To Be Irreligious, Stupididy Helps

[JBeukema]

I reversed nothing.


You just fail at reading comprehension.

The micro/macro thing is bullshit. That's why it doesn't work. Nature doesn't know any such thing. There is only evolution. To attempt to separate evolution from evolution leads to such conundrums as ring species- which show your entire micro/macro spiel to be a load of crap and highlight the flaws in the current ideas of 'species'. The natural world knows nothing of 'species', only individuals and populations.

 

[JBeukema]

If even hundreds of people reported a physical sympton, even though he had not experienced it, would you not think a physician would be more rational to believe that the symptom existed than to disbelieve it simply because he had not experienced it himself?

Are we talking 'I felt nauseous the other day' or 'I have a third arm coming out of my forehead'?

 

[JBeukema]

Oh, and the only thing I REALLY didn't like in the OP was the thread title. A bit extreme.

But it did get a lot of you to look at the thread who might not have otherwise done so.

I find the title to be hilarious

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...-stupididy-helps-post2956070.html#post2956070

To Be Irreligious, Stupididy Helps

 

[PoliticalChic]

I reversed nothing.


You just fail at reading comprehension.

The micro/macro thing is bullshit. That's why it doesn't work. Nature doesn't know any such thing. There is only evolution. To attempt to separate evolution from evolution leads to such conundrums as ring species- which show your entire micro/macro spiel to be a load of crap and highlight the flaws in the current ideas of 'species'. The natural world knows nothing of 'species', only individuals and populations.

Let's review...

1. First you posted "There is no such distinction as 'micro-' and 'macroevolution'"

2. Then, it morphed into an explanation of micro- and macroevolution....

3. I believe that you have made what is known as an “ID ten T” error.

So, in addition to being an obnoxious cur, you also tend toward the schizophrenic....

now, be a good boy and wander back to your cell...another inmate would like to use the keyboard.

 

[JBeukema]

I reversed nothing.


You just fail at reading comprehension.

The micro/macro thing is bullshit. That's why it doesn't work. Nature doesn't know any such thing. There is only evolution. To attempt to separate evolution from evolution leads to such conundrums as ring species- which show your entire micro/macro spiel to be a load of crap and highlight the flaws in the current ideas of 'species'. The natural world knows nothing of 'species', only individuals and populations.

Let's review...

1. First you posted "There is no such distinction as 'micro-' and 'macroevolution'"
because it's a fallacy that was debunked long ago
2. Then, it morphed into an explanation of micro- and macroevolution....
what're you babbling about? I explained that there is only evolution and that the dishonest attempt to decalre any such distinction as 'micro' and'macro' is fallacious- as ring species highlight. The reason the fallacy persists? Dishonestly people like you and Kirk Cameron who realize you can't deny evolution is real but still want to dance around nylonase and cling to Genesis.
3. I believe that you have made what is known as an “ID ten T” error.
You need to work on your reading comprehension
So, in addition to being an obnoxious cur, you also tend toward the schizophrenic....

now, be a good boy and wander back to your cell...another inmate would like to use the keyboard.

Or maybe you're just plain trolling?

 

[JBeukema]

I'd agree, we have a legal system that is (mostly) grounded in Judeo-Christian morality.

Oh? Explain. Because things like not murdering eachother are found in every legal and ethical code in ever known culture ever found, save for small exceptions that primarily exist as parasitic subsets within larger societies.

You can draw a line from the constitution to the Magna Carta to the OT to the Code of Hammurabi.

Hammurabi is Babylonian law- by biblical standards, it's from the devil

This is not universal all over Planet Earth; there are legal systems with very different ideas of family and property that have existed and do exist today.

And some of them are much more like historical Christianity than our own is.


You know, like polygyny.

 

[logical4u]

Really? Where? I had read the thread and went through it again and the only thing I saw was a quote from a scientist stating that he had faith that naturalism would one day explain all life. But that is different than saying one has the same faith in science as in religion. His faith that in naturalism is based upon a body of scientific work leading him to a conclusion. There is no body of work which leads one to believe in the existence of God. It is entirely based on faith. Likewise, the debate on macroevolution is based on microevolution. It may turn out to be totally wrong, but at least it is a foundation. There is no foundation for religion other than faith. Again, you don't need faith to believe in photosynthesis. You need total faith to believe in God.

