transitional fossils

Originally posted by amannion
Yes, but what if it isn't?
What if the religious 'truth' isn't truth at all?

And please, please, please, read your goddamn sentences before you post. What the hell does your first sentence mean?

then youve picked the wrong one and youre doomed to some kinda punishment that some other religion has to offer 😕

Originally posted by amannion
Yes, but what if it isn't?
What if the religious 'truth' isn't truth at all?

And please, please, please, read your goddamn sentences before you post. What the hell does your first sentence mean?

What if religious truth is true?

What if you’re ever changing story, or theory, or whatever you want to
call today's version of the truth isn't true, or ever was true? Simply
because the story or version of how you think things occurred change
over and over does not mean it is better, it really means you more
than likely have never gotten it right, or did at one time, and lost
confidence in it so once again you’re off looking for answers again.

If you do not understand what I have written point out what it is
you do not understand.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
What if religious truth is true?

What if you’re ever changing story, or theory, or whatever you want to
call today's version of the truth isn't true, or ever was true? Simply
because the story or version of how you think things occurred change
over and over does not mean it is better, it really means you more
than likely have never gotten it right, o ...[text shortened]... you do not understand what I have written point out what it is
you do not understand.
Kelly

Well then we have entirely different views of the world.
You're happy that people 2000 years ago or so got it right, and we've been struggling to find out about and/or keep their story alive.
I'm not.
For me, human life on this planet is a constant journey, to find out more and to refine and, yes where necessary change, our understandings. I see human life over the past few thousand and million years as progress.
You see it as - I don't know ... stagnation maybe?

Originally posted by amannion
Well then we have entirely different views of the world.
You're happy that people 2000 years ago or so got it right, and we've been struggling to find out about and/or keep their story alive.
I'm not.
For me, human life on this planet is a constant journey, to find out more and to refine and, yes where necessary change, our understandings. I see human li ...[text shortened]... thousand and million years as progress.
You see it as - I don't know ... stagnation maybe?

You emphasize the struggle for knowledge, which I agree with you is a
goal, but what does not matter is when the truth is discovered or even
how if the truth is really known. Again I go back to 1+1=2 being true
today, and true 2000 years ago, if you felt like changing that to come
up with a different answer and did it for 2000 years it wouldn’t make
you’re ever changing answer more true than just accepting 1+2=2.

If God created the universe and all that is in it, you’re ever changing
answers on how it was done no matter what you come up with, if it
leaves God out of the picture, or does not give Him the proper credit
will always be in error no matter how many times you change your
views. Stagnation for the sake of change is worthless, what needs to
be acknowledge is the truth, if God did it that will not change no matter
how may ways you can dream up to put in its place.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You emphasize the struggle for knowledge, which I agree with you is a
goal, but what does not matter is when the truth is discovered or even
how if the truth is really known. Again I go back to 1+1=2 being true
today, and true 2000 years ago, if you felt like changing that to come
up with a different answer and did it for 2000 years it wouldn’t make
yo ...[text shortened]... did it that will not change no matter
how may ways you can dream up to put in its place.
Kelly

Yes of course 1 + 1 doesn't change - that's a trivial fact.
What I'm talking about is our understandings of the very workings of the world - that ain't trivial and needs more than simple facts to explain. Hence our use of models - that is, explanations.
The truth is my default position is that god or gods do not exist, that the universe is a rational place, that it isn't filled with fairy tale creatures and that we humans can work towards understanding it and how it works.
Your position is different which I accept - it's your prerogative of course.

P.S.Something that's always intrigued me with your posts is the shorter width of them. Do you press enter to do that, and why?

Originally posted by amannion
Yes of course 1 + 1 doesn't change - that's a trivial fact.
What I'm talking about is our understandings of the very workings of the world - that ain't trivial and needs more than simple facts to explain. Hence our use of models - that is, explanations.
The truth is my default position is that god or gods do not exist, that the universe is a rational plac me with your posts is the shorter width of them. Do you press enter to do that, and why?

Facts are not trivial! Point being an event that occurred will remain
the 'way it happened' no matter how many times we change our
description of what happened. We will try to put the data together
to understand an event, but being able to come up with a new story
daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly does not mean the historical truth
changed, only our opinions of what occurred. We build models with
pieces of what we think is true, if we were wrong, the model will
be too. Leaving God out of the picture colors all the data a certain
way, so much so you can say there isn't evidence for him, but in
my opinion it isn't that there isn't any, it is that you don't want there to
be.

The way people approach evolution is a clear way of seeing that,
those that accept design see ID, those that reject a designer say
it is bad science as if there rejection of a possible designer isn't
doing the same thing they claim the ID are doing.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Facts are not trivial! Point being an event that occurred will remain
the 'way it happened' no matter how many times we change our
description of what happened. We will try to put the data together
to understand an event, but being able to come up with a new story
daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly does not mean the historical truth
changed, only our op ...[text shortened]... on of a possible designer isn't
doing the same thing they claim the ID are doing.
Kelly

Facts are not trivial!

