you are human, constrained to a limited lifetime, which means you have to prioritize everything to an arbitrary scale of how relevant it is to you. To an infinite being, there is no need to do that, so everything is of significance. As a child who's perspective of time is slow and nearly infinitive in his perspective, would even tire of the same compliments being fed to him over and over again. If a leaf was a galaxy, a molecule would be a person, do you think god cares about a single molecules sex life? lol Creation VS Evolution - Moonlapse - 2014-02-07 Quote:I can say with certainty to suggest we are the only life in the universe is the most ridiculous, egotistical thing a person can say. [MENTION=4235]KhainiWest[/MENTION] You know Darwinian evolution is not linear and does not select solely based on simple to complex (aka the highly flawed "progressive" view of evolution), let alone intelligence. Creation VS Evolution - KhainiWest - 2014-02-07 Moonlapse Wrote:KhainiWest Yes, but I'm confused why you're asking while specifically quoting that line of text? Doesn't seem relevant or I'm missing something Are you saying that my confidence of other intelligent life is unfounded? Creation VS Evolution - Moonlapse - 2014-02-07 KhainiWest Wrote:Are you saying that my confidence of other intelligent life is unfounded? Not really. Just saying it may as not be as likely as people think, and trying to re-rail the thread on an evolution discussion.
Creation VS Evolution - KhainiWest - 2014-02-07 Moonlapse Wrote:Not really. With the size of the universe I feel as though it's almost guaranteed. And the underlining basis of that is because the most 5 common elements the universe has made us up, we're as common as trees in a forest. Now whether they would be intelligent or not, I mean that's not even an argument I have any experience to even dwell into. HOWEVER, with the size of the universe I can say it with confidence that it has plenty of room in the sandbox for diversity Creation VS Evolution - Moonlapse - 2014-02-07 KhainiWest Wrote:With the size of the universe I feel as though it's almost guaranteed. And the underlining basis of that is because the most 5 common elements the universe has made us up, we're as common as trees in a forest. Now whether they would be intelligent or not, I mean that's not even an argument I have any experience to even dwell into. HOWEVER, with the size of the universe I can say it with confidence that it has plenty of room in the sandbox for diversity A very good point. This is a very interesting discussion, but I have to bail out (again) because I'm not studying, and right now I am livid with myself for that fact. (and I'm sick and I have to travel now, so overall this day just sucks) Creation VS Evolution - KhainiWest - 2014-02-07 Moonlapse Wrote:A very good point. This is a very interesting discussion, but I have to bail out (again) because I'm not studying, and right now I am livid with myself for that fact. (and I'm sick and I have to travel now, so overall this day just sucks) GURL YOU'RE JUST SCARED OF MY LOGIC. But yeah I was hoping you'd come into this thread since this is kind of your thing
Creation VS Evolution - Mute - 2014-02-08 KhainiWest Wrote:With the size of the universe I feel as though it's almost guaranteed. And the underlining basis of that is because the most 5 common elements the universe has made us up, we're as common as trees in a forest. Now whether they would be intelligent or not, I mean that's not even an argument I have any experience to even dwell into. HOWEVER, with the size of the universe I can say it with confidence that it has plenty of room in the sandbox for diversity That argument I feel is wrong. I like it, but I can never abide by it. Trying to justify the potential for life in other worlds by using the scope of the universe, observable or otherwise, I feel is self-discrediting. The size of the universe allows for life to be found everywhere where it can be sustained. Hell there are still places on earth where scientists find bacteria that are surviving and thriving in environments once thought incapable of sustaining any life. But for intelligence, that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
I feel like posting a wall of my opinion
