Science vs. Creationism

[babe]

It is s way bigger absurd to believe that Earth is a laboratory field/experiment for some "creator". Even if you believe it - think about it for a second as an example - how stupid laboratory mice would be if they would worship humans who are doing experiments on them.

I would suggest that almost anything we could do to "interpret" Nature or give meaning to it on a Universal scale is going to generate unlimited absurdities. When we're "way beyond" the actual data or research, there are all kinds of ways we can imagine, all of which will present absurd aspects.

On my own point, the only place where I really see your argument as absurd is if/when you hold it as a compelling disproof of "God" in every possible conception of "God". I don't believe in the "Trinity" or in a lot of other specific ideas of "God" any more than you do. And since I can't present a scientific proof that would render disbelief in God to the dustbin of human history, I accept reasonings/explanations of the natural world as plausible if they make no claims fer or agin "God".

The God I think I know presents us with a gift called life, together with our various talents and capacities, for the purpose of giving us some experience under circumstances that allow us to pursue our interests and our will. Cognition, consciousness, and will I consider to be out of the "material" existence, out of "this world" in some sense. I suppose that it's likely there are other dimensions of existence, not necessarily "material" which I call "spiritual", but since it's beyond our capacity to demonstrate materially with the tools of science, it can't possibly be proven or disproven by the tools of science. You are free to consider such things beyond the pale of reason, but it is an act of will or choice. A choice we make for ourselves, hopefully.

I share a lot of values and notions with folks like CJ, and I cheer him on sometimes for a valiant effort on his own terms. I also cheer for you in respect to your presentation of things you've learned in your field of science. I accept that it's just beyond our ability to avoid all the absurdities of speculation. . . .but the way we tie the facts together and make coherent systems of understanding is a wonderful exercise. Hence my cheering for both sides sometimes. It's fun.

 

[carolinajazz]

Your Teacher told you that people would lose their eyelashes withina generation or two?

lol

Where did you go to school? Better yet, where did your teacher go to school?

....Chicago Public High School back in the 60's. I think he was a graduate from Harvard? No, wait! Maybe Yale? Or possibly Princeton! Could have been UCLA!

 

[PearlWatson]

Yeah CarolinaJazz, you are just stupid stupid stupid for not seeing the resemblance between penguins and gliding lizards, ostriches and flying snakes!

 

[MVP]

Yeah CarolinaJazz, you are just stupid stupid stupid for not seeing the resemblance between penguins and gliding lizards, ostriches and flying snakes!

I applaud the effort but now lets read CJ's quote and apply to those animals to understand what I was referring too as stupid.

GENERALLY speaking, birds have feathers, hollow bones, light weight organs so they can fly long distances and at fast speeds! Reptiles, on the other hand, are just the opposite! Large bone structure, large organs and much heavier body parts...

So penguins and ostriches fly long distances at fast speeds? Gliding snake and flying dragon has large bones and large organs and much heavier bodies? Right....

 

[One Brow]

c'mon OB. Where did anyone assert that communism was a dependent ideology?

carolinajazz specifically used evolutionary theory as an inspiration for Communism.

The "evolutionary theory" you admire so is not necessarily the only explanation for a whole lot of data/correlations being found by researchers, particularly by biased researchers who "believe" in the theory as you do, and who are out on a mission to validate their convictions, looking at everything they see as proof of it.

Can you elaborate?

you continue to just be blind to some impressive facts of life. A study of consciousness and will in living things would require you to contemplate something besides your imagined dumb brute elements.

might open up a whole new universe for you.

You think I've never read about or contemplated those things?

 

[PearlWatson]

I applaud the effort but now lets read CJ's quote and apply to those animals to understand what I was referring too as stupid.
So penguins and ostriches fly long distances at fast speeds? Gliding snake and flying dragon has large bones and large organs and much heavier bodies? Right....

GENERALLY speaking

 

[One Brow]

GENERALLY speaking

That's actually the point: these generalities don't limit the ways a population can change. There is nothing so essential to a modern-day iguana that it's descendants couldn't one day have feather, light bones, and wings. There's nothing so essential to a modern-day robin that it's descendants couldn't one day have heavy bones, front claws, and walk on all fours. These general attribution never hold up universally, because life refuses to fit itself into small boxes.

