Evolution Theory is Error

SoWatchaWant

Gareth37 wrote: »

All Dawkins and co are doing is making money of people foolish enough to beleive their dribble. Selling books, going to talks, seminars etc. Making money

People say here than God cannot be proved but yet they accept some money making theory that doesn't actually make full scientific sense even. That to me is strange

You are a cu*t and you don't know what you are talking about. I really can't stress enough how ignorant you are. You know NOTHING about biology.

The ancient civilisations attributed natural phenomena such as earthquakes to the Gods because they couldn't explain it. You are exactly the same as these people. Just because you don't fully understand something doesn't mean God did it. The ancient civilisations used science to find out what made things happen. You, on the other hand choose to be primitive.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Catholicism is the "faith, system and practice" (ie dogma) of the Catholic Church.

dictionary.com wrote:

dog·ma (dôg'mə, dŏg'-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-mə-tə)

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" (Abraham Lincoln).

The Humpty Dumpty Dictionary where Wicknight creates endless entertainment by investing words with new meanings wrote:

dog·ma (dôg'mə, dŏg'-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-mə-tə)

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" (Abraham Lincoln).
A combination of faith, system and practice.

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Dades

SoWatchaWant wrote: »

You are a...

SoWatchaWant joining the subject of his abuse on a holiday from A&A.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

indeed :rolleyes:

Can I take it from all that that you concede the point ... ?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

PDN wrote: »

That would be a debate you would need to have with a Catholic (which I am not).

Absolute truth does not change, but man's interpretation (or misinterpretation) of that truth certainly does. And any human organisation, including any church, which claims to perfectly understand the truth is lying.

I had intended to come back to this today with a clearer head, but I don't think there's any need now.

I was curious when you came out with the 'bluster' comment, where you were going with the argument, but it's clear now you were just trying to wrap things up in rhetoric and arguments over semantics and largely irrelevant points.

You're either pettily playing devil's advocate or else just plain trolling.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

"invented an allegorical interpretation"

Secondly there is a very good case to be made that this is exactly what the Catholic Church did in the first half of the 20th Century to try to and prevent the Church becoming out of step with modern scientific theories which predicted ages of the Earth and formation of the Earth that were incompatable with a literal interpretation of Biblical Creation

Allegorical readings of the Bible have always been part of Christianity. Its the literal readings of the Bible and the way Creationists interpret the bible that mainstream Churches have problems with.

I dont really think the situation you refer to is anything more than normal resistance to accepting new science or technoligy.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

To be a scientist you have to have faith in other scientists and the system of controls. So you have faith- just not in God.

Why do we need faith in other scientists? Everything in science is testable, if at any point we doubt the veracity of a thing, we may simply attempt to replicate it. If we cannot replicate the work of another scientist, we attack them. If they cannot clarify their position, provide evidence to support themselves, their assertions will be discarded.

We need have no faith in other scientists, nor in the peer-review system, nor in the veracity of publication. In the end, if we can't reproduce the evidence, it's not worth anything. Where is the faith needed?

I have no doubt that there are scientists who have faith in the system and in their peers. We call them "crap scientists".

Rev Hellfire

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We need have no faith in other scientists, nor in the peer-review system, nor in the veracity of publication. In the end, if we can't reproduce the evidence, it's not worth anything. Where is the faith needed?

By 'we' I assume you don't mean you (or I), since quite a bit science these days goes beyond that which be reproduced by a casual participants.
I for example I don't have access to a radio telescope nor a particle accelerator, nor do I expect at this stage to gain access to one
So while its true that scientific evidence can be verified by anyone, in practise that is clearly not the case and as such an element of trust is required in the finding of others ie. faith.

UU

CDfm wrote: »

Yup - UU - uber is appropriate.

For you a belief in God gets in the way of logic. You cant take that something was observed 2000 plus years ago & that people from then wrote down their observations.Its just a different way of looking at the world than you have.

To be a scientist you have to have faith in other scientists and the system of controls. So you have faith- just not in God.

