Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"Darwin's Dilemma"

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 12:09:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Most people seem to believe that jesus has been disproved, but so has darwin.

What do you believe?

Creation or evolution?
proof?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 12:21:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
How does that prove anything? Because a massive amount of fish appeared 500 million years ago, that somehow disproves evolution?
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 12:32:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 12:21:27 PM, Nags wrote:
How does that prove anything? Because a massive amount of fish appeared 500 million years ago, that somehow disproves evolution?

No i just thought the video had a nice appeal.

Here's a simple mathematical disproof of evolution:

As a conservative estimate, lets say that historically 10% of people have been childless. Considering the rate of infant mortality and young deaths, the actual percentage may be considerably higher.

Now let's consider how many ancestors you've had. You have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great-grandparents, etc. This grows at such a fast rate that when you go back 20 generations (which would be maybe 1000 years max?) you'd have had a total of over two million ancestors.

Evolution requires genetic material to be passed on from parents to children. Thus, the totality of evolution rests on the (insane) claim that all of our ancestors had children. Think for a moment about how insane that claim is... in every generation, all the way back, every last one of your ancestors has to have had children according to evolution. Simple probability says that even if you only take the last 20 generations into account, 200,000 of your ancestors (10% of the two million) should have been childless.

Math tells you 200,000 and evolution tells you 0. That discrepancy is far, far beyond the range of what anyone could claim to be random chance. Thus, evolution is mathematically false.

In 1879 a letter came asking if he believed in God, and if theism and evolution were compatible. He replied that a man "can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist", citing Charles Kingsley and Asa Gray as examples, and for himself, he had "never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God". He added that "I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be a more correct description of my state of mind."
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 1:16:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 12:32:39 PM, comoncents wrote:

"Simple probability says that even if you only take the last 20 generations into account, 200,000 of your ancestors (10% of the two million) should have been childless."

This is possibly one of the stupidest, most idiotic things I have ever seen on debate.org, and I am including all of GodSands, DATCMOTO's and Joshandr30's statements in that list.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 1:50:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 12:32:39 PM, comoncents wrote:
Here's a simple mathematical disproof of evolution:

Wahahahahahaha! Ooh boy. I'm laughing already.

As a conservative estimate, lets say that historically 10% of people have been childless. Considering the rate of infant mortality and young deaths, the actual percentage may be considerably higher.

Now let's consider how many ancestors you've had. You have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great-grandparents, etc. This grows at such a fast rate that when you go back 20 generations (which would be maybe 1000 years max?) you'd have had a total of over two million ancestors.

Well, no. Because there is interbreeding. Many of those ancestors would be the same, so to speak. Say since your parents where cousins, that means that instead of eight great grand parents you only have six. So in practice that number becomes much lower.

Evolution requires genetic material to be passed on from parents to children. Thus, the totality of evolution rests on the (insane) claim that all of our ancestors had children.

Of course not. Where on earth did you come up with that. I mean, honestly... It's rather the complete opposite. Evolution rests of the fact that some people get many more kids than others.

Think for a moment about how insane that claim is...

Yes. Notice that the only one making that claim is you.

Simple probability says that even if you only take the last 20 generations into account, 200,000 of your ancestors (10% of the two million) should have been childless.

No. All my ancestors had children, for obvious reasons. God this is so stupid that it really boggles the mind. Are you serious?

Thus, evolution is mathematically false.

God this is daft beyond belief. Please tell me you are joking.
So prove me wrong, then.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 2:02:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
XD XD XD

This thread is hilarious.

At 10/7/2009 1:16:10 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 10/7/2009 12:32:39 PM, comoncents wrote:

"Simple probability says that even if you only take the last 20 generations into account, 200,000 of your ancestors (10% of the two million) should have been childless."

This is possibly one of the stupidest, most idiotic things I have ever seen on debate.org, and I am including all of GodSands, DATCMOTO's and Joshandr30's statements in that list.

I must agree with Kleptin here.

