Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

Evolution and Religion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Evolution and Religion

    Two things to start:

    1) Scientifically, evolution is considered A FACT. It is irrefutable. The "theory" part is in regards to the mechanism by which evolution takes place. Darwin's contribution was to PROVE EVOLUTION and have a theory on the mechanism by which it occurs, which in his educated opinion was "natural selection." If you are still arguing the validity of the concept of evolution you are completely misinformed or swimming in an ocean of denial because Father xxxxfondler to you it was not so. For the scientific community it is as simple as "a = a" because they are willing to go in enough depth to understand that. Ever wonder why beds and doors 300 years ago were shorter?


    2) "Only a theory." Bunk as an arguement. Misinformed. Colloquially, the word "theory" often means a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." Credit: Oxford English Dictionary. Scienfically speaking, it is a very credible concept. A difficult label to achieve. And done by people much xxxxing smarter and more skeptical than
    you.

    ------------------
    Next:
    It is not possible to argue whether there is a "creator." Science accepts the fact that the more questions it answers, the more questions it has.
    Example:

    Q. Why are my eyes green and your eyes brown?
    A. DNA
    Q. What is DNA? What is it made of? What does it look like? Where did it come from? What else is it responsible for?

    Therefore, from the point of view of the "believer" the creator can always exist as the answer to the questions science has not yet tackled. A never ending cycle. A creator is infinitely possible and infinitely improbable (I sound like the Urantia).

    And yes, science says matter and energy were never created, and religion can say the creator was never created. We know this. One is not more credible than the other.
    ------------------

    Where did life come from?

    First of all:
    If you really care, study all the scientific material that has answered that question to the satisfaction of scientists as opposed to sitting around asking ignorant people just so you can feel empowered by the illusion of your grand ability to debate.

    Secondly:
    To looked at it simply, it is all a matter of entropy. Things just happened. They happened because conditions were favorable. Cause and effect. And if that seems like too much of a coincidence for you, think of it in these terms: The universe has been around for an infinite period of time. That means the opportunites for life to occur have been INFINITE. Introductory probability and statistics takes care of that nonsense.
    -------------------

    Religion is arrogance anyway.

    Agnosticism dominates.
    Last edited by Arvestaked; 01-15-2004, 09:42 PM.

  • #2
    Interesting.
    I would have taken another point of view. I agree with point 1 but not point 2.
    Sciences are based (yes based, even mathematics) on the human understanding (taken from a phylosophiacl point of view).

    Theories are logical consequences of the primaries definitions of sciences.

    For physics, for instance, it is essentially based on general observation. This is certainly why quantum mechanics made so much time to be proved, since they are not obviously observable for human being.
    You would say that now we reached such a level that everything seems limpid, I would answer that we always have to stay relativist, even on science.
    Since human being is finite, its sciences are also finite and does not stand as intangible.
    The strenght of the sciences lies in the fact that, like everything else, it evolves. It implies that it is not perfect (at least yet).



    Your idea of the Creator, weel, I should agree with you. It just a matter of probability paired to favorable conditions. Besides, univers being infinite, another life elsewhere should exists.
    The theory of big bang relies on actual human observation on doppler effect (mainly), and my conviction is that this is crap. I can express my opinion because there does not exists a complete scientific referential in which it has been proved.


    By the way. Do you mean God by Creator ? If yes, i have another theory. If we look at some intelligent animals (elephants, whale) they seem to believe in something after the death (common cemetary and i don't know that much).
    I think they are clever enough to have the idea of their self death, and thus, being finite, imperfect.
    From this, there is only one step to the idea of human bounds, and again a step to an infinite entity, God's (perfection, onmiscience and omnipresence).
    God is a natural idea.
    "C'était un des principes fondamentaux de la doctrine Gradgrind que toute chose devait être payée. Personne ne devait jamais, en aucun cas, rien donner à qui que ce fût sans compensation. La gratitude devait être abolie et les bienfaits qui en découlent n'avaient aucune raison d'être. Chaque pouce de l'existence des humains, depuis la naissance jusqu'à la mort, devait être un marché réglé comptant. Et s'il était impossible de gagner le ciel de cette façon, cela signifiait que le ciel n'était pas un lieu régi par l'économie politique et que l'on n'avait rien à y faire."
    - D.i.c.k.e.n.s., "Temps Difficiles", 1854.