Check out the post on the weaknesses in the theory of evolution...significant, as it represents the idea that generally separates believers from non-believers.

And, of course, consider the dearth of scientific theory as to the creation of the universe itself...a pretty good question, no?

The Big Bang Theory is a theory of the universe, which is rooted in mathematics derived from observed physical phenomena.

But that is beside the point. There is more to science than how the universe started or evolution. The body of scientific knowledge does not remotely pretend to have answered every single question in the universe. (Likewise, simply because science cannot prove the existence of God does not mean God does not exist. It may mean that the proof of God is currently beyond the bounds of human technological ability.) But scientific answers are based upon methodology, not unverifiable belief systems, which is religion. That is why it is simply false to say that science requires as much faith as religion. By definition, this cannot be.

One should also realize that the most vocal critics of evolution are not from within the scientific community but from the religious community. The religious community is not interested in an intellectually honest debate about the origins of mankind and the universe. Religion already has those answers, even though there is no evidence whatsoever to support them. They are attempting to discredit evolution in the hopes that by discrediting evolution, people will turn to religion for answers by default. Religions are created in part to provide answers to questions people cannot comprehend. When science attempts to give answers to those questions, it threatens the foundations of religion. So religion attempts to discredit science because its credibility and very survival depends on it.

I am a Christian. I see a bunch of theories about evolution with very little evidence. Fossils do not prove evolution. If the scientists could lay out fossils that showed the transformation from one species to another, I would consider evolution. If there was evidence of species "evolving" today, I would consider evolution. If you could show me that monkeys are slowly becoming humans, I would consider evolution. If you could explain why there are still one-celled animals after telling me those one-celled animals evolved into other animals, I would consider evolution.
Until then, I see a "scientific" fairy tale told by people trying to raise money to keep their jobs (that would be biased opinions).

 

[logical4u]

The Big Bang Theory is a theory of the universe, which is rooted in mathematics derived from observed physical phenomena.

But that is beside the point. There is more to science than how the universe started or evolution. The body of scientific knowledge does not remotely pretend to have answered every single question in the universe. (Likewise, simply because science cannot prove the existence of God does not mean God does not exist. It may mean that the proof of God is currently beyond the bounds of human technological ability.) But scientific answers are based upon methodology, not unverifiable belief systems, which is religion. That is why it is simply false to say that science requires as much faith as religion. By definition, this cannot be.

One should also realize that the most vocal critics of evolution are not from within the scientific community but from the religious community. The religious community is not interested in an intellectually honest debate about the origins of mankind and the universe. Religion already has those answers, even though there is no evidence whatsoever to support them. They are attempting to discredit evolution in the hopes that by discrediting evolution, people will turn to religion for answers by default. Religions are created in part to provide answers to questions people cannot comprehend. When science attempts to give answers to those questions, it threatens the foundations of religion. So religion attempts to discredit science because its credibility and very survival depends on it.

But the OP doesn't attempt to discredit evolution. So what does whatever the religious community thinks have to do with that? I'm pretty religious and science doesn't threaten a single religious belief I hold. And I don't believe I am anywhere close to being in the minority of the religious. If we don't condemn all of science because a few scientists hold screwy ideas, why do you seem to condemn all of religion because a few of the religious hold screwy ideas?

And where do you think moral values come from?

Foxfyre, it is the Religious Right who inserts Genesis or "Intelligent Design" into science classes at public HS's. Who demands we "teach abstinence" rather than Sex Ed 101. Who opposes finding a cure for Alzheimer's, etc. because stem cells are harvested from the medical waste products of abortion. Who oppose FDA approval of safer abortificants. Who oppose full legal recognition of the basic civil rights of GLBT people. Who seek to recriminalize abortion.

I can go on for hours, but why? You know all this as well as I do. It's rather difficult to live in the US and not have your rights stepped on -- or threatened to be stepped on -- by these wingnuts, and the resentment after a lifetime of this nonsense is palpable.

I'm gonna say to you what so many say to moderate Muslims.....these are your brothers in faith. Why aren't YOU helping me tell them to back it the **** up?

What "basic civil rights" are you naming? Don't you have the same "Bill of Rights" that I do?

 

[JBeukema]

If there was evidence of species "evolving" today, I would consider evolution

nylonase

If you could show me that monkeys are slowly becoming humans, I would consider evolution.

