Another Way to Use Religion for Political Purposes

[ReillyT]

Where is the evidence showing man evolved?.... I'll save you the trouble... there is none...

What are you talking about? There is a great deal of evidence that humans have evolved.

The name "Lucy" ring any bells?

Just because you aren't persuaded by the evidence does not mean that it doesn't exist.

 

[ReillyT]

there are at least a couple of scientific theories based on theoretical evidence, not REAL evidence.

What is "theoretical evidence" as opposed to "real evidence?"

 

[Gunny]

What is "theoretical evidence" as opposed to "real evidence?"

Meaning the evidence to support certain scientific therories, in this case scientific theories of origin, are theoretical rather than existant.

What real evidence supports "the Big Bang", for example? None. A bunch of "could haves."

As far as evolution goes, it goes without saying evolution is a fact. Life is in a constant state of evolution until it ceases/dies.

I see a whole lot of the difference between that and the theory of evolution ignored. The theory of evolution, with it's theory of origin is not supported by any real fact either.

In either instance, neither is more or less supported than the theory of a supreme being creating life. In fact, I find the theory of a supreme being creating life FAR MORE logical than random happenstance.

 

[ReillyT]

Meaning the evidence to support certain scientific therories, in this case scientific theories of origin, are theoretical rather than existant.

What real evidence supports "the Big Bang", for example? None. A bunch of "could haves."

As far as evolution goes, it goes without saying evolution is a fact. Life is in a constant state of evolution until it ceases/dies.

I see a whole lot of the difference between that and the theory of evolution ignored. The theory of evolution, with it's theory of origin is not supported by any real fact either.

In either instance, neither is more or less supported than the theory of a supreme being creating life. In fact, I find the theory of a supreme being creating life FAR MORE logical than random happenstance.

I think I see what you are saying. It seems like the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.

However, while I agree that circumstantial evidence requires an inference, that doesn't mean that it can't be very strong evidence - as strong or stronger in some cases than direct evidence. I disagree that the theory of evolution isn't supported by facts. I think it is supported by a lot of factual evidence (which I am sure has been addressed many times previously on this board), although I don't think any of this evidence rules out the existence of a higher power. I have never seen any factual evidence that a Supreme Being created humans.

 

[Alucard]

Your delusional. The very idea that one can prove God Exists is crazy. It defeats the entire premise of religion and faith. And further a believer is not supposed to be searching for ways to prove God exists to begin with.

What are you talking about? Thats not what I said... I never said anything about science proving God exists... I said... "scientific research proving other theories wrong"...

I have to tell you RGS you have a habit of trying to read between the lines and by doing so you create contraversies that just arent there...

Here... Ill do it to you...

Your delusional RGS. The very idea that if there was proof of Gods existance, would cause God to then cease to exist is rediculous....

 

[Gunny]

I think I see what you are saying. It seems like the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.

However, while I agree that circumstantial evidence requires an inference, that doesn't mean that it can't be very strong evidence - as strong or stronger in some cases than direct evidence. I disagree that the theory of evolution isn't supported by facts. I think it is supported by a lot of factual evidence (which I am sure has been addressed many times previously on this board), although I don't think any of this evidence rules out the existence of a higher power. I have never seen any factual evidence that a Supreme Being created humans.

And where we will disagree is on the legitimacy of what you call circumstantial evidence (damned lawyers).

 

[Shogun]

Big Bang evidence:



The Expanding Universe
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/cosmo.html
IV: The Big Bang & the History of the Universe
At the beginning of this century, physicists generally had a strong bias toward the idea that the universe was essentially unchanging. Local phenomena would of course change from minute to minute, and stars and galaxies might be born and die, but taken as a whole the universe was assumed to be more or less the same now as it had been billions or trillions of years ago, with no beginning or end. Einstein, disturbed that his theory of general relativity seemed to be inconsistent with a static universe, tried to modify the equations of the theory. When Hubble's observations showed that the universe was indeed expanding, Einstein retracted this modification and called it the biggest blunder of his life.