Stare into the abyss long enough, and it stares back into you. Creation VS Evolution - xparasite9 - 2014-02-08 KhainiWest Wrote:And the underlining basis of that is because the most 5 common elements the universe has made us upreally, now? How much Neon would you say is in the human body? How much Helium? Creation VS Evolution - KhainiWest - 2014-02-08 Mute Wrote:That argument I feel is wrong. I like it, but I can never abide by it. Trying to justify the potential for life in other worlds by using the scope of the universe, observable or otherwise, I feel is self-discrediting. The size of the universe allows for life to be found everywhere where it can be sustained. Hell there are still places on earth where scientists find bacteria that are surviving and thriving in environments once thought incapable of sustaining any life. The vastness of space was not the basis of the deduction, the following sentence shows the basis of my deduction. The vastness of space brings endless possibilities which result in the variety that would be throughout space. It's exactly taking a cup of the ocean and saying there is no life, intelligent or otherwise in it. I mean when you have planets with frozen fire does an intelligent being seem out of the question? lol xparasite9 Wrote:really, now? How much Neon would you say is in the human body? How much Helium? Yeah we're so unique because we lack two of the top 10 elements found in our galaxy, let alone universe. I mean come on really? ![]() 1. Oxygen Warwick Hillier, Australia National University, CanberraBy mass, oxygen is the most abundant element in the human body. If you think about it, this makes sense, since most of the body consists of water or H2O. Oxygen accounts for 61-65% of the mass of the human body. Even though there are many more atoms of hydrogen in your body than oxygen, each oxygen atom is 16 times more massive than a hydrogen atom. Uses Oxygen is used for cellular respiration. 2. Carbon U.S. Geological SurveyAll living organisms contain carbon, which forms the basis for all of the organic molecules in the body. Carbon is the second most abundant element in the human body, accounting for 18% of body weight. Uses All organic molecules (fats, proteins, carbohydrates, nucleic acids) contain carbon. Carbon also is found as carbon dioxide or CO2. You inhale air that contains about 20% oxygen. Air you exhale contains much less oxygen, but is rich in carbon dioxide. 3. Hydrogen Wikipedia Creative Commons LicenseHydrogen accounts for 10% of the mass of the human body. Uses Since around 60% of your body weight is water, much of the hydrogen exists in water, which functions to transport nutrients, remove wastes, lubricate organs and joints, and regulate body temperature. Hydrogen is also important in energy production and use. The H+ ion can be used as a hydrogen ion or proton pump to produce ATP and regulate numerous chemical reactions. All organic molecules contain hydrogen in addition to carbon. 4. Nitrogen Cory DoctorowApproximately 3% of the mass of the human body is nitrogen. Uses Proteins, nucleic acids, and other organic molecules contain nitrogen. Nitrogen gas is found in the lungs, since the primary gas in air is nitrogen. 5. Calcium Tomihahndorf, Creative Commons LicenseCalcium accounts for 1.5% of human body weight. Uses Calcium is used to give the skeletal system its rigidity and strength. Calcium is found in bones and teeth. The Ca2+ ion is important for muscle function. 6. Phosphorus Luc Viatour, Creative Commons LicenseAbout 1.2% to 1.5% of your body consists of phosphorus. Uses Phosphorus is important for bone structure and is part of the primary energy molecule in the body, ATP or adenosine triphosphate. Most of the phosphorus in the body is in the bones and teeth. 7. Potassium Dnn87, Creative Commons LicensePotassium makes up 0.2% to 0.35% of the adult human body. Uses Potassium is an important mineral in all cells. It functions as an electrolyte and is particularly important for conducting electrical impulses and for muscle contraction. 8. Sulfur Ben MillsSulfur's abundance is 0.20% to 0.25% in the human body. Uses Sulfur is an important component of amino acids and proteins. It's present in keratin, which forms skin, hair, and nails. It's also needed for cellular respiration, allowing cells to use oxygen. 9. Sodium Dnn87, Creative Commons LicenseApproximately 0.10% to 0.15% of your body mass is the element sodium. Uses Sodium is an important electrolyte in the body. It is an important component of cellular fluids and is needed for the transmission of nerve impulses. It helps regulate fluid volume, temperature, and blood pressure. 10. Magnesium Warut RoonguthaiThe metal magnesium comprises about 0.05% of human body weight. Uses About half of the body's magnesium is found in the bones. Magnesium is important for numerous biochemical reactions. It helps regulate heart beat, blood pressure, and blood glucose levels. It is used in protein synthesis and metabolism. It is needed to support proper immune system, muscle, and nerve function. |