That would actually be strong evidence against the ToE that has been developed over the last 100+ years

If you could explain why there are still one-celled animals after telling me those one-celled animals evolved into other animals, I would consider evolution.

Because bacteria are much more successful than mammals; there has not been any environmental pressure sufficient to make them go existinct


Sidenote: you're an idiot

 

[logical4u]

Your evidence proves that wishing God existed is a fairly universal human desire -- and it is. It is not evidence that, in fact, God exists. There are several other such beliefs that we prolly agree are not reality-based, such as monsters. For whatever perverse reason, humans everywhere and at all times in history seem to need to believe in monsters (as a rule) and virtually every society that exists or has existed has some myths verging on beliefs about their existence.

That does not add a whit to the argument that monsters actually exist, Foxfyre. No matter how many NYers report encounters with The White Lady or Mexicans report "seeing" El Chupacabra, I bet we agree -- the very idea is preposterous.

Is there something in the water some of you people drink that makes you read stuff into posts that isn't there? I haven't even suggested that anybody 'wishes God exists'. Nothing in my argument even relates to something like that.

Again if one person reports to you that there is a pink elephant in the next room would you shrug that off as improbable or that it was a joke? I would. But if dozens of unrelated people reported to you that there is a pink elephant in the next room, is it more logical to believe that it is improbable or untrue or does it become increasing probable that there is some basis for all those reports? If not an actual pink elephant, then something that would create such an illusion?

Now suppose billions of people report it? Would the person who stubbornly insists that there is no such thing and refuses to even consider it be as rational as those who would hold open the possibility of such a thing?

That is a very different question than me wishing something exists or does not exist. It does make a case for not thinking that what we know is all that there is to know or that is worth knowing. And it makes a case for the influence of what others around us tell us and perhaps gives us some insight into the opinions that we form about many things.

And all that does relate to the OP as I perceived it.

Where do you think our sense of morality comes from?

Experience.


Not god that is for sure. He condoned mass murder of women and children.

Why did He do that?

 

[JBeukema]

On the theory of evoloution.
I believe it as stated. It is a theory and not proven any more than God created everything.
However we do have a bit more shaky evidence supporting evoloution.
We have ZERO supporting God's creation of the universe.

So where did evolution come from?

God evolved from Mithra in the Void, where we shall find enlightenment if we are not negligent in our Dharma

 

[Madeline]

I don't think you've made a good case to support that there is a straw man in the OP. And I don't think the 'cloud of witnesses' you used to back you up have made their case that the OP says what they say it says.

The 'cloud of witnesses' analogy that I used was the testimony of the hundreds of millions or billions of people who do believe in a deities. Many claim personal experience with a deity. And again go back to the analogy of the physician and his patients or the pink elephant I used. Can you make a coherant argument for why I am wrong? Did you understand these? Or did you ignore them because you can't refute them?

The OP suggested all these themes to me. Interesting concepts. And interesting and varied ways of looking at them. You continue to make it personal and call it a straw man.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Your evidence proves that wishing God existed is a fairly universal human desire -- and it is. It is not evidence that, in fact, God exists. There are several other such beliefs that we prolly agree are not reality-based, such as monsters. For whatever perverse reason, humans everywhere and at all times in history seem to need to believe in monsters (as a rule) and virtually every society that exists or has existed has some myths verging on beliefs about their existence.

That does not add a whit to the argument that monsters actually exist, Foxfyre. No matter how many NYers report encounters with The White Lady or Mexicans report "seeing" El Chupacabra, I bet we agree -- the very idea is preposterous.

Is there something in the water some of you people drink that makes you read stuff into posts that isn't there? I haven't even suggested that anybody 'wishes God exists'. Nothing in my argument even relates to something like that.

Again if one person reports to you that there is a pink elephant in the next room would you shrug that off as improbable or that it was a joke? I would. But if dozens of unrelated people reported to you that there is a pink elephant in the next room, is it more logical to believe that it is improbable or untrue or does it become increasing probable that there is some basis for all those reports? If not an actual pink elephant, then something that would create such an illusion?

Now suppose billions of people report it? Would the person who stubbornly insists that there is no such thing and refuses to even consider it be as rational as those who would hold open the possibility of such a thing?

