Definition of Evolution

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Many posters on this forum such as twithead,Andrew Hamilton,agerg have claimed that God belongs with tooth fairy and spaghetti monster as an imaginary entity. All of them are scientists or inclined wholly towards science.By so clubbing God with tooth fairies and spaghetti monsters,they have implicitly claimed to have solved the biggest riddle facing human ...[text shortened]... saying that these are the scientists who have claimed to solve all the riddles facing humanity ?

Many posters on this forum such as twithead,Andrew Hamilton,agerg have claimed that God belongs with tooth fairy and spaghetti monster as an imaginary entity... Am I therefore wrong in saying that these are the scientists who have claimed to solve all the riddles facing humanity ?

From what I can tell, they are basically saying that they haven't seen any more (or possibly significantly more) evidence for the existence of God than they have for fairies and the like. So "yes", I would say that you are "wrong in saying that these are the scientists who have claimed to solve all the riddles facing humanity." You've created a straw man in jumping to a very illogical conclusion. I have seen absolutely no evidence that they have "claimed to solve all the riddles facing humanity" or even implied they did.

The existence of God is strictly a matter of faith since there IS a lack of evidence. If you believe you have evidence that they may not be aware of, I suggest you provide it. If you don't, I'm not sure why you take offense to their "clubbing God with tooth fairies and spaghetti monsters." In fact, it is unreasonable for you to do so.

Originally posted by divegeester
Isn't that natural selection rather than a definition of evolution?

It is either "natural selection" or "adaption". It is both the same.
I prefer to call it "adaptation". Evolution is only a theory, just a
concept in some peoples head. One of the posters called it a
delusion, with which, I agree.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]There is much rational argument against evolution.

But the sum argument, if you can even call it that, from you is -

The Bible says animals were created according to their kinds so therefore evolution is false.

Explain to me how that is 'rational'?[/b]

It is rational because it is the truth.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Evolution by natural selection is the title. I don't see why the terminology has to be changed simply because you don't understand what that means. It's up to you to educate yourself on the subject, not the whole scientific paradigm to change just because you don't 'get it'.

I get that Darwin and others are trying to make it into something more
than it is by calling it evolution instead of adaptation and leaving it at that.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]For your information,Andrew Hamilton is a low temperature physics expert.

Taken from Andrew's profile - male heterosexual 46 year old science enthusiast. He maybe very knowledgeable about certain scientific fields but unless he's carrying out research and submitting his findings for peer-review, he ain't a scientist.

As for 'qu ...[text shortened]... ould you provide quotes where they all say categorically that God does not exist?![/b]

So I guess you are saying, these guys should not be trusted when they
claim any scientific authority because they are not real scientist. They
are just like the rest of us DUMMIES.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
No atheist claims to know whether God exists or not, Dawkins included.

Can you categorically say fairies don't exist?!

No, because some people call the "Gays" -- "Fairies".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
muje maf ki ji ae, apki bat bahaut atchi hai 🙂

Many thanks for replying in Hindi which is India's link language. There is no designated " national language " in India but there are at least 14( at the last count known to me ) languages spoken,written and known to be mainstream " official " languages of the various linguistic groups in India.Yet almost all Indians can understand Hindi,a majority of Indians can speak Hindi and certainly close to majority can read,write and speak Hindi.
Incidentally my mother tongue is Marathi which is the "official " language of the state of Maharashtra with about 70 million people reading,writing and speaking it.
Both Marathi and Hindi are derived mainly from Sanskrit,an ancient Indo European language close to Latin and Greek.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Let them say that they believe that God does not exist but they do not KNOW. I will be happy to hear that. That will be progress from atheism to agnostic atheism ( as per rwingett ) which is humbler and more acceptable.

I believe God does not exist. For some definitions of 'God', I not only believe he does not exist, but can prove it logically - basically by showing that either his definition is internally inconsistent and therefore illogical and illogical beings cannot exist, or by showing that some of his attributes are logically incompatible with known (agreed) properties of the universe.
But I am as sure that God doesn't exist as you are sure that fairies don't exist - and probably for the same reasons.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is rational because it is the truth.

No it isn't.

