15 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiYou're a nutter on the spirituality forum and you're consistent
Evolution is a religion based irrational faith in the god Science. It has never been observed (it can not by definition be proven) - but it's true believers are evident by the zeal in which the defend the fantasy. Especially those that are quick to call rational people crackpots.
16 Apr 05
Originally posted by felixkEvolution offers "tests" as all science does. There are many tests that one can perform. The basic test forum is the human genome and direct evidence of deviated protein performance. We can see what we have in common with a chimp for example. We can (if we wish) destroy segments in a chimp and a human and see if we "truly share" that gene. It wouldn't be ethical outside of the third reich, but we could do it.
Whats u're thoughts on this? Can evolution be proven or not.
Did it even happen?
"Creationism" offers nothing that can be tested. Much to the chagrin of religion in general.
The hope that "the act of saying it is true can make it true"... see all of the "mantra" aspects of "repetition brings conviction". It does bring conviction. But not reality. Reality is outside and can be treated as our toy. That is...we can play with it. Science.
16 Apr 05
"I think maybe your ancestors were monkeys. Two words for you babe - spell check."
ok dude.....i may not be able to spell, but at least I dont' believe a bunch of crap... ok, so u belive what u want to but don't drag others down with ur bunch of crap......sorry man but give me a break....
anyway I've to get back to my life of not beliveing ur crap.
😉
16 Apr 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyA good test of any theory is does it explain the data that competing theories do not. The commonality of genes between species is also a sign of a common designer. Ironically, like most of the comparative data, genetic data is easily explained by the ID theory. Since TOE is not the only (or debatable the best) explanation of the data, it is a weak theory. Hardly worth putting much faith in.
Evolution offers "tests" as all science does. There are many tests that one can perform. The basic test forum is the human genome and direct evidence of deviated protein performance. We can see what we have in common with a chimp for example. We can (if we wish) destroy segments in a chimp and a human and see if we "truly share" that gene. It wouldn ...[text shortened]... ality. Reality is outside and can be treated as our toy. That is...we can play with it. Science.
Secondly, TOE does not tell us anything new. Unlike most "scientific" pursuits, the advances in TOE have not enabled us to do anything. Advances in mathematics, chemistry, physics, medicine, all tend to produce tangible benefits for humanity. But TOE is unproductive. The only explanation for the emotional attachment many have to it, is it is a religion. It is a philosophical world-view. People feel threatened when you question their world-view. Especially when they realize the thing they believe may be irrational.
16 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiHey Colletti,
A good test of any theory is does it explain the data that competing theories do not. The commonality of genes between species is also a sign of a common designer. Ironically, like most of the comparative data, genetic data is easily expl ...[text shortened]... cially when they realize the thing they believe may be irrational.
How are you sir? Well I hope.
The burning edge of knowledge will always hold a bit of the old "Put yer' telescope away galileo" mentallity. If you think of your remarks concerning the Theory Of Everything... that is what you are doing, but that is a logical error. Just because a thing isn't proven doesn't mean it can't be.
I simply said that religion offers nothing to test. Science does. Granted, the only thing that TOE has offered so far is the Supersymetry of particles. But that (the testing and creation of super particles) is coming with the new colliders in chicago and switzerland. Give it time. If the large "dark matter" particles show up as science predicts then the standard model will score a victory into the future.
Religion offers no such test. Sadly.
Another logical error is to equate "progress in science in general to a particular theory" as you attempted to do. Your inference was that 'because TOE is not yet proven, Evlolution must be false". If that isn't what you inferred, please restate your position.
Anyway, we certainly can see the genetic code of our proud species. I can't say that God didn't design it. That would require that I KNOW. I don't. Science is just the knack of living with what we can play with.
Ever play with God? If so... how was it?
Mike
16 Apr 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI and doing well, thank you! (Got the taxes off last night and I feel much better.)
Hey Colletti,
How are you sir? Well I hope.