That is a very different question than me wishing something exists or does not exist. It does make a case for not thinking that what we know is all that there is to know or that is worth knowing. And it makes a case for the influence of what others around us tell us and perhaps gives us some insight into the opinions that we form about many things.

And all that does relate to the OP as I perceived it.

Where do you think our sense of morality comes from?

Foxfyre, once again let me reiterate: I also believe in God. I simply don't think that such a belief will ever be scientifically provable.

If dozens of unrelated people reported to me that they believed there was a pink elephant in the next room, I might well conclude some mass hysteria was going on. Since entering the next room involves no great investment of time, I likely would look for myself. Not seeing such a creature, I would likely not become hysterical myself....but I suppose we all like to view ourselves as uber-rational.

I am not trash talking spirituality. I'm saying philosphies and beliefs and code of ethics are all human constructs, all intangible, all suspectible to change and none can be proven scientifically to have any validity whatsoever.

It's called "faith" for a reason.

 

[goldcatt]

I reversed nothing.


You just fail at reading comprehension.

The micro/macro thing is bullshit. That's why it doesn't work. Nature doesn't know any such thing. There is only evolution. To attempt to separate evolution from evolution leads to such conundrums as ring species- which show your entire micro/macro spiel to be a load of crap and highlight the flaws in the current ideas of 'species'. The natural world knows nothing of 'species', only individuals and populations.

Let's review...

1. First you posted "There is no such distinction as 'micro-' and 'macroevolution'"
because it's a fallacy that was debunked long ago
2. Then, it morphed into an explanation of micro- and macroevolution....
what're you babbling about? I explained that there is only evolution and that the dishonest attempt to decalre any such distinction as 'micro' and'macro' is fallacious- as ring species highlight. The reason the fallacy persists? Dishonestly people like you and Kirk Cameron who realize you can't deny evolution is real but still want to dance around nylonase and cling to Genesis.
3. I believe that you have made what is known as an “ID ten T” error.
You need to work on your reading comprehension
So, in addition to being an obnoxious cur, you also tend toward the schizophrenic....

now, be a good boy and wander back to your cell...another inmate would like to use the keyboard.

Or maybe you're just plain trolling?

We have a winnah!

 

[Madeline]

Check out the post on the weaknesses in the theory of evolution...significant, as it represents the idea that generally separates believers from non-believers.

And, of course, consider the dearth of scientific theory as to the creation of the universe itself...a pretty good question, no?

The Big Bang Theory is a theory of the universe, which is rooted in mathematics derived from observed physical phenomena.

But that is beside the point. There is more to science than how the universe started or evolution. The body of scientific knowledge does not remotely pretend to have answered every single question in the universe. (Likewise, simply because science cannot prove the existence of God does not mean God does not exist. It may mean that the proof of God is currently beyond the bounds of human technological ability.) But scientific answers are based upon methodology, not unverifiable belief systems, which is religion. That is why it is simply false to say that science requires as much faith as religion. By definition, this cannot be.

One should also realize that the most vocal critics of evolution are not from within the scientific community but from the religious community. The religious community is not interested in an intellectually honest debate about the origins of mankind and the universe. Religion already has those answers, even though there is no evidence whatsoever to support them. They are attempting to discredit evolution in the hopes that by discrediting evolution, people will turn to religion for answers by default. Religions are created in part to provide answers to questions people cannot comprehend. When science attempts to give answers to those questions, it threatens the foundations of religion. So religion attempts to discredit science because its credibility and very survival depends on it.

1. Thanks much for re-reading the thread, and for this post, which highlights exactly what the OP was intended to indicate.

Case in point, your selection of the Big Bang Theory' as disposiive of he superiority of the 'science thesis: "...rooted in mathematics derived from observed physical phenomena."

This shows a misunderstanding of the theory, and how it applies to our discussion. The explanation in which you invest your rebuttal refers to 'during and after' the creation...and suffers from the huge lacunae of the source of the material that became the universe: what was there before? Or do you have faith that something can come from nothing?

PC, IMO, science has proven that both energy and matter are irreducable but changable. I conclude that the universe has always existed but in far different form. There is no "before" and there cannot be any "after". There is only change.

a. "Big Bang Theory - What About God?
Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"? We won't attempt to answer that question in this short article. We just ask the question... " Big Bang Theory

Again, not a scientist here, but my understanding of the Big Bang is that a sudden transformation of existing energy and matter took place. Mayhaps not just one event and mayhaps a similar one will occur in future, and eliminate the energy and matter that we, as 21st Century humans, are capable of observing -- but that does not mean that they cease to exist.