The Warren Commisions Report on the Assaination of JFK is a lot longer than the Four Gospels and a lot of witnesses didnt agree and that was 45 years ago - do you accept it happened bearing in mind you werent there?
Probably. Because people testified it did. The same with lots of other stuff.
If all the witnesses testified in the same way it would have been odd- the same with the Bible.

Well Christians have reasons to believe that stem search research on cells taken from aborted foestuses is wrong. Something about the thou shalt not kill think. Funnily enough - people who dont agree with abortion are against stem cell harvesting thru that method. Does that make us stupid - no-it makes us realists.

People who believe in abortion and stemcell research have a different set of ethics that maybe Christians find odd.We are I believe the only species to terminate pregnancy.It is wrong to dress that up as a freedom- I cant conceptualise making that decision- it is equally wrong to suggest that some non-christians and atheists dont have reservations.

There are some scientists and medical professionals who are Christians and dont believe what you do.

Your real beef seems to be with people who have ethics based on a set of beliefs or philosophy other than what you believe to be scientific.

So you cant accept that people who look at the world using a system of belief than science have any right to and are delusional. Thats a bit dramatic isnt it.

Yeah well if you want to describe me as über-atheist, then go ahead but I really don't care what you think of me. But my views aren't rare amongst atheists so there must be many so-called "über-atheists".

As for God is concerned, the entire concept of God is illogical, especially the Judeo-Christian one and most atheists here would agree with me on that one because God is a contradiction. But I won't go any further because you'd prefer to hang on to that illogical belief and are hardly going to agree with the reasoning of atheists like myself.

Well everyone has "faith" in something or other. But it's all about evidence and probability. For example, I never directly witnessed the Holocaust happening but I have "faith" in secondary resources that it happened. There is little evidence for God, and the evidence that exists is profoundly contradicting and weak but oh of course Christians or whoever else, don't need any evidence because it's all about "faith" but more specifically "blind faith".

Yeah well abortion and stem-cell research is a touchy issue and I really wouldn't like to discuss it here if you don't mind. The only thing I will say is I was on Grafton Street on Saturday and all the anti-abortionists were out but what I didn't like is the way they keep bringing religion into it specifically Catholicism. They were there doing the rosary. Sorry but if they want to be taken seriously, "über-"Catholicism isn't the way to go.

Well science is an umbrella term for a lot of things so it's a bit hard to say any view is specifically scientific. I suppose any view that's based on observation and where evidence and probability is required could be described as scientific. I will accept that people look at the world in non-scientific ways such as religious but I think their views can often be irrational and weak. Yet I will tolerate it in most cases except where it causes harms on others but means of corrupting and brainwashing the mind.

Crazy Taxi

It wasn't so long ago that "scientists" said that life was impossible without water, even as a 10 year old I felt this was a bit presumptious as I figured (having read loads of Sci Fi(sorry) that other life forms would evolve differently)DON'T EVER PRESUME.

Gareth37 wrote: »

Scientifically the theory of evolution is incorrect, it was theory put forward by Darwin over one hundred years ago and since that nobody has proved this theory but in fact evidence exists that the theory has no basis whatsoever:

Proteins cannot form in the oceans because the reaction in which two amino acids bond together releases a water molecule. According to the Le Châtelier Principle, it is not possible for a reaction that releases water to take place in a hydrate environment.

Neither could they produce a single useful amino acid or protein, nor could they prove – despite thousands of experiments – that mutations can have beneficial effects and cause evolution.

Modern technology has allowed humans to discover some aspects of the cell. What was thought to be a murky lump during the time of Darwin has been discovered to be an unimaginably complex system.

Now I am a scientist by profession but science should not be abused in this way.

http://www.albalagh.net/kids/science/evolution.shtml

The Mad Hatter

UU wrote: »

As for God is concerned, the entire concept of God is illogical, especially the Judeo-Christian one...

How is that especially?

Also, Crazy Taxi - what?

UU

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

How is that especially?

Also, Crazy Taxi - what?

I never said that God was especially illogical, it just happens to be one of the many illogical concepts. I wouldn't say it's any more illogical than fairies, unicorns, elves, pagan gods, goblins, etc. it just happens to be that a lot of people believe in God. I'm not more atheist than I'm a-fairiest or a-unicornist.

