REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Evolutionary Debate

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 06:16
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 12336
PAGE 3 of 4

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:00 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

No, you're not pointing out the double standard.


no one knows for sure the origins of life on earth, because the data is not conclusive. there is a portion of the field who leave ID open to possibility, because the evidence isnt as cut and dry as you would like to believe Citizen. that seems to me to be a double standard- if it fits your theory, its fact, its proof.. if it suggests otherwise, or casts doubt on any of your prior beliefs, you automatically form a bias against it. i dont deny that species evolve, but i havent seen the 'proof' that Man came from ape millions of years ago.. because it hasnt been proven

Quote:

You WANT it to be a double standard because that validates your position so that's what you see, but it's not there.


and you apparently dont want to consider ID a possibility, that seems to be your lens.. so i could easily say the same for you. ill admit, i want a GOd to exist, and leave that possibility open, based on what i consider to be a compelling lack of evidence for the 'Golem' concept

Quote:

Science is based on evidence, you come up with a theory then test it.


so what can you prove happened billions of years ago? that does not fit into the category of science.. that is as much philosophy as religion is

Quote:

All this BS about ID and creationism being theories is merely the desperate straw grabbing by people who aren't content with religion filling it's niche but want to shoe horn it into everyone elses too.


all we are saying is that things appear to have been intelligently designed, which if it is true, merely serves as a premise to scientific discovery, it doesnt obstruct it in anyway

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:22 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

all we are saying is that things appear to have been intelligently designed, which if it is true, merely serves as a premise to scientific discovery, it doesnt obstruct it in anyway


The problem is that ID is unfalsifiable and thus unscientific, that is the reason why scientists reject ID. ID is merely an attempt to surround theology in a cloak of scientific validity, when in reality it has no such validity.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:29 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Anti -

"you apparently dont want to consider ID a possibility"

why do you keep trying to shoehorn ID into science when it is no such thing? A scientific proposal needs to be able to be tested to see if it's wrong. Since ID isn't testable, it isn't science.


So why DO you keep trying to jam it into science? Just curious.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:32 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:


Fredgiblet-
Once again, evolution does not cover abiogenesis,



but most people assume it as a pretext to evolution, despite the lack of varafiable, reproduceable evidence to confirm its factuality. textbooks teach it right alongside evolution, as the proof of our origins, so its still a fundemental question, and seems to be essential to the claims that species such as Man cross evolved and mutated over billions of years, beginning as amino acids and proteins

Quote:

evolution does not cover the origins of the universe, hence the reality of evolution does not invalidate belief in a supreme being.


ok.. then its the evolutionists themselves who 'just know' that GOd does not exist. i believe God exists, but i cant prove it .. so ill admit its im acting on faith(although IMO the signs of intelligent design are there). when some scientist claims to know the whole truth of the matter, from the big bang to our current state, and states immutably 'there is no God', thats a bit different i think

Quote:

Additonally there's a good chance that the evolutionist thought that the debate would be focsued on evolution, which as i just stated DOES NOT COVER THE ORIGIN OF LIFE


he didnt have an answer about the neccessary DNA changes for an ape to become a human.. which is part of evolution. we dont have an answer, because theres no scientific data that proves that this occurred, its speculation and theory, so i dont see how it can be trumpeted as established fact


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 9, 2007 4:20 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I'm wondering why I'm getting all the shit about not being open minded here. I've never said that Evolution wasn't real. In fact, I'm rather inclined to believe that it is true. I give pretty much everything I cannot explain about a 50/50 shot. I haven't come at all of the Dawkin supporters with an outrageously religious wrath either, just a big fuck you to anyone who will come out and try to make someone believe that there is no God because science says so. I already told you that I haven't prayed to God since I was 19 and I'm a long way from coming up with any conclusions for myself regarding these issues. In the end, whatever I decide is truth is all that matters in this decision because that's my truth. I would say the same goes for all of you. As far as I'm concerned, this debate has never been about what is the absolute truth, because not a single one of us here really knows for sure or ever will. There has never been a single shred of undeniable proof that validates one while disproving the other.

I think several posts have been twisted around on me here while I was gone and unable to defend myself. The entire point of what I've been trying to say has very little to do with trying to invalidate evolution, or to even say that there is a God. It seems like the pro-evos here think that that is exactly what I'm doing.

I have a problem with my 12 year old brother quoting unfavorable passages from the bible to everyone he knows and talking about the spagetti monster all of the time. I think this is just as scary as somebody who was always trying to convert you to their religion. What's even worse about it is that he doesn't have to go to a "church" to have it so engrained in his brain that this is true. All he has to do is go on the internet and chat with other atheists and people who follow Dawkin's word as "gospel" truth.

As far as I'm concerned, this Dawkins isn't any different than L Ron Hubbard, and his reach seems even farther because his "doctrine" is being taught in schools, without anything to balance it. I read Dianetics and I've been through an auditing process as well. It's a very believable book and it made a lot of sense to me at one point... but if I were to follow that path I would lose any sense of individuality and every decision in my life would ultimately be with the good of the collective in mind. It works for some, but it's just not my bag.

And Cit.. I happen to know a lot about evolution. When I was a kid all I wanted to do when I grew up was go on digs for Dinosaur bones. I enjoyed Biology in high school and I took two Biology courses in college. It just so happens that it is my favorite Science, although I think now I would like to know more about Physics. I never really paid much attention to Physics in high school and didn't persue it at all in College. I was an absolute rock when it came to Chemestry. I could handle the basics, but my mind simply isn't wired right to handle any of the more advanced aspects of Chemistry.

Bottom line is that the science people are on the attack. They want it all and they won't stop until they get it. I see no difference between what the science people have done to religion and what the smoke Nazis have done to smokers. I really don't know why everything has to be one way or the other, espceically considering that most of us are torn on issues and don't agree. I'm sure there is a median that we can find that would make both parties happy, but unless attitudes like the ones in here change, that will never happen.

Just for the record: Not sure what it means, but as far as what I've seen on this thread, the religious people have been the most tolerant of the opposing views hands down. This being an overall generalization. There are people on both sides who are content to live in co-existance with one another.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 9, 2007 4:26 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:


Fredgiblet-
Once again, evolution does not cover abiogenesis,



but most people assume it as a pretext to evolution, despite the lack of varafiable, reproduceable evidence to confirm its factuality. textbooks teach it right alongside evolution, as the proof of our origins, so its still a fundemental question, and seems to be essential to the claims that species such as Man cross evolved and mutated over billions of years, beginning as amino acids and proteins



No, most people assume that there is a god that created life, check your facts. Any textbook that states that evolution has THE answer to abiogenesis really should be rewritten, but in science textbooks where facts (like evolution) are taught there will always be questions raised by the lessons. Instead of simply saying that we don't know it is perfectly legitimate to present hypothesis (plural?)(as long as they are depicted as such). Additionally this arguement applies equally well to creationists who state unverified opinons as fact. Abiogenesis is not in any way critical to understanding of evolution, how life began does not change the evidence for how life proceeded to develop.

Quote:

Quote:

evolution does not cover the origins of the universe, hence the reality of evolution does not invalidate belief in a supreme being.


ok.. then its the evolutionists themselves who 'just know' that GOd does not exist. i believe God exists, but i cant prove it .. so ill admit its im acting on faith(although IMO the signs of intelligent design are there). when some scientist claims to know the whole truth of the matter, from the big bang to our current state, and states immutably 'there is no God', thats a bit different i think



So the feeling that I am getting from this complaint is that you don't like it when people state that they have beliefs that don't match up with yours?

Also, any scientist who claims to know everything must notbe a particuarly good scientist, part of being a scientist is knowing that there is a lot more to learn. We have a pretty good idea of how things have progressed since the Big Bang, there are holes (such as abiogenesis) that may never be filled in, or may be filled in tomorrow. We could be completely wrong but the evidence fits.

Quote:

Quote:

Additonally there's a good chance that the evolutionist thought that the debate would be focsued on evolution, which as i just stated DOES NOT COVER THE ORIGIN OF LIFE


he didnt have an answer about the neccessary DNA changes for an ape to become a human.. which is part of evolution. we dont have an answer, because theres no scientific data that proves that this occurred, its speculation and theory, so i dont see how it can be trumpeted as established fact



So one person can't answer one question that he probably didn't know was coming beforehand and that invalidates evolution? Have you tried looking up the answer to the question yourself? Could you tell me the question he was asked? (I'm not going to watch an hour-long video just to argue on the internet). Evolution as a whole is an established fact, no reputable biologist will argue against that. There are parts that are speculative, but the basic mechanism is well tested and proven.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 9, 2007 4:38 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

"all we are saying is that things appear to have been intelligently designed"


Is that what Intelligent Design is?