 

[MVP]

On my own point, the only place where I really see your argument as absurd is if/when you hold it as a compelling disproof of "God" in every possible conception of "God". .

Lets put it this way. It offers enough evidence to dismiss "creation". I leave an option of some higher developed intelligence/life forms existing in universe. Some religious people may want to refer to it as God. Does it mean it created life on Earth? All evidence I have seen from both sides make evolution vs creation debate a blowout win in evolutions favor.

 

[PearlWatson]

I applaud the effort but now lets read CJ's quote and apply to those animals to understand what I was referring too as stupid.
So penguins and ostriches fly long distances at fast speeds? Gliding snake and flying dragon has large bones and large organs and much heavier bodies? Right....

CJ: "The closest living relatives to modern birds, say evolutionists, are the crocodiles"

So let's compare a croc to birds that don't fly. Amazing resemblance there! CJ is so stupid stupid stupid for not buying into your crazy *** Darwiniac story.

 

[Bawse Dawg]

CJ: "The closest living relatives to modern birds, say evolutionists, are the crocodiles"

So let's compare a croc to birds that don't fly. Amazing resemblance there! CJ is so stupid stupid stupid for not buying into your crazy *** Darwiniac story.

Wow lots of scientific evidence shown there. Have you studied the DNA? Or the bone structure? Laughable that you would say "this doesn't look like that, they can't be related. Herp derp."


Dat app doe.

 

[MVP]

CJ: "The closest living relatives to modern birds, say evolutionists, are the crocodiles"

So let's compare a croc to birds that don't fly. Amazing resemblance there! CJ is so stupid stupid stupid for not buying into your crazy *** Darwiniac story.

250 mil years. Just try to process that for more then a 10 seconds.

 

[MVP]

Both birds and crocodilians are surviving archosaurs.

Crocodilians, pterosaurs and dinosaurs survived the Triassic–Jurassic extinction event about 195 million years ago, but other archosaurs became extinct.

Non-avian dinosaurs and pterosaurs perished in the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, which occurred approximately 66 million years ago, but crocodilians and birds (the only remaining dinosaur group) survived. Both are descendants of archosaurs, and are therefore archosaurs themselves under phylogenetic taxonomy.

Learning begins when you do not know the answer.

 

[PearlWatson]

The Darwiniac creation myth relies on relational resemblance, but there is even a problem with that.

This looks like that but Janet never gave birth to Elton

 

[Bawse Dawg]

Evolution backed up by scientific evidence and observation is a myth.

But a book written thousands of years ago is a fact.

Don't argue for the bible by trying to use science in your argument.


Dat app doe.

 

[PearlWatson]

Both birds and crocodilians are surviving archosaurs.

Crocodilians, pterosaurs and dinosaurs survived the Triassic–Jurassic extinction event about 195 million years ago, but other archosaurs became extinct.

Non-avian dinosaurs and pterosaurs perished in the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, which occurred approximately 66 million years ago, but crocodilians and birds (the only remaining dinosaur group) survived. Both are descendants of archosaurs, and are therefore archosaurs themselves under phylogenetic taxonomy.

Learning begins when you do not know the answer.

It is certainly an adventure to learn your creation myth.

What did this archosaur look like? Did it gain attributes or lose them to become a bird?

 

[MVP]

It is all pterosaurs fault, had they survived and crocodilians gone extinct we would not have this discussion. Dang pterosaurs.

 

[PearlWatson]

But a book written thousands of years ago is a fact.

Says the "The Preservation of favored races in the struggle for life" thumper.

 

[PearlWatson]

It is all pterosaurs fault, had they survived and crocodilians gone extinct we would not have this discussion. Dang pterosaurs.

Yes, it is the pterosaurs fault for making your creation myth look retarded.

What did this archosaur look like? Did it gain attributes or lose them to become a bird?

 

[MVP]

Yes, it is the pterosaurs fault for making our creation myth look retarded.

I fixed it for you. We do not have creation myth. We have evidence of evolution.

 

[PearlWatson]

We have evidence of evolution.

What does this archosaur look like? Did it gain attributes or lose them to become a bird?