Evolution Sucks!

POSTED BY: dougp59
UPDATED: Monday, July 27, 2026 16:36
VIEWED: 32323
PAGE 4 of 20

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:08 AM

A hoopy frood is one who knows where his towel is

FLETCH2

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:12 AM

I don't think there is an answer to the question, because no answer you can give is provable in the slightest. There can be no "answer" it's contemplating the implications of the question that is interesting.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:20 AM

Technically we were all designed by worms, but not intelligently, we were patched together in a psuedo random fashion by parasites, but it is the competition of natural selection which was the guiding force that led to evolution.

CAUSAL

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I don't think there is an answer to the question, because no answer you can give is provable in the slightest. There can be no "answer" it's contemplating the implications of the question that is interesting.

But what's interesting is that people say "It's unprovable!" all day long when it comes to some things (e.g. ID or the existence of God) but swear up and down that it is in fact provable when it comes to other things (e.g. evolution as origin of man). I think that if someone actually embraced the notion that nothing is provable, that there is no answer, then he would commit himself to a kind of radical skepticism and would, as a professor at my university once did, conclude that he himself did not exist. After all, if nothing is provable, how do you know you exist?

If on the other hand, you're positing that no statements about God are provable, then the statement "There is no God" must certainly fall into that category. If that's the case, why conclude, out of hand that He doesn't exist? Or that He didn't create the universe? In addition, restricting "it's not provable" to God betrays deeply seated ontological presuppositions (the above mentioned material-monism).

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

GUNRUNNER

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 5:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Good old fashion piracy on the high seas is actually at an all time historical high. Furthermore, it's highest where the water is warmest.

Think about it, far more wealth is being shipped over seas by boat than ever has been before, this should hardly be a surprise, but the logical conclusion.

Indeed or should I say Yarrr!

Cheers to all those who fly the Jolly Roger

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

FLETCH2

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 6:02 AM

Actually if we follow through on that argument the only thing I can state with certainty is that *I* exist. I think, therefore I am. I cannot prove that you exist any more than I can prove that God exists. All I have is slightly more evidence that you exist, but even that could be self delusion.

In practice your answer rested on the contention that causality can be violated, that you can have an effect ie the existence of God without there being a cause -- a progenitor of some kind. Right there we hit a problem because causality is a foundation of our perception of the universe and of the scientific method. Effect follows cause, not the other way around, Newton was not struck by an apple before that apple fell. If the argument for God is that he exists outside of causality then that is an argument that you can’t address through science, because you immediately take God out of science’s frame of reference. Therefore I don’t see that you can apply science to the existence or otherwise of God at all. They operate in different spheres.

Evolution and science in general has never been a threat to the existence or otherwise of God, neither can it prove or disprove the existence of God. In fact the whole creationist argument doesn’t even involve God directly, it hinges on one question, the primacy of the Bible. If the Bible is the absolute word of God, and if God is infallible, then by definition the Bible must be absolutely and literally true. If on the other hand the Bible is an historic document, an oral tradition eventually committed to blocks of wood sometime in the iron age, and selectively edited, translated and modified since then, well then there is the possibility of human error.

Those fundamentalist types that want it to be literally true are the ones that have a problem with evolution. I have a problem with them not because I think evolution is anything more than a theory but because of the real reason these people are pushing so hard. If the Bible is literally true, then you can use it, or sections of it to provide divine justification for any prejudice, crime or outright evil that you want to inflict on your fellow man. You can use it in the same way that OBL uses the Koran to justify the killing of children, it allows you to claim an absolute unchallengeable authority over your fellow man in the name of a God you can’t appeal to. It is in short arbitrary authority of the worst kind.

SAMSA

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 6:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

I think that if someone actually embraced the notion that nothing is provable, that there is no answer, then he would commit himself to a kind of radical skepticism and would, as a professor at my university once did, conclude that he himself did not exist. After all, if nothing is provable, how do you know you exist?

General mathematics would disprove the unprovable theory (pardon the unintentional bad joke), owing to the simple fact that one plus one does equal two.

"Serenity is knowing your worst shot is still pretty good."

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 8:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DreamTrove:
The specific mechanism by which new genes are added to an extant strand of DNA is reverse transcription, which is carried out by an enzyme called reverse transcriptase. Signym and Citizen already alluded to this. Half of the rest of you out there already knew this, and are kicking yourselves for not having said it first :)

Thanks DT, I'm better with the physics than the genetic biology

Quote:
An interesting side note. This closely resembles the way a true free-market capitalist system would work, therefore it is an immitation of nature. By contrast, socialism is the top down introduction of a set of utopian solutions dreamt up by groups of intellectuals latey called 'think tanks.' Ergo, socialism is Intelligent Design economics.

You just couldn't resist could you

Now when are people going to realise that I created the universe, if you've got a problem with that, prove me wrong.

I started the second big bang with the jump-leads from starbug.

Ironic really, the ultimate Atheist turns out in fact to be god.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

HEB

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 11:31 AM

Why can't the creation of the Universe (or multiverse or whatever) be 'the necessary thing'? Why can't the universe itself be necessary? Can't everything in the universe be contingent on the universe existing, rather than the universe and everything in it being contingent on God existing?

So what I'm asking, genuinely because I'm not too knowledgeable on philosophy, is:

Doesn't the idea of God just push the chain back one further?

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 5:37 PM

Quote:

You just couldn't resist could you

Oh, that was a great open shot to attack socialism.

Quote:

Now when are people going to realise that I created the universe, if you've got a problem with that, prove me wrong.

Ah, deflecting with humor

Muahahahahahaha

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE