Religion, Darwinism, Creationism and cu20052003ism

[AgentZ86]

Wrong again

No 1 is crap. Simple stuff like "A design needs a designer" as proof of evolutions failure as a theory. You are a creationist if you even suspect this ****e could be true.

No 2 is more stuff from the religious right ... just check out the sidebar topics.

More bs from creationist science deniers.

You are wrong again

I think perhaps you are a fact denier, I could care less about evolution or creation as I've pointed out in all my posts. Just let the facts be as they are.
Don't invent fact or use old facts which have now been disproved with new DNA testing etc. Just let the fact be what they are. Whats the problem with that ? If the fossil record proves evolution let it be, but currently the fossil record does not show this, and not transitional forms have been found which show one species transforming into another species.NO evidence of this left behind. You would thing there would be since it was suppose to have happened over millions of years and all kinds of slow transformations taking place in species over time.But none have been found to date.
And even evolutionists acknowledge that if something was designed that it has a designer ? Whats the problem with this ?
If you see a computer you know someone built the computer or that it was built or designed or created whatever you want to call it., I think all can agree with this.
The computer just didn't appear on it's own or evolve from nothing. Although it did actually come from the dirt like almost everything we see or have comes from out of the ground or was grown or produced from dirt. Which is quite interesting in itself.
But there is no real problem here, why do you deny that a computer was built? by a builder ? Or that anything that was designed had a designer there is no problem with this ?

 

[nine]

LOL. Its sad but not worthwhile enough for me to waste another moment on.

Enjoy the madhouse people


Note for split (for whom I will spare one more moment): the problem is that like many of his inclination he quotes sources that are wrong. I just illustrated how one might be lead to suspect how wrong above ... but arguing with the detail (when you know it will eventually prove to be wrong and he wouldn't believe you anyway) is like arguing with a hillbilly holding a shotgun on you --- a waste of time and probably a danger to some element of ones health.

 

[Splitlink]

Nine, join the club. I'm going to keep an open mind and wait and see.

I agree with agentz86 but he loses me! I'm going to look for yacorob!

I should add that agentz86 is keeping an open mind. I am a creationist but I only have a belief---no proof--- and I do not choose to dig too far into the complicated philosophies that each, and every one of us, has. Our job is around us, everyday, but it seems that it is not enough for many.

Split

 

[new_trader]

You are wrong again

I think perhaps you are a fact denier, I could care less about evolution or creation as I've pointed out in all my posts. Just let the facts be as they are.
Don't invent fact or use old facts which have now been disproved with new DNA testing etc. Just let the fact be what they are. Whats the problem with that ? If the fossil record proves evolution let it be, but currently the fossil record does not show this, and not transitional forms have been found which show one species transforming into another species.NO evidence of this left behind. You would thing there would be since it was suppose to have happened over millions of years and all kinds of slow transformations taking place in species over time.But none have been found to date.
And even evolutionists acknowledge that if something was designed that it has a designer ? Whats the problem with this ?
If you see a computer you know someone built the computer or that it was built or designed or created whatever you want to call it., I think all can agree with this.
The computer just didn't appear on it's own or evolve from nothing. Although it did actually come from the dirt like almost everything we see or have comes from out of the ground or was grown or produced from dirt. Which is quite interesting in itself.
But there is no real problem here, why do you deny that a computer was built? by a builder ? Or that anything that was designed had a designer there is no problem with this ?

You completely miss the point of evolutionary theory if you need to find every fossil record as 'proof'. That would be like saying we need to find every calculation that has ever been made in order to prove that arithmetic works.
Evolutionary theory has been ‘proven’ to a certain degree in laboratory experiments using micro-organisms that undergo rapid evolution. [A virus is a good example of rapid evolution. Are you aware that you can never catch the same cold twice? Have you thought about why this is the case?]

