If you don't believe in evolution, you also can't believe in...

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Dr Lou Natic, Feb 16, 2004.

Page 32 of 36
  1. Dr Lou Natic

    Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,574
    haha
    Can you please clearly list the steps one would need to take in order to anger you enough to give them a permanent erection?
    aahhh, just as a warning of what NOT to do.
     
    Dr Lou Natic, Mar 13, 2004
    #621

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    I have a lot of catching up to do in this thread because I've been very busy lately. Fortunately, much of it is petty bickering with almost no actual content, so it won't be too hard.

    At this stage, I remind posters to abide by the forum rules regarding personal attacks, long cut-and-pastes and so on, if you do not want your posts edited or deleted. You might like to read back a few pages to see what has been edited and/or deleted as at the time of this post. That way, you'll know what to avoid.
     
    James R, Mar 13, 2004
    #622

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    Proud_Muslim:

    You need a few lessons on what makes a good argument and what doesn't.

    The fact is, it doesn't matter how many times you label somebody a "HOPELESS ATHEIST" in all-caps; it doesn't affect the strength of their arguments at all. It merely expresses a prejudice you hold, and we're all much aware of that by now. Same with the ILLUSIONISTS comments you keep making.

    These types of attacks are called <b>ad hominem</b> attacks, because they attack the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. All good debaters recognise the ad hominem attack as an argumentative fallacy which holds no weight at all in civilised debate.

    Frankly, I don't care about your prejudices. They are abundantly obvious to me. I only care about actual arguments, if you have any. Your ridicule of evolution means nothing to me, because it is baseless. Make me sit up and take notice, if you can, Proud_Muslim, because you're really beginning to bore me. Your childish antics should have no place here, and I'm getting to the stage where I will allow you less lattitude for your fanaticism.

    If this is your idea of powerful, you have much to learn. Real power is learning the opposing arguments and being prepared to counter them with real learning, rather than knee-jerk ignorance. You should learn from some of the many brilliant Muslim scholars, PM.

    I am not impressed by the proliferation of exclamation marks and other punctuation you scatter throughout your posts, PM. I take that simply as another sign of childish exuberance. When everything one says is SHOUTED and EMPHASIZED!!!!!, one loses the ability to make any impact. Instead, everything comes across at the same, annoying loud, level. There is no light or shade any more; just irritating noise.

    I was struck by a couple of personal comments of yours:

    All the more reason to engage with your family, wouldn't you say? You'll have plenty of time with God.

    Then you are redundant, PM, unless you are a scholar or cleric. You will contribute nothing useful to the world, because you will be too wrapped up in your own ego. History shows that those who portray themselves as pure and morally superior to other people are all too often quite the opposite.

    Obviously it does. It explains how all biological aspects of life on Earth came to be.

    This is an unsupported assertion on your part. You'll have to do much better than that, I'm afraid. You might like to start by attempting to <b>justify</b> your assertion, for example.

    Are you just ranting again, or do you actually consider the statement outrageous? Because to me it is common sense that a half-developed eye is better than no eye. Partially-blind people can see better than blind people, but not as well as fully-sighted people, can't they?

    The theory of evolution does not make any claim that it leads to perfect results. In fact, the theory explains why the eye is <b>not</b> perfect. Only Creationists make claims that life is perfect.

    Humans <b>are</b> animals. How hard is that to understand? Your eyes are not very different to the eyes of a dog, or an ape.

    Our eyes are not as good as the eye of an octopus, to take one example.

    You need to learn some optics, it seems.

    Search the web for the term "pinhole camera". You will find some excellent photographs taken without a lens.

    You've read almost nothing about evolution, though, have you? A while ago, I told you I was reading the Quran, and I asked you to read <i>The Selfish Gene</i>. You didn't do that, though, did you?

    It seems you've forgotton our previous discussion about anti-semitism, PM. Remember you said that you have nothing against Jews, but only against Zionists? No? Remember you also said you wouldn't use the phrase "FOX JEWS" again, but would say "FOX ZIONISTS"? I guess not. It's convenient to forgot those things sometimes, isn't it?
     
