....
...........
.....................
Brovo Member
- Last Seen: MIA
- Old Guild Username: Brovo
- Joined: 12 yrs ago
- Posts: 1116 (0.25 / day)
- VMs: 0
-
Username history
- Brovo 12 yrs ago
Status
User has no status, yet
Bio
User has no bio, yet
Most Recent Posts
....
...........
.....................
Jannah said
Just to play a bit of Devil's Advocate, to be fair the OT doesn't claim Noah's flood was worldwide. At least the Jewish version doesn't as far as I know. I think it just claims it was regional. It's really with Christianity where shit begins to get wacky in that regard.
There's no record or geological evidence of a flood that claimed the entirety of the middle east either. Must have been a very small area that got flooded then... And that's not so mystical.
Fair enough though.
If you don't mind.
... Okay then. That's cute enough a reason, I think.
Typically people who haven't made a decision as to which theory is correct, or mistakenly believe that both can be correct when they are in diametric opposition to one another: Creationism cannot exist in a universe that has species evolving out of other species, as it basis its premise on the idea that a dog is always a dog, a cat is always a cat, etc.
Noah's Ark has no scientific evidence as to ever having occurred. Chinese history especially tends to be very damning in this respect: They record no worldwide flood at any point, and their history is uninterrupted. Their entire civilization did not end and then come back, we know this as a fact. Same goes for the Egyptians, Native Americans, and so on.
Again, another one of creationism's failings. Mainly in that Creationism does the scientific method backwards: It has a claim it's trying to prove with evidence. The scientific method is gathering evidence, then making a theory based on what is currently available, updating and discarding theories as new information comes in that invalidates old methods of thinking.
The Bible is not an accurate source of historical evidence, and there are too many examples to list in detail, so: Egypt did not note any kind of red sea parting, plagues, or first born mass child deaths, there is no sign Sodom and Gomorrah ever existed, many of Jesus' claims are dubious at the best of times, humanity's lineage has been traced to Africa (not the Mesopotamia as many claim), etc.
Well, there you go. Science answers the how, not the why. Why is in the realm of philosophy, spirituality. Personally, I think we exist to find a point to exist. Speaking from a purely biological level, we exist to procreate and continue the chain that started four billion years ago. Some of us succeed. Some of us don't. And that's life.
With abortion I can at least grant that there can be some argument made that an unborn child could be considered a partially developed person, and what rights that entails can be up for debate. That's a complicated, grey area place, actually.
Gay rights shouldn't be a debate in this day and age, but it is, and that's sad, but again, is primarily a debate on the differences of philosophy and human rights--intangible in its own right.
Evolution? Evolution is a scientific theory, with a supreme amount of evidence backing it. Creationism is a system of belief. The two are not equal, in any sense, on any level, in any manner, whatsoever, save for both being protected by free speech.
That aside? Scientifically speaking? Evolution wins.
Now if someone wants to try and adjust their religious beliefs to include evolution--ex: The Bible is a giant list of metaphors and the six days is really a whole series of things that God did to start physics and biology and the like on their way, well, be my guest, I have no problems with that. That's a faith-based argument and arguing on the basis of faith is assaulting the impenetrable fortress of the heart. It's fruitless.
Argue on the basis of logic, reason, evidence... And well... That's an entirely different story.
Good luck with your essay though. I can't imagine this is exactly an easy topic to represent both sides fairly on.
xAsunaWolfx said Nope, actually i like horses. Totally my reasoning behind that & i couldn't find other types of "font animals". xD
... Okay then. That's cute enough a reason, I think.
xAsunaWolfx said After thinking about it for awhile, most people have came to find that a mix of both creationism and evolution is another choice.
Typically people who haven't made a decision as to which theory is correct, or mistakenly believe that both can be correct when they are in diametric opposition to one another: Creationism cannot exist in a universe that has species evolving out of other species, as it basis its premise on the idea that a dog is always a dog, a cat is always a cat, etc.
xAsunaWolfx said There is no doubt that a mammal's brain is engineered in such a fashion to adapt to the outside environment to survive over years- we know this because over time, there were major climate changes, natural disasters that caused for a change. I suppose that a species unable to adapt had became extinct at that point, but some do blame the extintion of the species of dinosaurs on an event in the bible, i believe it was an earth-wide flood.
Noah's Ark has no scientific evidence as to ever having occurred. Chinese history especially tends to be very damning in this respect: They record no worldwide flood at any point, and their history is uninterrupted. Their entire civilization did not end and then come back, we know this as a fact. Same goes for the Egyptians, Native Americans, and so on.
Again, another one of creationism's failings. Mainly in that Creationism does the scientific method backwards: It has a claim it's trying to prove with evidence. The scientific method is gathering evidence, then making a theory based on what is currently available, updating and discarding theories as new information comes in that invalidates old methods of thinking.
xAsunaWolfx said Some has claimed 'biblical historical evidence' on some of this.
The Bible is not an accurate source of historical evidence, and there are too many examples to list in detail, so: Egypt did not note any kind of red sea parting, plagues, or first born mass child deaths, there is no sign Sodom and Gomorrah ever existed, many of Jesus' claims are dubious at the best of times, humanity's lineage has been traced to Africa (not the Mesopotamia as many claim), etc.
xAsunaWolfx said This article had interested me in the coexisting of both , these words in there stuck out the most to me""Even as science progresses in its reductionist fashion, moving towards deeper, simpler, and more elegant understandings of particles and forces, there will still remain a 'why' at the end as to why the ultimate rules are the way they are," said Ted Sargent, a nanotechnology expert at the University of Toronto.