Microorganism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a lab experiment a number of micro-organisms were taken from a control sample of water and were placed into a test tube. The population was counted. Scientists then added a drop of bleach (I think it was) and this killed about 90% of the population. They left it until the remaining micro-organisms reproduced to the original population and then they added another drop of [a chemical]. They repeated this until the original sample contained a mix of 50% water/[a chemical]. There was a thriving population which eventually outnumbered the original sample. What they did next was more interesting. They then placed this ‘new’ population back into the control sample and none survived. Try and explain that without using evolutionary theory!
As for intelligent design...who designed the designer? It seems this idiotic notion stops at God and as Bertrand Russell says, “If you have one contradiction, nothing can be believed”

 

[cofton]

How do you know that Darwin denounced his theory ?
As I pointed out earlier the only evidence that points to
this idea is that Lady Hope returned from Darwins death bed and told us so.
Now call me cynical but doesn't it strike you that a Christian such as Lady Hope
would indeed tell us such a thing even if it were not true.
No one else was there to clarify whether or not Darwin did indeed denounce
his theory or not, there was only Lady Hope with Darwin when he passed.
None of Darwin's family confirmed this, in fact his family and friends
suggested the opposite.
In my opinion in the days when Darwin was alive staunch Christians such as Lady Hope would
have 'protected' their religion at all costs and I feel this would include
suggesting that Darwin denounced his theory. This would then let them all go
back to 'normal' and hope that Darwin's theory would go away and hence the
'little leaders' (that I mentioned in an earlier post) can continue to get fat.
Remember, power, control, money... this is what religion is all about as
far as the big cats are concerned.

'I challenge you to provide proof of evolution or any evidence that shows one species that transformed into another'

Maybe it is up to you to disprove evolution as well, this is a two way discussion.

Money is never wasted if it is spent trying to help gain knowledge on something
which could lead to better things.

You always seem to come across as the chairman of this discussion saying
things like 'end of discussion' or 'put up or shut up'. This is a forum pal,
no one is in control here (except for the moderators of course) so please
don't fool yourself that you dictate to other members when a discussion ends.

If someone decides that they feel it is logical to believe this or that then
it is entirely up to them, it's called freedom of speech. We can agree or
disagree and put our case forward but at the end of the day it is up to them.

The 'burden of proof' as you put it lies with whoever wants to get involved
in the discussion. As we are never likely to be able to prove any of this 100%
then it will always remain an interesting debate.

'And after much discussion it appears that as you have also agree that it's not so illogical or absolute after all'

Personally I still believe that the biblical stories are illogical and therefore
not an option, there isn't any proof and for me most are just not feasible/believable.
I am still drawn towards many evolution theories and until something else is
introduced to me that shows something believable and logical to my brain then
I will probably side with evolution.

Adam & Eve, feeding the five thousand, Noah's Ark, the parting of the seas,
yes, all very nice stories but totally illogical and unbelievable.

Fish out of water, monkey, man, fossils, probably a bit more up my street and
far more logical.

I'll stay with the latter for the time being.

Just my opinion of course but my brain can cope with the latter far easier.

And as I said before, please remember there is no right or wrong answer here as
none of us can categorically prove any of our beliefs 100%, this is what
makes it interesting.

Be happy guys

Cofton

And so it continues another person assuming that I'm a creationist trying to do something that they are also wrong about.

And as far as the edges article goes why does anyone even need to contest the Darwin theory He denounced it himself as I've pointed out earlier.

Darwin himself said that evolution occurred by a designer.

I believe whatever the evidence is. And from the evidence I challenge you to the burden of proof.

You seem to think that the pursuit of the truth is somehow a lie.

I challenge you to provide proof of evolution or any evidence that shows one species that transformed into another, either by fossil record or some sort transitional form.

The burden of proof has always been on the evolutionist and that is why it's still just a theory because no evidence exists after all these years and wasted money trying to proof it.

Period end of discussion.
Put up or shut up.
I have no problem in believing evolution or creation either way makes no difference to me.Again this probably surprises you. But show proof of either thats all I say. Don't just go on talking about how logical it is the think this way or that way and how illogical it is to think this way or that way.Then going on about some other person who thinks like you who has other innuendo's etc.

I don't care about any of that just the facts, just the proof ?
I'll be waiting ?

 

[Splitlink]

LOL. Its sad but not worthwhile enough for me to waste another moment on.

Enjoy the madhouse people


Note for split (for whom I will spare one more moment): the problem is that like many of his inclination he quotes sources that are wrong. I just illustrated how one might be lead to suspect how wrong above ... but arguing with the detail (when you know it will eventually prove to be wrong and he wouldn't believe you anyway) is like arguing with a hillbilly holding a shotgun on you --- a waste of time and probably a danger to some element of ones health.