    James R, Mar 13, 2004
    #623

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    Oh, and whilst we're on the subject of eyes, it is an interesting trivia fact that there is good evidence that complex eyes have evolved independently more than 40 times throughout the course of life on Earth.
     
    James R, Mar 13, 2004
    #624
  8. P. M. Thorne

    P. M. Thorne Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    574
    James R. I took the liberty of copy what you said about debating. PM is not the only one who stoops to personal attacks, as I am sure you are aware. Thank you for bringing the "Jew" phrase to his attention.

    Will you answer something for me? I recently mentioned to a friend of mine that I would really like to feel free to say what I believe when my Christian friends are so adamant about what they believe, and I mentioned also that, for example, many shunned the word "evolution," like all evolution is Darwin's theory. She said that it was, and I disagree with this. Gosh, am I wrong. I do not keep close tabls on this, but if I am not mistaken, many scientists disagree with some of Darwin's theory. Further, the ape thing is still a theory, right? All scientists are not in agreement on that. Am I not correct. You know, such theories do not affect my faith, or diminish my convictions, but I think I am realistic; therefore, I thought I would ask, as I am already up to my ears in books, trying to catch up on what I failed to learn in my youth. Thanks. PMT
     
    P. M. Thorne, Mar 13, 2004
    #625
  9. mountainhare

    mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    ROFL!
    Although I've got nothing against Dr. Lou (or you, Flores), that was QUITE amusing.

    "Agony to come"?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    HEHEHE.

    Oh yeah, James R., you said what I was thinking.. except with better grammar.
     
    mountainhare, Mar 14, 2004
    #626
  10. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    P.M. Thorne,

    The bare bones of the word "evolution" mean nothing more than "change over time". There are many ways living things could conceivably change over time, so in that sense there could be many forms of evolution other than Darwinian evolution by natural selection.

    Having said that, the word "evolution" has come in relation to biology to refer almost exclusively to the modern theory of evolution by genetic variation acted upon by the processes of natural selection. This theory has progressed in many ways since Darwin came up with the basic idea, but in essence it is still Darwin's theory.

    No reputable biologist would doubt that evolution occurs according to Darwinian principles. It is simply wrong to assert that "many" scientists disagree with the theory in that sense. However, it is true to say that scientists continue to argue about the details of how evolution has happened, whilst agreeing on general principles. For example, there is a continuing debate over whether evolution is always a gradual process, or whether it progresses in fits and starts (the technical term is "punctuated equilibrium"). But these issues are slowly being sorted out.

    By "the ape thing", I assume you mean the theory that humans and present-day apes share a common ancestor. Yes, that is a theory, but no reputable biologist doubts that it is an accurate theory. The laws of gravity are just a theory, too, but nobody doubts that they are a correct description of why things fall down.

    There's no reason why learning about evolution should shake your faith, unless you are a fundamentalist who believes that the bible is literally true. Nothing in the theory of evolution implies that God doesn't exist, for example.
     
    James R, Mar 14, 2004
    #627
  11. davewhite04

    davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,331
    Hiya James,

    By "the ape thing", I assume you mean the theory that humans and present-day apes share a common ancestor. Yes, that is a theory, but no reputable biologist doubts that it is an accurate theory. The laws of gravity are just a theory, too, but nobody doubts that they are a correct description of why things fall down.

    Do you think it is a fair comparison between the laws of gravity and the theory that humans evolved from some ape like animal?

    Just curious.

    Dave
     
    davewhite04, Mar 14, 2004
    #628
  12. Repo Man

    Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    I'm not going to speak for James, but I certainly do. Our explanation for gravity and how it works is much the same as our explanation for the evolution of life on Earth. They are explanations that fit the observed phenomena, and have withstood every test thus far.

    They both rely on natural processes, and do not require the intervention of a supreme being.

    Our understanding of gravity has changed quite a bit since Newton's day, just as our understanding of evolution has since Darwin's.

    And both theories could be shown to be incorrect if new evidence that contradicted them were to be discovered. Or if a better way to explain existing evidence were to be found.
     