For me, the question of creation has been answered by science and it did not require God to posit a theory that incorporates all the known facts.

So, the theory that you bring into the discussion is as much an argument for the OP as against it, i.e. the 'outside the realm' of natural science.

2. Let's review...

a. Prior to the Enlightenment, ideas whether empirical or of morality, were considered knowledge.

Huh?

b. So, impressed with science and where it could lead us, caused many, such as yourself, to be enamored with same to the extent that any other kind of knowledge was relegated to a lesser position.

Huh?

c. My contention is that in some prominent provences of science, the vehicle is faith, just as it is in religion. I submit weaknesses in Darwinian evolution theory as evidence. You are begging the question by stating "...is simply false to say that science requires as much faith as religion." I never made the claim about all of science.

The gaps in the theory of evolution are far too small to permit one to reasonably conclude, as a scientific matter, that they are now or in future only fillable by employing something akin to faith. I dun really even know how to apply this to science. I suppose you could argue we have faith that gravity exists, though we cannot observe it....except that we can. Reasoning that all the evidence of past evolution together with our observations of microevolution today can only lead us to conclude that evolution accounts for the emergence and disappearance of species, etc. if we employ "faith" just doesn't make sense to me.


d. "...a quote from a scientist stating that he had faith..."
Well, first, there was more than one scientist mentioned in the thread in that light...including Jonas Salk.
So, it seems that there are acclaimed scientists less sanguine than yourself on the matter.

This suggests that you think a scientist who believes in God is some sort of living proof that God's existence can be scientifically proven. One's spritiual life need have nothing whatever to do with one's professional life (apart from ethical questions). Why should I feel any reassurance that my belief in God is sound merely because Jonas Salk has one too? Why a scientist rather than a plumber?

e. "...The religious community is not interested in an intellectually honest debate..." Actually, it is your side that is adament on the matter, for example you seem downright hostile on the matter. Further, the Academy of Science went to court to prevent any other argument to be presented as far as evolution. That doesn't seem very inquisitive, does it?

"Insensitive"? To want to limit science classes to teaching science? If the irrational find the matters of science hurtful, that seems to me to be a personal problem. Teaching intelligent design or whatever the nonesense going today mebbe alongside the theory of evolution in science classes can lead to only one result: crappy scientists.

3. Allow me this anecdote..
I'm certain that you are familiar with Gregor Mendel, the father of Genetics. Genetics is pretty scientific, no?

He determined that some traits are determined by the dominance or recessive nature of genes, and in his studies, over several generations of Garden Peas, he proved same using data "...rooted in mathematics derived from observed physical phenomena."

Now, here's the thing...Mendel was a monk, a deeply religious man. Get that: a blending (pun intended) of science and religion...

and, he knew his God was enlightening him with scientific prooof because the ratio that proved his theory was three to one...

Get it? This monk initiated the science of Genetics based on a relelation that corresponded to the Trinity.
What did he see that you don't?

Mendel may well have credited God with inspiring him to discover the theory of genetics, but so what? If he had instead credited leprechans, would that serve as proof that leprechans exist?

You are mixing apples and oranges, PC. The ethical rules a religon has developed to address various human conflicts or foibles are akin to philosophy. Interesting, enlightening and worthy of study but no more likely to shape our understanding of the natural world than studying Romance Languages would be.

 

[uscitizen]

Stupid thread is stupid.

Do you expect anything else around here?

 

[Father Time]

So it requires faith to not believe in something?

I knew the OP would be over the heads of some of our brethren...

No, the divide is based on the belief that the secular worldview is based on understanding and knowledge, and the religious is not...

For example, the topic of evolution, regularly discussed on the board, is largely based on faith as well..

The OP attempts to show how the views that elevate science to the level of God is flawed in that there are huge gaps in knowledge that, for the nonbeliever, require leaps of faith.