Thanks for giving me a minute which I (no BS) truly appreciate.

I made up my mind years ago and am at peace with myself. My sincere wish is that the same happens to everyone here, that is the important part.

Split

 

[temptrader]

Nine, join the club. I'm going to keep an open mind and wait and see.

I agree with agentz86 but he loses me! I'm going to look for yacorob!

I should add that agentz86 is keeping an open mind. I am a creationist but I only have a belief---no proof--- and I do not choose to dig too far into the complicated philosophies that each, and every one of us, has. Our job is around us, everyday, but it seems that it is not enough for many.

Split

This is NOT an issue about having an open mind. The thing is settled because there is really nothing to debate about at all.

AgentZ86,

Let me us get something straight with you, so you can follow our logic clearly. All this was resolved since 1859 but you won't accept that:

1) Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that there IS a God. He created the integers, he made all the fundamental forces, all the elementary particles, he made everything and just set the ball rolling and we got to here where we are today because of it. There is nothing to stop anyone believing in this if they want to, since at the moment it's unfalsifiable
2) Now let's suppose that a famous religious text can make a claim on being what this God wants, what this God wants for mankind and as being the last word in everything relating to what is what - and what's not.
3) Further, this religious text claims that man did not descend from apes, but from two individuals. That the earth was made in 7 days and 7 nights, and it ages is only, say, 52,000 years . . . . .
4) in the medieval ages there's nothing that could be done about point 3. But as mankind got more and more advanced we can put these claims to the test. And they are wrong.
5) therefore the upshot of this is that the text is wrong, and if the text is wrong, what is it also wrong about it I wonder? The afterlife? Heaven and Hell? Angels? People having souls?

Let me put it this way: if the religious text says that zeta(3) is rational because God says so, there was nothing anyone could do about it until 1979 when someone proved it to be irrational. The people who believe in the religious text will be trying to pick the proof apart and find gaps, inconsistencies, laps of logic etc. . . to no avail because the proof is sound. We now have one group of people losing face and credibility, what do you think the psychological reaction will be?

And yet, this is exactly what has happened to the Darwinian theory of Evolution by Natural Selection because it hit these religious people where it hurts most. These pointless, pig headed, arrogant, delusional debates about points that have already been resolved have been going on since 1859.

Darwin never wanted his theory to be correct. It made him sick, seriously SICK. I'm very surprised that he didn't try to commit suicide because of it. Part of the reaction was due to the fact that since he knew what he knew, it called into question the validity of the afterlife, people going to heaven, having a soul - all the things promised by a book reportedly communicated from a "God". He realised that none of it can be true, hence the God that this text spoke for cannot possibly exist. It did not prevent the existence of another type of "God", and that's why Darwin was an agnostic towards the end of his life, it's just that he realised that all the claims made by the religious texts as nothing more than pure rubbish.

 

[gamma]

it's just that he realised that all the claims made by the religious texts as nothing more than pure rubbish

.

Religion Summed up brilliantly!!!!!!

 

[Splitlink]

Temptrader,

I suppose that I want the best of two worlds. I accept the fact that Adam and Eve is poppycock. Most of it was passed by word of mouth, from village to village, in the same way that storytellers do today, where there is a majority of illiterates. These stories got stretched according to the imagination of the teller until they became put to paper where, today, they are stabilised.

I do not believe any of that and, therefore, I don't blame a man of Darwin's intellect for not believing it either but, in my view, that does not prevent a creator to use evolution in his scheme of things.

Anyway, I know what you think of opinions such as mine and I have no intention of wasting both out energies on details. As I said before, everyone is his own philosopher and I doubt that he will ever get to the bottom of this.

Split

 

[new_trader]

Temptrader,

I suppose that I want the best of two worlds. I accept the fact that Adam and Eve is poppycock. Most of it was passed by word of mouth, from village to village, in the same way that storytellers do today, where there is a majority of illiterates. These stories got stretched according to the imagination of the teller until they became put to paper where, today, they are stabilised.

I do not believe any of that and, therefore, I don't blame a man of Darwin's intellect for not believing it either but, in my view, that does not prevent a creator to use evolution in his scheme of things.

