-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Are you keeping your Prime subscription?
It makes me sad every time...
- Thread starter AntiThesis
- Start date
I agree.
porchrat
Honorary Master
Yea of course not, you just think the theory doesn't ring true. You have no real reason for thinking this (other than that from your position of ignorance you think it is ridiculous) but you think it anyway. You don't really know much about it but you think it doesn't ring true.
Unfortunately the experts in the field, far more knowledgeable than you or I, disagree with you and they have actual reasoned arguments as to why they disagree.
This is like me saying quantum mechanics doesn't ring true. In that scenario I would know very little about it and most of the mathematics involves escapes me but I still decide that I don't think it rings true. I am an ignorant fool when it comes to quantum mechanics so my opinion is worth abso-fscking-lutely nothing.
In that situation I don't say that something doesn't ring true, I say I don't know. I can't have a valid opinion on something I don't understand.
2 pictures of modern animals that didn't evolve into one another is worth absolutely nothing. A detailed explanation involving words is worth far more. (the original article your confused mind decided could be explained by placing an eel and a human together would have been far more valuable for example.)
You promised last time that you would educate yourself and the next time you commented on evolution you would do so with some decent arguments or come through looking to learn again. You haven't done that. You've just trolled by presenting ridiculous child-like arguments about how you don't think it sounds correct like you always do. Those opinions are worthless. Go and research this topic.
Last edited:
Truth hurts. People often react very emotionally when their religious ideas are challenged.
PS: It's gets even more idiotic when it gets compared with something with infinitely more to back it up and that's actually an observable fact like gravity.
That image really fascinates me. VERY accurate depiction of how fossils are doctored with a lot of imagination and creativity when there's only bits and pieces.
You just don't read what's provided.
Nonsense. Just shows you know absolutely nothing about genetics. Children are not exact "copies" of their parents because they receive ~50% of their DNA from each parent. It's inheritance not evolution.
No it doesn't. God has withstood thousands of years of attempts at falsification. That to me points towards the fact of His existence.
The Bible has an even better sentence: "Do unto others as you want done unto yourself." If only everyone would try to follow this core teaching of Christianity.
No they didn't because they EXPANDED on it. We've seen time and again brilliant scientists rejecting evolution with ample evidence to back it up be rejected. What you really want is for it to be disproven before you will even consider the very strong possibility it's wrong but it hasn't been proven correct yet.
And you haven't proffered any actual scientific reasons why it's correct. You just 'like' it because it fits in your worldview.
You just don't read what's provided.
No it doesn't. God has withstood thousands of years of attempts at falsification. That to me points towards the fact of His existence.
Lol. That's actually very funny
But on the first point, I'm sorry I wasn't paying attention, so can you please point me in the direction of either the evidence or mathematical scrutiny that you say exists. The logic will obviously fall in to place.
Thanks.
be.plato, don't listen to these trolls. All they can do is throw insults instead of making logically sound arguments.
What I find is that people get confused with semantics. When asked to prove something they suddenly realise there is no proof or a severe lack of proof and go "science doesn't prove anything." But actually it does. The whole scientific method or methods rather is designed to reliably prove something. Of course we are not talking about absolute proof as there is no such thing in reality so there's no reason to even talk about that. What people are actually trying to say is that science tries to substantiate through evidence. That IS in fact the definition of proof.
Of course there is a caveat often ignored by people that don't come from a very strong position. It's not enough for there to just be sufficient evidence but there also has to be no counter evidence. Scientists regularly mention what evidence or observations would disprove or cast doubt on a position or contention, or at least those that are searching for truths and not just proving their position do. Also what is often mentioned is the nature of the evidence. How strong it is and whether or not it can also point towards and support a different contention.
I don't entirely agree with that. Just the other day AGAIN I read an article where the scientist was saying that the contention must be proven. If you do a thorough search you'll find many articles using the words "prove," "proven," "proving," etc. Science DOES prove things or the entire field of science would be useless. Medicine for example has to be proven safe or effective before it gets approved. Let's forget about mathematics. Anybody who says only mathematics deal in "proof" is being ignorant as the word has an entirely different meaning here.
What I find is that people get confused with semantics. When asked to prove something they suddenly realise there is no proof or a severe lack of proof and go "science doesn't prove anything." But actually it does. The whole scientific method or methods rather is designed to reliably prove something. Of course we are not talking about absolute proof as there is no such thing in reality so there's no reason to even talk about that. What people are actually trying to say is that science tries to substantiate through evidence. That IS in fact the definition of proof.
