Evolution works in mysterious ways

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.

soap brain

Ilíon wrote:

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.

Are you SUUUURE? Matthew 10:34 Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And as a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. -Jesus So, in that instant that he feels that his baby is the most important thing in the world, is the instant that God wants him dead. Interesting morals you have (for you yourself admit that you have no morals but the ones that appear in scripture).

Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.

soap brain

I don't have anything wrong with hardcore religious people in theory, but I have found that they're all completely moronic.

Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.

soap brain

Wow, CQ is more intelligent than you are. Congratulations.

Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.

soap brain

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Would be slightly confusing considering Darwin changed his mind and admitted his theory was wrong during his lifetime.

Uh, no he didn't. That's a very transparent lie. Did you get this information from something like this?[^] It's a worthless document, I'll have you know. It is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Even I can see that. Interesting note: Charles Darwin was a devout Christian before he came up with Natural Selection. He was a highly intelligent man, and he saw through Christianity. He decided that it was just wasn't good enough.

Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.

73Zeppelin

I'll give that answer 10/10.

Matthew Faithfull

Thomas George wrote:

You are advocating teaching Christian beliefs to everyone as fact

Because they are.

Thomas George wrote:

Yet, you feel that you respect others' right to hold their own beliefs and not be forced to accept another.

No, where did I say that. No one has any right to believe something that is not true. It can never be a right to be wrong.

Thomas George wrote:

Are you sure that you are treating others as well as yourself?

Yes. The truth is true for everyone just the same.

Thomas George wrote:

What if a Buddhist wants to teach his beliefs as fact?

He has no right, because his beliefs are wrong. The false assumption that his beliefs are equal to mine is possibly part of your belief system but has no basis in reality.

Thomas George wrote:

What if a Muslim wants to teach his beliefs as fact?

The same applies, his beliefs are wrong so he has no inherrent right to promulgate them.

Thomas George wrote:

you are entitled to that right yourself.

Only because my beliefs are right, not merely because I have beliefs. Remember that it is neither you nor your belief system nor society which gives me the right or entitles me, it is God himself. He is the judge of what is right.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

Lost User

Actually suchi, sashhimi etc is very nice. The texsture of raw fish with the ginger and wasabi and rice is a sublime combination. And healthy (except for the worms you might get)

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

Matthew Faithfull

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

Uh, no he didn't. That's a very transparent lie.

Not what I've heard, read a decent biography and find out.

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

Charles Darwin was a devout Christian

It is impossible for you or I to know whether he was even a Christian. He certainly wasn't devout in any normal usage of the word.

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

He was a highly intelligent man

He certainly was although he may have been diagnosed as mentally I'll in our somewhat differently enlightened times.

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

and he saw through Christianity.

Now that really is a transparent lie :laugh:

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

He decided that it was just wasn't good enough.

:doh: :laugh: I don't know which radical evolutionist believers you've been getting your information from. If it's the put Darwin on a pedastal and make him our deity crowd, then have nothing to do with them, they are as insane the Egregious Proffesor for the Public Misunderstanding of Science and his DNA worship, woof bark donkey X|:mad: :wtf: doesn't even begin.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

Brady Kelly

I eat sushi (raw fish in general) often, sometimes once a week, and have never had any problems. That I know of. Neither has anyone else I know, and there are lots of 'cheap' sushi places, i.e. they don't uphold the normally very strict standards of sushi cuisine.

Pits fall into Chuck Norris.

soap brain

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Not what I've heard, read a decent biography and find out.

I can't find him ever saying that. What he did say, however, was that he didn't know the mechanism behind it, ie GENETICS, which was later discovered and found to agree with his theory.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

It is impossible for you or I to know whether he was even a Christian. He certainly wasn't devout in any normal usage of the word.

Well, he studied theology for a time, and was known to use the Bible as absolute moral reference (until his daughter died)...

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

He certainly was although he may have been diagnosed as mentally I'll in our somewhat differently enlightened times.

:confused: Why do you say that? :confused:

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Now that really is a transparent lie [Laugh]

:confused:

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

[D'Oh!] [Laugh] I don't know which radical evolutionist believers you've been getting your information from. If it's the put Darwin on a pedastal and make him our deity crowd, then have nothing to do with them, they are as insane the Egregious Proffesor for the Public Misunderstanding of Science and his DNA worship, woof bark donkey [Dead] [Mad] [WTF] doesn't even begin.

Biologists. People who actually understand evolution. People who don't grossly underestimate how academic it is, people who don't assume from the get-go that they're already right. Like you. I don't 'worship' Charles Darwin, not any more than I 'worship' Shroedinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Bohr, Euler, Pythagoras, Newton, da Vinci, Mendeleev, Planck, etc. They're all brilliant people.

Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.

soap brain

2 Kings 2:23 "And he went up from thence to Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, little boys came out of the city and mocked him, saying: Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And looking back, he saw them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord: and there came forth two bears out of the forest, and tore of them two and forty boys." Luke 19:26 "But I say to you, that to every one that hath shall be given, and he shall abound: and from him that hath not, even that which he hath, shall be taken from him. But as for those my enemies, who would not have me reign over them, bring them hither, and kill them before me." Matthew 10:34 "Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And as a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me."

Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.

soap brain

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

He has no right, because his beliefs are wrong. The false assumption that his beliefs are equal to mine is possibly part of your belief system but has no basis in reality.

I suppose you can prove that your beliefs are right and that theirs are wrong?

Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.