Anyway, I know what you think of opinions such as mine and I have no intention of wasting both out energies on details. As I said before, everyone is his own philosopher and I doubt that he will ever get to the bottom of this.

Split

YouTube - Richard Dawkins on The O'Reilly Factor

 

[cofton]

YouTube - Richard Dawkins on The O'Reilly Factor

Excellent clip showing the ignorance of some so called Christians.

The interviewer (if you can call him that) made a complete dick of himself on that clip.

Richard Dawkins kept himself composed when most of us would have either got up and walked out or told him to shut up.

If the interview had gone on any longer then the interviewer would have dug himself an even bigger hole and Dawkins would have made him look even more foolish than he had already.

I've watched Dawkins many times and unfortunately this clip didn't show him in his true light, he is a great advert for evolution supporters and is probably the best authority on the subject.

Cofton

 

[cofton]

Title

At least this interviewer listened and let Dawkins speak about his conclusions.

Dawkins is a very wise man indeed in my opinion.

 

[PKFFW]

5) therefore the upshot of this is that the text is wrong, and if the text is wrong, what is it also wrong about it I wonder? The afterlife? Heaven and Hell? Angels? People having souls?

He realised that none of it can be true, hence the God that this text spoke for cannot possibly exist. It did not prevent the existence of another type of "God", and that's why Darwin was an agnostic towards the end of his life, it's just that he realised that all the claims made by the religious texts as nothing more than pure rubbish.

Firstly I will say that I fundamentally agree with your point of view. Evolution is backed by evidence and is the most plausible theory. I'd go so far as to say that it is indisputable that "evolution" is how the species have evolved so to speak.

However, that there may(or is) something wrong with a text(the bible in this case) does not constitute proof that everything in the book is wrong. Even in the scientific world sometimes certain aspects of theories are found to be wrong but the underlying principles involved in the theory are still sound.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[temptrader]

I do not believe any of that and, therefore, I don't blame a man of Darwin's intellect for not believing it either but, in my view, that does not prevent a creator to use evolution in his scheme of things.

Anyway, I know what you think of opinions such as mine and I have no intention of wasting both out energies on details. As I said before, everyone is his own philosopher and I doubt that he will ever get to the bottom of this.

Opinions you say? Do you even bother to read my previous post properly and what I was trying to say?

Do you have an opinion about the earth being flat? Do you have an opinion about the earth being the centre of the universe and hence this means that the sun orbits the earth? Maybe we can start a discussion group about this and debate our opinions about these points? Maybe we can say, because we accept that a religious text tells us so the above 2 points are true because such the book tells us so, despite independent impartial evidence to the contrary?

I don't care about the unfalsifiable, but when something has been falsified to all reasonable doubt, there is nothing to discuss about it - or hold an opinion on. Do you see, or not see?

And yet a lot of people don't seem to get the above point. They have too much emotions invested in the beliefs that they hold, taken from texts that are now shown to be of dubious credibility.

 

[PKFFW]

At least this interviewer listened and let Dawkins speak about his conclusions.

Dawkins is a very wise man indeed in my opinion.

What bugs me about Dawkins and his kind are they are just as closed minded about things as the relgious ones.

Science has not yet actually proven how it all started. As I posted before, it is certainly possible that the suns, planets, life etc started by chance. In fact given an infinite amount of time, with all the ingredients in place it absolutely would happen by chance.

However, just because something could happen by chance and does not need a "creator" does not constitute proof that it did happen by chance. I'm reminded of the simpson episode where Lisa creates a science experiment where people evolve. Who is to say that when we finally work everything out we don't find we are some experiment?

Further to that science hasn't worked out how the whole physical world came into existence in the first place. Now again, we may work it all out one day and who's to say the answer isn't that some "supreme being" used the mechanism of the big bang to start everything off?

To suggest that god is a delusion is just as unsupported by evidence as to suggest he exists. The only truly scientific viewpoint supported by the current evidence is "we don't know one way or the other".

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[JTrader]

WTF is 20052003ism anyway?

 

[temptrader]

Firstly I will say that I fundamentally agree with your point of view. Evolution is backed by evidence and is the most plausible theory. I'd go so far as to say that it is indisputable that "evolution" is how the species have evolved so to speak.

