ROTS Pre-Suit Vader vs. Galen Marek

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Oh, honestly...Kent Hovind is not the end all be all. Scientists do not blindly adhere to this sort of thing, the scientific community is not some sort of roundtable democracy where they vote on what they wish to adhere to. They have compiled the evidence and researched the facts.

If evolution was found totally wanting, it'd be researched, new theories would come to light and one would supplant the other. That's how science works

or so it seems, in every theory, except for evolution. Knightfall makes a good point in suggesting that Evolution is adhered to so stringently because IT is the first science EVER researched that makes humans answerable ONLY to themselves and their own wants and desires. It presents freedom FROM(not of) religion in a way no other theory ever had in the history of science.

That's nonsense. We've found a great many of 'transitional' forms, Kirk Cameron's nonsense be damned.

Fact is, we have no idea about the origin of the universe before the Bang. We likely won't for a long, long time. I haven't heard claims on it yet, either.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Oh, honestly...Kent Hovind is not the end all be all. Scientists do not blindly adhere to this sort of thing, the scientific community is not some sort of roundtable democracy where they vote on what they wish to adhere to. They have compiled the evidence and researched the facts.

If evolution was found totally wanting, it'd be researched, new theories would come to light and one would supplant the other. That's how science works

You say that people don't blindly adhere (well scientists anyway), yet you have yet to disprove one of my facts. you just blindly followed the scientists with the hypothesis that "their scientists, duh.... they must know what they are doing."

And I'm not quoting Hovind, all though his arguments are extremely valid. These are my own Ideas from my own research.

The original "origin of the species" said that toucans evolved from bananas because their beaks were yellow and resembled the same shape.

And the reason that this theory is #1 is because scientists don't want to believe that there is a god, and they don't want to come up with an original theory and say "OK, ok. you've proved us wrong. here is what else we think may have happened." And by now, all of your "scientists" have grown up under the brainwashing of the science textbooks, and those are the ones teaching and the ones who get the places of scientific power!

So you don't have an arguement, you haven't even attempted to disprove what I said, and you are just following the scientists blindly.

Originally posted by truejedi
or so it seems, in every theory, except for evolution. Knightfall makes a good point in suggesting that Evolution is adhered to so stringently because IT is the first science EVER researched that makes humans answerable ONLY to themselves and their own wants and desires. It presents freedom FROM(not of) religion in a way no other theory ever had in the history of science.

Where, oh, WHERE do I begin...

1. It's adhered to so stringently because every aspect of biological study seems to support it.
2. It doesn't promote 'freedom' from religion. It has nothing to DO with religion. If people use evolution as a reason to break from religion, then the theory isn't to be blamed.
3. When is one tenant of evolution atheism? Darwin sure as hell would disagree

When do scientists have some unholy agenda to suppress religions, now?

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
You say that people don't blindly adhere (well scientists anyway), yet you have yet to disprove one of my facts. you just blindly followed the scientists with the hypothesis that "their scientists, duh.... they must know what they are doing."

And I'm not quoting Hovind, all though his arguments are extremely valid. These are my own Ideas from my own research.

The original "origin of the species" said that toucans evolved from bananas because their beaks were yellow and resembled the same shape.

And the reason that this theory is #1 is because scientists don't want to believe that there is a god, and they don't want to come up with an original theory and say "OK, ok. you've proved us wrong. here is what else we think may have happened." And by now, all of your "scientists" have grown up under the brainwashing of the science textbooks, and those are the ones teaching and the ones who get the places of scientific power!

The philosopher Didactylus has suggested an alternative hypothesis: Things just happen...what the hell!

Apparently because scientists, etc. are hedonistic and want to be able to do what they want with out having to answer to anyone. And once again... you just follow behind the "scientists" quite blindly.

1. It's adhered to so stringently because every aspect of biological study seems to support it.

That's nonsense. We've found a great many of 'transitional' forms[...]

Fact is, we have no idea about the origin of the universe before the Bang. We likely won't for a long, long time. I haven't heard claims on it yet, either.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
You say that people don't blindly adhere (well scientists anyway), yet you have yet to disprove one of my facts. you just blindly followed the scientists with the hypothesis that "their scientists, duh.... they must know what they are doing."

And I'm not quoting Hovind, all though his arguments are extremely valid. These are my own Ideas from my own research.

And the reason that this theory is #1 is because scientists don't want to believe that there is a god, and they don't want to come up with an original theory and say "OK, ok. you've proved us wrong. here is what else we think may have happened." And by now, all of your "scientists" have grown up under the brainwashing of the science textbooks, and those are the ones teaching and the ones who get the places of scientific power!

The reason this theory even IS a theory is because of the overwhelming evidence behind it! Scientists don't just flip a coin to decide what they want to study, they decide based on the available evidence and defend it with evidence.

Originally posted by Borbarad
The philosopher Didactylus has suggested an alternative hypothesis: Things just happen...what the hell!

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Apparently because scientists, etc. are hedonistic and want to be able to do what they want with out having to answer to anyone. And once again... you just follow behind the "scientists" quite blindly.

Like.... what?
you can't even prove the big bang.

Originally posted by Lightsnake

No. But you can prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

how?

Actually, the Big Bang can be proven. The model which is based on the "theory" fits the way in which we observe our universe and explains everything we know in a way that fits.

Something that essentially "confirmed" the Big Bang hypothosis? Cosmic Background Radiation.

but it does fall short of scientific fact.