Originally posted by RJHinds
So I guess you are saying, these guys should not be trusted when they
claim any scientific authority because they are not real scientist. They
are just like the rest of us DUMMIES.

No, because they and i will provide links to corroborate their/our claims.

That's the difference.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
So you are not happy with information technologist like twhithead being clubbed with scientists?

For the record, I will agree with Proper Knob. If mathematics or computer programming are science, then I am practising applied science. I am not working on new science.
I am not sure that I agree with his requirement for submitting articles in peer reviewed journals. My sister works in a museum, and does scientific research in the natural history department. I believe that as such she is a scientist, doing science, even though her work may not be getting properly evaluated via the scientific process in peer reviewed journals.
She may actually be submitting such articles on occasion, I wouldn't know, but I am certain that not all the research she does goes into articles, yet it is still science.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe God does not exist. For some definitions of 'God', I not only believe he does not exist, but can prove it logically - basically by showing that either his definition is internally inconsistent and therefore illogical and illogical beings cannot exist, or by showing that some of his attributes are logically incompatible with known (agreed) proper ...[text shortened]... doesn't exist as you are sure that fairies don't exist - and probably for the same reasons.

It is not clear to me whether you are atheist or agnostic atheist. Please do clarify. As regards defining God, this is beyond my limited intelligence. Why me, no one can define God. Anthropomorphic definitions such as omniscient or all powerful being etc.fail due their logical inconsistencies. However the difficulties in defining God does not mean that God does not exist.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
It is not clear to me whether you are atheist or agnostic atheist. Please do clarify.

First clarify what your definition of the two terms are. I think I have explained my beliefs on the matter, and that is more important than what label I may use or what you may choose to give me.

As regards defining God, this is beyond my limited intelligence.
Yet unless you can at least partially define the word, it holds no meaning.

Why me, no one can define God.
Of course they can. 'God' is an invisible pink unicorn that hides in my fridge. There, I have defined it. I also find that 'invisible' and 'pink' are illogical when used on the same object, therefore my 'God' can not exist.

Anthropomorphic definitions such as omniscient or all powerful being etc.fail due their logical inconsistencies. However the difficulties in defining God does not mean that God does not exist.
But until a definition is given, talk of his existence or non-existence is meaningless.

Originally posted by twhitehead
First clarify what your definition of the two terms are. I think I have explained my beliefs on the matter, and that is more important than what label I may use or what you may choose to give me.

[b]As regards defining God, this is beyond my limited intelligence.
Yet unless you can at least partially define the word, it holds no meaning.

Why ...[text shortened]...
But until a definition is given, talk of his existence or non-existence is meaningless.

I do not believe that God is an object to be defined and studied in a lab. But I still believe in the existence of God. If science cannot accept this position,so be it. As regards the 2 labels,they were defined by rwingett. Agnostic atheist means that he believes that God does not exist but he does not know if God does not exist. An atheist knows that God does not exist.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I do not believe that God is an object to be defined and studied in a lab. But I still believe in the existence of God. If science cannot accept this position,so be it. As regards the 2 labels,they were defined by rwingett. Agnostic atheist means that he believes that God does not exist but he does not know if God does not exist. An atheist knows that God does not exist.

Is there a reason you haven't addressed the following post? It speaks directly to the fallacies of your original post.

Many posters on this forum such as twithead,Andrew Hamilton,agerg have claimed that God belongs with tooth fairy and spaghetti monster as an imaginary entity... Am I therefore wrong in saying that these are the scientists who have claimed to solve all the riddles facing humanity ?

From what I can tell, they are basically saying that they haven't seen any more (or possibly significantly more) evidence for the existence of God than they have for fairies and the like. So "yes", I would say that you are "wrong in saying that these are the scientists who have claimed to solve all the riddles facing humanity." You've created a straw man in jumping to a very illogical conclusion. I have seen absolutely no evidence that they have "claimed to solve all the riddles facing humanity" or even implied they did.

The existence of God is strictly a matter of faith since there IS a lack of evidence. If you believe you have evidence that they may not be aware of, I suggest you provide it. If you don't, I'm not sure why you take offense to their "clubbing God with tooth fairies and spaghetti monsters." In fact, it is unreasonable for you to do so.