Do You Believe In God?
- Thread starter bikubesong
- Start date
I have A University degree...Of course I've read these books...and most of them are based on Philosophical thought...
You can only truly observe what it is in front of your face..the rest is speculation...
down_in_albion
Clandestine global evil
It's not personal, it's a statement of fact. Neither of you has shown any evidence that you understand the basics of evolution.
D
Dave
Guest
Check this out. It's very interesting. It's not that you have to believe or disbelieve but read a little bit about evolution theory.
Here's an earlier thread on the subject too.
Here's an earlier thread on the subject too.
D
Dave
Guest
down_in_albion
Clandestine global evil
Brilliant, your refutation is a piss-take journo from sun myung moons paper...you know he's not a scientist right.
"I tell you what...you show me a scientist who has a video recording of the big bang and I'll eat my testicles right now!"
#50000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000!
T-Shirts Avaliable at All Participating Retail Outlets...
Last edited:
nugz
SUPAHSTAR!
A
Alcoholic Afternoons
Guest
I think a history of how many things "scientists" have proclaimed to be true but have proven to be total crap (I don't have a no profanity rule, just a "use only when appropriate" rule) would be illuminating here.
Not that I can be bothered to find one, I'm just saying that it would be a long list, with placeholders for many entries based on currently-believed scientific "facts."
Not that I can be bothered to find one, I'm just saying that it would be a long list, with placeholders for many entries based on currently-believed scientific "facts."
down_in_albion
Clandestine global evil
Yes and who were they disproved by...you got it...scientists. not theologians, not priests, scientists.
D Licious
Banned
D
Dave
Guest
He's a journalist.
Again the irony is that you are relying on authority. Like the fundamentalists do.
The fact is that there are some interesting problems with evolutionary theory. That doesn't make it untrue but it means that it isn't that easy to point to evolution as a scientific fact.
Here's a brief section of the article that I think is interesting.
Evolution breaks down into at least three logically separable components: First, that life arose by chemical accident; second, that it then evolved into the life we see today; and third, that the mechanism was the accretion of chance mutations. Evolutionists, not particularly logical, refuse to see this separability.
The first, chance formation of life, simply hasn’t been established. It isn’t science, but faith.
The second proposition, that life, having arisen by unknown means, then evolved into the life of today, is more solid. In very old rocks you find fish, then things, like coelacanth and the ichthyostega and later archaeopteryx, that look like transitional forms, and finally us. They seem to have somehow gotten from A to B. A process of evolution, however driven, looks reasonable. It is hard to imagine that these animals appeared magically from nowhere, one after the other.
The third proposition, that the mechanism of evolutions is chance mutation, though sacrosanct among its proponents, is shaky. If it cannot account for the simultaneous appearance of complex, functionally interdependent characteristics, as in the case of caterpillars, it fails. Thus far, it hasn’t accounted for them.
It is interesting to note that evolutionists switch stories regarding the mechanism of transformation. The standard Neo-Darwinian view is that evolution proceeds very slowly. But when it proves impossible to find evidence of gradual evolution, as for example when sudden changes appear in the fossil record, some evolutionists turn to “punctuated equilibrium,” which says that evolution happens by sudden undetectable spurts in small populations. The idea isn’t foolish, just unestablished. Then there are the evolutionists who, in opposition to those who maintain that point-mutations continue to account for human evolution, say that now cultural evolution has taken over.
Finally, when things do not happen according to script—when, for example, human intelligence appears too rapidly—then we have the theory of “privileged genes,” which evolved at breakneck speed because of assumed but unestablished selective pressures. That is, the existence of the pressures is inferred from the changes, and then the changes are attributed to the pressures.
Again the irony is that you are relying on authority. Like the fundamentalists do.
The fact is that there are some interesting problems with evolutionary theory. That doesn't make it untrue but it means that it isn't that easy to point to evolution as a scientific fact.
Here's a brief section of the article that I think is interesting.
Evolution breaks down into at least three logically separable components: First, that life arose by chemical accident; second, that it then evolved into the life we see today; and third, that the mechanism was the accretion of chance mutations. Evolutionists, not particularly logical, refuse to see this separability.
The first, chance formation of life, simply hasn’t been established. It isn’t science, but faith.
The second proposition, that life, having arisen by unknown means, then evolved into the life of today, is more solid. In very old rocks you find fish, then things, like coelacanth and the ichthyostega and later archaeopteryx, that look like transitional forms, and finally us. They seem to have somehow gotten from A to B. A process of evolution, however driven, looks reasonable. It is hard to imagine that these animals appeared magically from nowhere, one after the other.
The third proposition, that the mechanism of evolutions is chance mutation, though sacrosanct among its proponents, is shaky. If it cannot account for the simultaneous appearance of complex, functionally interdependent characteristics, as in the case of caterpillars, it fails. Thus far, it hasn’t accounted for them.
It is interesting to note that evolutionists switch stories regarding the mechanism of transformation. The standard Neo-Darwinian view is that evolution proceeds very slowly. But when it proves impossible to find evidence of gradual evolution, as for example when sudden changes appear in the fossil record, some evolutionists turn to “punctuated equilibrium,” which says that evolution happens by sudden undetectable spurts in small populations. The idea isn’t foolish, just unestablished. Then there are the evolutionists who, in opposition to those who maintain that point-mutations continue to account for human evolution, say that now cultural evolution has taken over.
Finally, when things do not happen according to script—when, for example, human intelligence appears too rapidly—then we have the theory of “privileged genes,” which evolved at breakneck speed because of assumed but unestablished selective pressures. That is, the existence of the pressures is inferred from the changes, and then the changes are attributed to the pressures.
The Origin of Life is THEORY...Not Science
As I said...Show me the youtube link already
Or shut up...and agree that evolution isn't the only possible answer
D
Dave
Guest
It's basically down to "which came first, the chicken or the egg."
down_in_albion
Clandestine global evil
Fatuous.
A
Alcoholic Afternoons
Guest
Well, it's not really theologians or priests that are trying to disprove them. They are usually disproved by the next generation of scientists sure that they're the ones that are right, or the fact that people keep dying, or people sail around the world, or it just becomes obvious they're wrong, or other such things.
I really don't want to argue it, because you're not going to make me an atheist and I'm not going to change your mind either. I must add, though, that I find it far weirder to believe that all of this world (iPods, Morrissey, cars, planes, clouds, thoughts, people, frogs, cheetos, beer, etc.) just "happened" as the result of, what, exactly? I also must add that that's not the only reason I believe in God. I've personally seen and felt plenty of proof.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Dave
Guest
Well they used to believe the atom was the building block of the universe for example. But the fact is that science is an ongoing exploration, much like the journey of the Starship Enterprise. Claiming you have the answers is itself unscientific. The best you can do is have a workable model until something better comes along.
down_in_albion
Clandestine global evil
again that shows no understanding of the evolutionary debate as it is. For one thing 'punctuated equilibrium' was a theory by two scientists (stephen Jay Gould being the most famous) that had very little support in the scientific community. But even if it had been a more sustainable theory, this has nothing to do with god, nothing at all. No matter the small disagreements over the precise details of evolution, there is nobody claiming that the other option is god