In scientific circles, there is a different usage of the word 'theory' than there is in casual language. In common usage, a theory is just an idea, with or without supporting proof. In scientific usage, it is one step below fact, and is only granted this status when it can successfully make predictions about reality and has a tremendous body of evidence. It should be noted that we don't yet know the mechanism by which gravity works, but we do know how Evolution works. (natural selection)

Originally posted by truejedi
and holes. It also has holes that are unexplainable. Here's a question though. Let's say evolution is true, lets say its all true, right back to the big bang. My question is: where did that material come from? where did the universe come from in the first place? Non-Matter doesn't create matter, so WHY would there even be a universe here?

1. Lets not get into a 'god of the gaps' debate here, since gaps can (and are) filled at a tremendous rate, leaving a potential god less and less space to hide.
2. The Big Bang Theory has no bearing on the validity of the Theory of Evolution. Neither does Abiogenesis. Questioning those theories will not cast doubt on Evolution through natural selection.
3. The theory says that there was a singularity. The origin of the singularity is irrelevant, as it had all of eternity to form. If it had a probability of 1 in in 1E1000000000000(etc.) it would still have happened, because there were no other events, or even time, in between its non-existence and its appearance. Then, everything would have proceeded as they suppose. This isn't to say that the theory is infallible, there are still several uncertainties, especially about how matter behaves at plank temperatures. (VERY VERY HOT).
4. As for non-matter, in quantum physics this is shown to not be exactly true. Matter jumps, shifts, and non-vacuum is (I believe- rudimentary physics is talking here) is more probable than vacuum. For details I'll PM Inimalist, the Religion Forum's resident science god.

Personally, as I said, I'm agnostic, with the belief that science doesn't cross out religion as a whole. We'll never be able to explain or understand everything, so really, it doesn't seem to be a big deal to believe in something. To the point of willful exclusion of facts is another story

On an unrelated note, has anyone here actually taken the time to read On the Origin of Species? I got about a third of the way through and quit. I couldn't take it. It's absolutely one of the most boring books I have ever read. Right up there with Marx's Das Kapital. And I'm a Communist, so that's saying something.

Redbeard's Survival of the Fittest, though, is thoroughly entertaining.

I slogged through it once.

LOL @ the off-topic-ness of this thread.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
but this is the philosophy for the shallow. we are philosophers who want some idea of origin or begining... 🙂

Nope. This is philosophy for the smart people.

Reason? You can pick any potential topic regarding humanity, the history of the universe, the meaning of life and so on, and after going to pretty much all thinking that can be done about all the issues, you will reach the point where you have to say: "We don't know."

So you can either believe in anything [to a certain extend] or in nothing. Which also doesn't matter much as, as said before, you can't archieve any "knowledge".

That being said, any philosophy is equally worthless [or equally valueable - your choice]. You can just pick what you like. In the end, you'll still know nothing, which means you can save yourself a lot of time by simply not caring.

And really: Does it make any difference for my current life if I believe that I was created by God or if I believe that I'm the result of several million years worth of evolution? In the great scheme of things [given a universe to big to comprehend] both explanations make me a being that exists because of reasons that are - from my view - incredible coincidences. And as it doesn't make any difference, I don't really have to care.

Originally posted by Borbarad
Nope. This is philosophy for the smart people.

Reason? You can pick any potential topic regarding humanity, the history of the universe, the meaning of life and so on, and after going to pretty much all thinking that can be done about all the issues, you will reach the point where you have to say: "We don't know."

So you can either believe in anything [to a certain extend] or in nothing. Which also doesn't matter much as, as said before, you can't archieve any "knowledge".

That being said, any philosophy is equally worthless [or equally valueable - your choice]. You can just pick what you like. In the end, you'll still know nothing, which means you can save yourself a lot of time by simply not caring.

...As a huge fan of Plato's philosophy and epistomology, I just cringed.

Originally posted by Borbarad
And really: Does it make any difference for my current life if I believe that I was created by God or if I believe that I'm the result of several million years worth of evolution? In the great scheme of things [given a universe to big to comprehend] both explanations make me a being that exists because of reasons that are - from my view - incredible coincidences. And as it doesn't make any difference, I don't really have to care.

That remark, however, was extremely eloquent. 👆

Originally posted by Jbill311 (in the religion forum)
ARCHAEOPTRYX

Transitional species: not just for rational humans anymore.

Apparently because scientists, etc. are hedonistic and want to be able to do what they want with out having to answer to anyone. And once again... you just follow behind the "scientists" quite blindly.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
proof of evolution? show me a scientific webpage that has one transitional form.

You are saying that two hydrogen molecules colided (where did the hydrogen come from?) and exploded, creating a universe. (how did hydrogen turn into all those other elements?) One out of nine floating rocks made from hydrogen orbited a sun made from hydrogen (Well a few of the rocks are made from gases.). Then it rained on the rock for millions of years, and finally a cell was formed. (A cell is infinitely complex, this can't just "form" as early scientists said when they believed a cell to be a simple creature). after billions of billions of billions of years, this cell turned into birds and mammals and bacteria.

Seriously... Nothing made something which made everything?

There are also transitional forms that could have been impossible (by your survival of the fittest theory) such as the bat. "Scientists" believe that the bat evolved from a shrew. Now imagine the transitional form. Imagine a flightless rodent with superlative elongated phalanges so that his for arms were rendered completely useless? how did this rodent survive long enough to evolve into a bat?

Another thing you won't see is kind jumpers. Science has not shown a kind of animal bring forth another kind of animal. This is another lie.

Evolution is invalid, it breeds pessimistic, self centered animals who view themselves as the only cause worth living for.