I agree. Everything seems to be intelligently designed. Not just biologically, but physically too.

I can never get over how well everything works. The whole universe. It's amazing.

I wonder what the rest of it could be for?

I wish I'd be able to live long enough to find out.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 9, 2007 4:46 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
So the feeling that I am getting from this complaint is that you don't like it when people state that they have beliefs that don't match up with yours?



Hahahahahaha.... show me one person in here who hasn't shown that trait..... including me.

I was beat up pretty bad in here while I was gone.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 9, 2007 4:46 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Anti -

"you apparently dont want to consider ID a possibility"

Why do you keep trying to shoehorn ID into science when it is no such thing? A scientific proposal needs to be able to be tested to see if it's wrong. Since ID isn't testable, it isn't science.


So why DO you keep trying to jam it into science? Just curious.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 9, 2007 6:11 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:

"all we are saying is that things appear to have been intelligently designed"


Is that what Intelligent Design is?

I agree. Everything seems to be intelligently designed. Not just biologically, but physically too.

I can never get over how well everything works. The whole universe. It's amazing.



Ever had lower back pain? Broken your tailbone? Had your tonsils removed? Had your appendix removed? Humans alone are full of flaws that a basic engineering degree or even just a little common sense would have cleaned out, that doesn't seem too intelligent to me. On the other hand evolution predicts that there will be leftovers in our bodies of formerly useful things, as long as the leftover is not too disadvantageuos it won't be selected out, thus we have tailbones to break. I would think that just about any engineering or pre-med student would tell us that whoever designed the human body must have not really thought it through.

As for physics, if the physical world was unfit for the development of life then we wouldn't be here, the reason it seems to us that it is designed perfectly is because as far as we can tell no other set up will work. There is no reason to believe that a different combination of physical forces would not produce a stable universe that functions just as well as this one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 9, 2007 6:33 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
As for physics, if the physical world was unfit for the development of life then we wouldn't be here, the reason it seems to us that it is designed perfectly is because as far as we can tell no other set up will work. There is no reason to believe that a different combination of physical forces would not produce a stable universe that functions just as well as this one.



Yes - maybe Earth's (or another planet's) dominant creature could have been a sulfer-based rock-eater instead. Wouldn't that be neat?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 9, 2007 6:48 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Sooooooooo........

Everybody bashes me while I'm gone, but has nothing to say while I'm here.... right.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 9, 2007 6:55 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Sooooooooo........

Everybody bashes me while I'm gone, but has nothing to say while I'm here.... right.



We can bash you if you'd like, no problem, you really want us to?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:09 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'm wondering why I'm getting all the shit about not being open minded here...

Bottom line is that the science people are on the attack.

Because RWED is dominated by people who attack anyone who QUESTIONS their beliefs. It doesn't matter what those beliefs are: Al-Qaeda, 9/11, Bush, health care, socialism, global warming, vaccines, government, evolution, God/deity, paranormal experiences, etc. What they believe is true, and if you question or doubt any part of it, you are automatically labeled as ANTI-their-position.

It's the old "you're either for me or against me" mentality. You either believe in global warming, or you are denying it. You either love Bush or hate Bush. You either want everyone to vaccinate or want no one to vaccinate. You either support evolution in its entirety, or you are some anti-evolution quack. There is no agnosticism, skepticism, negotiation, or middle ground with these folks.

But--RWED has a lot of intelligent, rational, and articulate people as well. And it is for their opinions that makes a visit to RWED worth one's time. I've met a lot of nice people I admire here, including you, 6ix. So don't let them get you down. And keep up the good fight for freedom.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:10 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


You happend to be very civil in your disputes to my comments and I appreciate that. We do happen to see pretty much eye to eye on most of it too I think. If it makes you feel better you can bash me if you'd like. I think I was a punching bag for almost everyone in here today..... geez, you'd think it was Monday instead of Friday.

Just one thought on one of your posts:

Quote:

-------------------------------------------------Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Freedom from God isn't the same thing as freedom of the mind
-------------------------------------------------
True, but thinking beyond what you were taught as a child is.



I agree completely with you here, but why do I have a suspicion that that was meant as a jab at me?

Oh, and wrong thread for this, but I'll tell you what I told rue before since you agree with her in regards to mandatory vaccinations. If you stick me with a needle without my consent, I will retaliate with a bullet without your consent. No offense.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:18 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Thanks for all that canttakesky. I've had a pretty rough one in here today. I know I'm guilty of being a bit pig headed myself to. We all do that here and in the real world to greater or lesser extents.

I'm just tired of everything needing to be Black or White, and tired of everybody thinking that it's perfectly fine to invade my private life and the choices I make because it's in my best interests.

You're good people.....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:29 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Just one thought on one of your posts:

Quote:

-------------------------------------------------Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Freedom from God isn't the same thing as freedom of the mind
-------------------------------------------------
True, but thinking beyond what you were taught as a child is.



I agree completely with you here, but why do I have a suspicion that that was meant as a jab at me?



It was meant as a jab at anyone who blindly follows what they were taught as a child simply because they think it's the "right" way to think. If you fall into that category...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:49 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
It was meant as a jab at anyone who blindly follows what they were taught as a child simply because they think it's the "right" way to think. If you fall into that category...



Fair enough.... I think it's pretty evident that I don't.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:19 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I haven't come at all of the Dawkin supporters with an outrageously religious wrath either, just a big fuck you to anyone who will come out and try to make someone believe that there is no God because science says so.

Science has absolutely nothing to say on the subject of God, never has and never will. The accusation that science is attacking god is entirely in the minds of the religious who think they're religion must influence all walks of life. I suppose by doing you're own thing when another group is trying to force you otherwise that other group may see that as an attack.
Quote:

I think several posts have been twisted around on me here while I was gone and unable to defend myself.
For crying out loud. This is a message board, people post things when they're on-line, not when it's convenient to you. Really sorry you weren't on-line earlier, that must be my fault. Oh and you made this comment while I was asleep at twenty past two in the morning:
"Everybody bashes me while I'm gone, but has nothing to say while I'm here.... right."

So do I get to bitch because you made comments while I wasn't here now?
Quote:

And Cit.. I happen to know a lot about evolution.
So how come you can't tell the very basic difference between Darwinian natural selection and a biological learning process. Equating bacteria dying unless they have a resistance and as such the resistance becoming more prevalent in the general population and a Human getting a sniffle doesn't say to me that you have this great degree of knowledge on the subject of evolution. If you did you wouldn't be equating the two, unless you were purposefully trying to misrepresent the opposing position with a red herring. In that case I apologise, but I don't think purposefully using logical fallacies to swing debate is any better.
Quote:

Bottom line is that the science people are on the attack. They want it all and they won't stop until they get it.
Get what? Be left alone, because that's it. Science has never once, not ONCE attacked religion, it's all come from the other side. That's rare, in fact it's the only time I can ever think that one side is entirely responsible for the conflict.

The idea that science is attacking religion is nuts. What's actually happening is Religion keeps coming around to sciences gaff, kicking the door down and stealing science's stuff, smashing up science's TV and telling science what magazines science is a loud to read. Science has not come to religions house and smashed in their front door, science has stood up and calmly said "get out of my house." Religion says that's an attack and this isn't sciences house. Science asks again and again and religion screams louder and louder "Stop attacking me, ohh I'm being oppressed!"

