Evolution Debate ...

[Extrafire]

Dex,
[/quote]Extrafire wrote:
Pea
Quote:
Jerry Fawell is insane, that .


I don’t think he’s insane, but he is certainly a nut


Well, ordinarily he's insane, but he has moments of clarity in which he's merely stupid.

No, I don't think insane. Just a nut. And he definitely isn't stupid. Wish he was, because if he was stupid he wouldn't have th influence he has, and would be a lot less scary.

 

[Extrafire]

Dex,

Specifically, what are you talking about here? What has happened that we know from evidence can't have happened naturally? And what is the evidence? But be careful to avoid the fallacious argument from irreducible complexity, it's just a special case of the argument from ignorance.

I have already posted how irreducible complexity is not an argument from ignorance.

Quote:
Since many of the things we see are only known to us to be products of intelligence, then it is reasonable to assume there should be an intelligent outside cause.

Begging the question. That's Paley's watchmaker argument; didn't work then, doesn't work now.

That’s part of Paley’s argument, and it is logical.

. It's intrinsically impossible to falsify such a metaphysical claim, the presumed nature of the supernatural always provides multiple outs and ad hoc hypothesizing. Maybe you mean deny rather than falsify?

Deny they certainly do, and also put forward arguments to falsify. Do you want examples? That would require research time that I don’t really have. I don’t hold that kind of info in my memory.

Any useful scientific theory of the cause of the universe will provide an explanation for what we've seen so far, testable predictions of things we haven't yet seen, and at least an implicit means of testing for them. Differing theories will make differing predictions, then we query nature to find out what it says. Experiment and observation are the only legitimate tests of the truth content of an idea.

The problem is, the only proposed causes other than a creator are also metaphysical musings that seem designed to produce the required results. While the beginning of the universe is very testable, the cause is not, since it is beyond experiment and observation.

 

[Extrafire]

Pea,
Read all those lengthy posts. Like anyone writing on the other side, it can sound convincing when the subject isn’t there to defend or refute. Yes I know who Miller is. He’s the guy that seems to have made it his life’s mission to “debunk” Behe. The same guy that Behe has no trouble debunking any time he gets the opportunity to respond to. I see he mentioned the whales and mesonychids again, something that Behe turned out to be right about. He also mentions Russell Doolittle’s attempt to show an evolutionary path for blood clotting as valid, even though it requires a considerable amount of magic to work that way. Doolilttle uses such scientific terms as "springs forth" and "is born" or "appears" to explain how different components evolve :lol: . Moreover, he lauds Dawkins and Gould as having successfully countered the argument for design, when in actuality, they didn’t even come close. In fact, some of their stuff is just plain hilarious. Miller et al seem to like to do the same things they accuse their opponents of; lies, mis-representations, and taken out of context, straw man argument, not to mention trying to paint them as fundementlalists.

 

[peapod]

This is science not religion. Please provide the following to prove your claims.

An orderly technique of investigation that is supposed to account for scientific progress. The method consists of the following steps: (1) Careful observations of nature. (2) Deduction of natural laws. (3) Formation of hypotheses — generalizations of those laws to previously unobserved phenomena. (4) Experimental or observational testing of the validity of the predictions thus made. Actually, scientific discoveries rarely occur in this idealized, wholly rational, and orderly fashion.

Show this and than we can talk.

 

[Extrafire]

Still going with that double standard.

 

[peapod]

I guess that means no.

 

[no1important]

RNE: Evolution Debate ...

Well why do the Catholics, Hebrews and Protastants each have a diferent version of the ten commandments?

 

[peapod]

In weightlifting, I don't think sudden, uncontrolled urination should automatically disqualify you.

 

[Jay]

Possibilties maybe, but that has nothing to do with science. I don't know how you can ask what the threat is jay, it laided out in this thread. The religious right is trying to undermine legitmate science, they try to achieve this my lies, mis-representation, and deceit. Now your a christian...whats up with that???? Surely you don't believe that the means justify the end??? When intelligent design can provide the "science" I am sure everyone will listen. Evolution has nothing to do with the so called moral decay in society, that is the most stupid statement I have ever heard, and its dangerous! I really don't get how anyone can say they have morals or ethics and think this kind of munipulation is okay coz its for the greater good.