Compared with patterns and explanations they are.

The way people approach evolution is a clear way of seeing that,
those that accept design see ID, those that reject a designer say
it is bad science as if there rejection of a possible designer isn't
doing the same thing they claim the ID are doing.

Yes, the ID bunch are engaging in terrible science. They completely flaunt the notion of existence. If they want to posit a designer, that's fine, but they cannot make it a central tenant of their argument without some form of credible proof.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]Facts are not trivial!

Compared with patterns and explanations they are.

The way people approach evolution is a clear way of seeing that,
those that accept design see ID, those that reject a designer say
it is bad science as if there rejection of a possible designer isn't
doing the same thing they claim the ID are doing.

Yes, ...[text shortened]... cannot make it a central tenant of their argument without some form of credible proof.[/b]

As I said, both sides of that discussion are doing the same thing!
They look at DNA and one say yes, the other no; depending on who
is talking there either is or isn't design in DNA.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I said, both sides of that discussion are doing the same thing!
They look at DNA and one say yes, the other no; depending on who
is talking there either is or isn't design in DNA.
Kelly

Some people have a vested interest in finding design in DNA and will, whether it is there or not.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
Some people have a vested interest in finding design in DNA and will, whether it is there or not.

You believe some people have a vested interest in "not seeing"
design in DNA, and will not, whether it is there or not? We are talking
people here and core beliefs are we not?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You believe some people have a vested interest in "not seeing"
design in DNA, and will not, whether it is there or not? We are talking
people here and core beliefs are we not?
Kelly

I don't believe that anyone has a vested interest in not seeing design in DNA. I would believe in God if there was overwhelming evidence for Him. In that situation I would veiw the existance of God as a scientific fact, even if it relied on scientific principles we don't understand. I do believe that the existance of God would raise more scientific questions then it would answer and I also believe that the existance of God is as probable as the existance of faries.

Can you explain to me why people would veiw the existance of God as a bad thing? I veiw it as a fantasy, and often fantasies present a superior 'reality.' Would I choise eternal bliss over oblivion? I probably would. However there are plenty of other things I would love, like to be amazing at chess, but that to is unfortuantly a fantasy. Although of course the God fantasy is far more unlikly then the chess one.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
I don't believe that anyone has a vested interest in not seeing design in DNA. I would believe in God if there was overwhelming evidence for Him. In that situation I would veiw the existance of God as a scientific fact, even if it relied on scientific principles we don't understand. I do believe that the existance of God would raise more scientific ques uantly a fantasy. Although of course the God fantasy is far more unlikly then the chess one.

Everyone who rejects religion and God has an interest in not seeing
it no matter what! Are you serious! Everyone who has ever entered
into an evolution creation debate has an interest in seeing it or not, all
who want the universe to be regarded as completely godless by that
very definition has a vested interest in not seeing design. As soon
as design is even hinted at the door for so many other things is
cracked open, there is a huge interest in not seeing it. That said it
does not mean that design proves God or gods, because someone
could argue giant space roaches passing through designed it all,
or the flying spaghetti monster, or whatever else they want to
bring to the mix. It would put a new spin on evolutionary theory
as well, I don’t see how you can say no one has a vested interest
in not seeing design.
Kelly

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
I don't believe that anyone has a vested interest in not seeing design in DNA. I would believe in God if there was overwhelming evidence for Him. In that situation I would veiw the existance of God as a scientific fact, even if it relied on scientific principles we don't understand. I do believe that the existance of God would raise more scientific ques ...[text shortened]... uantly a fantasy. Although of course the God fantasy is far more unlikly then the chess one.

"I do believe that the existance of God would raise more scientific questions then it would answer and I also believe that the existance of God is as probable as the existance of faries."

I don't see believing or not believing in God changing anything with
respect to understanding the unverse around us, the universe will
remain as is, it would not matter what you and I believe. What would
be different I suppose would be how we view things. Why does this
happen this way or that is still a question that would drive us. Even
the age of the earth would still be something that would be in
question!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I said, both sides of that discussion are doing the same thing!
They look at DNA and one say yes, the other no; depending on who
is talking there either is or isn't design in DNA.
Kelly

You want to posit a designer? Fine. And I ask only one thing, credible proof of existence.

Until that condition is fulfilled, ID will never be science.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"I do believe that the existance of God would raise more scientific questions then it would answer and I also believe that the existance of God is as probable as the existance of faries."

I don't see believing or not believing in God changing anything with
respect to understanding the unverse around us, the universe will
remain as is, it would not matt ...[text shortened]... ve us. Even
the age of the earth would still be something that would be in
question!
Kelly

I'm not saying the questions wouldn't drive us. Prehaps the science of the universe would not change, but the existance of God would open up a whole new range of 'science.' Afterall, if God does exist then His existance is possible and therefore explainable. Even if only by Him. It would then be fine to end scientific papers with 'God only knows' and be perfectly reasonable.

I seriously do not think this will ever happen.