Of course there is a caveat often ignored by people that don't come from a very strong position. It's not enough for there to just be sufficient evidence but there also has to be no counter evidence. Scientists regularly mention what evidence or observations would disprove or cast doubt on a position or contention, or at least those that are searching for truths and not just proving their position do. Also what is often mentioned is the nature of the evidence. How strong it is and whether or not it can also point towards and support a different contention.
Read the evolution threads. There are many of them.Lol. That's actually very funny
But on the first point, I'm sorry I wasn't paying attention, so can you please point me in the direction of either the evidence or mathematical scrutiny that you say exists. The logic will obviously fall in to place.
Thanks.
You mean you get embarrassed when the truth is pointed out.
SoulTax
Executive Member
I get sad too. People can make stupid choices in life, that can be forgiven. But to make a choice to be stupid for life. That is a tragedy.
OrbitalDawn
Ulysses Everett McGill
Uhm, inheritance is the passing of traits to your offspring. Changes in those traits is evolution.
Swa said:No it doesn't. God has withstood thousands of years of attempts at falsification. That to me points towards the fact of His existence.
If that's your reasoning, then so has Brahma. Does it point to his existence for you, too? In any case, God is no more falsifiable than the invisible dragon in my garage.
Swa said:
You mean the golden rule that has been found in pretty much every culture, ever? First references are from ancient Egypt around 1650BC and from ancient Sumeria even before that. Confucius spoke about it, as did the greek logicians, and the Hindu texts, all around 600BC.
Swa said:
Like who? Only ones I know about that claim this are nuts like Michael Behe and William Dembski who make things up and lie about it consistently.
Swa said:
I'd suggest you read this, but you probably won't. Instead you'll just trolololol ahead.
It's actually quite irrelevant to my worldview. Me sharing ancestors with other primates and being intimately connected to the rest of life on earth has no real bearing on my life. For those who believe we were made in the image of God, however, it seems to be a bit of an issue.
You mean you get embarrassed when the truth is pointed out.
No. I mean you are doing a fantastic job of fooling yourself, but everyone else is laughing at you.
You have absolutely nothing. Obviously. But you somehow think you are holding your own and are doing okay. Well, you're not. And I'm embarrassed at how obvious it is to everyone but you.
Exactly it's inheritance you described.
It's not my reasoning it's yours!
Even if that is true you're dwelling off point. Your contention was that Mahāvira surpassed the morality found in Christianity. The biblical however far surpasses it so clearly your contention is not true.
Many of those "nuts" have far better qualifications than your prophets of Darwinism like Dawkins. They certainly have far better qualifications than YOU yet your only response to them is an ad hominem attack because their view does not fit into yours. It's quite hypocritical of you to talk about lying when Ruse admitted the demarcation criteria he gave in the Dover trial is false and that science has metaphysical assumptions but denied this in the trial.
There's no reason to tell me what to read. Talkorigins is actually one of the worst twisting of facts websites there is. I do far more reading on evolution than on creation. Can you however say that you read more on creation than on evolution instead of wallowing in ignorance in your own preconceived view? No, your arguments show that you are rather ignorant of creationist arguments and to a great extent even some evolutionists who readily admit that your dogma does not explain the vast amounts of genetic information we are deciphering in living organisms.
When people get so upset over legitimate questioning of a belief it's actually not irrelevant. As pointed out previously if the facts supported it, which they don't, I would have no problem believing God created and used evolution. It does however pose a problem for the atheist who doesn't want to believe in and be accountable to God if evolution is bull. Explains why you guys defend it even more fiercely than we defend our religion.
You like looking in the mirror and thinking you're a representation of everybody. Only fools laugh in ignorance but just as you think there are a lot of you laughing a lot are laughing at your ignorance.
Beware of that confidence of yours. All you have said is "evolution is true, there's nothing to disprove it so it must be true." If I were you I would also be laughing to hide the egg on your face.
Biological evolution is fitness differences over time. You evolved from your parents. Your evolutionary fitness is different from them both due to the nature of inheritence and other indeterminate factors. It is an instance of evolution. Does this mean you were not created in the image of God? No, of course not. Evolution happens, get used to it. You just appear to have an issue with species level evolution (or macro evolution) for some reason. Hopefully, if you understand that common descent is no problem creation, purpose, original sin etc., you will start to worry about more important things.
The most fun way to reply to a person that claims "there is no evidence for the existence of God" is by simply, and calmly saying:No it doesn't. God has withstood thousands of years of attempts at falsification. That to me points towards the fact of His existence.