I was merely responding to no1important's post Pea, about life on other planets.

"Now your a christian...whats up with that???? "

I've always been a Christian Pea.

 

[Jo Canadian]

 

[Extrafire]

peapod Posted: May 16th, 2005 2:01 am Post subject: Re: Evolution Debate ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess that means no.


Extrafire Posted: May 16th, 2005 1:56 am Post subject: RE: Evolution Debate ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still going with that double standard.


peapod Posted: May 16th, 2005 1:52 am Post subject: Re: Evolution Debate ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is science not religion. Please provide the following to prove your claims.

An orderly technique of investigation that is supposed to account for scientific progress. The method consists of the following steps: (1) Careful observations of nature. (2) Deduction of natural laws. (3) Formation of hypotheses — generalizations of those laws to previously unobserved phenomena. (4) Experimental or observational testing of the validity of the predictions thus made. Actually, scientific discoveries rarely occur in this idealized, wholly rational, and orderly fashion.

Show this and than we can talk.

Why do you require that from your opponents which you are not willing to do on your own behalf?

 

[Derry McKinney]

i think I'll print out Jo's comic and put it on my wall...

 

[peapod]

Well I guess the reason is......just coz 8O

 

[Extrafire]

Well I guess the reason is......just coz 8O

Good enough for me!

 

[peapod]

I thought it would be

 

[Gordon J Torture]

I believe in evolution, and also that it can by taught and discussed without it interfering significantly in any religious beliefs.

For example, one could say "I believe God created the Universe and all the chemicals in it and then he watched as through chemical reactions, environmental and atmospheric changes, life came into existence and thus, evolved as a result of natural selection."

 

[Frito lay]

I myself actually think life started on Mars or somewhere close to, mind you the Clingons look somewhat like apes is ther a connection in Darwins theory? or have I been Duped by that damn Pea Pod. I must know as life will never be the same if I "just don't know" SOS....Oh what came first the Ape or the fish, and if so was it a salmonoid?

 

[Jo Canadian]

Gordon J Torture Posted:

I believe in evolution, and also that it can by taught and discussed without it interfering significantly in any religious beliefs.

For example, one could say "I believe God created the Universe and all the chemicals in it and then he watched as through chemical reactions, environmental and atmospheric changes, life came into existence and thus, evolved as a result of natural selection."

I like that one, It's similar but more elaborate to what I mentioned in the beginning:How about this...Gawd got the ball rolling and evolution is the process.

There, now everybody wins.

 

[Cosmo]

I am a Darwinist, but I do think both theories need be taught. Personally, I think creationism is just plain superstition and wrong, but because there are too many holes in the evolutionary process that we can't yet point to, we can't be 100% sure of anything.

I think all religion is superstition based and man made. I am agnostic by nature ... there IS a power greater than ourselves, but that power is unknowable by our tiny, limited minds. To interface with the power we have to "dumb it down" to simple superstition, using ritual, dogma and talismans to make use of "god" in our lives. BTW, I see nothing wrong with that.

I also see nothing wrong with people living true christian (as taught by Jesus) principles. Noteworthy was his rule about not casting first stones and loving one another. But I digress. I think religion has the capability to make better people out of some of us and, as such, has a place in education. But it need be done carefully. Creationism and Darwinism ought to be taught back to back. The theory of both principles should be available to developing minds.

I don't agree with prayer in school (or anywhere else we are forced to be) and would, if I had a child, give them the option to step outside during prayer if they chose. I, personally, have been at recovery meetings where the Lord's Prayer is said and rather than throw a pissy fit, I simply step back outside the circle and not take part. Freedom of religion is there for the taking here in Canada.

I was raised strict catholic. I joke about being a "recovering catholic" but in truth, I am grateful for the religious education I received (despite those annoying vestiges of guilt that pop up ). It gave me a basis for comparison once I was old enough to begin to choose my own path. In my young adulthood I realized the catholic church really had nothing to offer me and stepped away. I think any education is good, provided it is applied to minds old enough to question it. I believe in question everything.

Blind faith in either side of this question only serves to limit our already narrow ability to comprehend reality ... whatever that is.

 

[peapod]

OMG!OMG! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Good avatar frito lay :lol: :lol: