Religion shouldnt exist without science and science shouldn't exist without religion. Einstein said religion without science is blind and science without religion is lame. I think it's true. I think a lot of Americas problems today like false idolatry, excessive materialism, 50% divorce rate can be blamed at least in part on the systematic eradication of Judeo-Christian philosophy in our society.
"systematic eradication of Judeo-Christian philosophy"
who has eradicated it?
The last thing we need is the "Christian" supremacists/Dominionists wet dream of a God-centered society controlled by a "Christian" govt, aka, the (un-
Enlightened) Dark Ages, where the tandem, cooperating power centers of King + Church oppressed the bottom 90% for a 1000 years, keeping them devil-mongered, impoverished, uneducated, aka, controllable.
I believe you might be high on some native weed.
lol just itching to jump inCurrently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (3 members and 2 guests)
Blake, clambake, Phenomanul
absolutely it should
Who said the translators claimed divine inspiration? Constantine and King James both did, but they also made major changes trying to "fix" it.
Not really. It's not what google finds, but the quality of the sites it points you to. I can find just about anything I want on google, even if I know it's wrong. It's all about the search text you use.
Like I said, I wouldn't bother googling anything you post because I already know the few times you actually post something substantive, it's BS :p
You're useful for time-wasting, though.
The mechanisms of evolution, especially the genetic mechanisms of mutation, are very well understood.
I got to audit my wife's class on evolution a couple of times and they went into very great detail on those mechanisms, a good deal of which was past my ability to follow along, because I had not taken the prerequisite genetics class.
Evolution is quite possible without any "help", so your assertion of "statistical impossibility" is quite actively refuted by the amount of actual science done on the subject of genetics.
Depending on the stregth of some advantagous/disadvantagous trait, organisms can evolve quite quickly.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 07-26-2011 at 09:47 AM.
Yes.
Morphology, the definition of what a "species" is, and genetics are tied rather inextricably to the predictions and concepts of this theory.
We have moved beyond simple biological classification of the 17th and 18th centuries to understand the underlying nature of, well, nature.
The problem with this thesis are the churches and the general Protestant belief that God rewards faith with money and material wealth.
Also FWIW:
"false idolatry" is bad grammar. The word idolatry encompasses the concept of "false", so putting that word in front of it is redundant. It is a pretty common mistake.
The search text I used on google pretty much confirmed that your statement was bull . It really was quick and easy.
I wouldn't make that conclusion about anyone, even Wild Cobra. That's why google is great.Like I said, I wouldn't bother googling anything you post because I already know the few times you actually post something substantive, it's BS :p
You're useful for time-wasting, though.
It's funny though that after you get caught with your pants down that you try to flip it by calling all of my substantive posts "BS".
lol
18th century arguments migrating their way into the 21st century.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Clearly, an existence without God in the role religion has taught the masses to expect is just plain inconceivable for some (most?) to this day.
Truly, we are lost.
Lets take a quick lesson in genetics. I will simplify a bit.
TATATA = Enzyme A gene.
TATAGA = Enzyme B gene.
Organism requires enzyme A, and absence of this gene is a lethal mutation.
A sequence mutation doubles the length of this gene, doubling the amount of enzyme A produced.
TATATA(stop/start sequence)TATATA(stop/start sequence)
At some point, the second copy gets a mutation.
TATATA(stop/start sequence)TATAGA(stop/start sequence)
The organism now makes both Enzyme A and Enzyme B.
New information has been added to the genome, contrary to the commonly held belief/assertion of creationists that mutation can only destroy information, not create it.
What do you care?
I don't need your approval for anything... bitter fool...
Yet if you ask our forum agnostics... most of them likely consider the depravation of our society's 'moral fabric' as progress... They are blind to the overall loss in the strength of the 'family unit' as well as the consequences that this has had on the infrastructure of our society... not that they care, because they seem to be content with a society that harbors and condones unnecessary abortions, the legitimizing of the sexual lifestyle, rampant drug use, the increase in the spread of STDs, an increasing suicidal rate, the loss of innocence at far younger ages, an increasing disdain for authority, vulgar and crass vocabulary, and the general lack of respect for others, etc... To them America is better off this way, the 'American Dream' is "all about the Benjamins" all about "me, me, me..." and not about building each other up...
