None of my statements are conflicting kiddo..
In Defense of Science and Theory
- Thread starter wurd2
- Start date
None of my statements are conflicting kiddo..
The propagation of empiricism and rationality has and will continue to win the battle against indoctrination, ignorance and antiquated tribalism. Whether you specifically will benefit from these types of discussions is immaterial.
The selfish, weak, stupid, and lazy are in abundance. It is why religion will thrive for eons.
dynasty_v6 said:
FYI: Creationist William Dembski's work on the mathematics of evolution was disproved by an undergraduate.
Evolution is the nonrandom selection of randomly varying replicators. It is *NOT* a chance process.
Why must this be repeated over and over and over?
Macroevolution is nothing more than lots of microevolution.
You cannot have microevolution without macroevolution invariably resulting over time.
.
Religion in totality isn't going anyway any time soon but just looking where we've come in the last 2000 years does inspire some hope. The power and authority of religion over the world is receding.
Willful ignorance?
The majority of people with google and a few weekends could pick up enough to be able to at least speak somewhat intelligently about evolution.
01cobravortech
Banned
Poor Wurd 2. Poor guy is upset that MOST don't believe they came from a monkey or pond scum. DaleM does look like he came from a money though...has that enormous, abnormal forehead that belongs on a monkey...more than likely also has incredibly, small reproductive organs that you'd find on a monkey holmes....
We will make a man of him one day, evolution does work. just a bit slower than we'd like.
wurd2 said:
TheCPE said:
You're probably right.
I think many creationists merely catch wind of William Dembski's work on mathematically disproving evolution and readily assume it an airtight, knockout case. This is because they want evolution to be false. When it comes to Dembski's math being disproved by an undergraduate student, this is willfully ignored.
As educated as William Dembski is (several degrees, with doctorates in mathematics and philosophy), not even he realizes or acknowledges that evolution incorporates a nonrandom driver.
Richard Dawkins, in Climbing Mount Improbable, wrote:
It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work. You don't need to be a mathematician or physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck.
If people want to reject evolution or big bang, then okay. But why do such rejections always seem to entail an improper, half-baked understanding of the theory under fire?
.
Last edited:
Your obsession with monkey foreheads and genitalia is a bit disturbing.
Whats a Monkey Holmes?
I would have to as well.
I worked with a girl a few years ago who was extremely intelligent in what seemed to be every subject under the sun, except when it came to her "faith".
I try to be open-minded in conversations about it and leave open the possibility for sprits, gods, and demons, but when it came to this, she was completely illogical (to me).
she believed in the Christian god and the bible, but she absolutely would not allow for the possibility of leprechauns' existence anywhere in the universe. said there was zero possibility. it just seems logical to me that if you allow for one you really need to allow for the other.
it's like reason just gets tossed out the window when it comes to this stuff.
These people more than want evolution and science to be wrong, they need it to be wrong or at least they need to convince themselves it is wrong. I say it is a need because the indoctrinated mind cannot cope with the idea that the beliefs they’ve based their lives off might not be true after all. Imagine living by a certain authoritarian code your entire life and suddenly having a realization that it was based off of lies. It isn’t easy for people to admit to being wrong about most things, even superficial things, imagine the difficulty admitting being wrong about something that is to some the most important aspect of their existence.
I also feel that laziness or more specifically being content to be a follower is part of the equation as well. There are intelligent scientifically literate people that are religious but that don’t need to attack science or more specifically evolutionary theory. These people aren’t sheep though, they’ve reached their beliefs based upon their own thoughts and rationalization (albeit misguided imo) all people aren’t willing or capable to achieve this mental independence and freedom.
Oh, and it is easier to attack a straw man than evolutionary theory.
Last edited:
All theories have "holes." This does not disprove the theory; it just shows an area where an assumption, usually based on observation and comparison, was made to bridge a gap in understanding. The only thing that disproves a theory is direct evidence contrary with a stated portion of that theory.
This is a fundamental problem with most arguments against any scientific theory; ignorance of the fundamental definitions and methods by which those theories were created. No theory explains everything, and no theory has irrefutable evidence in support of every point. Otherwise we'd be arguing laws, and the only true laws in existence,that can be completely, logically and irrefutably proven, are in Mathematics.
Me too. I think it's hilarious when you can disprove an argument through their application of fallacy rather than fact.
Yes, it is science. Just because there isn't a currently known explanation doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Lightning was a miracle once too...
I wondered who would be the first to post the most often used, and most asinine, argument against evolutionary theory. All this shows is that you really don't have a clue what you're arguing against, you just don't like it because someone told you not to. This is actually very similar to a parent telling their child not to like a certain race because of some unfounded stereotype.
The thing is, even that need to be right is imaginary. Science does not seek to prove or disprove religion because it simply does not care about it. Both exist to explain the unexplainable, and IMO there is easily room for both sides in a person's life. Why is it so "bad" to have a reasoned, supported explanation, instead of a "the Bible says so" explanation? Why must that reasoned, supported explanation be made to also prove or disprove the existence of God, when the truth is that it just doesn't apply?
Wait just a second!!
You mean to tell me science has an explanation for lightning!? :bs: Get outta here...
I always thought it was the result of angry leprechaun magic.
I would agree that a rational scientifically literate person could without contradiction be a deist but to me personally deism seems superfluous. If I say I believe an agent possibly created what we call the universe I cannot ignore the next obvious question which is what created the agent?
Theism on the other hand I feel does present problems that must be accounted for with some type of mental gymnastics. When the individual is a fundamentalist or literalist this becomes even more necessary, and if the individual is not but has a very unique interpretation of a religion than that begs the question if your human intellect is capable of making discernment in what is truth in scripture and what isn’t than why do you need the scripture in the first place?
I think the issue for those that are fundamentalist or literalist is that if according to their beliefs all of existence was created in 6 days then an evolutionary theory despite not formally mentioning god or religion directly contradicts what they have been brought up to believe and thus the animosity and immediate rejection.
Last edited:
Well said
Lepprechauns may be able to make the psark, but they can't create the antimatter and high-energy gamma-rays that accompany every lightning bolt. Only Sauron can do that.
I'm not kidding about the antimatter and gamma rays, by the way. Every lightning bolt generates antimatter and high-energy gamma-rays at the top of the cloud from which the bolt originates.
I'm not kidding about the antimatter and gamma rays, by the way. Every lightning bolt generates antimatter and high-energy gamma-rays at the top of the cloud from which the bolt originates.
You go first. Give him a hug for me, too. In return, if Hybred ever needs a hug, I'll give her one for you.
Maybe 01cobravortech just needs a hug.
.
Users who are viewing this thread