Science IS NOT attacking religion, science is under attack, and is defending itself. It's a credit to science that it doesn't return the attack where religion lives.
Quote:

I see no difference between what the science people have done to religion and what the smoke Nazis have done to smokers.
Science has done nothing NOTHING to religion. Never has never will. Science has nothing to say on the subjects of morality, spirituality or God. Those are the soul purviews of religion. The conflict is where religion doesn't just want it's house, it wants sciences too, and science not giving that up and walking away is portrayed as an attack. Yes I believe the term Nazi is very apt here, just not in the way you used it.
Quote:

I really don't know why everything has to be one way or the other, especially considering that most of us are torn on issues and don't agree.
Because when people of religion KNOW something to be true anything that says different (like science) must be crushed.
Quote:

I'm sure there is a median that we can find that would make both parties happy, but unless attitudes like the ones in here change, that will never happen.
Yes, there is and it's exactly what WE want. Religion deals with matters of spirituality, science with the material world. If you want to believe God created the universe, fine, many scientists believe the same thing, but such a concept is not science and has no place within. Take a look at the debate instead of just assuming it science that's doing all the attacking, it's religion trying to shoehorn itself in too science, not the other way around.
Quote:

Just for the record: Not sure what it means, but as far as what I've seen on this thread, the religious people have been the most tolerant of the opposing views hands down. This being an overall generalization. There are people on both sides who are content to live in co-existance with one another.
Well lets slip right by the fact that this is a statement with little basis in reality and straight to a possible explanation why those on sciences side tend to get annoyed.

We say "this is the evidence for evolution.
Instead of refuting that evidence with rationalisations, the scientific way of doing things they say "there's no evidence lalalala" *fingers in ears* and carry on making the same arguments that have been soundly refuted over and over and over again.

The ID vs Evolution thing IS NOT a debate, if only it were it would be long dead and buried and religion would be doing it's thing and science would likewise. ID is just something people can say over and over and over again in the hope that people will start to think "hey, we hear a lot about this ID thing, maybe there's something to it!" It's not a argument, it's a tactic, and the aim is not truth, but the eradication of science and the reaffirmation of religion at the top of the pecking order.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:33 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
no one knows for sure the origins of life on earth, because the data is not conclusive. there is a portion of the field who leave ID open to possibility, because the evidence isnt as cut and dry as you would like to believe Citizen. that seems to me to be a double standard- if it fits your theory, its fact, its proof.. if it suggests otherwise, or casts doubt on any of your prior beliefs, you automatically form a bias against it. i dont deny that species evolve, but i havent seen the 'proof' that Man came from ape millions of years ago.. because it hasnt been proven

No, there are theories all competing for how how life got started, but even scientist say we probably won't know. You want there to be a double standard as that would weaken evolutions position, but it REALLY is NOT there.

The problem with the ape to man thing is that there is proof, very conclusive from DNA to fossil records. DNA alone we can look back in time and through analysis actually see where there was an attempt at an evolutionary split between chimpanzee and Man but that it failed and the two groups re-homogenised. I think that was bought up here earlier. We can see the development from ape like forms to modern human, clearly. If we were to take the sentence "Apes become Humans" and remove the 'o' "Apes Bec_me Humans" most people can still read it, but some people say "There's no proof that that sentence ends with a Human".
Quote:

and you apparently dont want to consider ID a possibility, that seems to be your lens.. so i could easily say the same for you. ill admit, i want a GOd to exist, and leave that possibility open, based on what i consider to be a compelling lack of evidence for the 'Golem' concept
No, I'm fine with people believing in ID, this is what you don't understand, or perhaps don't want to understand. I'm fine with people believing whatever the hell they want to believe, but when they try and portray they're beliefs as science then I have a problem. ID cannot be science, it is fundamentally unscientific, and anyone who understands what science is and what it is all about will tell you the same thing.

Also please drop the Golem stuff. I've refuted that already and you didn't have an answer, this is one of the reasons people get tired of your position, we soundly refute something and instead of coming back with an argument for it you just repeat yourself and hope nobody noticed.
Quote:

so what can you prove happened billions of years ago? that does not fit into the category of science.. that is as much philosophy as religion is
There's plenty of ways, sometimes it's not anything more than an educated guess, like the composition of the earth's crust, we've bounced sound waves through and can make a good estimate of it's composition but we can't know for sure. But even then it's well out of the realm of philosophy and religion, which by they're very nature have NO supporting evidence.
Quote:

all we are saying is that things appear to have been intelligently designed, which if it is true, merely serves as a premise to scientific discovery, it doesnt obstruct it in anyway
All we are saying is ID isn't science. You want to believe in it fine, but don't portray it as science because it isn't.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 1:24 AM

KHYRON


Excellent posts, Citizen. I especially liked the "breaking into science's house" analogy. I think I'll use it in future "debates" on the topic.



The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 2:09 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Well Cit... I see we may finally be getting somewhere here instead of attacking each other. I think you made some very valid points here, and perhaps I am mistaken about a few things. I feel that there are some things you are mistaken about as well, but I do feel we are making progress.... allow me to respond to each quote individually.

Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:Science has absolutely nothing to say on the subject of God, never has and never will. The accusation that science is attacking god is entirely in the minds of the religious who think they're religion must influence all walks of life. I suppose by doing you're own thing when another group is trying to force you otherwise that other group may see that as an attack.



Okay. I'm very willing to give the benefit of the doubt here. I loved my Bilogy teacher in highschool. She was one of the coolest teachers I ever had. I would probably say that I was still pretty religious back in freshman year of High School and not once did I ever think that anything she was teaching me made me doubt in God, even when Evolution came up. Even back then I just kind of accepted this as the "how" God did it. Never once do I remember hearing her say a thing about God, which is exactly how I think it should be taught.

Perhaps the religious community is getting defensive about this issue because they've been alienated from schools recently and have been under attack and instead of trying harder to fight the Government and their cirriculum on this where they should, they've taken it out on Science because, let's face it, Science just makes sence as an enemy of the church where say... English just wouldn't make any sense (I'm speaking from the standpoint of a total layperson and not a scientist, or someone who is as obviously in love with Science as you are). This belief that Science is attacking the church is only solidified in the mind of the religious train of thought when asshats like Dawkins come out and say things that he has to say. I think you're right and maybe I don't know enough about the debate, but if Science and the media keep Dawkins (the Jesse Jackson of Science) as their poster boy, then this is a battle that will never go away.

Quote:

So how come you can't tell the very basic difference between Darwinian natural selection and a biological learning process......



Well... maybe I don't know a lot compared to you, but I have taken 3 Biology classes. I think I know a lot more about it than your average layperson and certainly more than somebody religious who views evolution as heresy. I'm not in a who's wang is bigger competition here with you Cit, because regarding Science yours is MUCH bigger, and I lose hands down. I retract the statement.

Quote:

Get what? Be left alone, because that's it. Science has never once, not ONCE attacked religion, it's all come from the other side. That's rare, in fact it's the only time I can ever think that one side is entirely responsible for the conflict.



Maybe you're right here. It just seems that the Church is under so much fire from every direction that it's easy to think that Science is attacking it here. I realize that it is Government attacking the church and maybe now I see that Science has little if nothing to do with that. I'm all about being left alone Cit. You know me. When you put it that way, I don't really have much of an arguement anymore.

Except.... this is one more reason that Dawkins has got to go, or at least there needs to be a predominant religious scientist (you've all said they're out there) giving him a run for his money. Come on Science... Do a little PR for Christ's sake.... lol

Quote:

Science IS NOT attacking religion, science is under attack, and is defending itself. It's a credit to science that it doesn't return the attack where religion lives.


Science needs to do the responsible thing then..... hmmmmmm. I think my replies are getting pretty predicable now.

Quote:

Science has done nothing NOTHING to religion. Never has never will. Science has nothing to say on the subjects of morality, spirituality or God. Those are the soul purviews of religion. The conflict is where religion doesn't just want it's house, it wants sciences too, and science not giving that up and walking away is portrayed as an attack. Yes I believe the term Nazi is very apt here, just not in the way you used it.



Okay. I can go with that too. I don't think that Science's main goal is to disprove God. I know that if Science were to be able to do it, it would be happier than a pig in shit, but that's neither here nor there. Science wants to know truth, and so do I, so I'm down with that. This is just another case of the Government/Media using something for it's own means. I think the Government is turning us against each other all the time because we're always kept busy and they're left to their own devices then. Divided we fall man. In all fairness, I shouldn't be so tough on the Smoke Nazis either when it's our corrupt politicians that are allowing these infringements of our rights and business practices happen here every day. After the $1.25 per pack raise that we're going to have here in the next couple of months I view it as basically I just got fined an extra $425.00, or I took a $425.00 pay cut this year while my non-smoking coworkers didn't.

Quote:

Because when people of religion KNOW something to be true anything that says different (like science) must be crushed.



Well I've had enough talks with my Grandma to KNOW that that statement is true enough. I love my Grams.

