Azal on 11/3/2006 at 13:01
Quote Posted by fett
And you know what they say - the biggest arse always gets the grease. Or something.
Ah, that sounds like public school.
As for this debate? I'm not treading that old ground again, thank you.
Why?
For the same reasons I don't harangue retarded people for drooling in public. Or the old and incontinent for filling their pants in the supermarket.
Like the above examples, the creationists may be stupid and full of shit, but they should be pitied, not pointed at while going, "Mummy, why does that funny man smell funny? What's that running out of his shoe?"
N'Al on 11/3/2006 at 13:53
Quote Posted by Convict
Anyway (:p), I'm falling back to my position of is what specific evidence would it take to prove Darwinian evolution wrong. Also "any" isn't specific.
Thing is, this is a pretty stupid question.
If we knew what specific evidence was needed to disprove Darwinian evolution then we'd already know the composition of said evidence, and Darwinian evolution would have
already been disproven on the basis of that evidence. Since Darwinian evolution has not - up until now - been
scientifically disproven* the only answer to your question that can be given is: any. As soon as
any evidence disproving Darwinian evolution will come along (if at all), then Darwinian evolution
will be disproven - admittedly, there'll be a long period of academic scabble and discussion as is always the case when an old scientific paradigm is being disproven, but in the end the new proof, if logical, will be accepted.
Simple as...
* An no, answers like "Darwinian evolution does not exist cause I don't believe in it, lol" don't count.
Chimpy Chompy on 11/3/2006 at 14:21
Quote Posted by Thief13x
.I say its a good thing. Ignorance should not be prefferable imo. Its not like christians are being exceptional assholes either, there are really only two theories and theirs has been ignored by mainstream education for a long time.
No, there is ONE theory and one religious belief. Only one of these belongs in science class.
See, this is exactly what worries me, you're an example of someone who apparently can't tell the difference.
N'Al on 11/3/2006 at 14:31
Word.
Convict on 11/3/2006 at 14:39
Quote Posted by N'Al
Thing is, this is a pretty stupid question.
The thing is that question was being applied to religious beliefs posing? as scientific theory. So then I put the same question to Darwinian evolutionary theory.
N'Al on 11/3/2006 at 14:50
Eh?
You do understand the difference between scientific reasoning and religious beliefs, right?
Actually, that's a stupid question as well, it's quite clear you don't...
Jonesy on 11/3/2006 at 14:58
Quote Posted by Convict
The thing is that question was being applied to religious beliefs posing? as scientific theory. So then I put the same question to Darwinian evolutionary theory.
Evolution is change.
To see evolution in action, all one needs to do is see how bacteria evolve every year. Those bacteria that are not killed by the antibiotics live to reproduce themselves. Whatever small advantage they had that allowed them to survive the antibiotic is passed on to the next generation, and we must come up with different antibiotics to try to kill them off. This is what Natural Selection is...
Evolution is simple.
Evolution is a theory, which has a different meaning in Science than it does in the general public's usage. It means that it has passed the test of the scientific methods and is fact. (the·o·ry, noun; A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.)
Theory is made up of laws, hypotheses, ideas that have been tested and retested until it becomes obvious that the retesting has become redundant because no other outcome ever comes from the testing.
Hypothesis is an unproved, untried, untested belief. Look at the word: Hypo=below, or less than; thesis=idea, working format. A hypothesis is nothing more than a working idea, something to get the experimenter headed in a direction. It will change as new data are generated.
Religion has nothing to do with Evolution. Religion exists to allow Man to sidestep thinking about the finality of Death. The thought that Death is an end stage of Life is disturbing. The Bible says, paraphrased: 'Here it is. This Book has given you the tools you need to avoid troubled, anxious thoughts of the final stage where you return to Dust and rejoin the particles that will fuel (feed) other life forms on our Planet. If you believe in the Word in its entirety, you will have Ever-Lasting Life.' What that means is, if you believe, you don't ever have to even think about a permanent end to yourself. You will believe that you will go on to 'Heaven' and you will believe that until the very point that you die, after which it doesn't matter anymore.