CDfm

UU wrote: »

Yeah well if you want to describe me as über-atheist, then go ahead but I really don't care what you think of me. But my views aren't rare amongst atheists so there must be many so-called "über-atheists".

As for God is concerned, the entire concept of God is [B]illogical[/B], especially the Judeo-Christian one and most atheists here would agree with me on that one because God is a contradiction.

Well everyone has "faith" in something or other. But it's all about evidence and probability don't need any evidence because it's all about "faith" but more specifically "blind faith".

Yeah well abortion and stem-cell research is a touchy issue and I really wouldn't like to discuss it here if you don't mind. The only thing I will say is I was on Grafton Street on Saturday and all the anti-abortionists were out but what I didn't like is the way they keep bringing religion into it specifically Catholicism. They were there doing the rosary. Sorry but if they want to be taken seriously, "über-"Catholicism isn't the way to go.

Well science is an umbrella term for a lot of things. I will accept that people look at the world in non-scientific ways such as religious but I don't think that they are right. I will tolerate it in most cases except for fanaticism.

The Uber was just a bit of fun.

But it does seem a bit much to expect others to accept your point of view if you label them delusional- illogical means it does not appear logical to you.

Christians have difficulty in accepting that you can accept what you read in the newspapers and not in the bible and reject the way we have interpreted our scripture for almost 2000 years. After all its a book compiled by witnesses.

I too am not sure about fanatical catholics. But I am less sure of the ethics of others who are supposed to reassure me that the science is ethical.

I fully agree that it isnt the place for abortion or stemcell debates.

Galvasean

CDfm wrote: »

Christians have difficulty in accepting that you can accept what you read in the newspapers and not in the bible and reject the way we have interpreted our scripture for almost 2000 years. After all its a book compiled by witnesses.

For the record I take a big pinch of salt with my newspaper.

AtomicHorror

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

By 'we' I assume you don't mean you (or I), since quite a bit science these days goes beyond that which be reproduced by a casual participants.

By "we" I mean the community. And I don't mean casual participants but peers and competitors.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I for example I don't have access to a radio telescope nor a particle accelerator, nor do I expect at this stage to gain access to one

Yes, but direct competitors of such groups do have that access, or can demand access if the equipment is unique. We sorta have to assume that the competitors are not cahoots and trying to fool us all. Though I can't imagine why they would be.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

So while its true that scientific evidence can be verified by anyone, in practise that is clearly not the case and as such an element of trust is required in the finding of others ie. faith.

I guess we can call it faith in as much as we must have faith that the world is not a vast conspiracy designed merely to trick us into thinking some stuff about subatomic particles is true when it isn't... The community is just full of people willing to tear down the giants so they'd all have to be in on it too. Not even vaguely the same kind of faith we talk about when it comes to religion.

CDfm

Galvasean wrote: »

For the record I take a big pinch of salt with my newspaper.

So you dont accept the football results or the shareprices.

How are non scientists to accept scientific journals and peer review. Scientists and medical professionals dont have a good reputation -look at the Hepititus C scandal and the Blood Transfusion Board. The were medics and scientists.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

Christians have difficulty in accepting that you can accept what you read in the newspapers and not in the bible and reject the way we have interpreted our scripture for almost 2000 years. After all its a book compiled by witnesses.

In response to this, and by way of example please read:

http://www.badscience.net/2008/12/its-not-my-fault-i-fall-into-repetitive-self-parody-you-started-it/

A rubbish scientist/atheist might accept the content of a newspaper story on authority. The rest of us will look for the evidence if an extraordinary claim has been made. We'll treat the bible no differently.

Galvasean

CDfm wrote: »

So you dont accept the football results or the shareprices.

Sometimes it does beggar belief alright.:pac: I generally don't accept the 'dream team' star points they give out. Sometimes I wonder if they read the game.

CDfm wrote: »

How are non scientists to accept scientific journals and peer review.