Quote:

Yes, there is and it's exactly what WE want. Religion deals with matters of spirituality, science with the material world. If you want to believe God created the universe, fine, many scientists believe the same thing, but such a concept is not science and has no place within. Take a look at the debate instead of just assuming it science that's doing all the attacking, it's religion trying to shoehorn itself in too science, not the other way around.



Well, I'm not convinced that God does not have a place in Science yet. I'm not convinced that Science will not someday disprove God's existance either. It is, afterall, always evolving. As for the rest of that comment, I do believe that is exactly what I'm doing now. Hope you're happy man, I know you know that this is a VERY rare occasion.

Quote:

BY 6SJ: Just for the record: Not sure what it means, but as far as what I've seen on this thread, the religious people have been the most tolerant of the opposing views hands down. This being an overall generalization. There are people on both sides who are content to live in co-existance with one another
--------------
BY CITIZEN: Well lets slip right by the fact that this is a statement with little basis in reality and straight to a possible explanation why those on sciences side tend to get annoyed.



Well, after I got beat down like Rodney King today, I have to stand firmly behind my original statement here. Sorry man. Didn't see any shit like that being flung Scienceside.

Quote:

We say "this is the evidence for evolution.Instead of refuting that evidence with rationalisations, the scientific way of doing things they say "there's no evidence lalalala" *fingers in ears* and carry on making the same arguments that have been soundly refuted over and over and over again.


In all fairness Cit, the deck is seriously stacked in Science's favor here. You know that to be true. There is absolutely no way for Religion to fight Science because as you've said before, they basically exist on two very seperate plains. As far as Scientific Method is concerned, considering our limited understanding of the Universe at this point, there is no way that Science could even validate God, and not a single argument, rational or otherwise, that the Church could put in front of Science. On the same token though, the Church has something which Science lacks which an outsider to either may find equally as impressive and powerful, namely Blind Faith. Just an observation. I'm pretty awestruck at people like my Grandmother and her ability to believe, even when the world is such a mess. Everything that happens today just fortifies her belief in God. Call it brainwashing or whatever you want, but she's not afraid in the least bit to die and she does try very hard to live a good life and take care of those around her.

Quote:

The ID vs Evolution thing IS NOT a debate, if only it were it would be long dead and buried and religion would be doing it's thing and science would likewise. ID is just something people can say over and over and over again in the hope that people will start to think "hey, we hear a lot about this ID thing, maybe there's something to it!" It's not a argument, it's a tactic, and the aim is not truth, but the eradication of science and the reaffirmation of religion at the top of the pecking order.


I can't argue this. I thought Intelligent Design was just a pretty sneaky tactic to get Religion back in school. I understand why they would do it after being royally screwed, but I wasn't falling for it. Here again, you need to have other representatives in the Sceintific community other than Dawkins types. Don't send Jesse Jackson into battle, when the situation requires a Martin Luthor King Jr.
-=----------

That's about it man. Maybe we can see a bit more eye to eye here now.

___________________

Edit: This message to all the Atheists out there. I will state for the record that I am not against the Atheist point of view. If I had to label myself, which I won't, I'd probably be an Agnostic. Cit says that Science isn't anti-God so if that is the general consensus in here let's be adults and act like it. I don't know of my Biology teacher was an Athiest, and I don't care to know. That's exactly the way it should be if they are truly to be seperate. Dawkins needs to take his Atheist point of view back out of the Science. If Atheism is inherant of Science, which I don't believe it is, that's fine, but we don't need to discuss it until there is Scientific proof that God, in fact, does not exist.






"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 2:45 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
That's about it man. Maybe we can see a bit more eye to eye here now.

I think so, but there's still some things I'd like to address.
Quote:

Except.... this is one more reason that Dawkins has got to go, or at least there needs to be a predominant religious scientist (you've all said they're out there) giving him a run for his money. Come on Science... Do a little PR for Christ's sake.... lol
"God does not play dice with the Universe". Einstein believed in a God like concept, even if it wasn't a personable one like that of Christianity.

Dawkins arguments against religion are founded in Atheism, not science.
Quote:

After the $1.25 per pack raise that we're going to have here in the next couple of months I view it as basically I just got fined an extra $425.00, or I took a $425.00 pay cut this year while my non-smoking coworkers didn't.
Are you saying you should have a pay rise because you smoke?
Quote:

Well, I'm not convinced that God does not have a place in Science yet.
Science is concerned with the physical, and God is metaphysical, I don't think I can put it plainer than that.
Quote:

I'm not convinced that Science will not someday disprove God's existance either.
It's impossible for science to prove or disprove the existence of God.
Quote:

Well, after I got beat down like Rodney King today, I have to stand firmly behind my original statement here. Sorry man. Didn't see any shit like that being flung Scienceside.
I don't think what was sent your way was as bad as you say, and I think we can take a look at Antimasons comments for similar sentiments.
Quote:

In all fairness Cit, the deck is seriously stacked in Science's favor here. You know that to be true.
Exactly, because Religion is playing on Science's 'homeboy turf' and trying to use it's own rules to do so. It then calls science intolerant when that fails.
Quote:

There is absolutely no way for Religion to fight Science because as you've said before, they basically exist on two very seperate plains.
Exactly, there is only two possible outcomes to this, either Science 'wins' and religion leaves science alone and goes back to what it does best, or religion 'wins' and we all lose and go back to the dark ages.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 5:15 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
"God does not play dice with the Universe". Einstein believed in a God like concept, even if it wasn't a personable one like that of Christianity.

Dawkins arguments against religion are founded in Atheism, not science.



Well I see there is a great and famous mind that believed in a "God" concept now, but I had no idea before. I'm by no means the most well read or informed person in the world, but I do consider myself to be a bit ahead of the curve than many of my peers. I would think that the only people who knew this about Einstein would be Scientists, Science enthusiasts and Historians... and possibly your trivia/quote whizzes and maybe the three other people who lucked out and caught that on one of those history channel exclusives. Anybody can hear the very worst Dawkins has to say about religion by turning on VH1 or Comedy Central. Kinda the lowest common denominator, know what I'm sayin? I'm kind of thinking somebody more in the here and now who has a voice today. You know... somebody that South Park would make fun of (That Dawkins episode is priceless, btw)

I'm kinda thinking somebody like you who can call him out on his unprofessional Atheism. Maybe let him know that he's only making a bad situation worse for everyone on all sides. Aside from a comedian, I can't think of another profession where somebody could use their Atheism, or any religion for that matter, as a platform without getting their walking papers by the end of the week.

Quote:

Are you saying you should have a pay rise because you smoke?


Certainly not. It's not my employer's place to subsidise my habit, or a runaway government... that may be a perk CEOs get, but it definately was not part of my contract. It won't make me feel any better when they target fat people next in the next 10 or 20 years. They went after the most offensive addiction to others first. I can only see obesity as the next target because:

a) it costs just as much in health care, if not more because a larger percent of the world populace is overweight than addicted to smoking and
b) Many people find it visually offencive, though for PC reasons and plain human decency they don't vocalize their objections to it much after highschool is over.

It's a slippery slope and if the non-smokers don't start stepping up too they're going to be singled out one by one for their own vices in the future.

Do I hear $5.00 for a Twinkie? How about $10.00 and your signature saying you understand that your health insurance won't cover you when you need heart surgery if you eat it? Trust me, they'll know you're eating it when we buy everything on credit and cash is out the door.

Quote:

Science is concerned with the physical, and God is metaphysical, I don't think I can put it plainer than that.


You've stated that quite planely, and that may be the basis of Scientific theory even, but I would think that it would be in Science's nature to keep an open mind and consider possible outside influences in the future, even something as outrageous as Divine Intervention.... Rapture, maybe? Most likely we'll never see them, but the laws we know as true today might not be true tomorrow for whatever reason. Pure speculation and in the realm of Sci-Fi I know, but that's how my mind works. Or would an event such as these destroy Science?

Quote:

It's impossible for science to prove or disprove the existence of God.


Well it's obvious that I'm no scientist, and I have conceded quite a bit to you today, which I rarely do, but I can't take your word on this one either. Knowing what we know about the Universe today such a task would seem impossible, but not having a scientifically wired mind myself, I'm of the belief that anything could happen today or tomorrow or at any time in the future which would change our minds and even our Science. Don't the laws and theories change quite often as we make new discoveries? Haven't there been new discoveries made quite often that would have, at one point in the past, seemed impossible with what we used to have to work with?

Quote:

I don't think what was sent your way was as bad as you say, and I think we can take a look at Antimasons comments for similar sentiments.