Given that the universe is growing, the question of whether the expansion started at some point in the past inevitably arises. Our current theories say the expansion did have a beginning. This section discusses why we believe this and what it means to even say so. It also contains a brief outline of the history of the universe from that beginning to the present day.



Hubble Measures the Expanding Universe
Latest results from the Hubble Space Telescope pin down the age of the Universe
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast25may99_1.htm
May 25, 1999: The Hubble Space Telescope Key Project Team today announced that it has completed efforts to measure precise distances to far- flung galaxies, an essential ingredient needed to determine the age, size and fate of the universe.

 

[Shogun]

Evidence of Evolution

A comparison of genomic coding sequences for feather and scale keratins: structural and evolutionary implications.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=557315
DNA sequences have been obtained for embryonic chick feather and scale keratin genes. Strong homologies exist between the protein coding regions of the two gene types and between the deduced amino acid sequences of the keratin proteins. Scale keratins are larger than feather keratins and the size difference is mainly attributable to four 13-amino acid repeats between residues 77 and 128 which compose a peptide sequence rich in glycine and tyrosine. The strong similarities between the two peptide structures for feather and scale in the homologous regions suggests a similar conformation within the protein filaments. A likely consequence is that the additional repeat region of the scale protein is located externally to the core filament. Tissue-specific features of filament aggregation may be attributable to this one striking sequence difference between the constituent proteins. It is believed that the genes share a common ancestry and that feather-like keratin genes may have evolved from a scale keratin gene by a single deletion event.

Evo-Devo of feathers and scales: building complex epithelial
appendages
http://www-hsc.usc.edu/~cmchuong/2000CurrOpinGenetandDev.pdf
The feather is the most complex vertebrate integument
appendage ever evolved. How is a flat piece of epidermis
transformed into a three level branched structure? Here we
present ten complexity levels of integument appendages
that correspond to developmental stages of chicken skin
and feather precursors recently identified in dinosaur/primitive
bird fossils. Cellular and molecular events that convert
one complexity level to the next are discussed, including
those converting avian foot scales to feathers.

 

[Alucard]

Evidence of Evolution

It is believed that the genes share a common ancestry and that feather-like keratin genes may have evolved from a scale keratin gene by a single deletion event.

Did you highlight this point in bold to help support the "evidence" of evolution? Or to help support the fact that there is no real evidence to support the theory...

The quote starts whith the Statement... " It Is Believed" which in itself supports the claim of having no proof...

It is a THEORY...

Theory:a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

See what it says there " in contrast to matters of actual fact"...

IN CONTRAST OF ACTUAL FACT !!!

 

[Shogun]

would you like to comment on the evolution of the horse then?


Evidence is still evidence even if you choose not to believe in it.

 

[Vintij]

Meaning the evidence to support certain scientific therories, in this case scientific theories of origin, are theoretical rather than existant.

What real evidence supports "the Big Bang", for example? None. A bunch of "could haves."

As far as evolution goes, it goes without saying evolution is a fact. Life is in a constant state of evolution until it ceases/dies.

I see a whole lot of the difference between that and the theory of evolution ignored. The theory of evolution, with it's theory of origin is not supported by any real fact either.

In either instance, neither is more or less supported than the theory of a supreme being creating life. In fact, I find the theory of a supreme being creating life FAR MORE logical than random happenstance.

That is kind of ignorant to say, when there are mountains of evidence for the model "big bang" theory.

Gravitational contant (expanding universe)
Cosmic Radation background
Special relativity
Dark matter
Decaying Particles like nuetrinos, axions and gravitinos.
Energy carrying particles
The converting of energy into mass into matter.
Etc....

 

[Vintij]

Did you highlight this point in bold to help support the "evidence" of evolution? Or to help support the fact that there is no real evidence to support the theory...

The quote starts whith the Statement... " It Is Believed" which in itself supports the claim of having no proof...

It is a THEORY...

Theory:a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

See what it says there " in contrast to matters of actual fact"...

IN CONTRAST OF ACTUAL FACT !!!

Evolutionary theory is not a theory at all. It is accepted as fact among the peer reviewed scientific community. The fact that people like you disgrace the word "theory" and tie it to something that has no physical evidence is disgusting.