Common cents.... Use some common sence here...
I'll be nice and grant your 10% figure of human breeding, just for the sake of argument.
You mention something like 200,000 ancestors. For the sake of argument we'll grant that as well. From that you then conclude that 10% of those would not have bred, mathematically. However, you are not taking into account humans that are not ancestors of the original person. The population at the time of your 200,000 was not 200,000. It would have been much higher. It is only among the entire population alive at that time that we can grant your 10% of humans that do not breed. This means that it is mathematically possible for the 200,000 ancestors to have bred. Furthermore, it is quite obvious that they did breed or there would be no original person at all.

In short, your mathematical proof utterly fails.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 2:28:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 2:02:20 PM, JBlake wrote:
XD XD XD

This thread is hilarious.

At 10/7/2009 1:16:10 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 10/7/2009 12:32:39 PM, comoncents wrote:

"Simple probability says that even if you only take the last 20 generations into account, 200,000 of your ancestors (10% of the two million) should have been childless."

This is possibly one of the stupidest, most idiotic things I have ever seen on debate.org, and I am including all of GodSands, DATCMOTO's and Joshandr30's statements in that list.

I must agree with Kleptin here.

Common cents.... Use some common sence here...
I'll be nice and grant your 10% figure of human breeding, just for the sake of argument.
You mention something like 200,000 ancestors. For the sake of argument we'll grant that as well. From that you then conclude that 10% of those would not have bred, mathematically. However, you are not taking into account humans that are not ancestors of the original person. The population at the time of your 200,000 was not 200,000. It would have been much higher. It is only among the entire population alive at that time that we can grant your 10% of humans that do not breed. This means that it is mathematically possible for the 200,000 ancestors to have bred. Furthermore, it is quite obvious that they did breed or there would be no original person at all.

In short, your mathematical proof utterly fails.

my bad... i forgot to add that i got it from here

http://www.sciforums.com...

Critics of evolution have often rightfully observed how the idea of humans coming to exist by chance is utterly ludicrous, and actually mathematically impossible. Anyone can see just by looking about that this couldn't have happened by chance... the odds against this world coming about by chance are essentially infinite.

Here's a simple mathematical disproof of evolution:

As a conservative estimate, lets say that historically 10% of people have been childless. Considering the rate of infant mortality and young deaths, the actual percentage may be considerably higher.

Now let's consider how many ancestors you've had. You have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great-grandparents, etc. This grows at such a fast rate that when you go back 20 generations (which would be maybe 1000 years max?) you'd have had a total of over two million ancestors.

Evolution requires genetic material to be passed on from parents to children. Thus, the totality of evolution rests on the (insane) claim that all of our ancestors had children. Think for a moment about how insane that claim is... in every generation, all the way back, every last one of your ancestors has to have had children according to evolution. Simple probability says that even if you only take the last 20 generations into account, 200,000 of your ancestors (10% of the two million) should have been childless.

Math tells you 200,000 and evolution tells you 0. That discrepancy is far, far beyond the range of what anyone could claim to be random chance. Thus, evolution is mathematically false.

he asked who disproved it... so i am looking for religious responses that ins not bible based.

Critics of evolution have often rightfully observed how the idea of humans coming to exist by chance is utterly ludicrous, and actually mathematically impossible. Anyone can see just by looking about that this couldn't have happened by chance... the odds against this world coming about by chance are essentially infinite.

Here's a simple mathematical disproof of evolution:

As a conservative estimate, lets say that historically 10% of people have been childless. Considering the rate of infant mortality and young deaths, the actual percentage may be considerably higher.

Now let's consider how many ancestors you've had. You have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great-grandparents, etc. This grows at such a fast rate that when you go back 20 generations (which would be maybe 1000 years max?) you'd have had a total of over two million ancestors.

Evolution requires genetic material to be passed on from parents to children. Thus, the totality of evolution rests on the (insane) claim that all of our ancestors had children. Think for a moment about how insane that claim is... in every generation, all the way back, every last one of your ancestors has to have had children according to evolution. Simple probability says that even if you only take the last 20 generations into account, 200,000 of your ancestors (10% of the two million) should have been childless.

