"law" of evolution?
- Started
- Last post
- 90 Responses
- teleos0
Dawkins et. al have their own religion: scientism.
- no
they
fucking
don't. You still don't get it.
mikotondria3 - Religion is a collection of statements.
Science is a collection of processes designed to assess statements about truth.mikotondria3 - statements about the world and.mikotondria3
- Wrong. Dawkins and Co.'s commitment to materialistic reductionism is faith-based. And he knows it.teleos
- Piffle, sir.mikotondria3
- that's what you'd called a 'naked assertion' teleos. finally its correctly used! huzzah!spifflink
- no
- ukit0
Science is just a fancy word for what we all do every day. If you were trying to debug a Flash movie or a web app what would you do, pray that God would fix it? Of course not, you would run some tests, identify the problem and fix it. That's science.
- Is the problem x? Lets try...
No, it can't be x, because y is true. Is the problem xx ? etc..
You do it without thinking.mikotondria3
- Is the problem x? Lets try...
- designbot0
Well from a Christian perspective TBO
determinism = predestination, ultimately these words have the same meaning. But I suppose you are right, I do believe in free will and think every human being is capable of choosing their own fate. So you could argue my problem is really the thought that our human existence has no purpose or meaning. But it is also with human experiences, and what is considered truth. If I have an experience that does not fit within the walls of science as "truth", does that make it false? Or could it be that what I experienced is indeed as real as gravity, and simply cannot be quantified by science? I agree there is no way on either side to prove or disprove the existence of God. Just like science cannot prove or disprove love or hate. I have always had the view that humans are simply limited in their understanding, so whether it be the unknown things of the universe or the things of God, we are ultimately trying to understand and explain things as we see/experience within the confines of our limited minds. We all have faith one way or the other, in something....in that OUR view is the correct one when we cannot be 100% certain. This is where our experiences can take us in one direction or the other. Science is a great thing, and has evolved so much even over the last 50 years it's pretty staggering. I just squirm at the thought of putting 100% of my faith in science and only natural known occurrences, when again, there are things it (science) cannot explain but for all intents and purposes could be stated as fact.thanks for the link btw, I'll check it out.
- ukit0
Notice that despite all this hating on science, at least it works as advertised. Thank science next time you hop behind the wheel of your car, fire up your computer, or take a plane somewhere.
Religion on the other hand, doesn't seem to feel any need to back up its claims about faith healing, resurrection, seas parting etc. I'd be a lot more impressed with religion if I could actually say cast a spell a la Final Fantasy and shoot a lightening bolt at someone or heal myself.
- I think all you like to do is argue, personally.designbot
- *shoots lightening bolt*ukit
- haha, I don't mean to be harsh, you just strike me as someone who is more interested in debating than having a conversation.designbot
- conversation.designbot
- Look if I argue with you I must take a contrary position...ribit
- Yes but an argument is more than saying 'no it isn't'ribit
- Yes it isribit
- No it isn'tribit
- er... dang thats not right is it..ribit
- You are wrong about me designbot. WRONG!ukit
- teleos0
Nobody is hating on science. The point is that certain theories have glaring deficiencies.
- "God did this or that", isn't a theory.mikotondria3
- I don't claim that it is.teleos
- I mean, it IS YOUR theory. Your only, untestable, unfalsifiable, version of a theory.mikotondria3
- yeah, you kind of do. i by kind of, i mean yes, you do.spifflink
- I claim that biology shows evidence of a designer. And that we should investigate. That is all.teleos
- your claim is in error then. please look at ALL the evidence.spifflink
- please consider 'illusion of a designer'ribit
- TheBlueOne0
I guess we all carry unspoken baggage around with us when we get into these conversations. I am definitely on the science side of this debate if it's "intelligent design" sitting across the table. But I'm not necessarily anti-religion or anti-spirituality or whatever. But then again, my definition of religion/spirituality isn't Christian fundamentalism either. In fact, it's not really biblical based per se. See, where ukit says "Religion on the other hand, doesn't seem to feel any need to back up its claims about faith healing, resurrection, seas parting etc. I'd be a lot more impressed with religion if I could actually say cast a spell a la Final Fantasy and shoot a lightening bolt at someone or heal myself." well NONE of that is religious to me. That's just parlor tricks for the easily impressionable rubes. All that supernatural stuff is just rank BS to me. I think there's plenty of strangeness and wonder in the natural order of things to drop some sublime shit on our heads. I think there's plenty of space for a religious/spiritual mindset to operate in - the mysteries of life/death, ethics, despair, joy, peace/war..that to try and have it serve principally as some sort of theory of causation in natural phenomenon as the base explanatory rule set is just utilizing it for what it's good for .