A thoery goes through so much scrutiny just to become a theory in the first place, and your going to act like it has no validity in the real world? The truth is a theory must be able to be tested to become accepted as a theory, and when you test a theory with the conclusion that there is proof of its refutation, then it is not a theory. WHen you test a theory thousands of times, gaining more and more evidence every time......it is accepted as fact within the science community (until evidence shows otherwise), and degraded as speculation within the lamens population. Which is you.

Can the existence of your god be tested? Has any type of paranormal activity been documented in front of a peer review panel? No, therefore your religion is even less than a theory, it is speculation. Creationism is not even accepted as a theory, and when it is.....come talk to me.

 

[Diuretic]

Ohh it does? Is there a theory about how the Universe began? Is there a theory about how life began on earth?

Last I checked neither of them have any "evidence" or can be checked at all.

Not quite. Now I'm no scientist but it's my understanding that in science the theory follows from the evidence. Scientists hypothesise, then they look for the evidence which supports or denies that hypothesis. If the evidence is there then it supports their hypothesis which then becomes a "theory" or explanation. Of course it's always tentative, ready to be overturned in favour of another, more likely theory (explanation).

There I think a few theories - explanation based on evidence - of how the universe began and how life on earth began. I think that there's even some experimental evidence for the latter, but as I said, I'm no scientist, not even a scientifically well informed layman so I'm only going from the little I know.

I see there's a heap of discussion following your post so if I'm out of step here, sorry, but I wanted to respond.

 

[Diuretic]

Let's clarify some terms .... "evolution" vs "the theory of evolution" and it's theory of origin. To which do you refer?

Regardless what Lamarck says, there are at least a couple of scientific theories based on theoretical evidence, not REAL evidence.

Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species". From that I understand he proposed his theory of natural selection.

Lamarck was interesting because he proposed change over a much quicker timeline than Darwin did. Lamarck was dismissed as a bit of a dill but there's been some re-thinking on some of his ideas.

As for REAL evidence - the evidence is there which supports the hypotheses. Remember I did say that all knowledge is tentative.

 

[Diuretic]

Science has Dogma as well. But we are not talking about that, your just adding it because you can't sustain the claim that one CAN and does believe in science, making it a "Belief".

Do keep changing the parameters in an effort to find traction for your claim.

Ohh I believe in God and I believe in Science as well. They are not in any way shape or form exclusive of each other.

Where does science have "dogma"?

"Belief" doesn't have a place in science, all knowledge is tentative, therefore "belief" just isn't present.

There you are, you can believe in God and still accept science as a valid process. But do you believe in the Old Testament as being a literal representation?

 

[Diuretic]

I do not necessarily consider those who don't believe what I do to still have a religion. I have stated that what they believe is no less a belief than the religious person's. In that regard, the belief equates to the same thing. But you can label it whatever you want.

Taken a step further, addressing only those where the shoe fits, ANYONE who is so extreme in their anit-religous philosophy that they are intolerant of those who are religious, and speak in insulting and demeaning terms to them, are no better than what they claim to be railing against. I will further add that when one is so extreme as to hold such a belief, I find it hard to differentiate between their hate and intolerance and the hate and intolerance of religious extremists.

Second, I have denied no evidence of science. I refuse to accept contrived evidence as factual evidence. BIG difference.

Lastly, I am not and did not attack you. Nor have I attempted to push any religion on you. I responded to YOUR statement in a reasonable manner, and expected a response in kind.

Last bit first, I'm responding to Alucard as well, not just you Gunny.

On religion. I've no time for people who want to slag off someone's religion. That's why I get riled up when I see attacks on Islam which misrepresent that religion (or the little I know of it anyway). Speaking for myself, I have a lack of belief, it hasn't got so rabid as to force me to rush around verbally attacking believers and trying to proselytise to them how wrong they are. Who am I to push my ideas on others? Exchange ideas, yes, challenge ideas, yes, but force ideas - no. I have never wanted to turn anyone away from their beliefs.

