Discovery may lead to a review of the theory of evolution

[porchrat]

Lol, talking about purpose is pretty bland philosophical stuff. I guess you are just blind to most of anti-religious and anti-creationist crap posted here.

Quote for me a single post of mine asking for you people to move your discussions elsewhere where I didn't say that the entire topic itself (if you want to argue that that doesn't include all sides of the topic then I'm afraid you are an idiot in desperate need of an English class) needed to be moved or frankly take your garbage claims elsewhere because I don't see where I ever focused on only one side.

 

[Techne]

Quote for me a single post of mine asking for you people to move your discussions elsewhere where I didn't say that the entire topic itself (if you want to argue that that doesn't include all sides of the topic then I'm afraid you are an idiot in desperate need of an English class) needed to be moved or frankly take your garbage claims elsewhere.

You miss the point where I don't remember you explicitly moaning about the anti-religious and anti-creationist crap posted here.

 

[porchrat]

You miss the point where I don't remember you explicitly moaning about the anti-religious and anti-creationist crap posted here.

You miss the point where I always talked about the topics in their entirety. There was obviously then no need to explicitly mention any particular sides if I was pointing out that the entire topic didn't belong there.

As far as I can recall I didn't mention the pro religious side explicitly either.

You are clutching at some serious straws here Techne.

 

[Techne]

You miss the point where I always talked about the topics in their entirety. There was obviously then no need to explicitly mention any particular sides if I was pointing out that the entire topic didn't belong there.

As far as I can recall I didn't mention the pro religious side explicitly either.

You are clutching at some serious straws here Techne.

I remember you moaning a lot about "religious crap" being posted. Never quite mentioning the anti-religious crap. No straw chap, just pointing out as I see it.

I guess you want us to believe that "religious crap" actually includes anti-religious crap as well. Good luck with that, won't really buy it sorry.

 

[porchrat]

I remember you moaning a lot about "religious crap" being posted. Never quite mentioning the anti-religious crap. No straw chap, just pointing out as I see it.

I guess you want us to believe that "religious crap" actually includes anti-religious crap as well. Good luck with that, won't really buy it sorry.

Of course it does. It is a reference to the religious topic being discussed. Which of course should be obvious considering how I just recently admonished an anti-religious dude for the same thing.

I really couldn't give a schit if you buy it. If you want to be honest you are going to have to admit that by "religious crap" I could just as easily have been referring to the religious topic being discussed (and considering that I on more than 1 occasion said the entire topics didn't belong that seems to me to be the most logical explanation).

If you want to argue otherwise quote a post of mine that could not be interpreted in the way I have said is what was meant. If you can't quote one then while you are entitled to your opinion it remains nothing more than that and I couldn't care less. I imagine most others around here couldn't care less either.

Maybe in the future when you are confused by some ambiguity in a statement you should ask what was meant instead of just making stupid assumptions.

 

[Techne]

Sorry, given your history of posting anti-religious crap (not necessarily here), I don't buy it.

Move along.

 

[porchrat]

Sorry, given your history of posting anti-religious crap (not necessarily here), I don't buy it.

Move along.

Could you please quote some anti-religious crap.

I ask because as far as I am aware my view is that everyone has a right to believe what they want and I am damn glad that we live in a country in which that right is protected. I could quote some posts to that effect if you would like it shouldn't be too hard to find one I post it often.

I may not like some aspects of some interpretations of some religions and I may like to dissect the beliefs of others but I am certainly not anti-religious and I take offence at the accusation.

 

[buyeye]

Could you please quote some anti-religious crap.

I ask because as far as I am aware my view is that everyone has a right to believe what they want and I am damn glad that we live in a country in which that right is protected. I could quote some posts to that effect if you would like it shouldn't be too hard to find one I post it often.

I may not like some aspects of some interpretations of some religions and I may like to dissect the beliefs of others but I am certainly not anti-religious and I take offence at the accusation.

/looks at screen with boredorm and decides to watch TV.

 

[porchrat]

/looks at screen with boredorm and decides to watch TV.

My apologies you are quite right, this is off topic and is probably boring for everyone. I don't like people attacking my character with no support whatsoever. I honestly want to see something quoted by me that is anti-religious but we can move it out of this thread and into PM instead.

Techne please PM me with quoted posts of mine that are anti-religious. I don't want to clutter this thread with any more garbage than has already been crammed into it.

 

[RiaX]

This is the Science section. Creationism does not belong here.

Techne and Swa have been reminded of this countless times before and now it is your turn.

Please guys take the religious crap to PD. This place is for science.