IMHO, teleos is either being entirely disingenuous (thus pulling a fast one on the rubes) or he's really THAT clueless (he is a rube) when he claims he doesn't see how assuming from the start there is a God at the start of all things and saying that science points to a supreme God because we need to "look at all the evidence". Science and religion shouldn't be at war with each other, and those that promote it do so for a reason that is helpful to neither, but primarily themselves. I also find it very interesting that those on the creationist..oops, I mean Intelligent Design...side of the debate like to frame science as "just another religion" as some sort of justification for what they're doing, when in fact science is simply not a religion, nor could it be. If there are people who operate under that mindset they are just as misled and equally a bunch of rubes as those who think that Jesus rode a dinosaur.
Just calling it as I see it t-man. But what the hell do I know, I'm just a puny human.
- "...what it's NOT good for" end of first paragraph.TheBlueOne
- Thanks for the response TBO. I think we agree on a lot here. The main thing I was getting at is "understanding we don't understand everything" not through science and not through religion.designbot
- not through science and not through religion.designbot
- ..ooops got cut off "understanding that we don't understand everything".designbot
- TBO, with you on most points there. Science / faith are not mutually exclusive.sublocked
- mikotondria30
There are many many things in this world, which at one time had only a religious explaination, but that now - thanks to the hardwork, talent and dedication of people creating and implementing the scientific method, have a better scientific explaination.
There are no things that once had a scientific explaination, but that now have a religious explaination.
Not one.
- TheBlueOne0
Passed along without comment.
- TheBlueOne0
I love the way the religious folks were first all "What? The Earth goes around the sun? Ridiculous! What? There were stuff around before people? No way. Those twinkly things in the sky aren't angels, but rather other suns? Blasphemer! That goes against our Bible here"..and then now they're all "Oh yes, sure the sun is the center, and their were dinosaurs and galaxies. Oh, and God put them there and it goes against our Bible here and don't think otherwise."
- ukit0
Less than 100 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court actually ruled that evolution could not be taught to schools.
- designbot0
Okay I was really not wanting to get into this rabbit trail, since to me it's seems quite off topic to the general conversation...but I will give ONE example, and that's all. Because some of you seem to want to deal in absolutes like "There are no things that once had a scientific explaination, but that now have a religious explaination.
Not one." all it takes is one example to prove your statement false.
The oldest manuscripts in existence (yes from the Bible) record the earth being a sphere or "circle". What did science think at the time? Flat earth."Some Bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the “four corners” of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the “language of appearance,” just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly. [DD]
In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. [DD]
A literal translation of Job 26:10 is "He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end." A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22 - "the circle of the earth."
Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe. [JSM]
The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth. [JSM]
Eratosthenes of Alexandria (circa 276 to 194 or 192 B.C.) calcuated the circumference of the earth "within 50 miles of the present estimate." [Encyclopedia Brittanica]
The Greeks also drew meridians and parallels. They identified such areas as the poles, equator, and tropics. This spherical earth concept did not prevail; the Romans drew the earth as a flat disk with oceans around it. [JSM]"
- Thank you, designbot. I grew weary of demolishing the "them ignorant christians" caricatures a long time ago.teleos
- There was no "science" at that time. Science was invented as a specific mode of thought around 1500ADTheBlueOne
- So to say "Science thought the world was flat" is just incorrect.TheBlueOne
- well what existed of science...there was still science, it just had a very different face for sure.designbot
- versus religion. which has the same basic face.spifflink
- lol blueONe. Of course there was science. Maybe not the scientific method, but the hard sciences like mathematics have been around since before we arrived. :)teleos
- around since before we arrived.teleos
- teleos0
Everyone else has brought up religion. I have not.