Yes, contrived evidence is not evidence. Piltdown Man is a good example. The scientific process is fallible. Remember those scientists who thought, some years ago, they'd found cold fusion? That blew up in their faces (bad pun) when fellow scientists tried to replicate their experiment and failed to do so. One of the good things about science is that there is no central authority, everyone is sceptical of everyone else and all knowledge is tentative.

 

[Chips Rafferty]

That's a fair point, some have claimed that and no doubt they can point to evidence to support the claim. There's also some conjecture that humans are hard-wired in the brain to have faith in a deity. Obviously there needs to be some work on that.



Well that depends on how you define "belief". But I see Ruby has sorted that one out and I certainly can't improve on Ruby's post

There's also some conjecture that humans are hard-wired in the brain to have faith in a deity.

You would have noted how most of our Christian friends insist that alcoholism is a purely behavioural problem. They could hardly say otherwise.

Christian logic (now THERE is a contradiction in terms!) can hardly have their gargoyle of a God condemning drunks, and many others, to eternal hellfire for a condition he genetically implanted in them, and still have him looking "just", could it?

How typical of the countless contradictions inherent in Christinanity, that their “God” initially gives everyone a democratic start but then he immediately turns into a sadistic despot that would make Pol Pot look like Shirley Temple on smack!

Their obligatory rejection of genetic disorders is fine by me. I’ll accept MY alcoholism is behavioural, even though every Henderson male (and a few of the frails) going back many generations was a raging drunk.

However, I can see a correlation between alcoholism and the "God Gene.” I will put it in plain Little Golden Bookenese so sub-human god-botherers can follow.

Think of animals that man has trained to behave in ways alien to their nature; for instance, a Border Collie.

Remove a BC pup from its Mum at birth and rear it in the city away from all other animals. Then, when it is mature, take it out in the country, put it amongst a herd of sheep, and watch it instinctively (?) trying to herd them.

Did Cro-Magnon Border Collies herd sheep? I don’t think so. Obviously then, Border Collies have a human implanted Meme in their genetic makeup.

Even those hirsute super-humans, The Good Shepherds, Sam and Lochie (PBUT!), will round up everything from horses to kids if I let them.

(They will also attack Mormons, JW's, Seventh Day Adventurers, indeed every brand of door-knocking American evangelist, if I let them. (true story) This however is a clear case of a highly intelligent dogs instinctive hatred for Seppo Fundie's manifest falseness)

It is the same with the God gene. Only this time The Chipsian Theory works in reverse.

You take a lame-brained lamb away from its follow-the-leader herd and upon its maturity and release, watch it search frantically for a pastor, a policeman, or an authoritarian politician to herd it.

(No need to get back to me that this gels with your personal experience of genetically programmed police-informing Proddies trying to grovellingly ingratiate themselves with authority by “lagging” petty lawbreakers, Dee )

Staying with sheep dogs, Italian Maremma’s are proof positive of the God gene and Dawkins Meme theory in one package.

Put the former with a herd of sheep and they think they are a sheep and they will protect the herd against all comers.

Put the latter with a herd of easily led Lemmings and they immediately verbally attack and try to control the lives of all non-Lemmings.

My sincere apologies to all Lemmings and Dogs in comparing them to Christians.

 

[Diuretic]

I agree... But I think where we will disagree is where Science has taken us in the 21st century... I see an increasing likelyhood of creation by a supreme being due to scientific research proving other theories wrong and supporting the "THEORY OF CREATION"...

If science proves God exists and proves creation then that will probably signal the end of the human quest for knowledge. Once that's done then there's nothing else to be discovered. Actually that's an interesting scenario. Can you imagine the hubbub?

 

[Diuretic]

And where we will disagree is on the legitimacy of what you call circumstantial evidence (damned lawyers).

Circumstantial evidence is okay, it works well but it does need to be in bulk to be any good.

 

[Diuretic]

Sorry Chips I was blathering away and interposed accidentally.

Interesting on the alcoholism idea. I call bullshit on the behavioural explanation. It's got sod-all to do with behavioural issues and everything to do with physiology. Anyway no doubt science will work that one out too.