You say tomato, I say tomato.

Quote:

Exactly, because Religion is playing on Science's 'homeboy turf' and trying to use it's own rules to do so. It then calls science intolerant when that fails.


I don't know man. You obviously know much more about this whole thing than I do. I only know what the media says and I know they lie or mislead or sensationalize more often than they actually report any real news. You could be absolutely right. Then again, sitting where you are you could be biased too.

Quote:

Exactly, there is only two possible outcomes to this, either Science 'wins' and religion leaves science alone and goes back to what it does best, or religion 'wins' and we all lose and go back to the dark ages.


Or there's the third option where nobody wins or loses and everyone leaves each other to their own business. (My original point which I think I lost somewhere along the way up there). If Science people are going to consider it a victory if the Church people back off of them, especially if they're going to gloat about it afterwards, that's not very likely to make the Church people want to back off.



Somehow I'm thinking that even if that were to happen I'd still be paying 3 times what I did for smokes when I started 9 years ago. Anyway your Science could tell me a good way to grow my own tobacco near the Amer-Canadian border Cit?

GOVERNMENT!!! HOOO!!! HAAAAA!!!!
WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHIN'!!!

SAY IT AGAIN BROTHA!!

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 6:11 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:

"all we are saying is that things appear to have been intelligently designed"


Is that what Intelligent Design is?

I agree. Everything seems to be intelligently designed. Not just biologically, but physically too.

I can never get over how well everything works. The whole universe. It's amazing.



Ever had lower back pain? Broken your tailbone? Had your tonsils removed? Had your appendix removed? Humans alone are full of flaws that a basic engineering degree or even just a little common sense would have cleaned out, that doesn't seem too intelligent to me. On the other hand evolution predicts that there will be leftovers in our bodies of formerly useful things, as long as the leftover is not too disadvantageuos it won't be selected out, thus we have tailbones to break. I would think that just about any engineering or pre-med student would tell us that whoever designed the human body must have not really thought it through.

As for physics, if the physical world was unfit for the development of life then we wouldn't be here, the reason it seems to us that it is designed perfectly is because as far as we can tell no other set up will work. There is no reason to believe that a different combination of physical forces would not produce a stable universe that functions just as well as this one.




Well, seems to me that the evolutionary process which appears to be shrinking tailbones and discarding appendixes is pretty intelligent, too. I mean, you did say that these things had been reduced to a scale where they were no longer a large-scale disadvantage anymore? And all in a system that changes itself over time to suit the survival needs of the day? That's super intelligent.

I suppose my computer could be built a dozen different ways and still do what it does, but that makes me marvel no less at its design.

So, if these Intelligent Design folks are just saying that everything seems Intelligently Designed, well I'm still with them.

I do wonder about something, though...

Now that we have medicine, and a bajillion ways to correct anything that goes wrong... does that mean that human beings will be at an evolutionary standstill? You know, since there's no more natural selection?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 6:34 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Ever had lower back pain? Broken your tailbone? Had your tonsils removed? Had your appendix removed? Humans alone are full of flaws that a basic engineering degree or even just a little common sense would have cleaned out, that doesn't seem too intelligent to me. On the other hand evolution predicts that there will be leftovers in our bodies of formerly useful things, as long as the leftover is not too disadvantageuos it won't be selected out, thus we have tailbones to break. I would think that just about any engineering or pre-med student would tell us that whoever designed the human body must have not really thought it through.

As for physics, if the physical world was unfit for the development of life then we wouldn't be here, the reason it seems to us that it is designed perfectly is because as far as we can tell no other set up will work. There is no reason to believe that a different combination of physical forces would not produce a stable universe that functions just as well as this one.




Well, seems to me that the evolutionary process which appears to be shrinking tailbones and discarding appendixes is pretty intelligent, too. I mean, you did say that these things had been reduced to a scale where they were no longer a large-scale disadvantage anymore? And all in a system that changes itself over time to suit the survival needs of the day? That's super intelligent.



They have shrunk yes, whether or not they are finished shrinking I can't say. The point is that it is a very poor design decision to include something like a tailbone in the human body, the ony purpose would be to have something else to break and hurt us, meaning either the Intelligent Designer is incompetent or an asshole. Additionally, like I said the presence of vestigal body components fits perfectly with science but not so well with ID.

Quote:

Now that we have medicine, and a bajillion ways to correct anything that goes wrong... does that mean that human beings will be at an evolutionary standstill? You know, since there's no more natural selection?


Pretty much, there are millions of people with genetic flaws who will be kept alive for their entire lives through medical science that would have had no chance even 50 years ago. Some people might see this as a good thing (we're saving lives!!!) but some might see it as a bad thing (we're letting dangerous genentic flaws propogate!!!).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 6:45 AM

KHYRON


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Now that we have medicine, and a bajillion ways to correct anything that goes wrong... does that mean that human beings will be at an evolutionary standstill? You know, since there's no more natural selection?

Yeah, humans can't evolve anymore. The natural environment, and hence natural selection, has largely been neutralised, amongst other things because of the medical advances you've mentioned.

Also, the population is too large, so any beneficial mutations won't be able to impose themselves on the population as a whole. If it weren't for point 1, I suppose that over time beneficial mutations could conceivably become a characteristic of the populations in small, isolated communities, which are getting rarer with today's ease of transportation, and these communities wouldn't have much of an effect on the rest of the gene pool of the human population anyway.

So unless we have a global holocaust (or a rapture ) that leaves only a comparatively small number of humans fighting against the environment, humans are done evolving.



The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 6:58 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'm kinda thinking somebody like you who can call him out on his unprofessional Atheism. Maybe let him know that he's only making a bad situation worse for everyone on all sides.



I don't disagree, but its his decision to pursue a radical atheist standpoint. IIRC he's only been doing this for the last couple years, and in reality I agree with some of the things he's been saying, namely that atheists should be able to stand up and proclaim their beliefs without fear of damaging their personal or professional lives. I think he wants to go way too far way too fast, but I don't disagree with him in principle.

Quote:

Aside from a comedian, I can't think of another profession where somebody could use their Atheism, or any religion for that matter, as a platform without getting their walking papers by the end of the week.


As for atheism, yeah you're probably right. But religion is what wins elections (probably the worst indicator of a good politician but I've given up trying to understand peoples actions). There's a few other places where religion is frequently used as a platform as well, music and talk shows come to mind.

Quote:

a) it costs just as much in health care, if not more because a larger percent of the world populace is overweight than addicted to smoking and


No. Maybe more are overweight, but there is a big difference between overweight and obese (like 20% more weight difference).

Quote:

You've stated that quite planely, and that may be the basis of Scientific theory even, but I would think that it would be in Science's nature to keep an open mind and consider possible outside influences in the future, even something as outrageous as Divine Intervention.... Rapture, maybe?


No. The moment science considers the supernatural as an answer science goes out the window. Science deals ONLY with the natural world because the supernatural world is untstable and unverifiable.

Quote:

Or would an event such as these destroy Science?


Destroy it? No. If the physical roperties of the world shifted then scientists would just have to start over again figuring things out, though if they shifted often enough scientists would probably give up.


Quote:

Well it's obvious that I'm no scientist, and I have conceded quite a bit to you today, which I rarely do, but I can't take your word on this one either. Knowing what we know about the Universe today such a task would seem impossible, but not having a scientifically wired mind myself, I'm of the belief that anything could happen today or tomorrow or at any time in the future which would change our minds and even our Science. Don't the laws and theories change quite often as we make new discoveries? Haven't there been new discoveries made quite often that would have, at one point in the past, seemed impossible with what we used to have to work with?


Supernatural phenomena are not testable or verifiable, period. Once you delve into the supernatural all the rules that the tools of science depend on are suspect and can no longer be trusted.

Quote:

Somehow I'm thinking that even if that were to happen I'd still be paying 3 times what I did for smokes when I started 9 years ago.


I hear that patches and gum are cheaper than cigarettes just saying...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 6:58 AM

TRENCHMONKEY


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Now that we have medicine, and a bajillion ways to correct anything that goes wrong... does that mean that human beings will be at an evolutionary standstill? You know, since there's no more natural selection?



Intresting question.
as i understand it there are several forms of evolution that have been identified to date.