Math tells you 200,000 and evolution tells you 0. That discrepancy is far, far beyond the range of what anyone could claim to be random chance. Thus, evolution is mathematically false
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 2:29:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
my bad... i forgot to add that i got it from here

http://www.sciforums.com......

Critics of evolution have often rightfully observed how the idea of humans coming to exist by chance is utterly ludicrous, and actually mathematically impossible. Anyone can see just by looking about that this couldn't have happened by chance... the odds against this world coming about by chance are essentially infinite.

Here's a simple mathematical disproof of evolution:

As a conservative estimate, lets say that historically 10% of people have been childless. Considering the rate of infant mortality and young deaths, the actual percentage may be considerably higher.

Now let's consider how many ancestors you've had. You have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great-grandparents, etc. This grows at such a fast rate that when you go back 20 generations (which would be maybe 1000 years max?) you'd have had a total of over two million ancestors.

Evolution requires genetic material to be passed on from parents to children. Thus, the totality of evolution rests on the (insane) claim that all of our ancestors had children. Think for a moment about how insane that claim is... in every generation, all the way back, every last one of your ancestors has to have had children according to evolution. Simple probability says that even if you only take the last 20 generations into account, 200,000 of your ancestors (10% of the two million) should have been childless.

Math tells you 200,000 and evolution tells you 0. That discrepancy is far, far beyond the range of what anyone could claim to be random chance. Thus, evolution is mathematically false.

he asked who disproved it... so i am looking for religious responses that ins not bible based.
I am still looking how they explain it.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 2:32:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I don't claim to be smart... but i also do not claim to be that dumb either.

i claim, common sense with some logic.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 2:41:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
: At 10/7/2009 2:32:27 PM, comoncents wrote:
I don't claim to be smart... but i also do not claim to be that dumb either.



i claim, common sense with some logic.


Which do you believe in, creation or evolution?
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 2:44:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 2:41:45 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 10/7/2009 2:32:27 PM, comoncents wrote:
I don't claim to be smart... but i also do not claim to be that dumb either.



i claim, common sense with some logic.


Which do you believe in, creation or evolution?

I don't like you.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 2:59:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 2:28:30 PM, comoncents wrote:
my bad... i forgot to add that i got it from here

http://www.sciforums.com...

Seems to be some sort of humor site. Except it's not funny.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 3:00:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 2:32:27 PM, comoncents wrote:
I don't claim to be smart... but i also do not claim to be that dumb either.

i claim, common sense with some logic.

Good, because that's all you need to understand evolution. It's not that hard.
So prove me wrong, then.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 3:01:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 2:59:08 PM, regebro wrote:
At 10/7/2009 2:28:30 PM, comoncents wrote:
my bad... i forgot to add that i got it from here

http://www.sciforums.com...

Seems to be some sort of humor site. Except it's not funny.

yeah
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 3:01:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 2:41:45 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 10/7/2009 2:32:27 PM, comoncents wrote:
I don't claim to be smart... but i also do not claim to be that dumb either.



i claim, common sense with some logic.


Which do you believe in, creation or evolution?

I don't believe in either. Belief is a religious cop out for claiming something that has been proven wrong. This is science. Evolution is not a belief, it's fact.
So prove me wrong, then.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 3:02:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 2:44:57 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 10/7/2009 2:41:45 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 10/7/2009 2:32:27 PM, comoncents wrote:
I don't claim to be smart... but i also do not claim to be that dumb either.



i claim, common sense with some logic.



I don't like you.

sorry you don't like me...
hahaha my bad, never meant for you not to like me, but i guess we can not help who we like and who we don't like.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 3:03:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 2:41:45 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 10/7/2009 2:32:27 PM, comoncents wrote:
I don't claim to be smart... but i also do not claim to be that dumb either.



i claim, common sense with some logic.


Which do you believe in, creation or evolution?