As Atomic Horror keeps saying a scientist can independently recreate what they read in such journals if they doubt the findings.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

In response to this, and by way of example please read:

http://www.badscience.net/2008/12/its-not-my-fault-i-fall-into-repetitive-self-parody-you-started-it/

A rubbish scientist/atheist might accept the content of a newspaper story on authority. The rest of us will look for the evidence if an extraordinary claim has been made. We'll treat the bible no differently.

I agree with you on bad science.

Its easy to recreate Newtons Gravity experiment.However, there are plenty of other things you cannot recreat for scientific verification.

But asking for a scientific experiment to prove God exists and using as a measurement testable scientific methods is a bit of a joke.Knowing its not possible for any person to summon God like that but it does show a certain contempt for believers to have such
statements made. Not so hard for believers to believe then that those in the scientific community are hostile to us. I think so.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

So you dont accept the football results or the shareprices.

How are non scientists to accept scientific journals and peer review. Scientists and medical professionals dont have a good reputation -look at the Hepititus C scandal and the Blood Transfusion Board. The were medics and scientists.

How does that scandal reflect on the primary literature? The public should not accept the literature on authority, though I'm sure some would prefer it if they did. The reputation of scientists should not enter into it, the weight of the evidence should be all that matters.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

I agree with you on bad science.

Its easy to recreate Newtons Gravity experiment.However, there are plenty of other things you cannot recreat for scientific verification.

Perhaps not me personally, but an experiment that is not reproducible is not evidence.

CDfm wrote: »

But asking for a scientific experiment to prove God exists and using as a measurement testable scientific methods is a bit of a joke.

Evidence of intervention would probably be more the issue.

CDfm wrote: »

Knowing its not possible for any person to summon God like that but it does show a certain contempt for believers to have such
statements made.

When testable assertions are made regarding the influence of God, it is appropriate to request evidence.

Rev Hellfire

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I guess we can call it faith in as much as we must have faith that the world is not a vast conspiracy designed merely to trick us into thinking some stuff about subatomic particles is true when it isn't... The community is just full of people willing to tear down the giants so they'd all have to be in on it too. Not even vaguely the same kind of faith we talk about when it comes to religion.

Ohh I totally agree with you. It certainly is easier to given credence to published scientific evidence than it is to vague mutters about spiritual interactions. I just objected to the idea that people generally can validate science which I misinterpreted you where implying.

UU

CDfm wrote: »

The Uber was just a bit of fun.

But it does seem a bit much to expect others to accept your point of view if you label them delusional- illogical means it does not appear logical to you.

Christians have difficulty in accepting that you can accept what you read in the newspapers and not in the bible and reject the way we have interpreted our scripture for almost 2000 years. After all its a book compiled by witnesses.

I too am not sure about fanatical catholics. But I am less sure of the ethics of others who are supposed to reassure me that the science is ethical.

I fully agree that it isnt the place for abortion or stemcell debates.

Ah ok well as they say, fanatical religious people crash planes into buildings and fanatical atheists write books!!!

I don't expect others to accept my point of view just as they wouldn't expect me to accept theirs because I believe people have their own freedom and their own minds to have their own views of things; one thing I do not do is try to win over the hearts of converts, that's not what science or atheism does. But I do think blind faith is ultimately irrational and illogical and I won't deny that. All I ask is that people try thinking for themselves and challenge everything, not just religious.

As George Gershwin famously sings in his song "Those things that you're li'ble, to read in the Bible, they ain't necessarily so". I have doubts over whether the Bible is fully witnessed at all. It certainly isn't strong historical evidence because there are many others scriptures and texts that have been found which contradict what it says as well as other records, geographical and biological evidence. You can fire ahead and believe that the Bible is accurate and fully witnessed but I don't accept that so lets just leave it there. After all, you're on an atheist and agnostic forum so you're view of the Bible isn't going to be really accepted here because generally we're sceptics here especially regarding religion. In short, I agree to disagree!

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

But asking for a scientific experiment to prove God exists and using as a measurement testable scientific methods is a bit of a joke. Knowing its not possible for any person to summon God like that but it does show a certain contempt for believers to have such statements made.

