Evolution works in mysterious ways

73Zeppelin

DemonPossessed wrote:

Obviously, I have been talking to Matthew Faithfull for a over an hour now and he still can't (or refuses to) grasp that natural selection is not random and that evolution does not deal with impossibly improbable single step changes.

Enjoyable isn't it?

73Zeppelin

:rolleyes:

73Zeppelin

I know you're trying to be civil. Don't say I didn't warn you when you get a reply.

Christian Graus

Well, that's a contradiction, evolution is the default position of an athiest, that goes without saying.

Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )

Christian Graus

Oakman wrote:

The quote regarding Giants is directly from the Bible, as I am sure you know.

Yes, I do know that. I meant the young earth bit. My point really, was that I saw in the paper that 'the platypus proves evolution'. It really doesn't. If you accept the basic premise then working within that premise, the platypus does not disprove it, and can be made to fit. The same is true for those who believe in a young earth ( I don't, as I think I made clear ). So, I guess my point was more about the media presenting things that people will blindly accept, that are plainly not true.

Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )

Oakman

Christian Graus wrote:

So, I guess my point was more about the media presenting things that people will blindly accept, that are plainly not true.

Absolutely. I have been twitting Mr. Faithful about his limited understanding of Evolution, but in fact the Creationists have no worse an understanding of the Theory of Evolution than the popular media - which seems to think that there is intelligent design, just done by a god named 'Evolution.' Their talk about higher beings and 'top of the evolutionary ladder,' etc. sounds like Revelations.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Christian Graus

Yes, at the core, the main problem is that most people don't understand evolution at all - a recent issue of Scientific American talked about this at length. I am certain that most creationists are arguing with a straw man, not with what the theory actually states, and as certain that the man in the street thinks that what they argue against is true, that fish decide to grow legs, etc.

Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )

DemonPossessed

73Zeppelin wrote:

Enjoyable isn't it?

Absolutely. Ilion and Matthew Faithfull make up ridiculous arguments faster then someone can do the homework to prove them wrong and call rebuttals "nonsense" or "foolish" without any explanation. And they always pretend to be assumed right, and use that as a starting point for most of their "arguments".

I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion

Ilion

Paul Watson wrote:

Ilíon, please don't think that because I am an aethist that ...

I would be overjoyed to see you as a rational human being ... who happens to be massively incorrect on the single-most important question in life. But, there is history, you know. I'm thinking particularly about your reaction and behavior a few months ago when I used the specific occasion of the asteroid that either was or was not going to impact Mars as a small hammer with which to hit the nail of 'scientism.'

Paul Watson wrote:

... or that I have fellow atheists around me or ...

We all can see only what we can see. What I had seen of you so far was a typical "internet atheist" (that's the old-fashioned "village atheist" with an ethernet connection) who reacts practically automatically and generally predictably when certain hot-button issues are raised. If what I saw was incorrect, I am very glad to learn this. And, I am not a grudge-holder; I have no difficulty setting that past aside ... it's just that I hadn't yet seen a reason to think I ought to set it aside, I hadn't yet seen a reason to view you as other than another typical "internet atheist."

Paul Watson wrote:

I dislike radical atheists and dislike what many atheists are doing; repeating the mistakes of religion (radicalism, vitriol, arrogance, ignorance etc.)

And if you pay attention to me, you will find that I am "non-partisan:" I do not let fellow Christians off the hook when/if they argue illogically/irrationally. Though at the same time, in the context of CP's SoapBox, the illogic and irrationality comes almost exclusively from 1) anti-Christians, 2) those with leftish political opinions. [these two frequently overlap extensively]

Paul Watson wrote:

In the context of this thread Matthew said that I cannot be moral as I have no God to give me moral guidance. ...

No, that *isn't* what he said[^]. He certainly worded what he was saying very, very badly and sloppily ... though, even when it's phrased carefully and properly atheists rarely seem to get, or at

Ilion

73Zeppelin wrote:

I know you're trying to be civil.

Poor thing, always getting what he dishes out!

RichardM1

The 5 is for your signature. I laughed till I stopped :laugh:

Learn to write self marginalizing code! Call 1-888-BAD-CODE ------------------ Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.