1)Genetic Drift.
This i understand is random mutation over time without rhyme or reason in this case there are trends which arfe followed although accumulations of these mutations eventually form into the larger scale mutations which are used in natural selection, it can be noted that this is the form of evolution which is used in genetic dating techniques. genetic drift will continue as long as we reproduce by combining DNA from two or more parents as it is mutations in te combining which cause it.

2)Natural Selection.
This is the form of evolution most widely discussed and as in the western world at least the vast majority of the population has the chance of succsefully reproducing it can be argued that we are no longer under a selective pressure and so no longer are effected by it.

3)Artificial Selection.
This covers everything from eugenics, stud farming to genetic manipulation. where cirtain characturistics are emphesized artificially by some method. it is considered by some to be the next step forward for our evolution although is a highly argued subject.
and is considered dangerouse by many.

Questions? arguments? points?
anyone please.

I dont suffer from madness, I enjoy it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 7:04 AM

KHYRON


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:

Exactly, there is only two possible outcomes to this, either Science 'wins' and religion leaves science alone and goes back to what it does best, or religion 'wins' and we all lose and go back to the dark ages.


Or there's the third option where nobody wins or loses and everyone leaves each other to their own business.

This is option 1 (science wins).



The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 7:11 AM

KHYRON


Quote:

Originally posted by TrenchMonkey:
1)Genetic Drift.

2)Natural Selection.

3)Artificial Selection.

Point 2 neutralised by us neutralising the environment. Points 1 and 3 neutralised by large population sizes (read my post above).

I guess I didn't consider artificial selection in the human population so much, but I don't think this should count as human evolution as it only affects a very small fraction of the population. I guess over time (if the effort is kept up) it could lead to a branching off from the human race - too bad we won't be around to find out.



The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 7:21 AM

CITIZEN


I think future evolution of the Human race will be virtual rather than genetic. I think we'll gradually become closer and closer with our technology until we've got all manner of computerised enhancements, from memory to processing speed (allowing us to think faster). In the future I think we'll probably find a large percentage of people spending their entire lives in artificial enviroments, not just interacting with the computer like today, but litterally living in it.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 7:25 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
I think future evolution of the Human race will be virtual rather than genetic. I think we'll gradually become closer and closer with our technology until we've got all manner of computerised enhancements, from memory to processing speed (allowing us to think faster). In the future I think we'll probably find a large percentage of people spending their entire lives in artificial enviroments, not just interacting with the computer like today, but litterally living in it.



Where can I sign up?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 7:46 AM

KHYRON


One day we'll have people going around saying "I'm a PC" and "I'm a Mac" and mean it literally!



The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 7:51 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
One day we'll have people going around saying "I'm a PC" and "I'm a Mac" and literally mean it!

That's somewhat distubing.

Hi Trev, what's new?
Me, actually, just got the latest MS upgrade, upgraded my software to HumnDows 2310, it's really great all my options have pretty coloured buttons an- -This Human has experienced a fatal exception at memory unit 0xf99DDFFAB24345G and will be shutdown-



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 8:06 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
One day we'll have people going around saying "I'm a PC" and "I'm a Mac" and literally mean it!

That's somewhat distubing.

Hi Trev, what's new?
Me, actually, just got the latest MS upgrade, upgraded my software to HumnDows 2310, it's really great all my options have pretty coloured buttons an- -This Human has experienced a fatal exception at memory unit 0xf99DDFFAB24345G and will be shutdown-



"Hey man, were've you been?"
"well I swapped over to Linux last week"
"Oh so you've been playing around with all the new features?"
"Well...it's more like trying to figure out how to get my legs to work...it didn't come with drivers see, and also the control scheme is a bit more complicated, plus I had to spend a few days modifying my config files to get the waste disposal service to start...I might make it into work next week or so, I've heard that there's a patch for my leg problems coming"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 10:43 AM

ANTIMASON


Citizen to be fair, ID is science if you can prove that the archetype of a gene cannot be reduced beyond a certain point(which is what the Creationist claims in the video i posted). it wouldnt be religious to say that the basis for the DNA, or the programming, had to come from somewhere before it was able to evolve.. if it can be proven

otherwise, i am fine with ID being left out of hard physical scientific debate.. but lets restrict science to the same guidelines then aswell. in the same way that some of you feel religion encroaches on science, we feel that science is encroaching on religion, when it makes claims about the lack of a GOd, that cant be substantiated.. which i hear quite a lot. we cant prove GOd exists, but humanity has been predisposed to religious theology since the beginning of known history, so i believe its not out of line to leave the ID possibility open, if the data suggests it


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 10:55 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
Citizen to be fair, ID is science if you can prove that the archetype of a gene cannot be reduced beyond a certain point(which is what the Creationist claims in the video i posted). it wouldnt be religious to say that the basis for the DNA, or the programming, had to come from somewhere before it was able to evolve.. if it can be proven

Yes if the existence of an intelligent designer could be proven or disproven then ID would be Science, since it can't the point is moot, no matter how you cut it.
Quote:

otherwise, i am fine with ID being left out of hard physical scientific debate..
How very magnanimous of you
Quote:

but lets restrict science to the same guidelines then aswell. in the same way that some of you feel religion encroaches on science, we feel that science is encroaching on religion, when it makes a claims about the lack of a GOd, that cant be substantiated.
No, religion IS encroaching on science, we don't just feel it is, it is. That is, for a start, what ID is all about, trying to get God into science, baby steps, today it's an intelligent creator tomorrow it's "well as an astrophysicist I can confirm that science has verified the literal creation in the bible as fact, and we should burn the non-believer".

Science has not once, not ONCE said one word on the existence or non-existence of God. If you 'feel' otherwise please quote us the 'There is no God theory'. Science already keeps out of Religions business, if you feel otherwise maybe you should examine why that is.
Quote:

which i hear quite a lot. we cant prove GOd exists, but humanity has been predisposed to religious since the beginning of known history, so i believe its not out of line to leave the ID possibility open, if the data suggests it
Which is why religions and the existence of god aren't...

Anyone, I've had to say fifty times already...

That's right, not science.

If it's left open as a religion do what the hell you like, it'll NEVER be science.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 11:18 AM

SEVENPERCENT


I've stayed out of this debate, largely because I feel Cit has done a wonderful job (as have all the supporting evolution folk). Came across this link today though, and felt I needed to drop it in.

Really curious what someone like Antimason has to say about it...

From the article:
Flocks of the Christian faithful in the US will this Sunday hold special services celebrating Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. The idea is to stand up to creationism, which claims the biblical account of creation is literally true, and which is increasingly being promoted under the guise of "intelligent design".

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11145-christian-faith-in-the-iot
heri-good-book.html




------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 3:01 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Citizen- Yes if the existence of an intelligent designer could be proven or disproven then ID would be Science, since it can't the point is moot, no matter how you cut it.


but how do you know it cant be? no offense, but that sounds more like your own personal opinion then an empirical truth. if God does exist, then its possible we might have evidence of this within DNA itself(if its true that you cant backward devolve a sequence of DNA beyond a certain point, then that would constitute evidence that DNA itself coudlnt evolve, but possibly had an intelligent driver behind it)

Quote:

No, religion IS encroaching on science, we don't just feel it is, it is.


what are we holding science back from, really? it hasnt stopped academia in the slightest from perpetuating their scientific discoveries. if we ARE any kind of obstacle, its because a lot of people in the field make these bold claims to have disproven the existence of God.. and yet youll say yourself that science doesnt have an opinion either way.. so how is that? isnt that an encroachment on religion? you can say what you want, but i have no dispute with science itself, my problem is with evolutionary theory being touted as 100% unquestionably proven, and then used to illegitimize religion. there are a lot of peices of evolutionary theory, especially in reference to immeasurable periods of time, that cannot be proven... so whether these current theories are right or wrong, they are only 'beliefs' until they can be substantiated

Quote:

That is, for a start, what ID is all about, trying to get God into science, baby steps, today it's an intelligent creator tomorrow it's "well as an astrophysicist I can confirm that science has verified the literal creation in the bible as fact, and we should burn the non-believer".


