Satan's Evil Twin Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Not to mention the woman was essentially a clone of the 1st man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Evolution really does explain it elegantly, though. The idea that it's blind or accidental is really not correct. I would definitely suggest reading any one of Dawkin's many wonderful books on the subject (The Blind Watchmaker, Greatest Show on Earth ... God Delusion not so much - it's a great book but evolution isn't really its main focus). Many things seem very mysterious until we endeavour to understand them. There are a lot more answers out there than many people realize and it always makes me a little sad to see how mistreated evolution is. Jager, you still seem to be avoiding the real issue. Of course it seems reasonable to say that we can't know something with 100% certainty, but my problem with your comments has more to do with you applying a completely different standard for burden of proof on evolution than on other scientific principles that you take for granted. Will you honestly say that we can't be 100% certain about gravity, or the Earth being round? So I guess that I can see how you believe your stance is logical, but I do really believe you're taking it a degree too far. Can we just agree that evolution is extremely well documented and verified through observation and scientific testing, to the point that we can very reasonably assume that it's the working principle on which all life changes and adapts? Super19, maybe "how" is the same as "why". Life, all of existence, has the meaning that we, as individuals and as a species, give it. That is more powerful than many of us realize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombieksa Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Do you know what is awesome? White chocolate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Do you know what is awesome? White chocolate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Where did I aruge that they didn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super19 Posted August 28, 2012 Author Share Posted August 28, 2012 Evolution really does explain it elegantly, though. The idea that it's blind or accidental is really not correct. I would definitely suggest reading any one of Dawkin's many wonderful books on the subject (The Blind Watchmaker, Greatest Show on Earth ... God Delusion not so much - it's a great book but evolution isn't really its main focus). Many things seem very mysterious until we endeavour to understand them. There are a lot more answers out there than many people realize and it always makes me a little sad to see how mistreated evolution is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Evolution really does explain it elegantly, though. The idea that it's blind or accidental is really not correct. I would definitely suggest reading any one of Dawkin's many wonderful books on the subject (The Blind Watchmaker, Greatest Show on Earth ... God Delusion not so much - it's a great book but evolution isn't really its main focus). Many things seem very mysterious until we endeavour to understand them. There are a lot more answers out there than many people realize and it always makes me a little sad to see how mistreated evolution is. Jager, you still seem to be avoiding the real issue. Of course it seems reasonable to say that we can't know something with 100% certainty, but my problem with your comments has more to do with you applying a completely different standard for burden of proof on evolution than on other scientific principles that you take for granted. Will you honestly say that we can't be 100% certain about gravity, or the Earth being round? So I guess that I can see how you believe your stance is logical, but I do really believe you're taking it a degree too far. Can we just agree that evolution is extremely well documented and verified through observation and scientific testing, to the point that we can very reasonably assume that it's the working principle on which all life changes and adapts? Super19, maybe "how" is the same as "why". Life, all of existence, has the meaning that we, as individuals and as a species, give it. That is more powerful than many of us realize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super19 Posted August 28, 2012 Author Share Posted August 28, 2012 Don't bother asking him to read. He won't. He sticks to the Quran and whatever else the mullahs or imams or whatever some haji has told him to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hume Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 i don't know why creationists think the universe owes them a sense of "why?" as if everything should exist because of laws and morals that make sense to them. it's a pretty primitive, immature way of thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 If "it" refers to the 'how', then I agree. If "it" refers to they 'why', then I'd like to know how. Evolution to me answers the how, not the deeper question of why. *snip* I think there is a how and a why. What meaning does a star have? Does it have no meaning other than the one we give it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 No, but you stick to whatever Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris tells you to read. Dawkins: "Read my book!" Hitchens: "Read my book!" Harris: "Read my book!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Statements like that only demonstrate how poorly educated you are on this issue. It absolutely has been directly observed, in many different ways. Not only the proof that exists within the fossil record, but in our ability to map genetic codes and use microscopes to observe the elements of life at the smallest of levels. It's great that you agree with evolution, that's a start, but your grasp on it seems a bit thin. My analogy was satirical, you get the right? You compared evolution to a 14th Century FLAT EARTH THEORY. And when I mocked it, you scoffed at the idea of my own (intentionally) ludicrous assertion. If you think my comparison was silly - as you should - then I would hope that you recognize the same trait in the comments YOU posted ... that was my point. So again, to say that evolution is not 100% fact is honestly, truly, on the same level as saying "we can't know ANYTHING as 100% fact". The burden of proof that you're putting on evolution is bizarre. You're content that we can observe gravity and that we have evidence of a round Earth, but the same rules don't apply to evolution? The evidence is JUST as strong, you need to realize that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I thought the Devil put all those things there to confuse us..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Sure you did.... By asserting that common ancestry in the evolutionary process is 'evidence' for God, you tied the actual existence of God based on the evidence of a common ancestor, thereby making your statement a claim of fact. The logic is undeniable. And you're correct, I never miss a chance to be an astute observer or commentator of the nonsense that you regurgitate here from whatever podunk recesses of ignorance that you get your information from. And again, the 'fact' that you asserted that, can only be addressed as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super19 Posted August 28, 2012 Author Share Posted August 28, 2012 i don't know why creationists think the universe owes them a sense of "why?" as if everything should exist because of laws and morals that make sense to them. it's a pretty primitive, immature way of thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Actually - I did say it wrong - should have been: Corroborating evidence (in "corroboration") is evidence that tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition. For example, W, a witness, testifies that she saw X drive his automobile into a green car. Meanwhile Y, another witness, testifies that when he examined X's car, later that day, he noticed green paint on its fender. Or there can be corroborating evidence related to a certain source, such as what makes an author think a certain way due to the evidence that was supplied by witnesses or objects. Just because it is corroborating evidence does NOT make something a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super19 Posted August 28, 2012 Author Share Posted August 28, 2012 I thought the Devil put all those things there to confuse us..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super19 Posted August 28, 2012 Author Share Posted August 28, 2012 I've read their books, other science textbooks, and plenty of Scientific Journals. What have you read? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I've read their books, other science textbooks, and plenty of Scientific Journals. What have you read? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 When did I say the universe owes me a why? I'm saying I believe the universe was created by God. Science can do its' best to explain the 'how', but the 'why' is not something science is designed to answer. Just because science cannot answer the 'why', does not mean I flake it off. Is this world bound by science and only science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.