Religion is a belief system that is not testable. You cannot make an observation, define parameters that may explain that observation, test those parameters, retest those parameters with slight variations to see if other outcomes take place (experimentation), retest those parameters again and again the same ways and different ways.
Intelligent Design is not Science! It differs from Science because it is untestable. It is untestable because the existence of a supreme being cannot be proved or disproved.
Those believers who can see through the smokescreen thrown up by those persons fearful of the idea of Evolution are to be congratulated for their fortitude. This is a subject that requires more than the usual amount of nerve.
The so-called 'infallible word of God' - the Bible - was written down by *men*, translated by *men*, published by *men*, and is interpreted by *men*.
In fact, most of this was done by uneducated, violent goatherders thousands of years ago.
You are not believing the word of God. You are making a huge assumption, that the *men* who wrote the Bible are infallible and wholly trustworthy. Based on the behavior of the people portrayed in much of the Bible, I see absolutely no reason to accept their word that the Bible is the 100% Accurate Word of God.
Even if 5,000 years ago God had patiently explained to Moses how new species come about through evolution, Moses would not have had the knowledge necessary to make sense of it. He would have been incapable of understanding it in his ignorance - much as you are, in fact, as you seem to be just as ignorant of science as he was.
Evolution is a *theory*, which supports and is supported by everything we know about biology. We know several methods for evolution, there is a whole field that explains the mechanism of evolution (genetics), evolution has been seen actually occurring in nature, and we have dug up bones of creatures which no longer exist but are clearly closely related to living things.
And I know the big one you have trouble with is that means humans are apes. We are, get over it. It doesn't mean we're not special - we are very special. We are the only creatures on this planet with our brains and our capacity for reason and creation. And some of us, unlike you Bible-thumpers, actually use it.
Vigil on 11/3/2006 at 15:09
That's just, like, your opinion, man.
fett on 11/3/2006 at 15:58
Quote:
The Bible says, paraphrased: 'Here it is. This Book has given you the tools you need to avoid troubled, anxious thoughts of the final stage where you return to Dust and rejoin the particles that will fuel (feed) other life forms on our Planet. If you believe in the Word in its entirety, you will have Ever-Lasting Life.' What that means is, if you believe, you don't ever have to even think about a permanent end to yourself. You will believe that you will go on to 'Heaven' and you will believe that until the very point that you die, after which it doesn't matter anymore.
The Bible never says anything about believing it in it's 'entirety' nor does it talk much at all about 'the afterlife.' It's intended as a history of Israel (whether you believe it's factual is another matter completely). Your 'summary' is both mis-informed and obviously regurgitated from whatever two-bit humanities class you've attended. Read it for yourself and you'll come to very different conclusions.
Quote:
In fact, most of this was done by uneducated, violent goatherders thousands of years ago.
No...about 10% of it was written by sheepherders, 20% by blue collar types (fishermen and laborers), the rest was written by kings, attorneys, doctors, and the educated elite of the Jewish Sanhedrin
Quote:
Even if 5,000 years ago God had patiently explained to Moses how new species come about through evolution, Moses would not have had the knowledge necessary to make sense of it. He would have been incapable of understanding it in his ignorance - much as you are, in fact, as you seem to be just as ignorant of science as he was.
This is also incorrect anthropologically speaking - people in Moses day were not cavemen, nor were they lacking congnitive reasoning skills, or knowledge of science. We surely have more information, but don't go on about how stupid ancient peoples were - it's simply a misnomer.
Other than being completely ignorant about the Bible and anthropolgy, your argument sounds intelligent.
Seeker on 11/3/2006 at 16:04
Quote Posted by Convict
Anyway (:p), I'm falling back to my position of is what specific evidence would it take to prove Darwinian evolution wrong. Also "any" isn't specific.
A fossil of a man riding a dinosaur.