However, that there may(or is) something wrong with a text(the bible in this case) does not constitute proof that everything in the book is wrong. Even in the scientific world sometimes certain aspects of theories are found to be wrong but the underlying principles involved in the theory are still sound.

Cheers,
PKFFW

I never said everything in such and such a religious text is wrong. Where have I said that? And who says science is perfect? It's present state is SUFFICIENT to falsify CERTAIN claims made by religious texts. This in turns calls their credibility into question. That's the only point I'm making, the only real point that Darwin makes in regards to the religious issue, etc . . . etc . . .

Nothing to stop you believing in your own version of a God. Nothing to stopping you believing that He is using evolution for his own ends - nothing at all. Nothing to stop you believing that homosexual relations is wrong, or abortion is wrong etc. . . they are issues that science cannot be used to take a moral stance on since science is not about morals.

 

[new_trader]

What bugs me about Dawkins and his kind are they are just as closed minded about things as the relgious ones.

Science has not yet actually proven how it all started. As I posted before, it is certainly possible that the suns, planets, life etc started by chance. In fact given an infinite amount of time, with all the ingredients in place it absolutely would happen by chance.

However, just because something could happen by chance and does not need a "creator" does not constitute proof that it did happen by chance. I'm reminded of the simpson episode where Lisa creates a science experiment where people evolve. Who is to say that when we finally work everything out we don't find we are some experiment?

Further to that science hasn't worked out how the whole physical world came into existence in the first place. Now again, we may work it all out one day and who's to say the answer isn't that some "supreme being" used the mechanism of the big bang to start everything off?

To suggest that god is a delusion is just as unsupported by evidence as to suggest he exists. The only truly scientific viewpoint supported by the current evidence is "we don't know one way or the other".

Cheers,
PKFFW

You have heard of Occam's razor I imagine?

"The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory."

Sure, you can always say that God is responsible for the big bang and evolution. But there are also many unsolved murders around the world, should we hold God responsible for those? Do you think that tiny pink elephants in tutu’s start dancing around in your fridge after you close the door?

 

[temptrader]

You have heard of Occam's razor I imagine?

"The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory."

Sure, you can always say that God is responsible for the big bang and evolution. But there are also many unsolved murders around the world, should we hold God responsible for those? Do you think that tiny pink elephants in tutu’s start dancing around in your fridge after you close the door?

Strangely enough I once knew a mathematician who likes pink elephants, but that's another story . . . .

I mean, why on earth do most humans, when presented with a phenomena that science cannot explain yet (be it Goldbach's conjecture, or why the cosmological constant is that number etc. . . ) do they feel a need to conclude that some "God" must be behind it? It as if its an addiction to WANT there to be a God. You could take a equally valid assumption that there is no God behind it, but that doesn't deter the millions who are hooked on wanting there to be a God who's responsible for this. It utterly irrational and crazy.

Yes, PKFF_God_is_watching_us_W, maybe there is a God behind all this. Maybe he might put into place a sequence of events that will see you and FireWalker99 meeting up, falling in love, start a homosexual relationship, get married, adopting children . . . . and live happily ever after . . . . Yes, maybe such a God exists. Maybe. Here's a hoping.

 

[Splitlink]

Opinions you say? Do you even bother to read my previous post properly and what I was trying to say?

Do you have an opinion about the earth being flat? Do you have an opinion about the earth being the centre of the universe and hence this means that the sun orbits the earth? Maybe we can start a discussion group about this and debate our opinions about these points? Maybe we can say, because we accept that a religious text tells us so the above 2 points are true because such the book tells us so, despite independent impartial evidence to the contrary?

I don't care about the unfalsifiable, but when something has been falsified to all reasonable doubt, there is nothing to discuss about it - or hold an opinion on. Do you see, or not see?

And yet a lot of people don't seem to get the above point. They have too much emotions invested in the beliefs that they hold, taken from texts that are now shown to be of dubious credibility.

I believe I said that I was a Creationist, but I was wrong to say that. I'm not, because , obviously the universe was not made in seven days and world is not 6,000 years old. I do believe in evolution but I, also, believe in God.

You'll have to make what you wish out of that and, to be honest, I don't believe that it matters all that much, My interests are more down to earth. Does it, really, matter all that much when the final result is death? I believe and you don't.

Ok.

BTW, I've circled Earth three times. I figure that it is round.

Split