"That is interesting, could you please provide a definition of God ? Thanks
" and enjoy...This is incorrect. No medicine gets "proven" to be efficient. Empirical science just cannot prove anything (read up on the problem of induction). What empirical science shows is that observations are largely in line with a particular theory (e.g. compound X is good for alleviating headaches by binding to receptor Y) and that the theory is not rejected.
As an example. In the case of Champix (listened to some interesting discussions about it this week on 702), the theory is that it helps stop smoking. Empirical observations suggest that this is likely true with a P-value of less than 0.05 with not a lot of side-effects (e.g. often associated with vivid dreaming). There is no proof, just that empirical observations suggest it works.
Not only mathematics, but also philosophy and/or metaphysics
Language matters. Scientists often abuse language. The case of misusing the concept of "proof" is one such example.
Last edited:
I have said no such thing and nor do I have to. You have made claims which are inconsistent with my own understanding, and I've asked you to point the 'logic, evidence or mathematical scrutiny' out to me. You have failed to do so.
So you try and muddy the waters and throw a lot of words into the mix, playing semantics and setting up straw men as is your normal practice. All the while exhibiting a confidence you accuse me of, yet you provide absolutely nothing to suggest your confidence is well placed other than religious leanings.
Your foundations are nothing more than castles in the sky, and it's evident to anyone with half a brain that you have a position you are trying to defend which has not got a shred of 'logic, evidence or mathematical scrutiny' behind it.
Hence, I'm embarrassed for you and your intellectual dishonesty which you seem to be unaware of.
OrbitalDawn
Ulysses Everett McGill
I know. You kinda need inheritance (and changing) of traits for evolution.
Swa said:
Not quite, skippy. I said a scientific theory has withstood falsification for 150+ years, which it has. You said God also withstood falsification, which is nonsense, because God is unfalsifiable. I applied your reasoning to Brahma, and you're trying to evade the logical conclusion.
Swa said:
Indeed.
So, Jainism had the golden rule long before Christianity, as did many other religions the world over. It also managed to add a few things in there that Christ neglected to mention.
Swa said:
I'm sure they do. But if we're going to go the appeal to authority route, then I might as well ask why no reputable tertiary education or scientific institute has a problem with it? Also, I don't think you want to play the "who has more scientists on my side" game with this. You're gonna lose, badly.
With regards to the ad hominem attacks. They deserve nothing less, I'm sorry to say. Dembski and Behe have conducted themselves horribly, being dishonest and arrogant in the extreme. Behe is the very same guy who was demolished in the Dover trial, the poor guy who's own employer, Lehigh University, has a disclaimer on their website, distancing them from his nuttiness.
Swa said:
Sure it is. I'm sure your bias is not influencing your view, at all.
Swa said:
I've tried to read (and watch) some of the "creation arguments", and found them all profoundly mediocre and unconvincing. If you'd like to provide with me some that you find convincing then I'll give it a read.
Swa said:
You're more than welcome to question, criticise, or even ridicule the theory. Just don't expect any respect for your opinions on the matter if you can't formulate proper scientific criticism. Something which you, and all your brothers-in-faith have been quite unable to do. Odd that almost everyone who so fiercely opposes the theory (including Dembski and Behe, by the way), happen to be Christians. Not all of them, though.
Techne, who happens to be a Christian, and who is eminently more informed with regards to evolution than you appear to be, has no problem with it.
Swa said:
This was to be expected, I suppose. Doesn't take much to tear away the veil and reveal the true nature of the critcism. "You just believe it because you don't want to be accountable to God!" It can't possibly be about the evidence from multiple scientific disciplines garnered over the last century which all affirm the theory. No, no , no! They're just rebelling against God, naughty humans!
Really? I thought that was quite a common term. But fair enough, I'll try and explain.
The phrase is probably better associated with daydreaming where you can sit and talk about big plans you have, but then do nothing to achieve them. But to compare it to organised religion, people are taught about the castle and it's solid walls with ramparts and lovely halls with huge fire places, but like the castle built in the sky in our minds, there are no foundations.
Argue left, right and centre over the good book and how to interpret words inside it, disagree and form a new religion, continue to indoctrinate our children in the way you were, or heck even start start the odd war or five about who's god is the best, but no-one seems to be bothered about where the words came from or who wrote them down.
Makes perfect sense in my head
I'm just trying to highlight that there is a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth, but no substance whatsoever.