Well, there you go. Science answers the how, not the why. Why is in the realm of philosophy, spirituality. Personally, I think we exist to find a point to exist. Speaking from a purely biological level, we exist to procreate and continue the chain that started four billion years ago. Some of us succeed. Some of us don't. And that's life.
xAsunaWolfx said "as to why this thread doesn't need to last long, i was assigned a creationism vs evolution essay due in about 3 hours (procrastination at it's finest) , and in this thread, it has already given me things to address.This is the type of topic that not everyone will agree on, as say abortion (prochoice vs prolife) or Gay rights. There's always a crowd that doens't agree with one another.The universe is incredibly wondrous, incredibly beautiful, and it fills me with a sense that there is some underlying explanation that we have yet to fully understand, and if someone wants to label that with god evolution, or both, that's okay with me.
With abortion I can at least grant that there can be some argument made that an unborn child could be considered a partially developed person, and what rights that entails can be up for debate. That's a complicated, grey area place, actually.
Gay rights shouldn't be a debate in this day and age, but it is, and that's sad, but again, is primarily a debate on the differences of philosophy and human rights--intangible in its own right.
Evolution? Evolution is a scientific theory, with a supreme amount of evidence backing it. Creationism is a system of belief. The two are not equal, in any sense, on any level, in any manner, whatsoever, save for both being protected by free speech.
That aside? Scientifically speaking? Evolution wins.
Now if someone wants to try and adjust their religious beliefs to include evolution--ex: The Bible is a giant list of metaphors and the six days is really a whole series of things that God did to start physics and biology and the like on their way, well, be my guest, I have no problems with that. That's a faith-based argument and arguing on the basis of faith is assaulting the impenetrable fortress of the heart. It's fruitless.
Argue on the basis of logic, reason, evidence... And well... That's an entirely different story.
Good luck with your essay though. I can't imagine this is exactly an easy topic to represent both sides fairly on.
Eternity is the worst curse to gift a mortal mind, of mortal desires, and mortal whimsy, and mortal emotions and fears.
I would stay. They are my child and I care about them. Once they perished of old age I would find a way to end my own life, or make some purpose out of it, to enhance the lives of those around me... But I would never share the curse of eternity. Too many would leap for it, take it, and realize some centuries later that all their mortal desires are finite, but now their own existences are not.
But alas. Eternity is impossible so long as entropy exists.
I would stay. They are my child and I care about them. Once they perished of old age I would find a way to end my own life, or make some purpose out of it, to enhance the lives of those around me... But I would never share the curse of eternity. Too many would leap for it, take it, and realize some centuries later that all their mortal desires are finite, but now their own existences are not.
But alas. Eternity is impossible so long as entropy exists.
Wherever I wanted, as whimsy would ask, to do research and pursue enlightenment, to seek out creation and destruction, ultimate power and ultimate poverty, true love and absolute hatred.
To accumulate all of this knowledge, and return to humankind, and just... Give it to their brightest minds. Then tell them to explore the stars.
Then probably die.
Really the universe is a wondrous place and all, but if I had such a ship, I would use it for altruistic means to empower the rest of my kind to achieve a level akin to my own. Otherwise, I would be ever so alone, atop my golden throne.
To accumulate all of this knowledge, and return to humankind, and just... Give it to their brightest minds. Then tell them to explore the stars.
Then probably die.
Really the universe is a wondrous place and all, but if I had such a ship, I would use it for altruistic means to empower the rest of my kind to achieve a level akin to my own. Otherwise, I would be ever so alone, atop my golden throne.
Write my mother's name it probably burn it.
Surround myself with pets and become the crazy cat ferret lady mate.
Though in all seriousness, I would probably crack and go completely insane after a few years and after having had my fun, killed myself before I would reach a venerable age. If I'm the last human on Earth, the species is doomed anyway.
Though in all seriousness, I would probably crack and go completely insane after a few years and after having had my fun, killed myself before I would reach a venerable age. If I'm the last human on Earth, the species is doomed anyway.
Not even a contest. Evolution wins on the basis that Creationism is not a science and is a belief-based system. That alone disqualifies it from even being comparable, in the same sense that if you got deathly ill you should visit a doctor who has a degree in medicine, not a priest who has a degree in theology.
Religion has its place in society and in personal lives. It can be very important to how a person views the world, it can empower and encourage, and it can be used to construct a sense of community.
However...
Science and general education is not one of those places, and its every attempt has done nothing but potentially damage the minds of young men and women across the globe. Period. If that makes me a militant atheist in that respect, fine, I am one, but don't expect this thread to last long when opinions on this topic tend to be extremely polarized, to a level that most other topics never reach.
EDIT
As well, the human body is far from a "perfect work of art". There are several flaws with it. The appendix, for example.
Religion has its place in society and in personal lives. It can be very important to how a person views the world, it can empower and encourage, and it can be used to construct a sense of community.
However...
Science and general education is not one of those places, and its every attempt has done nothing but potentially damage the minds of young men and women across the globe. Period. If that makes me a militant atheist in that respect, fine, I am one, but don't expect this thread to last long when opinions on this topic tend to be extremely polarized, to a level that most other topics never reach.
EDIT
As well, the human body is far from a "perfect work of art". There are several flaws with it. The appendix, for example.
Playing DAO, reading the Library, post soon™
Herzinth said
Spam may be dead but the spirit lives on.
In my role play, apparently?
© 2007-2026