ID is just an alternative position to take.. one that doesnt include life arising on its own. no one here has witnessed abiogenesis, and the alleged evolution from proteins to fully functional beings.. yet scientists in the field will offer this without any alternative perspectives on the issue. if science is what is seen and recordable, then a lot of so-called science today is just hypothesis and philosophy.. but itll get turned around on us Creationists, and youll say "science is about cold hard facts; religion is based on faith"; but it takes faith to believe an unproven scientific hypothesis too

Quote:

Science has not once, not ONCE said one word on the existence or non-existence of God.


science itself no.. scientists, yes; thats the distinction im making

Quote:

If you 'feel' otherwise please quote us the 'There is no God theory'. Science already keeps out of Religions business, if you feel otherwise maybe you should examine why that is.


the theory of abiogenesis is just like the gnostic/kabbalist myth of the Golem(im sorry if you dont want to hear it), or life springing from non-living matter. if it cant be proven, then that is a belief(in this case an actual religion) being taught as science. i dont expect you to agree with me, but youd be suprised to find that Masonry in many ways shares the same philosophy as the abiogenesis and evolutionary theories




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 4:03 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by SevenPercent:

Really curious what someone like Antimason has to say about it...



well thanks.. i guess? i suppose its because i tend to take the extreme position on these issues: well my honost opinion about "evolution Sunday" is that these people can believe what they want, they have thee right, and they may be right.. but the bible doesnt say man descended from a lower primate; and theres not a whole lot of ways you can spin the billion year concept, and still interpret the scriptures with any amount of consistency. outside of that it contradicts Jesus' message, which is that we are only in a temporary material('fallen')state, that is inferior to our original design(if you will); in this case the opposite of the concept of a 'progressive evolution'- until the 'messiah' or God reveals himself to mankind, and redeems us. i realize that its an incredible claim.. but thats the beleif, the concept. if they dont want to believe what the bible says, what makes them christian(by definition)? there are a lot of gods that people could pray to that might better suit their idea of an ideal 'god'.. but it doesnt make it the christian God yhwy



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 4:06 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Antimason:
but how do you know it cant be? no offense, but that sounds more like your own personal opinion then an empirical truth. if God does exist, then its possible we might have evidence of this within DNA itself(if its true that you cant backward devolve a sequence of DNA beyond a certain point, then that would constitute evidence that DNA itself coudlnt evolve, but possibly had an intelligent driver behind it)

I'm am going to repeat myself one last time, because if you still don't get it nothing short of a hammer is going to be sufficient to beat this inordinately simply premise into your skull. It is NOT my opinion, Science deals with the physical world, and only the physical world, God is not part of the physical world, God is metaphysical by very definition. If God wasn't metaphysical God wouldn't be God. Therefore God can not be a part of science. If you require me to repeat myself again just read this paragraph over and over until you get it or you have an embolism. Whichever happens first, thanks.
Quote:

what are we holding science back from, really? it hasnt stopped academia in the slightest from perpetuating their scientific discoveries.
You don't seriously want the list do you?
Quote:

if we ARE any kind of obstacle, its because a lot of people in the field make these bold claims to have disproven the existence of God..
No it's because Religion is used to telling people what to think about everything, and now that has changed and religion and many religious folk, yourself included it would seem, want that hegemony back.
Quote:

and yet youll say yourself that science doesnt have an opinion either way.. so how is that?
I can't answer the question because it's based from a false assumption. I asked you to back up your claim that science has ever made any claims on the existence or non-existence of God, and instead of backing up your claims you repeat them. Either back them up or stop talking shit.
Quote:

isnt that an encroachment on religion?
No, since it's not happening.
Quote:

you can say what you want, but i have no dispute with science itself, my problem is with evolutionary theory being touted as 100% unquestionably proven, and is then used to illegitimize religion.
So you have no problem with science, as long as it doesn't contradict the bible. Gotch ya, very magnanimous of you, thanks.

Also where has Evolution been used to 'illegitimize' religion? Oh that's right, it doesn't mirror the Bibles literal interpretation of creation, ergo it must be attacking religion.
Quote:

there are a lot of peices of evolutionary theory, especially in reference to immeasurable periods of time, that cannot be proven... so whether these current theories are right or wrong, they are only 'beliefs' until they can be substantiated
A belief can not be proven or disproven, a theory can. Evolution isn't a belief system, never has been never will be no matter how often you repeat yourself in order to silence non-religious voices. You continue to repeat yourself on points that have been refuted already hoping that no one will notice, but we have noticed.

Declaring Evolution a belief system because it doesn't support your belief system makes you out to be foolish, nothing more.
Quote:

ID is just an alternative position to take.. one that doesnt include life arising on its own.
Repeating myself again because that's all you've done, again. ID is not Science.
Quote:

no one here has witnessed abiogenesis, and the alleged evolution from proteins to fully functional beings..
No one's seen an intelligent being designing human beings in a workshop either. But there is evidence of proteins and other basis of life being created naturally in environments similar to primeval Earth. So already there's more evidence for abiogenesis than there is for ID. Your inability or unwillingness to accept that data is your problem, not Sciences.
Quote:

if science is what is seen and recordable, then a lot of so-called science today is just hypothesis and philosophy.
As usual you repeat the same bullshit point that has already been refuted in the hope no one will notice. Either back up your claim or drop it because sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating yourself over and over and over in the vein hope that you'll refute reality with persistence is getting old. I mean it was kind of cute at first but now it's just make me want to grab a hammer .
Quote:

science itself no.. scientists, yes; thats the distinction im making
No that is not the distinction your making, and even here your trying to connect science with arguments at the existence of God. Either back up your claim or drop it.

Maybe I should try and connect child molestation with religion because some priests molest kids.
Quote:

the theory of abiogenesis is just like the gnostic/kabbalist myth of the Golem(im sorry if you dont want to hear it)
A) Stop repeating yourself and back up your claims.
B) The Golem is actually Jewish.

So your wrong, just as you were wrong when you said this last time and I refuted it and you were completely unable to come up with an argument.
Quote:

or life springing from non-living matter.
Life is composed of non-living matter. Read that sentence again three or four times because I don't want to have to repeat myself. The major component of all known life on Earth is Carbon. Carbon is an element and it is not alive. Carbon is the element that composes Graphite (that black stuff in pencils) and Diamonds (the twinkly gems Women love so much).

So there we have it, life verifiably springs from inanimate matter.
Quote:

if it cant be proven, then that is a belief(in this case an actual religion) being taught as science.
Over and over and over again. Since you obviously missed them I'll give a short run down on the arguments that have already refuted this in the hope you won't repeat yourself again like some sort of fucked up broken record:
Fredgiblet: abiogenesis hasn't got anything to do with Evolution.
Me: These facts are provable, so are not a belief system.

Also if you bothered to educate yourself rather than repeating yourself over and over you could have come across the definition in Wikipedia, a good start:
Quote:

Abiogenesis remains a hypothesis, meaning it is the working assumption for scientists researching how life began. If it were proven false, then another line of thought would be used to modify or replace abiogenesis as a hypothesis. If test results provide sufficient support for acceptance, then that is the point at which it would become a theory.
Clearly science because if it was religion it would say something more like:
“Abiogenesis is how it happened, anyone who disagrees is a heretic and we will repeat ourselves at them over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again until they shoot themselves”.
Quote:

i dont expect you to agree with me, but youd be suprised to find that Masonry in many ways shares the same philosophy as the abiogenesis and evolutionary theories
I don't expect you to agree with me, but you'd be surprised how desperately you need medication.

What I think is that you don't like masons, you don't like science, and as a schizotypal conspiracy theorist that means they both must be intimately connected and somehow responsible for anything that goes wrong in your life.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 4:21 PM

ANTIMASON


frankly, im tired of butting heads with you- i get your point, just fine, thank you- i always have

i know God is metaphysical, but he designed us for the physical. i believe God created us, and that the evidence is within the DNA itself; call me an ignorant religious zealot and fool and all you need, but i disagree with you that man evolved from apes.

maybe we can have a civil discussion around here once in awhile, without religion becoming the evil bad guy


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 4:46 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:

What I think is that you don't like masons, you don't like science, and as a schizotypal conspiracy theorist that means they both must be intimately connected and somehow responsible for anything that goes wrong in your life.




youre entitled to your opinion, although you dont know me personally. all i ever asked was for people to look into secret societies like the masons, since its typically not even mentioned... once you do, you cant deny the 'conspiracies', its all well documented. that doesnt make me schizophrenic. despite what you say i dont hate science, i hate unproven science sold as fact


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 5:23 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
What I think is that you don't like masons, you don't like science, and as a schizotypal conspiracy theorist that means they both must be intimately connected and somehow responsible for anything that goes wrong in your life.



youre entitled to your opinion, although you dont know me personally. all i ever asked was for people to look into secret societies like the masons, since its typically not even mentioned... once you do, you cant deny the 'conspiracies', its all well documented. that doesnt make me schizophrenic. despite what you say i dont hate science, i hate unproven science sold as fact



First off, just like to say that I agree with cit in the last few posts (I was out car shopping so I couldn't add my opinion).

