Seahawks Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 FYI: anthropology != evolution science. Your claim of evolution being seen in a lab is a fucking lie. Ah, anger, denial, and lack of evidence. You are in serious need of a science class. Preferably one with a book that wasn't around during the Inquisition. Like to see you prove your side. It can't. The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man. The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism — the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21 Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true. Quote
The_Rooster Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 One can never actually see evolution in action. When you first got here, you were a dumbshit. You're still a dumbshit. I guess you're right! Now open your mouth seasquawk; I need to drop off some chicken shit. COCK A DOODLE DOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote
bstach Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 Fascinating debate, but we're getting off in the weeds wrt to my original point. Which was simply that faith in science can become like religion. And arguably, for the masses that don't have the time or capacity to keep up with modern scientific debate, it has. Quote
foraker Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 Like to see you prove your side. It can't. I highly doubt it would matter if I could. I've been in these debates before. You have a belief system built up that doesn't permit alteration. Thus, even when presented with evidence to the contrary, you'd deny it. At least a scientist, when presented with actual credible evidence of a supernatural being, would say 'Hey, look at that!' and try to study it and learn more. You seem happy wallowing in your medieval pig sty of ignorance. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 (edited) I would say that faith in a particular theory can become like a religion. Many scientists, including Einstein, have clung to theories that proved to be wrong. Faith in science, however, is well placed. After all, it is the process which has brought us a mindboggling and continually accelerating technological prowess and knowledge base. It's key component is that, whenever a new theory is presented, it is immediately dissected by the originators scientific peers in every way imaginable for flaws. As long as everyone involved acts relatively ethically, the system will continue to work to expand our knowledge of how nature works. That's not to say science will solve any of our problems. That's a political and social decision, not a scientific one. Edited January 13, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote
bstach Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 I would say that faith in a particular theory can become like a religion. Many scientists, including Einstein, have clung to theories that proved to be wrong. Faith in science, however, is well placed. After all, it is the process which has brought us a mindboggling and continually accelerating technological prowess and knowledge base. It's key component is that, whenever a new theory is presented, it is immediately dissected by the originators scientific peers in every way imaginable for flaws. As long as everyone involved acts relatively ethically, the system will continue to work to expand our knowledge of how nature works. That's not to say science will solve any of our problems. That's a political and social decision, not a scientific one. I'd agree with that. I am quite confident that science, driven by the human spirit, plus a pinch of neccesity will solve the major challenges we face. This is indeed faith in science and in humanity. When i originally posted though, I was more thinking about how faith in science (not a particular theory) resembles religion in that the masses are captive to the 'theory du jour' as per the High Priests of the scientific establishment. Quote
kevbone Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 DISCLAIMER= TROLL. Who fucking cares how old the Grand Canyon is. go climb a rock. END OF TROLL Quote
Seahawks Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 Like to see you prove your side. It can't. I highly doubt it would matter if I could. I've been in these debates before. You have a belief system built up that doesn't permit alteration. Thus, even when presented with evidence to the contrary, you'd deny it. At least a scientist, when presented with actual credible evidence of a supernatural being, would say 'Hey, look at that!' and try to study it and learn more. You seem happy wallowing in your medieval pig sty of ignorance. Okay then go back to page 4 the paper I put on there and debunk it. You cna't prove a thing and I can't. You have your atheist religion and I have mine. Don't try to tell me yours is the truth and I will not tell you mine is. Your so blinded by yours that you say its 100% right when it not. At least I can say neither can be proved. Who is more closed minded? The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy — also known as the second law of thermodynamics — stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity. This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems — in fact, in all systems, without exception. No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found — not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18 The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists — that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this. Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw? Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19 This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed. The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms. Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present. From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 (edited) When i originally posted though, I was more thinking about how faith in science (not a particular theory) resembles religion in that the masses are captive to the 'theory du jour' as per the High Priests of the scientific establishment. Hey, that's just being a hooman. Things go in and out of style, and fads happen, even in (and perhaps especially in) science. String theory, anyone? Having said that, there are times when an older theory suddenly gains widespread public acceptance, like global warming. It doesn't mean its a fad or theory de jour (climate scientists have known about it for decades), it just means that media, politics, and word of mouth has finally turned a corner on the issue, based on the evidence, and accepted it as valid. Edited January 13, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote
olyclimber Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 could the grand canyon existing in miniature for inside of a vacuum bag? Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 What if there was a picture of the Grand Canyon that was older than the canyon itself? Did you ever think about that? I didn't think so. Quote
Crux Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 (edited) Vaccuum != GrandCanyon Else Seagawk If Seagawk !RoosterSquirt End Else print "Seagawk = rooster shit" Loop Edited January 13, 2007 by Crux Quote
Dr_Flush_Amazing Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 How wide is the Grand Canyon? Good Question. Quote
sexual_chocolate Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," do you personally favor a creationist explanation for the life forms we see on earth? As far as evolution goes, i'm not aware of any "evolutionists" who claim to know exactly what the animating principle, the impetus, behind the evolutionary process is. you can call it "god" if it makes you feel better! and, darwin wasn't an atheist. i don't think he really even wanted to see what he was seeing: the ramifications were distressing for him. i don't think it was a coincidence that he suffered from panic attacks, unable to leave his residence for much of his later life; post tramautic stress disorder! anyways, point is that not all evolutionists are atheists (but most certainly aren't creationists!) Quote
kevbone Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 (edited) . this is a picture of two california condor's soaring above the great hole. Thanks for coming to my wedding Pink, otherwise how would you have been able to take this picure. Edited January 13, 2007 by kevbone Quote
kevbone Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 Pretty! Maybe from this we can asssessss how old the canyon is. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 anyways, point is that not all evolutionists are atheists (but most certainly aren't creationists!) Evolution is agnostic about atheism. Quote
pink Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 remember when the brady's went to the grand canyon. Quote
pink Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 remember when the brady's went to the grand canyon. Quote
kevbone Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 Ciiiinnnnddddyyy......boooobbbbyyyy.....ciiiinnnnddyyy....boobbby Quote
joblo7 Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 its pretty obvious that god the creator invented evolution! duh..... you can pass your time with material evolution. interesting. or use your time for spiritual evolution.fullfilling. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.