I'm only going to bother replying to a portion of your post Jan, since at this point I can simply refer you back to my previous comments from which it would be extremely easy to derive my answers to the rest of it. Unless you can establish that Kurt Wise doesn't consider himself to be religious (and has good reasons for making a distinction between 'religious' and whatever he considers himself to be instead that are actually in any way relevant to the context of this discussion), this is a completely useless comment. That's no different from someone saying that they don't know why the evidence definitely leads to an expanding universe when they haven't bothered to learn about the cosmological theories that demonstrate that it is indeed expanding. The painfully obvious answer is that they don't know why because they didn't learn.
Rav, So you agree there are people who understand it and do not agree with it then? If yes, that means evolution is not as rock solid as you are lead to believe. If no, then you are saying that evolution is the truth. That being the case you should be able to explain exactly why you see the current evidence as a case for evolution opposed to the possiblity that you actually don't. There are people who claim, (as you make claims), to understand that evolution is not a sound theory for the explanation of life, so they aren't ignorant. Why should i believe you over them? YOU were against it, you cannot assume that everyone thinks and behaves like you. Some people have looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion it's not true. You cannot back up your belief that it is true wth anything other than belief. Your idea of evidence is to read a book which say's evolution is true. That's not evidence. And, FYI, i'm not against evolution. So if one claims it's not true, they conclude this because they haven't: ''put in the effort, and enough intellectual integrity (and courage) to allow the pieces to fall into the places that the evidence demands that they fall into. '' Meaning that when some claims it is true, they have done just that. Can you understand why your belief is sometimes classed as religion? This means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. That's exactly what you're saying, and why there is bullying. Imagine, the Dawkinians now think it's alright to ridicule someone who does not adhere to their belief system. They believe they have an intellectual right. If one expresses disbelief, they are an idiot, moron, retard, and all the other colourful expression you people conjour up. I've asked you a personal question regarding evidence. If you have any real integrity regard your ultra-positive assertions of evolution, you should answer. Otherwise you only prove that it is nothing more (to you) than a belief system. jan.
Rav, That's alright, I understand your position. I consider him to be a whole person, which does include his religiousness. But when I talked about ''where he's coming from', I didn't mean to fragment his personality and character. The real meaning of religion is to learn how to serve God, and his statement is a prime of example of the difference between science and religion. This is evidenced by his words. You and like minds have ignored not only the words, and meaning, but have replace words and meaning with something to justify your agenda. This is why this particular branch of thinking is not trusted by theist and atheis alike. No it's not. Apart from the fact that it can be explained, and from it we can reason that it makes sense, there is no real opposition to it. Which leads back to my original point. jan.
The fact is, Jan, that you're too lazy and/or biased to do any serious learning. So instead of developing your knowledge to the point where you could actually engage in a meaningful and useful dialogue about the subject matter, you try to 'logic' it all out based on nothing more than the opinions of others. Your position on evolution then is one of ignorance, and no matter how hard you try to draw attention away from that fact with pages full of responses that become increasingly emotional, repetitive and point-missing, it remains as clear as day. Furthermore, there is still the matter of your habitual reliance on the unsubstantiated premises on which you build your arguments. In your own mind you think you have at least an equally solid platform from which to engage in intellectual debate, but you absolutely don't, since at every point you are injecting that same unsubstantiated premise. And when you get called out on it, you almost invariably end up crying foul towards the end of the ensuing discussion. Honestly, it's ridiculous. So all we have here, then, is a demand that your premise be accepted, a bunch of statements about something you know little or nothing about, and what appears to essentially be an appeal to the unfairness of being challenged on it. It is what it is.
Rav, Fact? As in scientific fact? You're just confirming my point here, one has to believe in evolution to understand it. To what level do I need to develop my knowledge to engage in a meaningful and useful dialougue? And how much of your knowledge is based on you knowing it as opposed to the opinions of others? I've already said I don't understand evolution to the point where it is obviously correct. But I do basically understand it which is why I don't accept it. But I do have a take on it which I may one day open a thread about. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm not a mind reader, Rav. What unsubstantiated premise. Same as above. :shrug: jan.
Go on, why not start a thread about it in the Biology & Genetics forum, which of course would be the appropriate place for a proper discussion on the veracity of modern evolutionary theory. I guarantee you that I will participate in a meaningful and relevant way. In this manner we will learn three things: 1) how much you understand about evolution, 2) how much I understand about evolution and 3) how much your 'alternative' theory can stand up to a bit of informal peer review. It would be the perfect place to hash all this out.