    Repo Man, Mar 14, 2004
    #629
  13. everneo

    everneo Re-searcher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,621
    I don't know what are the tests on the side of evolution.
    Still I can disagree that both theories are comparable. You can get the exact projectile of a body thrown, you can precisely calculate the kinetic,potential energy of a body at any time with observable parameters - in short, theory on gravity is far more superior as a theory in its precision and ruggedness. More important is, there is not much conjectures in physics.
     
    everneo, Mar 14, 2004
    #630
  14. P. M. Thorne

    P. M. Thorne Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    574
    James R. I truly appreciate your taking the time to comment on that, because the word "evolution," as you said, can be taken a lot of ways, and yet, I was getting the impression from my Christian friends, as well as this forum, that when one says evolution, they mean an ape to man theory. I respectfully disagree that no reputable biologist disagrees with this theory, but so what? What do I know?

    As for the comparison, which now seems to be in dispute, of gravity and evolution, I too squinted at that, but you got your point across, which is the most important. And, no, I do not take the whole Bible literally, but I fully believe in God as Creator; however, this would not necessarily eliminate the possibilty of the evolution that you uphold. These bodies are but vehicles that help us get around and that contain us.

    You need not reply to this, unless you just want to. I perceive that you are an overseer. It would nice if we could learn more from each other, even if it is simply understanding and respecting different trains of thought. Thank you again. PMT
     
    P. M. Thorne, Mar 14, 2004
    #631
  15. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    Dave:

    In science, a "law" is a theory which is so well-supported by evidence that it is given a greater status or significance by scientists. Laws usually provide an explanation many different observed facts. I would be quite happy to regard Darwin's theory of evolution a "law" in this sense.

    In terms of the specific finding that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors, I would say that is a finding supported by considerable evidence and explained by the general "law" of evolution. This is a conclusion we draw from the base facts (fossils, molecular evidence etc.), informed by the theory of evolution, which itself is abundantly supported by other evidence.


    P.M. Thorne:

    Evolution from an ape-like ancestor to Homo sapiens is well established, although we don't know the full story yet. Of course, evolution is much more than <b>just</b> ape to man. It is an explanation for all biodiversity.

    If you search the web, you'll find many examples of supposedly reputable scientists who say they disagree with evolution. Unfortunately, Young-Earth Creationists have a history of deliberately misleading people who know little about biology. They have been caught out many times by many different people. Some falsify their qualifications. Some actually have real qualifications but publish in two completely different ways. There are notorious examples of Creationists who in their scholarly work refer to the age of the Earth as in the billions of years, but who in their Creationist writings claim the Earth is only 6000 years old.

    It can be very difficult to check the reputation of a supposedly disagreeing biologist, especially online. I urge extreme caution when reading material from unknown biologists who write against evolution. Look at their associations. Look where their words are published. Look at some reputable sources to see if they refer to these people. If you need help to sort things out, there are people on sciforums who can help.

    No problem, PMT. I am always interested to listen to other views.
     
    James R, Mar 15, 2004
    #632
  16. davewhite04

    davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,331
    Hiya James,

    In science, a "law" is a theory which is so well-supported by evidence that it is given a greater status or significance by scientists. Laws usually provide an explanation many different observed facts. I would be quite happy to regard Darwin's theory of evolution a "law" in this sense.

    In terms of the specific finding that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors, I would say that is a finding supported by considerable evidence and explained by the general "law" of evolution. This is a conclusion we draw from the base facts (fossils, molecular evidence etc.), informed by the theory of evolution, which itself is abundantly supported by other evidence.

    You have inspired me to investigate Evolution in the context I'm interested in, in more detail.

    Thanks

    Dave
     
    davewhite04, Mar 15, 2004
    #633
  17. P. M. Thorne

    P. M. Thorne Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    574
    James R. / It is fear. People with strong beliefs guard them as though thieves would break in and steal. I too believe in holding fast what I have come to own as truth, but I have a God that I trust so much I am not afraid of much of anything. A lot of this came from my mom. She, very crippled and sometimes subject to depression, nonetheless, had a spirit that one could not help but admire. She would often say that she was not afraid of the devil himself. I was taught from early on to not be afraid. However, she--bacause of her early teachings--was somewhat superstitious, and this, and this alone, eventually got her down, which taught me a great lesson. It is good not to be afraid of what we can see, but it is even better not to be superstitious of that which we cannot see. Why I never bought into her superstition, I do not know.

