Evolution Sucks!

POSTED BY: dougp59
UPDATED: Monday, July 27, 2026 16:36
VIEWED: 32323
PAGE 5 of 20

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

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 5:40 PM

Heb,

Well put.

But God doesn't exist, which is why I'm ducking the whole conversation. The whole argument for the existance of God is a loaded one, because it exists simply to back up the equally absurd claim that "God said this" by which I mean the bible, or some similar text, thus making it the indisputable truth. I guess what I'm saying is the whole point is to back what is really a socio-political agenda, and to exhault said agenda to a monopolistic state of unchecked power. Contributing sincerely to the debate forwards that agenda, so I'll stop now.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 5:51 PM

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

There's plenty of avenues for attacking the free market, and ways I can make an argument out of the socialism thing, but that's not why were hear...

(I wasn't being particularly serious though

)

Quote:
Ah, deflecting with humor Muahahahahahaha

Well, reason wouldn't work with this clown...

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.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 6:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
After all, if nothing is provable, how do you know you exist?

In philosophy, science, and most other things, "I think therefore I am," remains one of the strongest arguments ever, but even it is not flawless. For example do you really think? If nothing is provable you can't exactly prove it. Also how do you define "am"?

I mean what if I was a character in a dream of a ten year old kid, but I was indeed thinking? Obviously I exist, but merely as temporary electrical and chemical signals in someone else's mind. Some people would say that allows me to say, "I am," others would say it does not.

-

I maintain that all things rely on faith, for example you can not prove that events have causes. It simply can not be done, nor can you prove that events do not have causes. The second is because finding an event with no cause, if such a thing exists, can be dismissed as simply finding an event with an as yet unknown cause, the first is because correlation (no matter how strong) does not mean causation.

But if we take on faith that events have causes than we can use it to do incredible things. For example the computer I am typing on was built using science that took as a basic tenet the unprovable idea that there is such a thing as cause and effect. (Of course if there is no cause and effect that is not true, it was just a random coincidence.)

What separates science from fundamentalist religion is that in science you take your leap(s) of faith and then base all other things on evidence. If you take the idea that there is a god on faith than I think you should then look at it logically, if the evidence points to evolution creating people, and you believe on faith that god created people the logical conclusion is that god created people by means of evolution.

The logical conclusion is not that the theory of evolution should be discarded because it disagrees with other things that you believe with no evidence that are not part of your initial leap of faith.

The belief that there is a god can not be proven, the belief that there is not one can not be proven, but other things can. I think people should choose their stance on god via faith, but not everything else surrounding god.

I mean if every person on earth had a vision of the exact same god saying, “I exist,” in their language of choice at the exact same time that would hardly prove the existence of god, it could just as easily be explained by a remarkable example of the statistical phenomena of grouping. Meeting god is hardly grounds to believe that he or she exists, a lot of people have called themselves god over the years and even if they display seemingly unnatural powers those would eventually be explained by science.

Similarly if you were to definitively prove that everything in the universe followed the laws of physics strictly and there was no place for god in the universe at all that would not disprove god, it would probably just further the belief in predestination oriented religions.

But like I said, you can prove other stuff, if you take certain things for granted, casualty being one of them. IDers take causality for granted, and as such they should at least strongly lean towards the idea that evolution is the force of god, it meshes with what they take on faith and it matches the evidence.

Yet they don’t. Why? Because they want to prove the existence of something that can’t be proved? Because their translation of their book says something that their interpretation believes is incompatible?

I lost track of where I was going with this a long time ago.

So, to sum up:
I believe that faith is needed for all things, science included, but I think once you take something on faith you should start looking at evidence and using logic, and rather than rule out evidence based on belief shape beliefs based on evidence.

Why I decided to say that is something I have forgotten.

NANASHI

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 7:10 PM

DOUGP59:

Two things--

1) You can't prove one theory by disproving a competing theory... Give me a few reasons for believing yours..

2) Don't bring the speed of light into this. It's got nothing to do with it. The countless biologists, archaeologists, and the like, that study and prove evolution most probably don't have a clue about the speed of light. It's Physics, not Biology, and that's why they don't care. It has absolutely no basis on evolution. The prove they have for evolution has nothing to do with how fast light travels... It -does- have a basis about how old the Universe is, but that's about it, it doesn't even have any bearing on how old the Earth itself is.

/rant over

But, really, I have no problem with rejecting evolution theory, if I had a reason to do so. I'm not religious, but if I were.. I wouldn't see evolution theory as something that couldn't exist /with/ my religion.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 7:29 PM

Quote:
I believe that faith is needed for all things, science included, but I think once you take something on faith you should start looking at evidence and using logic, and rather than rule out evidence based on belief shape beliefs based on evidence.

By faith I think you mean a priori assumptions. I'm not a philosopher, but I think every philosophy has one. My guess is the a priori assumptions of science would be:

a) There is an objective universe and we are part of it. (That eliminates the I am but a part of someone else's-God's perhaps?-dream subjectivity.)
b) We come to know that universe through our senses.
c) Effect follows cause.

The problem that I have with fundamentalists is that they keep rejecting their own assumptions over and over again: "God did it (faith) and I can demonstrate it scientifically". Articles of faith, by definition, can't be thrown against evidence for validation. If they could, it would be science not faith. The only thing that anyone can say about their faith is "I believe that flying spaghetti monsters created the universe" and then just SHUT UP.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

ARAWAEN

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 7:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Samsa:

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

I was under the impression that 1+1=2 has never been successfully proven.

Knowledge is sorrow; they who know the most
Must mourn the deepest o'er the fatal truth,
The Tree of Knowledge is not that of Life.
-- Byron

SPINLAND

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 7:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The only thing that anyone can say about their faith is "I believe that flying spaghetti monsters created the universe" and then just SHUT UP.

Alas, a major problem with fundamentalist beliefs is that, like a particularly insidious computer virus, they come with built-in imperatives to go forth and infect others with their superstitions. If we could selectively edit out that offensive trait, methinks the vast majority of the problems we have with these people would quietly evaporate.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds

DOUGP59

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 7:47 PM

I find it sad, really, that all you atheists from your perspective, are on the same plain as the Hitlers and the Stalins of history.

You see, from your worldview, there is no punishment for evil. There is just the same ol' nothingness upon death irregardless of your behaviour in this life.

How sad.

I thank God that the truth of His world view, is that the Hitlers, the Stalins etc. of history are being justly punished for their evil.

SPINLAND

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 7:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:
You see, from your worldview, there is no punishment for evil.

Absolutely false statement, just like everything else you've spewed. There's plenty of punishment for evil, and it's adjudged and meted out by people, for people, against people. Your silly little made-up god didn't stop Hitler, the combined military might of several countries did.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds

HEB

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 8:33 PM

I always assumed that 1+1 equalled 2 by definition but apparently here is the proof for it:

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51551.html

Regarding the whole debate over whether ID is science:

The definition of science, as defined by Richard Feynman, is that the only test of knowledge is experiment.

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

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