The Meaning Of Evolution

[hblask 1]

I reject it as my only means of decision making. Thats what I should have said originally. My problem is with the people on this board who use it as there only guide if you will.

That sounds perfectly reasonable, assuming that means what it means to most people. I really doubt that there is anyone on Earth who has no morality because they say science gives them the answers they need.The people on this board seem to be arguing a completely different point: that information on physical processes on Earth can best be understood through scientific methods. I don't think I've ever met anyone, or seen anyone on here, who think that eliminates the need for a moral compass.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

This is fun.... like playing with a hamster. He wants to run away but you keep pulling him back into the circle.Who decided hamsters should be pets anyways?That person was a genius!

[BuffDan 0]

Try reading the thread if you want to participate. The question isn't about the existence of Donald Trump... it's about the millions of dollars.I'm taking the same stance as others ... if I haven't seen it, the reported accounts written by someone could be false. Therefore.... his claims of being a millionaire are false.Thanks for playing though... tell him what he wins Johnny!

My bad. I misread what you posted. However, my point still remains; do you equate the existence of bank reports and other independent financial reports, each of which can be verified in principle to an unverifiable, inconsistent book whose sole purpose is to evangelize?

Bingo.... sort of.Not saying everything written in books is true... just taking the same stance that if I haven't personally seen it...it may not be true.

Of course it may not be true. There may be a God, there may not; Jesus may have done all the things the Bible said he did or he may not have. The point is in the details; there are different degrees of "may not be true."As an example (this is just my own example), on one hand, you have a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and on the other hand you have, say the book of Mormon. Now, technically I don't know whether either one is true, but I trust the first, which much have data, logical explanations, and repeatable experiments, way more than I trust the second, which not only has many unbelievable claims, but then says that these claims can never be verified.The point is we don't have to have equal respect for things we haven't seen personally; the methodology of how a book is written can heavily sway the percentages either way.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

My bad. I misread what you posted. However, my point still remains; do you equate the existence of bank reports and other independent financial reports, each of which can be verified in principle to an unverifiable, inconsistent book whose sole purpose is to evangelize?Of course it may not be true. There may be a God, there may not; Jesus may have done all the things the Bible said he did or he may not have. The point is in the details; there are different degrees of "may not be true."As an example (this is just my own example), on one hand, you have a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and on the other hand you have, say the book of Mormon. Now, technically I don't know whether either one is true, but I trust the first, which much have data, logical explanations, and repeatable experiments, way more than I trust the second, which not only has many unbelievable claims, but then says that these claims can never be verified.The point is we don't have to have equal respect for things we haven't seen personally; the methodology of how a book is written can heavily sway the percentages either way.

True dat. Very well put.I was not seriously doubting the financial success of Donald Trump... just pointing out how shallow some people here are with there attempts to disprove something that no one here is trying to prove. Atheist, or non-believers, seem to have trouble with the word "believe" or "faith".I was just funnin' about.You, on the other hand, do not exist either because i have never seen you.Oh... and Mormons are total nut-jobs. *sits back and waits for the fireworks*

[timwakefield 68]

I was not seriously doubting the financial success of Donald Trump... just pointing out how shallow some people here are with there attempts to disprove something that no one here is trying to prove. Atheist, or non-believers, seem to have trouble with the word "believe" or "faith".

Having faith that the Bible is the word of God and that Jesus is our savior is one thing; having faith that the earth is NOT billions of years old, that the theory of evolution is NOT correct, that dinosaurs are to a large extent INVENTED by scientists is another thing. The first is understandable, the second is not. I mean either you believe in the scientific process or you don't. Do you? And before you point out that "believing in the scientific process" is a type of faith, I'll go ahead and say that it is a belief in a process which is based on logic and repeated testing, not faith.

[crowTrobot 2]

Having faith that the Bible is the word of God and that Jesus is our savior is one thing; having faith that the earth is NOT billions of years old, that the theory of evolution is NOT correct, that dinosaurs are to a large extent INVENTED by scientists is another thing. The first is understandable, the second is not.

the first might be more understandable in terms of human psychology and religious cultural dynamics, but that doesn't make it any less effectively insane than the second. from an objective nuetral perspective believing the NT is literal truth isn't any less of a reach than believing genesis is. science refutes both.

[timwakefield 68]

the first might be more understandable in terms of human psychology

That is how I meant it.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

Having faith that the Bible is the word of God and that Jesus is our savior is one thing; having faith that the earth is NOT billions of years old, that the theory of evolution is NOT correct, that dinosaurs are to a large extent INVENTED by scientists is another thing. The first is understandable, the second is not. I mean either you believe in the scientific process or you don't. Do you? And before you point out that "believing in the scientific process" is a type of faith, I'll go ahead and say that it is a belief in a process which is based on logic and repeated testing, not faith.