This thread has many of the same players as other threads but the new users simply don't know these topics have been discussed ad infinitum...
Microevolution = adaptation ~ micro-speciation... <-- These processes can be certifiably proven at a genetic level and the evidence we find to support them is rather extensive...
Macroevolution = Class Speciation... <-- These processes cannot be certifiably proven at a genetic level and the evidence to support them is built on speculative and observational conjecture...
Few experiments (such as Richard Lenski's) are structured to look for proof that the derivation of new genetic code can provide biological advantage, but even his experiments start and end with the same species (no speciation observed)... Furthermore, his findings cannot conclusively state that new code (and a new function) was not already hard-wired within the genome of the E.coli strains he was reproducing... in other words, the premise that new, advantageous code can be developed from mutation alone cannot be conclusively stated until he can trace the exact mechanism which produced the new code... fortunately for his team, he still has the E.coli cultures prior, during and after the genotypical change (i.e. the 'mutation') so that he can identify, isolate, and retrace the mechanism... the scientific world will wait until he does...
Most Christians, whether they believe in Evolution or not, will still believe that life was created with divine purpose and design.
But no... Evolution in the Macroevolution sense is far from proven.
Evolutionists still have to contend with the little problem of abiogenesis from which life itself began in their GOD-less universe (considering biogenesis is a proven law - always confirmed, never proven otherwise)... of course, short of contemplating a multiverse with infinite probability (using the constants in Drake's equation) can they overcome the infinitely low probability that the ad-hoc creation of life's genetic molecules (DNA/RNA precursors) could occur from scratch... they resort to working with undefineds in order to justify their beliefs... I would liken that approach to faith... yet they will always deny that this is the case...
Folks here can flaunt their intellectual independence all they want... they can claim that they have it all figured out... they can exclude and mock GOD in the process...
Don't you all tire of rehashing this tired subject once a quarter?
Whatever... to each their own... I'm out.
18th century or earlier.
At some point, some form of Pascal's wager usually rears its head as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
, there are even some bumper stickers based on the premise, although I doubt the people who buy the "you had better be right" stickers have ever heard of Mr. Pascal.
All that is old...
Debunked already.
Lenski did observe speciation, and it was not the only case of observed speciation in the lab or in nature, since we have started to look.
He ended up with an entirely new species.
He traced the exact mechanism through rather painstakingly cataloguing every step in the evolution from his original strain to the ending strain he published about.
For those who care:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair
Repeating lies the 999,999th time does not make them any more true than they were the 1st time.
Sorry.
Strawman in the very classic sense.
Evolution, as it is currently understood, does not *require* a God, as you would conceive Him, but it is not central to the theory that there *is* no God.
That is a construct entirely of your own.
The rest of it, is the same tired "God in the gaps" bit where the goalposts are constantly moved in yet another exercise in intellectual dishonesty.
Abiogenesis is a prediction of evolutionary theory, but is not central to the idea that organisms change over time.
Strawman logical fallacies, outright lies, and intellectual dishonesty are not the ways to debate science, and although people like you don't generally see that, it is fairly obvious to anybody with some common sense and sense of fairness.
And like I said, I could put a search string in and in 2 minutes find thousands of sites supporting my statement. I choose not to because it's meaningless, and in this particular case I have no interest in seriously discussing religion.
There's also the fact that I had already reduced my statement from a generalization I admittedly had no business making to a statement of personal experience, which unless there's a lot more information about me on google than anyone else, you aren't going to prove true or false.
Sorry man, but Buttons adds more to a discussion than you. That and I don't take anything on here seriously. RandomGuy, and occassionally LnGrrr, are about the only people I'll read with real interest because this place is more about flame wars and insulting each other than real discussion.
And I've been saying the rare instances of you posting anything subtantive are BS for quite a while, so it's not really a flip.
Last edited by fyatuk; 07-26-2011 at 10:41 AM.
Well, I'm glad you got that off your chest.
