Which has nothing to do with ascribing a belief in it, which is what Dolph and myself are refereeing to.
Do you believe in evolution ?
- Thread starter kaka4200
- Start date
- Status
Which has nothing to do with ascribing a belief in it, which is what Dolph and myself are refereeing to.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 5,798
Lack of faith there Freefaller. Seems like your hanging onto it by your fingertips.
Castiel you would make a good politician sidestepping around the obvious.
Just one piece of evidence, DNA code compared with a chimp 96 percent the same.
Evolution is what happened, regardless of how it first got here. Does the bible interpret evolution in any meaningful way. Quite hard to look past it. If not then the rest of it is hogwash.
I didn't mean that the theory of evolution is infallible, just that unlike religion one conclusion is generally agreed on if we feel it is supported sufficiently. If something came along that challenged evolutionary theory then it needs to be looked at; it could completely change our understanding of biology.
Obviously they can each be used in good and bad ways, but I'd have to say that overall science has a significantly higher good:bad ratio than religion. I feel that the millions and millions saved through medical research (to name one benefit) is more good that religion will ever do.
I am not making a god of the gaps argument, I am criticising scientific realism viewpoints that take science as defining reality.
To be clear, I am not saying that science doesn't define reality because it is incomplete. I am saying science cannot define reality because of the way the method is designed for an alternative purpose, that of describing reality, and uses assumptions taken without evidence to facilitate this purpose.
Do note that I am not proposing any alternatives, this is not a science bad therefore god argument. I do not know how things were created or why they behave the way we observe them to. Furthermore, I do not place faith in a system that is designed to describe to instead define the system.
Yes, it did in fact evolve.
Just because something is a bit different and complex does not mean "wow, god did it!"
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,786
- Location
- Falling...
Fortunately I can hold hundreds of kilos on my fingertips so I'm quite comfortable thank you for your concern.
Besides it isn't a lack of faith, it is a choice I have made through the interpretation that I have understood. I find it reflects modern life better and makes it easy to associate in my life and experiences.
People seem to think that Evolution is something that Darwin created and we accept today..it isn't. It is the continuing expansion of knowledge and supporting evidence that infers a repeated divergence and biodiversity of life from a common ancestor, this has been, and continues to be a developing Theory that goes back beyond the creation of Christianity or Islam. With each newly accepted model comes new questions, new discoveries which in turn leads to newer models and better understanding. Darwin's Theory is no longer the theory we accept as he didn't deal in genetics or the myriad of other complementary evidence and theories we know today, no doubt in another 200 years we will know more and the Theory of Evolution will look somewhat different that it does today.
I see this more pronounced in language for example, the English we will speak in a thousand years, or even in 500 years will be incomprehensible to English speakers today, just like the English spoken 500 years ago would be incompressible to us today. The evolution of language, like the evolution of life, is an ever changing, ever complex and ever fascinating field of discovery and within that field people will always disagree on the detail, even if they accept the premise.
The fact such blatant troll posts manage to elicit continued reactions as they are doing is quite impressive I must say.
And the millions and millions killed by weapons created using the application of science, the destruction of our ecosystem using the application of science..the creations of schools, libraries, hospitals, scientific discovery itself through the application of Religion...the point I'm making is that you cannot objectively quantify the ratio of good and bad, you can only judge the application of each as it is defined at the time.
Yes. Obviously it's not a very successful evolution as they were the only ones to reproduce in that way and are now extinct (although, somewhat ironically have very nearly been brought back).
I imagine the evolution was a reaction to predators eating the young/eggs, as a way to protect them. Much like kangaroos keep the joey in a pouch until it can defend itself.
It's a very dedicated troll if he is, and it's irrelevant really. There are plenty of people that think the way he does/pretends to.
Well yes, it's not exactly a precise measurement of how much good and bad each has caused. But I would rather go withot religion than science; I would be surprised if many would disagree.
There is always meaning to be gleaned. It depends on how you apply the tools at your disposal.
The point is that you needn't go without either. They do not function as an either/or choice. Like that quote LOAM offered, they are merely different suits to wear at different occasions.
I know, it was just an example. 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'? I'm all for it. Just don't go around mutilating genetalia.
Miasma theory was not predictively accurate when used though. That is the distinction. The examples I gave are known to be wrong in some circumstances but correct in others, or rely on assumptions within the model known to be untrue.
It is perfectly possible for a scientific model to be both wrong and useful.
That's what I'm saying, theories that are both wrong and useless are chucked out. No respected scientist in that field would still accept miasma theory.
Some of the physics is very interesting despite some being what seem to be illogical assumptions. Apparently every the sum of number up to infinity =-1/12, this can be proven mathematically and has been shown to be true in theoretical physics. Even though it at first seems impossible.
- Status