Ilion

You're going to have 4 kids: Paula, Paul, and the twins, Paulette and Pauline. ;) But seriously; sometime in the next couple of years, you're going to be watching your baby play (or playing directly with him or her), and a fierce love will overpower you. In that instant, for that instant at least, you will know that the whole point of the universe is that one instant and that one laughing baby. Of course, then you'll have to go back to being an atheist. But in that instant, you will be beyond both atheism and "theism;" you will be experiencing God, for God is Love. So, my request is that when/if this happens to you, and reqardless of how you "deal" with it, please let me know. Just knowing about the experience will be interesting to me. We'll just have to trust that HotMail doesn't toss the note into Junkmail (which I rarely check): ilion7@hotmail.com

leckey 0

That's kind of the point. Some religious people can't even fathom that evolution might be true. Why not have the other way?

I have a blog for those with a sense of humor. The codeword is "scuttlebutt." http://craptasticnation.blogspot.com/[^]

RichardM1

Ilíon wrote:

But, there is history, you know. I'm thinking particularly about your reaction and behavior a few months ago when I used the specific occasion of the asteroid that either was or was not going to impact Mars as a small hammer with which to hit the nail of 'scientism.'

Ilion. I am a card carrying fundy, who believes the Bible, as given by God, is true and without fault. Jesus died, personally, for all the sins that I, personally, committed. Accepting Him is my (or anyone else's) only way to be spared God's wrath. But you totally blew that asteroid thread. You showed no understanding of error in observation and how to account for it in modeling a situation. If God's glory is evidenced in His Creation, and you can't understand how to correctly observe His Creation, then you can not learn of Him through His Creation. God made statistics. Quantum theory is a pale attempt to explain how (not why) God's Creation works. Math, physics and engineering follow from God's work. They are not God's enemy, though the enemy uses them. The enemy uses religion, and hate, and anything else it can. So please stop picking on science, and assuming bad things about those, like Paul Watson, who support it.

Learn to write self marginalizing code! Call 1-888-BAD-CODE ------------------ Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.

Ilion

If you can't be bothered to understand that 'science' isn't truth and isn't even about truth, if you can't be bothered to grasp the difference between appreciating 'science' (and its limits) and trying to turn it into a philosophy or religion, if you can't see the importance of consciously scorning scientism, then please go bother someone else.

modified on Thursday, May 8, 2008 9:06 PM

RichardM1 · modified on Thursday, May 8, 2008 9:06 PM

LOL! Hammered it home just like you did with the asteroid! :laugh:

Learn to write self marginalizing code! Call 1-888-BAD-CODE ------------------ Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.

Ilion

Probably. It do try to make it a habit.

Lost User

You are advocating teaching Christian beliefs to everyone as fact. Yet, you feel that you respect others' right to hold their own beliefs and not be forced to accept another. Are you sure that you are treating others as well as yourself? What if a Buddhist wants to teach his beliefs as fact? What if a Muslim wants to teach his beliefs as fact? If you are willing to give them that right, you are entitled to that right yourself.

Ilion

Thomas George wrote:

You have made a basic assumption that reason plays no part in doing research and publishing it in a journal.

Get a grip! on logic and reason. You are asserting 'logical positivism' and 'scientism;' I am mocking the assertions.

Thomas George wrote:

There are no absolute truths in science.

There are no such things as "relative" truths. There are truths. Period. Definitionally, all truths are absolute truths ... and the 'absolute' is a redundant qualifier.

Thomas George wrote:

... After all, all the conveniences that you enjoy have been the result of scientific process.

This is not true. And even if it were, it does not protect any so-called theory ... and that is your tendentious purpose.

Lost User

Ilíon wrote:

Get a grip! on logic and reason.

That is my problem. Not yours. :)

Ilíon wrote:

This is not true.

Did logic and reason provided you with those conveniences? Theories were proposed, experiments done to prove them, and based on those models, technology created. Even medicines that prolong your life were made using that process.

Ilíon wrote:

There are no such things as "relative" truths.

Science deals with models that explain observed phenomena. Anyone who thinks that it deals exclusively with truth does not understand it.

Ilíon wrote:

And even if it were, it does not protect any so-called theory

No theory is protected, nor I have any interest in protecting any theory. I did not propose those theories; my life is not affected whether they are discredited or not. I am merely suggesting that you take your argument regarding any theory to an appropriate forum and disprove it there with reason and logic. There are better people participating in that process, and they have been the reason for all material progress. Arguing on a soapbox (with no experts on the subject present) that a theory (however flawed) should be abandoned is pointless; it neither validates or discredits any theory. It does not seem to have any purpose other than possibly showcasing your 'superior intelligence' to lesser mortals.