Second, Mason...I'm trying (and failing) to think of a delicate way to put this but when you constantly bring up secret societies in posts that have nothing to do with them it just makes you sound batshit crazy, so just as a little advice I think people will take you more seriously the less you sound like PirateNews. I hope that wasn't too offensive.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 5:35 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
despite what you say i dont hate science, i hate unproven science sold as fact



Just noticed this part.

So you don't like evolution, which has mountains of studies and over a century of attempts to disprove it, yet you like ID which has neither? The groups that advocate ID do no original research and contribute nothing to the repositories of human knowledge, yet you prefer it over evolution which is integral to our understanding of the world of biology and crucial to the understanding of countless genentic diseases? Just wondering.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 6:21 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Fredgiblet-
So you don't like evolution, which has mountains of studies and over a century of attempts to disprove it, yet you like ID which has neither?



i believe species evolve, but i am skeptical of carbon dating techiniques, geological dating methods, and abiogenesis.. so im not willing to make the leap that human beings over millions of years evolved from apes, which arose from Millers primordial soup. whether you deem me an idiot or not(noting the condescension), this is my opinion

Quote:

The groups that advocate ID do no original research and contribute nothing to the repositories of human knowledge,


spoken like a true omniscient being

Quote:

yet you prefer it over evolution which is integral to our understanding of the world of biology and crucial to the understanding of countless genentic diseases? Just wondering.


yep. i dont dispute what is observable and verifiable... but people pretend like they watched man evolve personally over millions of years, and there is simply not enough evidence to make that statement conclusively

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 6:45 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:


Second, Mason...I'm trying (and failing) to think of a delicate way to put this but when you constantly bring up secret societies in posts that have nothing to do with them it just makes you sound batshit crazy,



first off, what would you know about secret societies? youve probably never even looked into the area- but coming from the perspective of a Creationist, the fact that it was secret societies that originated the concept of evolution prior to Darwin is significant( especially when it shares Luciferian/Kabbalistic/gnostic archetypes). if God does exist, then all of this is related. besides, in this whole thread i barely even mentioned the subject(secret societies), i just offered an opinion that none of you would likely ever hear, consider, or tolerate otherwise

secondly, Citizen made a point of calling me a schitzo, and extending the tirade about how im just a blind fundementalist freak conspiracy theorist; because i mentioned the religious philosophy behind evolution(and its similarities to the occult golem concept). im honostly a little baffled that people are so hostile towards these ideas though.. is this the wrong forum to contribute to?

Quote:

so just as a little advice I think people will take you more seriously the less you sound like PirateNews. I hope that wasn't too offensive.


yah.. your a will(woe)fully ignorant, physchotic bible thumper.. 'no offense'. it gets tiring being the evolutionist whipping post.. i think from now on, instead of offering a different opinion, or another angle that no one else will study into.. ill be another lockstep evolutionist and agree with everything you all say- thatll make for an intersting contribution

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 7:26 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:

Fredgiblet-
So you don't like evolution, which has mountains of studies and over a century of attempts to disprove it, yet you like ID which has neither?



i believe species evolve, but i am skeptical of carbon dating techiniques, geological dating methods,



Carbon dating is one of many dating techniques that are used, and all of the dating methods are calibrated against know entities and against each other. There is a margin of error but it is far from enough to disprove evolution.

Quote:

and abiogenesis..


Not relevant to evolution.

Quote:

so im not willing to make the leap that human beings over millions of years evolved from apes


Just checking, it's OK for other species to have evolved, just not humans. Is that what you are saying here?

Quote:

which arose from Millers primordial soup.


Once again, not relevant to evolution.

Quote:

whether you deem me an idiot or not(noting the condescension), this is my opinion


I don't think you are an idiot, I just think that you are emotionally invested in incorrect ideas. It happens to everyone.


Quote:

Quote:

The groups that advocate ID do no original research and contribute nothing to the repositories of human knowledge,


spoken like a true omniscient being



The groups that advocate ID do only that, they spend no time or money on researching ID but instead spend all their time reiterating refuted complaints about evolution (which works because most people don't hear the rebuttals), loudly proclaiming how they have been persecuted (because scientists mostly ignore them since they are based in religion and not science), and figuring out ways to get ID into schools. There is a whole section on http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html dedicated to ID, which you might want to check out (section CI down near the bottom).

Quote:

Quote:

yet you prefer it over evolution which is integral to our understanding of the world of biology and crucial to the understanding of countless genentic diseases? Just wondering.


yep. i dont dispute what is observable and verifiable... but people pretend like they watched man evolve personally over millions of years, and there is simply not enough evidence to make that statement conclusively



ID is neither observable nor verifiable and no one has seen an Intelligent Designer at work, yet you are seeming to state conclusively that ID is fact?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 10, 2007 7:49 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:


Second, Mason...I'm trying (and failing) to think of a delicate way to put this but when you constantly bring up secret societies in posts that have nothing to do with them it just makes you sound batshit crazy,



first off, what would you know about secret societies?



Very little. What I know is that there is a good chance that there is one or more groups of people with the power to influence events on a global scale. But since these groups (if they exist) don't do recruiting drives and don't advertise their presence there is nothing I can do about them, no way I can make myself one of them and thus no reason to search for their existence and loudly trumpet any evidence I find to other people. At best I will be wrong and there are no such groups, at worst I will gain the attention of the groups and be disposed of.

Quote:

youve probably never even looked into the area-


Answered above.

Quote:

but coming from the perspective of a Creationist, the fact that it was secret societies that originated the concept of evolution prior to Darwin is significant( especially when it shares Luciferian/Kabbalistic/gnostic archetypes).


So someone else thought of it first...and? I don't think that there is much of a chance that even a globally significant group could plant enough evidence and influence enough experiments to have had a major impact on evolutionary theory without seriously risking exposing themselves.

Quote:

besides in this whole thread i barely even mentioned the subject(secret societies), i just offered an opinion that none of you would likely ever hear, consider, or tolerate otherwise


But you did mention it, the vast majority of people are going to look at any mention of secret conpiracies as you being batshit crazy like I said. It goes back to the comments about Dawkins earlier, whether he believes that atheism is THE WAY or not he shouldn't be loudly trumpeting it because all it does is piss of the people that he is trying to convince of evolution.

Quote:

im honostly a little baffled that people are so hostile towards these ideas though.. is this the wrong forum to contribute to?


Unfortunetly yes, even here in RWED the climate is not favorable towards global conspiracy theorists (look at the resonses that PirateNews gets). I can't say for sure but I think that most people kind of agree with the opinion that I put forth in my first response here. Also, conspiracy theories float around constantly but rarely is there significant evidence that is obvious enough to get the attention of the layperson (Scientology is one of the few that managed to grab the spotlight for a while).

Quote:

Quote:

so just as a little advice I think people will take you more seriously the less you sound like PirateNews. I hope that wasn't too offensive.


yah.. your a will(woe)fully ignorant, physchotic bible thumper.. 'no offense'.



I never said you were woefully ignorant or psychotic or a bible thumper. But if you want my honest opinon? I think that you are largely misinformed about evolution (though you know a fair bit more than the average person that is TRUE about evolution), and that you are emotionally invested in ID because it supports your religious beliefs. As for the conspiracy theories?...well I don't believe that the extent to which some people follow them is healthy, but I admit that there is a fair chance that some of them are true.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russian losses in Ukraine
Mon, March 18, 2024 23:45 - 982 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Mon, March 18, 2024 23:44 - 496 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:27 - 3338 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:09 - 709 posts
Elections; 2024
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:08 - 1982 posts
Grifter Donald Trump Has Been Indicted And Yes Arrested; Four Times Now And Counting. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:06 - 753 posts
MO AG Suing Large Nationwide Child Sex-slave Trafficker
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:24 - 2 posts
New Peer-Reviewed Research Finds Evidence of 2020 Voter Fraud
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:21 - 7 posts
RCP's No Toss-Up State Map (3-15-2024)
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:19 - 2 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, March 18, 2024 08:03 - 6091 posts
Israeli War
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:27 - 31 posts
CNN: Is the US on the brink of another civil war?
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:22 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL