[macC++a]

Andora, on 10 Nov, 2008 - 05:31 AM, said:

Quote

Astronomers from the earliest times thought what they did from scientific error. Whether they were athiest, pagan or otherwise. Perfect example.

Are you seriously suggesting that the earth is the center of the solar system? I think we have proven pretty clearly that they did not make an error.

haha....yes I am the only one who knows the truth...... of course that is not what I am saying. The beliefs about astronomy along with many wrong theories came from Aristotle and existed unchallenged for ages.

Quote

Religion is the recognition of a Divine being behind the things of nature and supernature. The word religion is tied up with the voluntary binding of oneself to this divine being.

For christians, this is probably true. But I am referring to religions in general.

So was I.

Quote

Evolution is nothing more than a widely spread and accepted THEORY.

I think you need to learn the definition of theory. A theory is a widely accepted belief that a select few refuse to believe in. I don't think you are going to try to disprove the theory of relativity(gravity). Are you?
The American Heritage Dictionary:

Quote

Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

You claimed science by definition was proven facts. Your statement was simply wrong. Science is made of theories and my statement of evoloution being a theory is correct no matter how you want to look at it.

??? Doesn't my statement closely mirror the definition you quote? The only bit missing is about the repeated testing, in other words the overwhelming evidence. This is precisely because this element is missing from the theory of evolution making it untenable. Which brings into question the motivation to still widely spread and accept it to be possibly true. The fact is as I stated, the top guys are not because it is academically unsound to do so. Must look for new theory to oppose a divinly created universe.

I will not dispute that science is constantly changing. Just a few months ago it was announced that our galaxy is actually a barred spiral rather than the classic spiral. Such things happen when new information is available. I think this is a strength of science, it will never hold on to a belief when all the proof points the other way.

Quote

Your slurs on the Catholic Church are ludicrous.

I'll try not to go down this path, simply because nobody will be able to change anyone's beliefs there.

Quote

You enjoy a Christian democracy...

By the way you spell civiliZation, you are probably not from the States. But if I live under a christian democracy, I'm leaving for the closest dictatorship. Separation of church and state is hugely important. Partly why I have a problem with republicans, but that's another story.

Quote

...the free ability to attend university...

i get to attend a university because I'm giving them cold hard cash. I don't understand what you are saying, but it sounds incorrect. Perhaps you could clarify.

If you don't understand then I don't think I could clarify it for you.

Quote

Like I asked earlier, find one thing truly proven by science that is in opposition to Catholic teaching. You won't find one. You only believe without thinking it through, that there must be.

1. Galileo proved the earth orbited the sun.
2. It is blatantly obvious that he was correct.
3. The catholic church suppressed this knowledge because of their beliefs.
4. What more could I say to prove this to you?

Actually he didn't. He insisted that the Churchman Copernicus's theory was correct without proof. The Catholic church had no objection to this investigation as a hypothesis. Only when forcefully declared true at a time when after the reformation many were considered to be promoting heretical teaching. They were concerned it was anti sciptural. The Churchmen of this time did make an error in hindsight. But their motivation was sound and unbias modern observers maintain their position at the time compared with Galileo's was superior academically. To hold the belief that the Christianity would try and hold mankind in some sort of scientific darkness is simply wild because they had been and continued to be the main ones engaged in the sciences at all.

I think the underlying issue here is that you accept the bible's text as proof that overrides scientific proof. And you have been given a different (I believe false) impression of the reputability of science.
I see the bible as a set of ideals intended to get large amounts of people to live a profitable life. I decided not to follow them, but I will live a profitable life.

Thats a very ignorant statement. You have not the nouse to even gauge my religious affiliations from my statements yet you make presumption even here. What ever my beliefs may be it certainly is not an underlying issue as you put it, of my objections to your arguments.

This post has been edited by macC++a: 09 November 2008 - 07:17 PM

[robarb]

macC++a, on 9 Nov, 2008 - 06:56 PM, said:

You claimed science by definition was proven facts. Your statement was simply wrong. Science is made of theories and my statement of evoloution being a theory is correct no matter how you want to look at it.

The problem with you argument is that 'theory' in the context of science refers to something different than the colloquial use of 'theory'. In the world of science, gravity is a 'theory' as much as evolution is a 'theory', whereas in our vernacular my random and unsubstantiated ideas about the functioning of the universe could be considered a 'theory'.

[macC++a]

mmolsk, on 10 Nov, 2008 - 12:10 PM, said:

macC++a, on 9 Nov, 2008 - 06:56 PM, said:

You claimed science by definition was proven facts. Your statement was simply wrong. Science is made of theories and my statement of evoloution being a theory is correct no matter how you want to look at it.

The problem with you argument is that 'theory' in the context of science refers to something different than the colloquial use of 'theory'. In the world of science, gravity is a 'theory' as much as evolution is a 'theory', whereas in our vernacular my random and unsubstantiated ideas about the functioning of the universe could be considered a 'theory'.

Yes I am aware of the distinction made between science theory and others. This distinction is hotly disputed as well I might add. I was not clear enough due to brevity constraints but went on to say that the theory was was overwhelmingly unsupported by evidence. This makes it as unsubstantiated as your own random ideas. I was also using the word to correct the use of the words 'proven fact' in dealing with scientific knowledge. The statement still remains true?

[robarb]

You can argue semantics till the cows come home, but the notion that science is simply another 'opinion' that should be put on the same level of theology is fundamentally flawed. You see no empirical evidence in theology, and often times the arguments are not based off of a logical progression of ideas. Faith is not science - they are not just two interpretations to be evaluated in the same way.

If you have such evidence of the flaw of evolutionary ideas, then please lay the evidence out in a coherent way. Worry not of brevity - take all the time you need. If it is, as you say, 'overwhelmingly unsupported by evidence', then you should have no problem citing numerous unbiased sources to support your point. Refute the fundamentals of Evolution, point by point, and tear down the theory. Go.

[macC++a]

macC++a, on 10 Nov, 2008 - 12:29 PM, said:

mmolsk, on 10 Nov, 2008 - 12:10 PM, said:

macC++a, on 9 Nov, 2008 - 06:56 PM, said:

You claimed science by definition was proven facts. Your statement was simply wrong. Science is made of theories and my statement of evoloution being a theory is correct no matter how you want to look at it.

The problem with you argument is that 'theory' in the context of science refers to something different than the colloquial use of 'theory'. In the world of science, gravity is a 'theory' as much as evolution is a 'theory', whereas in our vernacular my random and unsubstantiated ideas about the functioning of the universe could be considered a 'theory'.

Yes I am aware of the distinction made between science theory and others. This distinction is hotly disputed as well I might add. I was not clear enough due to brevity constraints but went on to say that the theory was was overwhelmingly unsupported by evidence. This makes it as unsubstantiated as your own random ideas. I was also using the word to correct the use of the words 'proven fact' in dealing with scientific knowledge. The statement still remains true?

What an underhand claim. Demand from me the unreasonable, that which you are not prepared to do. Or be wrong?
How about you take the time to give us a measure of your position more clearly then we may respond. Is it not upto the theorist to present his evidence first, not the other way round?

[robarb]

I didn't realize it was 'unreasonable' for me to 'demand' (I was actually shooting for ... 'reasonably ask') for you to support your argument. You have taken a position on this issue in several posts in this thread, so it's not unreasonable for you to support your position.

Oh, wait.... theology has no empirical evidence, so there isn't much for you to support your argument with. Man, why did I even ask you? I was just asking for a letdown.

[Andora]

Quote

What an underhand claim. Demand from me the unreasonable, that which you are not prepared to do. Or be wrong?
How about you take the time to give us a measure of your position more clearly then we may respond. Is it not upto the theorist to present his evidence first, not the other way round?

The information of evolution are on this very page. I even posted The Origin of Species.
More information is right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
It is mostly correct.

What more info do you want?

Just present some argument. I haven't seen ANYTHING that can dispute evolution.

This post has been edited by Andora: 09 November 2008 - 08:21 PM

[macC++a]

You guys are tripping. To detail the theories of the general idea of evolution would literally fill 10 pages if done briefly.

There are miriad of books and publications promoting general evolution as largely factual. Wikipedia? Your joking surely. Who wrote that? That page was changed last month, what did they add or change about the facts now? You need to look into each theory (there are many) who came up with it, what it is and who now has adapted it to fit theirs and how etc. It is a minefield of conjecture.

But OK. Lets try this. Do you accept these statements.

The origin of life is unknown to science.

There is no evidence of progressive evolution of species.

There is absolutely zero evidence of an animal origin of man.

The theory of gradual or saltatory evolution has not evidence from history or experimentation.

Lamarck's theories of inheritance combined with environmental influence are where some thought is headed now but still largely unsupported and hotly contested from many sides.

To compare an unsubstanciated theory to a well tested one like gravity is ridiculous. Even the top researchers in the sciences currently studying these things do not hold your positions. They acknowledge the above!

This post has been edited by macC++a: 09 November 2008 - 08:56 PM

[Andora]

Quote

Do you accept these statements?

Me? I don't accept a single one of them.

The evidence is sitting right there in front of you.

[KYA]

At what point did a single cell amoeba decide to become greater? When it decide it wanted to be maybe two cells? How did it know to do that?

[robarb]

KYA, on 9 Nov, 2008 - 09:40 PM, said:

At what point did a single cell amoeba decide to become greater? When it decide it wanted to be maybe two cells? How did it know to do that?

The environment selected traits which would be passed on. Let's take an example of a species of fox which has a genetic mutation that causes it to have more fur than the other foxes in an area. During times of cold weather it would be more prone to survive than the foxes with less fur, and it would pass this genetically determined trait of more fur on to future generations of fox. There is no reasoning involved, merely environmental and genetic components. Genetic mutation is common, and traits which better serve an organism to survive in a particular environment are passed on. That = evolution. It's not like there is some endpoint that an organism is evolving to, nor is there reason... it's just how a species changes over time and is better suited to survive than other competing organisms.

[nirvanarupali]

The arguments seem like a vicious cycle. Maybe some are not reading the whole thread.

Quote

Refute the fundamentals of Evolution.

I have answered that already. here




In philosophy bible is not used, so I'm not gonna used this.

There is a proper way to read the Bible.

[red_4900]

I was wondering from the start. Why do you guys have to refer to Bible when you're talking about religion? There are so many religion in the world, yet this thread seems like "Bible vs Science" instead of "Religion vs Science". Why not try looking at some of these issues/questions from other religion's point of view? They might have other answers.

Quote

1. Galileo proved the earth orbited the sun.
2. It is blatantly obvious that he was correct.
3. The catholic church suppressed this knowledge because of their beliefs.
4. What more could I say to prove this to you?

That is what the christ said. What about other religion?

[KYA]

mmolsk, on 9 Nov, 2008 - 09:47 PM, said:

KYA, on 9 Nov, 2008 - 09:40 PM, said:

At what point did a single cell amoeba decide to become greater? When it decide it wanted to be maybe two cells? How did it know to do that?

The environment selected traits which would be passed on. Let's take an example of a species of fox which has a genetic mutation that causes it to have more fur than the other foxes in an area. During times of cold weather it would be more prone to survive than the foxes with less fur, and it would pass this genetically determined trait of more fur on to future generations of fox. There is no reasoning involved, merely environmental and genetic components. Genetic mutation is common, and traits which better serve an organism to survive in a particular environment are passed on. That = evolution. It's not like there is some endpoint that an organism is evolving to, nor is there reason... it's just how a species changes over time and is better suited to survive than other competing organisms.

And to that extent I agree. People develop over time to suit environmental changes. So what environmental change made a monkey decide to be a man? That is where evolution fails.

[GWatt]

@KYA:
It does not fail. And besides, you're simplifying this down. You imply that one day a whole bunch of monkeys (insert primates for clarification) just up and decided to become human. That's obviously incorrect. Much more likely is that millions of years ago a humanoid primate species (australopithecus) had better luck surviving as it developed traits inline with modern homo sapiens.
I think you probably know this, but the theory is we're not descendants of monkeys. Monkeys and humans probably have a common ancestor.

@red:

Quote

I was wondering from the start. Why do you guys have to refer to Bible when you're talking about religion?

No reason. Probably because christians make up a good 2/3 of the world population and ~85% of the US population and a large number of this forumis from the States.