Some scientists will admit that they see science, in some sense, as their religion:

“I believe a material explanation will be found, but that confidence comes from my faith that science is up to the task of explaining, in purely material or naturalistic terms, the whole history of life. My faith is well founded, but it is still faith.”
What neo-creationists get right - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences

But most are not so self-aware, and don’t realize the faith status of their own views: secularists think they are objective and unbiased, even in the face of the East Anglia revelations.

there are some very intelligent people who believe in god and religion

there are some very intelligent people who do NOT believe in god and religion


REALLY intelligent people are able to discuss/debate the issue of god/religion without resorting to calling the other side STUPID

Too true.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Big Bang Theory is a theory of the universe, which is rooted in mathematics derived from observed physical phenomena.

But that is beside the point. There is more to science than how the universe started or evolution. The body of scientific knowledge does not remotely pretend to have answered every single question in the universe. (Likewise, simply because science cannot prove the existence of God does not mean God does not exist. It may mean that the proof of God is currently beyond the bounds of human technological ability.) But scientific answers are based upon methodology, not unverifiable belief systems, which is religion. That is why it is simply false to say that science requires as much faith as religion. By definition, this cannot be.

One should also realize that the most vocal critics of evolution are not from within the scientific community but from the religious community. The religious community is not interested in an intellectually honest debate about the origins of mankind and the universe. Religion already has those answers, even though there is no evidence whatsoever to support them. They are attempting to discredit evolution in the hopes that by discrediting evolution, people will turn to religion for answers by default. Religions are created in part to provide answers to questions people cannot comprehend. When science attempts to give answers to those questions, it threatens the foundations of religion. So religion attempts to discredit science because its credibility and very survival depends on it.

1. Thanks much for re-reading the thread, and for this post, which highlights exactly what the OP was intended to indicate.

Case in point, your selection of the Big Bang Theory' as disposiive of he superiority of the 'science thesis: "...rooted in mathematics derived from observed physical phenomena."

This shows a misunderstanding of the theory, and how it applies to our discussion. The explanation in which you invest your rebuttal refers to 'during and after' the creation...and suffers from the huge lacunae of the source of the material that became the universe: what was there before? Or do you have faith that something can come from nothing?

PC, IMO, science has proven that both energy and matter are irreducable but changable. I conclude that the universe has always existed but in far different form. There is no "before" and there cannot be any "after". There is only change.

a. "Big Bang Theory - What About God?
Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"? We won't attempt to answer that question in this short article. We just ask the question... " Big Bang Theory

Again, not a scientist here, but my understanding of the Big Bang is that a sudden transformation of existing energy and matter took place. Mayhaps not just one event and mayhaps a similar one will occur in future, and eliminate the energy and matter that we, as 21st Century humans, are capable of observing -- but that does not mean that they cease to exist.

For me, the question of creation has been answered by science and it did not require God to posit a theory that incorporates all the known facts.

So, the theory that you bring into the discussion is as much an argument for the OP as against it, i.e. the 'outside the realm' of natural science.

2. Let's review...

a. Prior to the Enlightenment, ideas whether empirical or of morality, were considered knowledge.

Huh?

b. So, impressed with science and where it could lead us, caused many, such as yourself, to be enamored with same to the extent that any other kind of knowledge was relegated to a lesser position.

Huh?

c. My contention is that in some prominent provences of science, the vehicle is faith, just as it is in religion. I submit weaknesses in Darwinian evolution theory as evidence. You are begging the question by stating "...is simply false to say that science requires as much faith as religion." I never made the claim about all of science.

The gaps in the theory of evolution are far too small to permit one to reasonably conclude, as a scientific matter, that they are now or in future only fillable by employing something akin to faith. I dun really even know how to apply this to science. I suppose you could argue we have faith that gravity exists, though we cannot observe it....except that we can. Reasoning that all the evidence of past evolution together with our observations of microevolution today can only lead us to conclude that evolution accounts for the emergence and disappearance of species, etc. if we employ "faith" just doesn't make sense to me.


d. "...a quote from a scientist stating that he had faith..."
Well, first, there was more than one scientist mentioned in the thread in that light...including Jonas Salk.
So, it seems that there are acclaimed scientists less sanguine than yourself on the matter.