Not really when you recall that believers in all kinds of gods think that shutting their eyes and talking to themselves is actually going to achieve something measurable.

So, I don't believe that you can say that psychologists and sociologists are showing you "contempt" when they're taking your claims seriously enough to investigate them.

EamonnKeane

CDfm wrote: »

Yup - UU - uber is appropriate.

For you a belief in God gets in the way of logic. You cant take that something was observed 2000 plus years ago & that people from then wrote down their observations.Its just a different way of looking at the world than you have.

To be a scientist you have to have faith in other scientists and the system of controls. So you have faith- just not in God.

The Warren Commisions Report on the Assaination of JFK is a lot longer than the Four Gospels and a lot of witnesses didnt agree and that was 45 years ago - do you accept it happened bearing in mind you werent there?
Probably. Because people testified it did. The same with lots of other stuff.
If all the witnesses testified in the same way it would have been odd- the same with the Bible.

Well Christians have reasons to believe that stem search research on cells taken from aborted foestuses is wrong. Something about the thou shalt not kill think. Funnily enough - people who dont agree with abortion are against stem cell harvesting thru that method. Does that make us stupid - no-it makes us realists.

People who believe in abortion and stemcell research have a different set of ethics that maybe Christians find odd.We are I believe the only species to terminate pregnancy.It is wrong to dress that up as a freedom- I cant conceptualise making that decision- it is equally wrong to suggest that some non-christians and atheists dont have reservations.

There are some scientists and medical professionals who are Christians and dont believe what you do.

Your real beef seems to be with people who have ethics based on a set of beliefs or philosophy other than what you believe to be scientific.

So you cant accept that people who look at the world using a system of belief than science have any right to and are delusional. Thats a bit dramatic isnt it.

Actually all species carry out spontaneous abortion - the mother's body analyses the foetus and, if it has a serious genetic disorder, instructs the immune system to kill it.

Odd that a benevolent designer would design a woman's womb to kill 95% of foetuses with genetic malformations, but send to Hell all those who dare kill the 5% who slip through the cracks.

dlofnep

Here's the thing.

I have two options.

1) Accept that a mythical figure, that nobody has ever seen and that last represented himself 2000 years ago (Who's only link with present day is a book. That's right, a 2000 year old book) created everything I see.

2) Accept that somehow, life was stimulated on earth. Starting with a very basic single-celled lifeform, which over the course of millions and millions of years, slowly by surely adapted itself to it's environment.

I'll go with the latter. Evolution just makes more sense to me as a thoughtful person.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Perhaps not me personally, but an experiment that is not reproducible is not evidence.



Evidence of intervention would probably be more the issue.



When testable assertions are made regarding the influence of God, it is appropriate to request evidence.

AH there must be loads of stuff that cant be reproduced.

JUst say -volcanoes - thats observation .

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

AH there must be loads of stuff that cant be reproduced.

JUst say -volcanoes - thats observation .

Huh?

CDfm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Huh?

There is a lot of stuff out there that science tells us it has hypotheses for that is generally accepted as fact but is not testable.

I am just saying well volcanoes -hot stuff that comes from the earth.
Nobody knows for sure whats at the earth core. No one has seen or observed it.
All the planetary stuff -formation of planets - black holes and all that - its just conjecture.

On the construction of the pyramids in Egypt - archaeologists use conjecture.They assemble information and use conjecture to fill in the blanks.But dont know the contruction methods.

What I am saying is that a lot of what sciencists ask us to believe is pure hypotheses based on conjecture or mathemathical models.

Its very like medieval scholars saying the world is flat based on observation. Thats the tradition scientists operate in.

So essentially scientists know very little they are just scratching the surface of what they know about the universe. So when a scientist says "There is no God" what he is really saying is " My hypotheses is there is no God" and if you ask for further explanation the best you can hope for is "Huh, well thats the theory - I also dont know what lives at the bottom of the ocean or I havent tested whats at our own planets core"

Thats the reality isnt it?

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

Thats the reality isnt it?

No, but I suspect you've decided it is.