It is to complicated for me to explain what it is i believe.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 3:04:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 3:00:09 PM, regebro wrote:
At 10/7/2009 2:32:27 PM, comoncents wrote:
I don't claim to be smart... but i also do not claim to be that dumb either.

i claim, common sense with some logic.

Good, because that's all you need to understand evolution. It's not that hard.

I agree.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 3:08:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
@commonsense

The answer is very, very simple.

50% of humans are men.
5% of humans are pregnant.

Therefore, 2.5% of humans are pregnant men.

Figure out why the above is wrong, and you will have the answer to your conundrum. It's a fallacy of incorrect statistics.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 3:23:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 3:02:46 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 10/7/2009 2:44:57 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 10/7/2009 2:41:45 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 10/7/2009 2:32:27 PM, comoncents wrote:
I don't claim to be smart... but i also do not claim to be that dumb either.



i claim, common sense with some logic.



I don't like you.

sorry you don't like me...
hahaha my bad, never meant for you not to like me, but i guess we can not help who we like and who we don't like.

I was talking to Godsands man. I can't say this about anybody else on here (even DAT has his positives, in my opinion) but Godsands is a deadset moron, a bane to the site, a no-nothing zealot, the epitome of ignorance and self-delusion. I truly despise him. As for yourself, I think you're just a dude trying to get answers for things you don't understand. We all are. I have nothing against you whatsoever.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 3:28:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 3:08:17 PM, Kleptin wrote:
@commonsense

The answer is very, very simple.

50% of humans are men.
5% of humans are pregnant.

Therefore, 2.5% of humans are pregnant men.

Figure out why the above is wrong, and you will have the answer to your conundrum. It's a fallacy of incorrect statistics.

cool
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 3:29:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 3:23:48 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 10/7/2009 3:02:46 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 10/7/2009 2:44:57 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 10/7/2009 2:41:45 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 10/7/2009 2:32:27 PM, comoncents wrote:
I don't claim to be smart... but i also do not claim to be that dumb either.



i claim, common sense with some logic.



I don't like you.

sorry you don't like me...
hahaha my bad, never meant for you not to like me, but i guess we can not help who we like and who we don't like.

I was talking to Godsands man. I can't say this about anybody else on here (even DAT has his positives, in my opinion) but Godsands is a deadset moron, a bane to the site, a no-nothing zealot, the epitome of ignorance and self-delusion. I truly despise him. As for yourself, I think you're just a dude trying to get answers for things you don't understand. We all are. I have nothing against you whatsoever.

Cool
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 3:50:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
@comoncents

Don't worry about it. We're all here to learn. But I don't really agree with your "common sense" approach to learning. Let me tell you why.

One of the most important things in dealing with Creation/Evolution is the knowledge of how specialized education operates in our society.

There are some things that people need to understand and devote time to, before they can understand other things. Then, they need to master the understanding of those things, prior to initiating study of another set of things. After that, they need to have a good grasp of that set of knowledge, before they can pass judgement on an issue like Creationism/Evolution.

99.9% of all people who support Creationism and speak out against Evolution, are uneducated laypersons. Meaning, they don't really have a basis for disagreeing, because they have no idea what they are talking about. They think that based on what they believe, what they hear from their pastors, or "common sense", they already have enough knowledge to pass their judgement.

Most of what these people say is along the intellectual level of "We definitely should NOT keep storks in zoos, because then, they would not be able to deliver babies". It is a position that isn't ridiculous in and of itself, but is rooted in pure ignorance.

There are people on this site who are full of bulls*it. This is because their base knowledge is bulls*it, and the conclusions they derive from bulls*it knowledge will undoubtedly be bulls*it. From this bulls*it, they spew more bulls*it, until they spread it around so evenly that it seems acceptable. They've spent so much of their life wallowing in bulls*it, breathing bulls*it, tasting bulls*it, and spreading bulls*it, that they can't understand the fact that their beliefs, ARE BULLS*IT, even when confronted by a person with actual background and actual knowledge.