This suggests that you think a scientist who believes in God is some sort of living proof that God's existence can be scientifically proven. One's spritiual life need have nothing whatever to do with one's professional life (apart from ethical questions). Why should I feel any reassurance that my belief in God is sound merely because Jonas Salk has one too? Why a scientist rather than a plumber?

e. "...The religious community is not interested in an intellectually honest debate..." Actually, it is your side that is adament on the matter, for example you seem downright hostile on the matter. Further, the Academy of Science went to court to prevent any other argument to be presented as far as evolution. That doesn't seem very inquisitive, does it?

"Insensitive"? To want to limit science classes to teaching science? If the irrational find the matters of science hurtful, that seems to me to be a personal problem. Teaching intelligent design or whatever the nonesense going today mebbe alongside the theory of evolution in science classes can lead to only one result: crappy scientists.

3. Allow me this anecdote..
I'm certain that you are familiar with Gregor Mendel, the father of Genetics. Genetics is pretty scientific, no?

He determined that some traits are determined by the dominance or recessive nature of genes, and in his studies, over several generations of Garden Peas, he proved same using data "...rooted in mathematics derived from observed physical phenomena."

Now, here's the thing...Mendel was a monk, a deeply religious man. Get that: a blending (pun intended) of science and religion...

and, he knew his God was enlightening him with scientific prooof because the ratio that proved his theory was three to one...

Get it? This monk initiated the science of Genetics based on a relelation that corresponded to the Trinity.
What did he see that you don't?

Mendel may well have credited God with inspiring him to discover the theory of genetics, but so what? If he had instead credited leprechans, would that serve as proof that leprechans exist?

You are mixing apples and oranges, PC. The ethical rules a religon has developed to address various human conflicts or foibles are akin to philosophy. Interesting, enlightening and worthy of study but no more likely to shape our understanding of the natural world than studying Romance Languages would be.

Huh and Huh are covered in the OP.

2c. If the gaps in the theory of evolution were small, then we wouldn't be having this argument.

2d. How to explain away noted scientists who have the belief?

2e. Why should scientist hesitate presenting their proof in a school setting, unless they feel insecure about said proof. They do so all the time when the proof is obvious: genetics- science teachers use the example of cultures where males divorce wives who don't produce male, showing that it is the male who determines the sex of the child.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, IMO, science has proven that both energy and matter are irreducable but changable. I conclude that the universe has always existed but in far different form. There is no "before" and there cannot be any "after". There is only change. [Maddy}

I suppose you have faith in that view....

"There is no "before" and there cannot be any "after".?
I looked up 'absurd' and sure enough, that sentence was right there!

(Psssst! Aren't you part of the 'after'?)

 

[JBeukema]

2c. If the gaps in the theory of evolution were small, then we wouldn't be having this argument.

So yours is a god of the gaps?

2d. How to explain away noted scientists who have the belief?

In Allah? I wonder what the chinese guy who discovered gunpowder believed in...

2e. Why should scientist hesitate presenting their proof in a school setting, unless they feel insecure about said proof.

There is no such thing as 'proof'. And scientists present their evidence in schools and peer-reviewed journals constantly.

They do so all the time when the proof is obvious: genetics

You mean like single nucleotide polymorphisms and pseudogenes?

 

[uscitizen]

I reversed nothing.


You just fail at reading comprehension.

The micro/macro thing is bullshit. That's why it doesn't work. Nature doesn't know any such thing. There is only evolution. To attempt to separate evolution from evolution leads to such conundrums as ring species- which show your entire micro/macro spiel to be a load of crap and highlight the flaws in the current ideas of 'species'. The natural world knows nothing of 'species', only individuals and populations.

Let's review...

1. First you posted "There is no such distinction as 'micro-' and 'macroevolution'"
because it's a fallacy that was debunked long ago
2. Then, it morphed into an explanation of micro- and macroevolution....
what're you babbling about? I explained that there is only evolution and that the dishonest attempt to decalre any such distinction as 'micro' and'macro' is fallacious- as ring species highlight. The reason the fallacy persists? Dishonestly people like you and Kirk Cameron who realize you can't deny evolution is real but still want to dance around nylonase and cling to Genesis.
3. I believe that you have made what is known as an “ID ten T” error.
You need to work on your reading comprehension
So, in addition to being an obnoxious cur, you also tend toward the schizophrenic....

now, be a good boy and wander back to your cell...another inmate would like to use the keyboard.

Or maybe you're just plain trolling?

You typoed Palin again.

and do not say that Paliln of OT.
We are talking about religion and stupidity.