    ... stupid words filter. xxxxens is an author!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Evolution and religion....

      Originally posted by Arvestaked Two things to start:

      1) Scientifically, evolution is considered A FACT. It is irrefutable. The "theory" part is in regards to the mechanism by which evolution takes place. Darwin's contribution was to PROVE EVOLUTION and have a theory on the mechanism by which it occurs, which in his educated opinion was "natural selection." If you are still arguing the validity of the concept of evolution you are completely misinformed or swimming in an ocean of denial because Father xxxxfondler to you it was not so. For the scientific community it is as simple as "a = a" because they are willing to go in enough depth to understand that. Ever wonder why beds and doors 300 years ago were shorter?
      Only human arrogance would assume that humans have solved the riddle.

      Of course, I can sit here and puncture holes in evolution and you will argue till your death to defend it, which is a like class of faith. Evolution is nothing but faith.

      One wonders how this fallible theory has been made infallible, whether it was the supposed intermediate "evidence" the early Darwinists brought forth, such as "gemules", "bathybius" and "eozoon", or the militant attitude of evolutionists and their everlasting intolerance, which you display, towards anything dissenting. Thus you, like evolutionists, have made up your mind, and will attack anyone to defend it. I've encountered a few scientists within biology that have questioned the validity of the said theory, only to be smeared.

      Other silly things such as "Nebraska Man" are but ancient history and rarely mentioned. The fact that Darwin spoke of a gradual change over time, and since intermediate fossils could not be found to accomodate it, then the theory was further rewritten to remain immutable by Stephen J. Gould, and Niles Eldridge, and this time in the form of "punctuated equilibria". Since intermediate fossils could not have been found to validate Darwins "gradual" evolution, now all of a sudden, species didn't change gradually, but rather rapidly, it was a rapid jump from species to species. Thus the problem for the lack of intermediate forms was solved. Very unscientific. The evolutionists are more imaginitive and more faithful than your average Bible Thumper.

      Of course evolution is mathematically improbable as Murray Eden of MIT has already showed at the Wistar Institute. And besides, most mutations are harmful anyway. So the probability is very marginal.

      While a case can be made for "microevolution", since I doubt you will find anyone who will dispute within species variation, I find it very hard to accept the "evidence" for "macroevolution", and for the establishment to prove their case on "macro evolution". It is only assumed that species eventually jump.

      Funny since now that Gould has asserted species make a drastic rapid jump to another species, they won't need to linger on the problem posed by missing fossils. But since some of us are quick to jump to nice theories which claim to have answers for everything, we all of a sudden forget to question it.

      2) "Only a theory." Bunk as an arguement. Misinformed. Colloquially, the word "theory" often means a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." Credit: Oxford English Dictionary. Scienfically speaking, it is a very credible concept. A difficult label to achieve. And done by people much xxxxing smarter and more skeptical than
      Have you observed species making a jump to another species?


      Next:
      It is not possible to argue whether there is a "creator." Science accepts the fact that the more questions it answers, the more questions it has.
      Example:

      Q. Why are my eyes green and your eyes brown?
      A. DNA
      Q. What is DNA? What is it made of? What does it look like? Where did it come from? What else is it responsible for?

      Therefore, from the point of view of the "believer" the creator can always exist as the answer to the questions science has not yet tackled. A never ending cycle. A creator is infinitely possible and infinitely improbable (I sound like the Urantia).