No if you think this has nothing to do with science then you are implying the exact supression of information the churches did to science in the dark ages. Science has no sensitive topics nor does it simply dismiss any ideal without facts. To you to might seem like rubbish but if you a person of science you must debate every aspect because what is science? ultimately its a study that defines the natural percieved by human beings.

 

[Swa]

Porchrat has a problem every time science discussions turn philosophical. This begs the question though when evolution eventually always turns philosophical then does it still belong in science? My contention has always been that both creation and evolution rests on philosophical grounds. Either that should be accepted as part of science or it should no longer be part of science.

Also I didnt say religion is the only reason why people call to arms but i said its one of the reasons we can abolish. Bringing religion into a debate trying to debunk or validate evolution is necessary because the next ideal is creationism which is a religious focus point. In other words they claim there was no primordial soup that formed the DNA (of course I cannot prove there was) and that God created all living things. Now having people who believe in both theories, which is a sensable thing to do TBH, can be seen as agnostic people. Must remember both sides have their extreme views. Fair enough I shall not bring religion furthermore into this discussion.

I don't know why you would consider people who believe in both agnostic. Let's go back to Techne's hypothetical though. Assume that the modern evolutionary theory has been debunked and ID or creationism is true. Where to from there?

 

[buyeye]

Porchrat has a problem every time science discussions turn philosophical. This begs the question though when evolution eventually always turns philosophical then does it still belong in science? My contention has always been that both creation and evolution rests on philosophical grounds. Either that should be accepted as part of science or it should no longer be part of science.


I don't know why you would consider people who believe in both agnostic. Let's go back to Techne's hypothetical though. Assume that the modern evolutionary theory has been debunked and ID or creationism is true. Where to from there?

We stop looking at fossills for answers and start looking at DNA to improve health.

I never knew how TOE contributed to anything anyway.

 

[CoolBug]

Porchrat has a problem every time science discussions turn philosophical. This begs the question though when evolution eventually always turns philosophical then does it still belong in science? My contention has always been that both creation and evolution rests on philosophical grounds. Either that should be accepted as part of science or it should no longer be part of science.


I don't know why you would consider people who believe in both agnostic. Let's go back to Techne's hypothetical though. Assume that the modern evolutionary theory has been debunked and ID or creationism is true. Where to from there?

What if the earth is really 6000 years old?

Please stop this relentless trolling, the funny has stopped a long time ago.

 

[buyeye]

What if the earth is really 6000 years old?

Please stop this relentless trolling, the funny has stopped a long time ago.

Now you must stop being ignorant no creationists claim that the planet is so young but that recorded human history dates back around that time .

The creator could have created it a million or a billion years before creating man .

Again noone is claiming the planet is that young ok?

 

[SaiyanZ]

Now you must stop being ignorant no creationists claim that the planet is so young but that recorded human history dates back around that time .

The creator could have created it a million or a billion years before creating man .

Again noone is claiming the planet is that young ok?

No they just claim that humans were created from dust 6000 years ago. That is as ridiculous as saying the earth is 6000 years old.

 

[RiaX]

Also doesnt explain the difference in people, blond brown black hair, curly ect if we are decendants of adam and eve then we should not look different

 

[Unhappy438]

I never knew how TOE contributed to anything anyway.

Our crops and medicine , a massive amount.

 

[CoolBug]

I never knew how TOE contributed to anything anyway.

http://www.tytyga.com/Evolution-of-the-Banana-Plant-a/353.htm

Also

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071402/

Also, check out the Evolutionary Biology news from Science Daily, lots of evolutionary research going into medicine that you might even use one day.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/plants_animals/evolution/

Now you must stop being ignorant no creationists claim that the planet is so young but that recorded human history dates back around that time.

No.

You are mistaken.

Humans have been on this planet for at least 200 000 years, possibly 250 000.

Dogs were domesticated at least 33 000 years ago.

http://www.ploscollections.org/arti...1;jsessionid=3472D3B8A2011477CF72A9EC4C963F27

The agricultural revolution was 10 000 years ago.

Religious, ritualistic activity dates to at least 30 000 years ago.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_religion

Rock paintings date to 40 000 years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting
http://www.geekosystem.com/modern-human-behavior-evidence/

These relentless troll posts about PD in the NS forums are so annoying.

Questions like "What if creation were true" in a Science forum is just blatantly stupid.

What if the FSM is real? what then huh? what then?!

 

[cyghost]

Now you must stop being ignorant no creationists claim that the planet is so young but that recorded human history dates back around that time .

The creator could have created it a million or a billion years before creating man .

Again noone is claiming the planet is that young ok?

YEC, you are doing it wrong...

 

[cyghost]

My apologies you are quite right, this is off topic and is probably boring for everyone.

He trolled you righteously Don't mind it, he is an expert at it!