Wow.... it could be a first but I totally agree with you.ouch.... that did sting... a bit.But I stand by my previous statement about Mormons.

[Loismustdie 0]

the first might be more understandable in terms of human psychology and religious cultural dynamics, but that doesn't make it any less effectively insane than the second. from an objective nuetral perspective believing the NT is literal truth isn't any less of a reach than believing genesis is. science refutes both.

Science could be wrong. Science could have made a horrible turn somewhere and ****ed it up, therefore ****ing it up for the millions that follow it. That's the part that is lost on you.

[crowTrobot 2]

Science could be wrong. Science could have made a horrible turn somewhere and ****ed it up, therefore ****ing it up for the millions that follow it. That's the part that is lost on you.

better not ever go on a cruise then. the earth might be flat after all.

[ShakeZuma 585]

better not ever go on a cruise then. the earth might be flat after all.

as a matter of fact, better not even leave the house. you never know when gravity's just gonna stop working.

[Loismustdie 0]

better not ever go on a cruise then. the earth might be flat after all.

Being right sometimes is not being right all of the time.

[BuffDan 0]

Being right sometimes is not being right all of the time.

Sure, but the fact is that evolution is based on the same scientific method that has been so successful in the past, be it in designing computers, sending us to space, curing diseases, or making predictions in quantum theory to a degree of accuracy that would blow your mind.So to doubt the scientific method in this case, but not the others, is illogical. Sure, scientists have been wrong, but the beauty of the scientific method is that it is self correcting. If a theory is wrong, there almost certainly will be an observation that shows us it is wrong (unlike that book of yours which is infallible, of course). And I again post this link29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descentwhich not only describes the numerous ways in which observations confirm macro-evolution but gives many possible falsifications, none of which have happened.So again, to still have a problem with evolution must mean you have a problem with the other theories that have used the scientific method to similar level of success, like gravity. Or it means you are a hypocrite. Your choice.

[BenSavage 0]

**** science! I would like my 30 year average lifespan back God Damn It! 70 years is too damn long, man.I want to die from a Staph or small pox like a real man! Give me a shot of that Plague, I can take it. We are the verge of specializing medicine to each individual's unique genome. Who wants that? Bitches need to learn to pray, that's the problem in this world.**** science!

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

**** science! I would like my 30 year average lifespan back God Damn It! 70 years is too damn long, man.I want to die from a Staph or small pox like a real man! Give me a shot of that Plague, I can take it. We are the verge of specializing medicine to each individual's unique genome. Who wants that? Bitches need to learn to pray, that's the problem in this world.**** science!

yeah, it's all fun and games with these people about science, till their right arm goes numb. I mean, the church may pray for their health, but they sure as hell go to the hospital and don't sit around waiting for god to heal them.Unless they are Jim Henson.

[BenSavage 0]

Fierce!

[Balloon guy 158]

The only theory of evolution I agree with

[copernicus 0]

In terms of the Origin of Life, evolution teaches that the beginning of all life was a random occurance that millions of years of attempts allows to happen.

Just skimmed the rest and I didnt notice this addressed. Natural Selection says nothing about the origin of life.

[timwakefield 68]

Just skimmed the rest and I didnt notice this addressed. Natural Selection says nothing about the origin of life.

There are other things wrong with the statement as well. "Millions of years of attempts" is incorrect, since it implies that something or someone is trying for something to happen; it implies consciousness. Also, how can it be "random" if it was being attempted for millions of years?? Millions of failed "attempts" leading to success would be non-random, no?

[strategy 4]

There are other things wrong with the statement as well. "Millions of years of attempts" is incorrect, since it implies that something or someone is trying for something to happen; it implies consciousness. Also, how can it be "random" if it was being attempted for millions of years?? Millions of failed "attempts" leading to success would be non-random, no?

Would 'trials' make you feel better about the statement?BG understands the concept, he's just stirring the pot. standard.

[speedz99 145]

BG understands the concept, he's just stirring the pot. standard.

This isn't always true.

[strategy 4]

This isn't always true.

he seems like an otherwise reasonable person with an e-persona to maintain, at least to me. I could be wrong.

[Balloon guy 158]

This isn't always true.

It's true.Many concepts escape me...like how can people wrap thir head around how much energy the sun emits.I think they are lying when they say they understand it.Oh and cheeze whiz...is it really cheese? Why doesn't it get hard.That's what she said

[strategy 4]

I think a lot of people would benefit from watching Sagan's Cosmos. he was an atheist, but he doesn't spend a whole lot of time on his personal beliefs. what he DOES preach about is the stupidity of the cold war. if nothing else, it's a nice look at the history of science.

[timwakefield 68]

Would 'trials' make you feel better about the statement?

Not really.