Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evolution and Religion

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

  • Fadix
    replied
    Originally posted by dusken If loseyourname tossed around stupid insults then he is at fault as much as you are. It does not matter what I have said in another thread. I am not being hypocritical by pointing out the state of this thread. What I am saying is this thread has gone stale for that reason. I did not participate in this thread much because I did not care and I certainly did not make useless insults in here. Saying "those who started the thread cannot seem to offer evidence of how we evolved, or on what empirical evidence they lay the basis of their belief" has nothig to do with my claims that the thread on both sides is becoming cyclic and resorting to insults; as a matter of fact, that quote is just there to draw out more arguments.
    I don't understand how you can separate the blaim in two equal part when baby anon slander everyone everywhere and claim later to be slandered and attacked... one just has to see his cheap trick to answer my every single posts when he knows that I won't even answer him.

    One wonder how someone can have his position when beside the fossiles in our own DNA there is traces of our bacterial encestory... but again, what can we expect from someone that consider Earth revolving around the Sun as much supportable as Earth being the center of the Universe.

    Leave a comment:


  • dusken
    replied
    Originally posted by Anonymouse Okay, fair enough. All topics are eventually cyclic, as is the case. If you don't want to discuss in this thread, fine, but let's restart the discussion, from the points raised in the earlier part of the thread.

    Loser made mention of the fossil record. He claims, and it is indeed evident, that the fossil record shows a gradual progression of species, into more complex species. Now, he states this is indisputable evidence of us evolving. I have replied saying that whereas it does show that to our eye, it is not however, in scientific terms, showing how we evolved, nor is there evidence to suggest that one species evolved and led to another. It only appears so to our eyes. It is obvious there is "evolution" presented by the fossils. There are however, no intermediate forms. Up until Gould and Eldrige, this presented a bad case for evolution, as Darwin himself stated the lack of intermediates. Gould's 'punctuated equilibria', essentially fixed this problem, since now we didn't need intermediate forms.

    Throughout this I have maintained there is no reason to suggest we evolved, aside from a belief that we did because that is what the fossil record shows. There is nothing wrong with believing in evolution, what's wrong is when scientists claim, or as loser didi in the beginning of this thread, that it is some holy law, and incontestable.
    Loseyourname also mentioned that God and evolution are not mutually exclusive and that God's hands may be in evolution but there is evolution nevertheless. In that sense, whether I agree or not, theoretically it does not matter that there are no intermediates.

    My belief that evolution is a scientific phenomenon, stems from a due thought process. The only reason the origin of species is attributed to God is because God preexisted as an idea that was created without the threat of evolution. If it did not exist as an idea and the problem of evolution came up, we would not resort to the idea of God being responsible and just assume we do not have all of the facts to explain what we see. There is nothing wrong with not being able to explain something and not having all of the facts. At any given time in scientific history, there was something like that and it was eventually explained. I do not think that the attitude "I am right until proven wrong" is the right attitude to have when seeking empirical truths. And of course you are going to say that evolutionists do the same, but the only reason it appears that they do do that is because they are being attacked by a philosophy that does that even more heavily.

    I cannot believe I was dragged into this again. But what I am stating is a basic idea that makes it ok to accept evolution, whatever the mechanism by which it occurs is. If you disagree with me it is because you have a different opinion about what is more plausible as a basis to build your thoughts and that cannot be argued.
    Last edited by dusken; 03-25-2004, 01:40 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anonymouse
    replied
    Originally posted by dusken If loseyourname tossed around stupid insults then he is at fault as much as you are. It does not matter what I have said in another thread. I am not being hypocritical by pointing out the state of this thread. What I am saying is this thread has gone stale for that reason. I did not participate in this thread much because I did not care and I certainly did not make useless insults in here. Saying "those who started the thread cannot seem to offer evidence of how we evolved, or on what empirical evidence they lay the basis of their belief" has nothig to do with my claims that the thread on both sides is becoming cyclic and resorting to insults; as a matter of fact, that quote is just there to draw out more arguments.
    Okay, fair enough. All topics are eventually cyclic, as is the case. If you don't want to discuss in this thread, fine, but let's restart the discussion, from the points raised in the earlier part of the thread.

    Loser made mention of the fossil record. He claims, and it is indeed evident, that the fossil record shows a gradual progression of species, into more complex species. Now, he states this is indisputable evidence of us evolving. I have replied saying that whereas it does show that to our eye, it is not however, in scientific terms, showing how we evolved, nor is there evidence to suggest that one species evolved and led to another. It only appears so to our eyes. It is obvious there is "evolution" presented by the fossils. There are however, no intermediate forms. Up until Gould and Eldrige, this presented a bad case for evolution, as Darwin himself stated the lack of intermediates. Gould's 'punctuated equilibria', essentially fixed this problem, since now we didn't need intermediate forms.

    Throughout this I have maintained there is no reason to suggest we evolved, aside from a belief that we did because that is what the fossil record shows. There is nothing wrong with believing in evolution, what's wrong is when scientists claim, or as loser didi in the beginning of this thread, that it is some holy law, and incontestable.