      And yes, science says matter and energy were never created, and religion can say the creator was never created. We know this. One is not more credible than the other.
      You said it yourself. Science hasn't answered it, because it cannot. Science only deals with the physical and material realm. Only with how things react and behave, not how they got here. You can pin science on everything in the material world, yet how it got there, science is no more of a guess with faith, than God.
      Last edited by Anonymouse; 01-15-2004, 10:07 PM.
      Achkerov kute.

      Comment


      • #4
        Punch away.
        Sweet is the lore which nature brings; our meddling intellect misshapes the beauteous forms of things: we murder to dissect.

        -William Wordsworth

        Comment


        • #5
          evolution and religion
          Evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proved fact of science, providing the very framework of scientific interpretation, especially in the biological sciences. This, of course, is nothing but wishful thinking. Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested
          i will quote the british physicist lipson
          ""In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.

          back to religion and evolution....The most great world religions BUDDHISM,thaoism,hinduism,animism( lol it sounds like onanism hahah) are based on evalution...


          Charles Darwin himself called evolution "this grand view of life".Evolution is, indeed, a grand world view, but it is not science. Its very comprehensiveness makes it impossible even to test scientifically.
          I'm a monstrous mass of vile, foul & corrupted matter.

          Comment


          • #6
            Me and the mouse agree. Start building a bomb shelter kids, the end is coming....
            Science's explanations are all answers working backwords. Science can answer the "how's" well but not the "why's". Why did that first single cell organism that came out of the primortial goup want to live? Why did it seek self preservation? Only a few moments ago it was just a collection of checmicals but now it wants to live and multiply....What for?
            The times are tough now, just getting tougher
            This old world is rough, it's just getting rougher
            Cover me, come on baby, cover me - Bruce Springsteen

            Comment


            • #7
              None of this has anything to do with the theory of evolution and natural selection, which do not even attempt to answer these more esoteric, and essentially metaphysical questions. Those are left to religion. They each have their separate roles. As Arvestaked pointed out to begin with, there can be no doubt that we came into existence through evolution. Why that evolution took place is a completely separate question.
              Sweet is the lore which nature brings; our meddling intellect misshapes the beauteous forms of things: we murder to dissect.

              -William Wordsworth

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by loseyourname As Arvestaked pointed out to begin with, there can be no doubt that we came into existence through evolution. Why that evolution took place is a completely separate question.
                Yes there can be doubt, since I pointed out flaws in the theory itself. If there are flaws, there are doubts, where there is doubt there is room for error. To assume it is impervious to question or doubt is to assume you have the perfect theory. But then again, evolutionists are an arrogant bunch, lost in their arrogance unable to see the glaring flaws and contradictions in their own theory no different than spotting Biblical contradictions.
                Achkerov kute.

                Comment


                • #9
                  There is no doubt that currently existing species came into being through the evolution of previously existing species. Why they evolved or how they evolved - that's where the doubt comes in. You can't refute the fossil record. Gaps in speciation do not place any doubt that evolution took place - hell, it is still observed to be taking place now.
                  Sweet is the lore which nature brings; our meddling intellect misshapes the beauteous forms of things: we murder to dissect.

                  -William Wordsworth

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by loseyourname There is no doubt that currently existing species came into being through the evolution of previously existing species. Why they evolved or how they evolved - that's where the doubt comes in. You can't refute the fossil record. Gaps in speciation do not place any doubt that evolution took place - hell, it is still observed to be taking place now.
                    Of course there is doubt that the presently existing species came into being from previous species. If it has not been established so, then why would anyone doubt it?

                    Evolutionists essentially assume ( via faith ) that we evolved. It was never proved. In essence that is unscientific. In fact, evolution makes a logical fallacy in this instance. It is assumed we evolved so that part is non-questionable, how we evolved they say is what we don't know. It is the inverse of deductive reasoning. Sounds flawed to me.

                    I don't need to refute the fossil record. It refutes itself, and the behavior of evolutionists further confirms it.
                    Last edited by Anonymouse; 01-17-2004, 03:27 PM.
                    Achkerov kute.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X