I actually disagree with a lot of that. I'm not 'blind to the overall loss in the strength of the 'family unit' as well as the consequences that this has had on the infrastructure of our society'. As a matter of fact, I ranted as much in other posts/threads about the lack of such family values. The problem here is that you don't need to be a religious person to have such values. Even some domesticated and/or wild animals have similar concepts of family (protection, loyalty, etc) and have no concept at all of religion/deity/etc.
I also disagree with that rant about how people live their lives. My biggest issue with 'family values' has to do with people that seemingly claim to subscribe to them, but then take a royal dump on them when the going gets tough. If a person chooses not to live by those values, then why is that a problem? You know who you're dealing with, you know what the priorities for that person are, and so you can work your interaction accordingly, and you know what to expect or not expect.
What do you care?
I don't need your approval for anything... bitter fool...I'm not giving my approval, but if you ask, I do approve.... butthurt idiot...
Obviously you aren't quite tired enough.Don't you all tire of rehashing this tired subject once a quarter?
Whatever... to each their own... I'm out.
lol see you next quarter.....or sooner
great, if you choose not to back up your statement, then I choose to believe your statement is bull . pretty simple.
Right, and as soon as you reduced it to a statement of personal experience, I made an observation and conclusion that your personal viewpoint about Christianity is limited.There's also the fact that I had already reduced my statement from a generalization I admittedly had no business making to a statement of personal experience, which unless there's a lot more information about me on google than anyone else, you aren't going to prove true or false.
I can't prove your personal experience to be true. That's on you if you feel the need to do so. If not, then meh......opinions will be what they will be.
I don't care about your personal feelings. I only cared enough to call out the bull you posted when I saw it.Sorry man, but Buttons adds more to a discussion than you. That and I don't take anything on here seriously. RandomGuy, and occassionally LnGrrr, are about the only people I'll read with real interest because this place is more about flame wars and insulting each other than real discussion.
I'm not saying you flipped your stance. I'm saying you flipped the conversation.And I've been saying the rare instances of you posting anything subtantive are BS for quite a while, so it's not really a flip.
I agree that you have been spouting BS about me posting BS.
Fine with me. Don't particularly care.
Which is an incorrect conclusion, but whatever.
Considering your viewpoint, you would be trying to prove it false, not true....
Which is about as impossible as me proving my experience in true. Considering that would require testimony from everyone I ever had a conversation about it with, etc.
Yep, call my BS with yours. We do this a lot. Always entertaining waste of time, since neither of us traditionally post supporting information.
Not really. I laughed about you googling because after our previous exchanges, I would never have thought you would bother to google anything I said and just always assume its BS. Wasn't an intentional derailing like we've both been known to do in the past.I'm not saying you flipped your stance. I'm saying you flipped the conversation.
I agree that you have been spouting BS about me posting BS.
You're that guy that called up Jim Rome to tell him that you disagree with the fact that every father dreams that their daughter grows up to be a stripper.
Your detailed response clearly shows how little you care.
based on the fact that you post BS and don't care, I'm good with that conclusion.Which is an incorrect conclusion, but whatever.
Considering I've never heard it myself and google doesn't readily pull up anything to back your original assertation, I have no problem agreeing that it would be nearly impossible for you to prove.Considering your viewpoint, you would be trying to prove it false, not true....
Which is about as impossible as me proving my experience in true. Considering that would require testimony from everyone I ever had a conversation about it with, etc.
I called out your blatant BS out using Google. You are too lazy to back it up any further so it stands as BS in my opinion.Yep, call my BS with yours. We do this a lot. Always entertaining waste of time, since neither of us traditionally post supporting information.
I also myself have not posted any BS. You are most likely to lazy to back up the BS about me posting BS as well.
I use google all the time to source information. I guess if you would have used google too, you wouldn't look so stupid in your assumptions.Not really. I laughed about you googling because after our previous exchanges, I would never have thought you would bother to google anything I said and just always assume its BS. Wasn't an intentional derailing like we've both been known to do in the past.
/left field
lol. I think I've seen you provide and source information a grand total of once, but whatever. We've had that discussion enough.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