Common sense is good for common things. Creation/Evolution is not a common topic. It requires a bit of education and research. You need "uncommon sense" :P
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 3:57:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 3:50:35 PM, Kleptin wrote:
@comoncents

Don't worry about it. We're all here to learn. But I don't really agree with your "common sense" approach to learning. Let me tell you why.

One of the most important things in dealing with Creation/Evolution is the knowledge of how specialized education operates in our society.

There are some things that people need to understand and devote time to, before they can understand other things. Then, they need to master the understanding of those things, prior to initiating study of another set of things. After that, they need to have a good grasp of that set of knowledge, before they can pass judgement on an issue like Creationism/Evolution.

99.9% of all people who support Creationism and speak out against Evolution, are uneducated laypersons. Meaning, they don't really have a basis for disagreeing, because they have no idea what they are talking about. They think that based on what they believe, what they hear from their pastors, or "common sense", they already have enough knowledge to pass their judgement.

Most of what these people say is along the intellectual level of "We definitely should NOT keep storks in zoos, because then, they would not be able to deliver babies". It is a position that isn't ridiculous in and of itself, but is rooted in pure ignorance.

There are people on this site who are full of bulls*it. This is because their base knowledge is bulls*it, and the conclusions they derive from bulls*it knowledge will undoubtedly be bulls*it. From this bulls*it, they spew more bulls*it, until they spread it around so evenly that it seems acceptable. They've spent so much of their life wallowing in bulls*it, breathing bulls*it, tasting bulls*it, and spreading bulls*it, that they can't understand the fact that their beliefs, ARE BULLS*IT, even when confronted by a person with actual background and actual knowledge.

Common sense is good for common things. Creation/Evolution is not a common topic. It requires a bit of education and research. You need "uncommon sense" :P

I agree with you 99.9%.
"Common sense" is just what i got by with for so long... i do see what you are saying, therefore i am pushing my efforts to merge the two. (and school is free for me, actually i get paid to go to school)

i am now finishing culinary school and have applied for further education, at Virginia Tech, Radford university, Roanoke college and Liberty university for political science/ history/ writing.

but i do see what you are saying
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 4:59:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 3:50:35 PM, Kleptin wrote:
@comoncents


There are people on this site who are full of bulls*it. This is because their base knowledge is bulls*it, and the conclusions they derive from bulls*it knowledge will undoubtedly be bulls*it. From this bulls*it, they spew more bulls*it, until they spread it around so evenly that it seems acceptable. They've spent so much of their life wallowing in bulls*it, breathing bulls*it, tasting bulls*it, and spreading bulls*it, that they can't understand the fact that their beliefs, ARE BULLS*IT, even when confronted by a person with actual background and actual knowledge.

Like being educated from the West Virginia University... damn toothless, couch lighting mountaineers.

(jk)
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 5:24:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Well, coming from a culinary school education, I think you would have a different perspective. The way I see it, your profession is more a combination of art and service, and deals with the practical over the theoretical. That's why for you, merging common sense with learned knowledge is ideal.

When you're talking about a purely academic field, as in evolutionary biology or quantum physics, we can't really see that a certain temperature would burn a souffle, or that a light dash of spice makes a big difference for a certain dish. There isn't any connection between the theory and our five senses in the more academic fields, whereas you rely on your senses in your line of work all the time.

This is why "common sense" doesn't work when we're dealing with theoretical discussions along the line of Creation/Evolution.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 5:38:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 5:24:52 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Well, coming from a culinary school education, I think you would have a different perspective. The way I see it, your profession is more a combination of art and service, and deals with the practical over the theoretical. That's why for you, merging common sense with learned knowledge is ideal.

When you're talking about a purely academic field, as in evolutionary biology or quantum physics, we can't really see that a certain temperature would burn a souffle, or that a light dash of spice makes a big difference for a certain dish. There isn't any connection between the theory and our five senses in the more academic fields, whereas you rely on your senses in your line of work all the time.

This is why "common sense" doesn't work when we're dealing with theoretical discussions along the line of Creation/Evolution.

true, true. Respected.