    Leave a comment:


  • dusken
    replied
    Originally posted by Anonymouse I didn't vindicate the thread, loser did, and the first insults that have ever been hurled have been from those that defend evolution, nevermind your insults towards Christians, or religious folks in the other thread. The same goes for your insults so stop being a hypocritical nerfbrain. Those who started the thread cannot seem to offer evidence of how we evolved, or on what empirical evidence they lay the basis of their belief. It is simply asserted and you added nothing more than loser, essentially more words. Now if you want to go back to the initial points of the theory, we can do that, until then, if you don't want to get into this argument, then don't, but don't pretend you didn't want to, when you did. It's simply tiring hearing the same hypocritical double speak.
    If loseyourname tossed around stupid insults then he is at fault as much as you are. It does not matter what I have said in another thread. I am not being hypocritical by pointing out the state of this thread. What I am saying is this thread has gone stale for that reason. I did not participate in this thread much because I did not care and I certainly did not make useless insults in here. Saying "those who started the thread cannot seem to offer evidence of how we evolved, or on what empirical evidence they lay the basis of their belief" has nothig to do with my claims that the thread on both sides is becoming cyclic and resorting to insults; as a matter of fact, that quote is just there to draw out more arguments.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anonymouse
    replied
    Originally posted by dusken All of that has nothing to do with what I said. I am not going to be dragged into this. However, if you are going to argue, then argue. Do not finger point, name-call, and make vacuous insults to the idea of science or evolution. Calling something arrogant is meaningless and so is claiming that they have all of the answers. It is evasive posting. If there is nothing left to say but vacuous insults then give the thread a rest.
    I didn't vindicate the thread, loser did, and the first insults that have ever been hurled have been from those that defend evolution, nevermind your insults towards Christians, or religious folks in the other thread. The same goes for your insults so stop being a hypocritical nerfbrain. Those who started the thread cannot seem to offer evidence of how we evolved, or on what empirical evidence they lay the basis of their belief. It is simply asserted and you added nothing more than loser, essentially more words. Now if you want to go back to the initial points of the theory, we can do that, until then, if you don't want to get into this argument, then don't, but don't pretend you didn't want to, when you did. It's simply tiring hearing the same hypocritical double speak.

    Leave a comment:


  • dusken
    replied
    Originally posted by Anonymouse I have never claimed science is inconsequential. Rather I have claimed it is the study about behavior and reactions, in the natural world. When it attempts to construct models of origins and progression, etc., then it becomes no more faith based than a Bible thumpers belief in Jehovah. I have also seen no problem of using the scientific method to apply it to spiritual or religious matters, since only the nerfbrains would pretend it's for "biology only". With that said, I see no problem with science, when it behaves like science. Evolution is an example of a faith within the scientific community.
    All of that has nothing to do with what I said. I am not going to be dragged into this. However, if you are going to argue, then argue. Do not finger point, name-call, and make vacuous insults to the idea of science or evolution. Calling something arrogant is meaningless and so is claiming that they have all of the answers. It is evasive posting. If there is nothing left to say but vacuous insults then give the thread a rest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anonymouse
    replied
    Originally posted by dusken As much as I do not want to get into this argument, it bothers me that you keep saying that when it is not true. I have addressed that more than once and you ignore it everytime.

    Science, evolutionists included, does not say it has all of the answers. It says it has the ability to get answers. There is a big difference. Call that arrogance if you like, but it does not compare to religion which says it already has the answers and they are right until proven wrong. If evolutionists "have all of the answers" Dawkins and Gould would not be at eachother's throats.
    I have never claimed science is inconsequential. Rather I have claimed it is the study about behavior and reactions, in the natural world. When it attempts to construct models of origins and progression, etc., then it becomes no more faith based than a Bible thumpers belief in Jehovah. I have also seen no problem of using the scientific method to apply it to spiritual or religious matters, since only the nerfbrains would pretend it's for "biology only". With that said, I see no problem with science, when it behaves like science. Evolution is an example of a faith within the scientific community.

    Leave a comment:


  • dusken
    replied
    Originally posted by Anonymouse claim some sort of superiority in having all the "answers" and resorting to name calling is the hallmark of arrogance
    As much as I do not want to get into this argument, it bothers me that you keep saying that when it is not true. I have addressed that more than once and you ignore it everytime.

    Science, evolutionists included, does not say it has all of the answers. It says it has the ability to get answers. There is a big difference. Call that arrogance if you like, but it does not compare to religion which says it already has the answers and they are right until proven wrong. If evolutionists "have all of the answers" Dawkins and Gould would not be at eachother's throats.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anonymouse
    replied
    Theories are theories, I never said alien theories are fact, because they are theories, much like everything else about our origins. For evolutionists to claim some sort of superiority in having all the "answers" and resorting to name calling is the hallmark of arrogance, as Fadix has demonstrated wonderfully.

    There is no more reason to believe in evolution, than there is to believe in Alien astronauts. But since it is about belief, one is as good as the other.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fadix
    replied
    Originally posted by loseyourname God, aliens and any other form of intelligence are pre-existing complexity. Try again.
    I just payed attention to that thread, how predictable he is. Is he not? He brought the same alien story on the other place and I have answered just the same way(preexisting complexity).

    The guy claim that evolution statistically is impossible. But on the other hand he brought aliens. I mean if evolution is impossible, and that aliens had created us... from where those aliens come from?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X