My decree now and henceforth will remain: follow the evidence where it leads. And it's as simple as this: the reigning paradigm in biology [Darwinism] has failed spectacularly. The Darwinian mechanism has been shown, primarily through repeated experimentation with drosophila and malaria, that natural selection does not produce anything novel in the way of cell, tissue or body plans. Period. It ensures extinction ultimately by killing organisms. It throws out that which it does not need. It has failed as a mechanism for producing anything of significance. Nothing religious about that. Something else that has nothing to do with religion: the evidence points to purposive engineering in biology; functionally integrated machinery, programming code, transport shuttling, redundancy, and even password encryption, in the cell. And that's not even scratching the surface.
blueOne can toss around all the ad hominems and genetic fallacies he wants about Creationism masquerading as science blah blah dee blah, but it's just not going to change the empirical evidence which is what I'm interested in talking about in these threads (which I never start).
- So you are being purposefully disingenuous then. I thought so. total prick. Won't be coming back to any of these threads. Have a nice life ass.TheBlueOne
- nice life ass.TheBlueOne
- haha wow. nice fantasy world you are living in.spifflink
- how am i being disingenuous??? Do tell.teleos
- gahick! Spifflink.teleos
- gahick? i just want to see your portfolio. hopefully your design work makes up for the lack of critical thinking skills.spifflink
- teleos0
" There are many many things in this world, which at one time had only a religious explaination, but that now - thanks to the hardwork, talent and dedication of people creating and implementing the scientific method, have a better scientific explaination.
There are no things that once had a scientific explaination, but that now have a religious explaination.
Not one. " -MikoIt works both ways, incidentally. We now have a universe which began with a singularity bursting forth with all matter and energy from "nothing". This looks a lot like the Bible's Genesis account "In the beginning there was nothing... ...let there be light".
We also have a fossil record which is a series of bursts of saltation events, not the slow gradualism with intermediates that Darwinism predicted. Nothing like it at all. This smells a bit like pre-programmed creation events.
- Newton, Mendell, Kepler, etc... all visionaries in modern science and staunch theists.teleos
- yeh, it must 'smell' like all those other universes that you know about and are comparing it to.....mikotondria3
- Newton also spent 40 years studying astrology.mikotondria3
- mikotondria30
Bullshit.
You just want to point at bits of biology you don't understand and say that god did it.
Don't pretend anything else, you total fucking fraud.- *with respect.mikotondria3
- haha, when one cannot argue the evidence, one can always resort to character attacks.teleos
- he has argues the evidence, which you tactfully ignore. you just fell back to the same tactics you say you dont use.spifflink
- hurray for circular fucking logic.spifflink
- ukit0
haha
"natural selection does not produce anything novel in the way of cell, tissue or body plans"
you are making it so much more complicated than it really is. If I breed a horse and a zebra, what do I get? A zebra like horse.
The zebra horse (or zorse, if you will) inherits some of the genes from the horse and some from the zebra.
Why is it so hard for you to consider the idea that this can happen, over time, on a much larger scale? That's all evolution is proposing.
- Natural selection is the process that SORTS the naturally occuring genetic mutations..mikotondria3
- I believe such an animal is called a "Hebra". *puffs pipe*Khurram
- listen carefully... there is NO experimental evidence that natural selection/random mutation...teleos
- produced the change. It could just as well have been pre-programmed information taking environmental cues.teleos
- i love ignoring facts and evidence. the only problem is its still there even though i am plugging my ears and going 'nananananana'spifflink
- 'nananananana!!!!'spifflink
- Mal0
- teleos0
ukit... here's the point you're missing... NS+RM has never, i repeat NEVER been experimentally shown to be the mechanism responsible for such change/adaptation. Conversely, we can hypothesize that pre-existing information was triggered in such speciation events. Why? Look inside the cell (which Darwin couldn't see into). Scientists are finding ancient see urchins with all of the information for digits (fingers) present, just un-expressed. The information was there, just not expressed. Hence the front-loading hypothesis.
- is there a google version you use that filters out reputable scientific journals and only brings up answersingenesis or other nonsense sites?spifflink
- nonsense site?spifflink
- http://www.answersin… :DDrBombay
- that makes sense!spifflink
- teleos0
Miko - "Natural selection is the process that SORTS the naturally occuring genetic mutations.."
1. Never been observed.
2. Observed: mutations which KILL the organism
3. Warranted inference from the evidence: NS kills organisms/ensures extinction via deleterious mutations.- I've never observed my sisters kids growing either, but they are bigger every time I visit.ribit
- DrBombay0
Teleos, you are against evolution and against man contributed to global warming, correct?
