All assumed though.
Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?
- Thread starter Johnnytoxic
- Start date
Eagles are much more specialised than a human. Humans are very good generalists, including but not limited to eyesight. Eagles can fly, but humans can think. Thinking is a lot more special - many animals can fly.
Then there's manual dexterity, which humans excel in. Even other primates, other animals with complex hands, can't reach human levels. Combine the mind and the dexterity and humans can fly, and fly much faster than an eagle.
Specialised animals often outperform humans in that particular area of speciality. Humans are not better than every other animal at everything - that would be ridiculous. But it's unreasonable to argue that humans are much less special than other animals because humans aren't the best animals at absolutely everything. No animal is.
Of a higher order i said.
That is a lie.
You know that it is a lie.
You have been shown the evidence repeatedly.
You will continue to lie because you are a propagandist or a troll or both.
Inferred.
What the hell have you been smoking?
That's factually not what you said. I could also argue that hybridisation / polyploidisation can exaggerate characteristics, such as salt tolerance or increased water storage, that arguably make them 'higher' organisms in your extremely lose definition of the word.
But I concede, there is probably no example that I can give you that would satisfy your insanely narrow and flat out wrong definition of speciation.
Narrrrgh I failed! I got sucked in to the infernal trap of arguing with someone on the internet over something pointless, noooo.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 113
a lot of things in science can't be directly observed, an atom can't seen but has to observe indirectly by electron scattering and the structure inferred from this and other data. This doesn't make our theories of nuclear physics any less correct. The same with the theory of evolution, we can't observe the entire span of evolution as its already happened, however we can take observations of its mechanisms ie. the change of characteristics of populations over time to their environment and observations of differences between speacies in the fossil record over time to infer how life has diverified from other organisms.
As you well know, eyes more primitive than human eyes exist in living animals today. This, rather obviously, is compelling evidence that eyes more primitive than human eyes can exist. The entire spectrum of eyes still exists in living animals today, from simple unshaped patches of photosensitive cells to several different types of eye as complex as or more complex than human eyes.
You either have no idea what the scientific method is or you're lying, because you claim to use it and you do almost exactly the opposite to it. You make hypotheses that are merely baseless assumptions and you deliberately and doggedly ignore all evidence.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,719
- Location
- Auckland
[FnG]magnolia;23688493 said:
Of all his points, that one is actually rather sensible.
A lot of Christians see the pope in the same way. The pope and Catholicism is pretty offensive to many Christians, thinking they can dictate to God and some humans are closer to God than others.
The pope in no way represents all Christians, not even all denominations. Not that you need to belong to a denomination.
You do not adhere to the scientific method. Your claim to do so is false. You make it in order to leech off science like a parasite. Your own faith is too weak to stand by itself and you know it, so you have to use science as a host.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 3,779
- Location
- Wales
You're basically a scientist at heart, since you've looked at the evidence, applied doubt and scrutiny, and reached conclusions. This doesn't make you religious since it requires faith (read: the redundant expression 'blind faith', which might add clarity to the actual definition of faith). Faith requires no material proof or logic.
But you've also accepted that there might well be things that can't ever be explained, effectively rendering further research futile and thus terminating it, and concluded that the things that are unknowable somehow must be the realm in which God resides. You appeal to your perceptions of beauty and reverence for the complex, yet there is no reason that basic scientific laws cannot give rise to complexity, and there is a strong possibility from a scientific viewpoint that our sense of what is beauty, symmetrical or a pattern just results from the physiological/chemical make-up of our minds anyway, and the advantage that it gives us to be 'selected' by nature. An essential part of science is peer review in which a common consensus can be reached. Once you terminate research after reaching conclusions, and in particular not just propose hypothesis' but take a leap of faith in accepting them to be the truth and not bother to subject them to peer review, then there is little scope for further meaningful philosophical discussion (since that requires an actual logical argument).
Last edited:
The Pope heads the Magisterium which is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Neither the Papacy or Magisterium claim to represent anyone other than Catholics. To claim that the Pope is a servant of Satan is not a sensible point at all, it is no more sensible than stating Darwinism is a process of Satan.
Of course people can say and deduce he's an agent of satan, seeing as the pope directly contradicts a lot of what many other Christian groups belive. As I also said he is not a representative of all Christian denominations, so not sure why you brought that up.
They can say it, that doesn't make it a sensible point to make however.
And Kedge claimed that all Christians are One Unity at some point....which would presumably include the Papacy and their authority. (Not that the Catholic Church would claim or want such authority over non-denominational Christians such as Kedge), the point raised to which he responded was in the context of Kedge's statement of unity.
I wasn't talking about any other point.
And yes it's very much can be sensible. Seeing as the pope can easily fit in the false prophet section and one of the biggest false phrophets ever to live(or series of people). So yes if you aren't catholic it can be very sensible.
As to any other points I've been raging, but it's utterly pointless. We now this from SC, he just has his fists in his ears. So pointless debating with him.
Last edited:
A troll is someone you cannot have a discussion with though, thats their nature they want to annoy and disrupt. Kedge is clearly behaving like a troll, if he was really religous he would have likely went away by now.