The burning edge of knowledge will always hold a bit of the old "Put yer' telescope away galileo" mentallity. If you think of your remarks concerning the Theory Of Everything... that is what you are doing, but that is a logical error. Just because a thing isn't proven doesn't mean it can't be.
I ...[text shortened]... knack of living with what we can play with.
Ever play with God? If so... how was it?
Mike
The Theory of Everything would be fantastic. I understand that they are getting closer - but know one knows when we'll have it.
I was speaking about the Theory of Evolution when I use the abbreviation TOE - and I do not assert that the theory is false. It is difficult to prove a negative theory inductively, but you can certainly say when something is inconclusive. Such is the case with TOE IMO.
And the lack of practical applications for advances in the TOEvolution are not arguments against it truth - only an argument against it's usefulness as a scientific theory.
That a religion can offer nothing to test is not technically true. It depends on what the religion claims. If the religion claims one can levitate ones body, that is testable.
16 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Coletti<grin> It's that "assume thing" i did. Sorry. I see TOE and it never even comes close to "evolution" because cosmology is another of my hobbies. Talk about your basic miscommunicatin' !!!
I and doing well, thank you! (Got the taxes off last night and I feel much better.)
The Theory of Everything would be fantastic. I understand that they are getting closer - but know one knows when we'll have it.
I was speaking abou ...[text shortened]... laims one can levitate ones body, that is testable.
Evolution is not absolutely proven. But is all we have that we can "play with" as to our being here. That is my only point. It offers many ways of 'testing' that religion can't.
But no. It isn't proven. I am not arrogant enough to say that it is "right". It is all that I have. Religious people have faith in God and a divine plan.
That's cool. I can't say it is wrong. I just can't play with it. It doesn't tell me jack as to why me and my EVERY FAVORITE CHIMP cousins are... cousins in the real sense of the word.
If God ever deigns it important enough to 'splain why me an my chimp bretheren can interbreed... I will be all ears. (pun intended) Evolution 'splains it in a texas minute... (that's a nice slow, well enjoyed minute, as opposed to a NY minute) Grin.
Anyway. We know nothing. We are all Shultz.
But funny and worth while too! I hope.
16 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI think some people like to think the answer to everything is in the Bible. The problem is, perhaps God didn't tell us everything there. When he created 'birds' did he take something he had created before and add to it?
<grin> It's that "assume thing" i did. Sorry. I see TOE and it never even comes close to "evolution" because cosmology is another of my hobbies. Talk about your basic miscommunicatin' !!!
Evolution is not absolutely proven. Bu ...[text shortened]... are all Shultz.
But funny and worth while too! I hope.
The Aramaic translation of the Bible has Man created on day 5, and Adam created on day 6. King James seems to skip that point for some reason.
Things get lost in translation, and on top of that... perhaps God wasn't able to tell us everything in these collections of books.
Just because God might have created everything, doesn't mean he didn't tinker along the way. Perhaps he was young and didn't bother to start his diary? Who knows what he was doing befor he created man?? I wonder if he created Man sometimes because he became bored?!
One thing I do believe... If there is a God, and he tried to tell us something... We would probably get it all wrong and screw it all up somehow.
ES
16 Apr 05
Originally posted by PhlabibitI think you make a very erudite point.
I think some people like to think the answer to everything is in the Bible. The problem is, perhaps God didn't tell us everything there. When he created 'birds' did he take something he had created before and add to it?
The Aramaic translation of the Bible has Man created on day 5, and Adam dreated on day 6. King James seems to skip that point f ...[text shortened]... d to tell us something... We would probably get it all wrong and screw it all up somehow.
ES
I liken it to me trying to teach a "piss ant" how to program a computer.
If I were capable of creating a piss ant.
The "gulf" between a being who 'could' create the earth and me... a sad little human.
That is the same gulf as between me and the piss ant. But not really. The gulf is actually much greater.
I hope that god is. I am afraid that he ain't.
That isn't too scientific nor is it arrogant. It is just the way i feel. Very in need of a grand plan and very much resigned to there being none.