    I liked the basis you gave for your comparison; you sound like a reasonable sort. Imagine that a reasonable athiest!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Now, if we can just find a reasonable creationist, we might get somewhere! PMT
     
    P. M. Thorne, Mar 15, 2004
    #634
  18. Flores

    Flores Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,245
    You think I'm kidding, this is from the diary of another muslim we had here by the name of JIHAD ALIF LAM MEEM.

    Terrible erections, with restless sleep (first night); long-continued and violent erections, all night (Second night); erections like h---ll; violent, strong, and long-lasting, which you would think would surely rupture the penis; followed by profuse seminal emissions (Third night); violent erections, all night; could not sleep for them; had to get up, walk around, and bathe the parts in cold water (eighth night); sleep broken up by violent erections, lasting all night; had to sit up (eleventh night); violent erections (twelfth night); erections, with severe pain in left testicle, as if bruised, extending up the cord as far as the external abdominal rings, at 11 A.M. (A hundredth day). Awoke in the night with violent erections, which cold water relieved; returned to bed, and before an hour had elapsed, was again awakened by violent erections, applied cold water, and slept the remainder of the night (five hundred days). (I will here remark, that before talking to Flores, I had been suffering for several months with loss of sexual vigor and entire absence of venereal desire, but now it is the reverse in a very bad way, I'm considering getting a surgery to remove all penial nerves..
     
    Flores, Mar 15, 2004
    #635
  19. P. M. Thorne

    P. M. Thorne Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    574
    Someone has run out of things to say, for sure.
     
    P. M. Thorne, Mar 15, 2004
    #636
  20. Flores

    Flores Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,245
    What else is there to say....do you want me to sum it up for you honey?

    - Evolution doesn't explain biogenesis
    - Religion stand on this is that we were created from simple elements and were perfected over time.


    Seems to me that the rest of the boring discussion of exactly what happened between creation (biogenesis) and where we are today belongs in the nerdy boring biology forum. Don't you see that we are busy here cursing the hell out of each other...if we wanted to discuss science, we sure wouldn't be in a religion forum, and we expect you to abide by the rule and take your science out of religion, unless you are willing to call your half assed science a new religion, and we all know how those ugly cults get started.
     
    Flores, Mar 15, 2004
    #637
  21. Polrean

    Polrean Guest

    Geez, you guys sure are brutal. The vulgar way most of you act in supporting your views has distacted me from actual consideration of the facts (much repeated facts, but with some new put downs thrown into each post). Instead I'm looking forward to see who'll get ripped into next. Do me! Do me! Oh wait, I forgot that I needed to post something intelligently offensive to qualify as a candidate. Sorry.

    Wow look at this... this is my second post on sciforums and I already fit in with my sarcastic analysis on misrepresented facts.

    No, I'm only kidding.
     
    Polrean, Mar 16, 2004
    #638
  22. mountainhare

    mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    ROFLMAO!!!
    Whew, thankfully there is 1000 km between us. So if I do anger you, you'll have to have pretty long legs to do any real damage.

    Actually, you did him a favour. Men usually have to take pills which have violent side-effects to get erections like THAT.

    Too much of a good thing!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    That WOULD be embarrassing in public, I guess.

    What did the guy do to upset you, Flores?

    For anyone who is ignorant of the law, it goes like this...
    Of course, this law is no longer valid. It is also over 100 years old.

    For example, living things produce only more living things like themselves... Does that mean that every human being is a clone?
    Obviously the law is flawed...
     
    mountainhare, Mar 16, 2004
    #639
  23. P. M. Thorne

    P. M. Thorne Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    574
    Well, that is mighty kind of you, Flores, to offer to explain things to me, but the truth is, at least from what I have read, we do not speak the same language, which is okay, but because of this, I cannot even begin to understand your hostility on this subject.
    PMT
     
    P. M. Thorne, Mar 16, 2004
    #640
Page 32 of 36

Share This Page