[manimal]

Example?

from the OP of this thread:

First song, "Science is Real." Implication being obvious, but the lyrics actually say something about how "there are people who like stories about angels and unicorns, but science is real from DNA to evolution..."

Religion and evolution are both neither provable/falsifiable or repeatable yet, as you see above, evolution is touted as the only possibility that explains the origins of life and creation is mocked when in reality, both are faith-based ideas (no evidence of micro to macro evolution and dating methods are highly inconsistent - i even got my professors to agree with me on those points) my biology professor explained it very well when he said, "evolutionary science is always changing but it's the best way we have so far to explain the origin of life." i am totally cool with that because he's not preaching it as anything but what it is. the problem arises when stuff like MikeD's dvd makes such bold claims as "science is real from DNA to evolution" and then mocks the creation theory as a fairy tale consistent with belief in unicorns. my son's science textbook does not state that evolution is our current best idea on how life originated but it states that evolution is how we came to be.
do you see my point? i am not contesting science as a necessary and vital part of life, heck..my whole family is in medicine, my issue is with agenda's that set out to try and disprove any and every form of religious belief through semantics that doesn't give kids a fair chance to make up their own minds.
(there are other issues...evolution is just the easiest one to debate in comparison to religion.)

and burly, in the spirit of open-mindedness...i'll read your book if you read mine:
http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Trial-Phillip-Johnson/dp/0830813241

 

[ohio]

Manimal, you seem to struggle with the idea that one thing can be MORE right than another, even if it is imperfect. Not all uncertainties are equal.

 

[Silver]

Um, no. If evolutionary theory wasn't falsifiable, Darwin would have been 100% correct.

He wasn't.

Also, gaps in understanding don't lead to the conclusion=Jesus. That's what we smart people call a non-sequitur.

Also, too...we've done this thread in the past, yes? Did Hovind make a stop in your area on the weekend?

 

[Westy]

I'm sure if evolutionary theory supported an Out Of Austria model it wouldn't be so controversial.

 

[jonKranked]

from the OP of this thread:



Religion and evolution are both neither provable/falsifiable or repeatable yet, as you see above, evolution is touted as the only possibility that explains the origins of life and creation is mocked when in reality, both are faith-based ideas (no evidence of micro to macro evolution and dating methods are highly inconsistent - i even got my professors to agree with me on those points) my biology professor explained it very well when he said, "evolutionary science is always changing but it's the best way we have so far to explain the origin of life." i am totally cool with that because he's not preaching it as anything but what it is. the problem arises when stuff like MikeD's dvd makes such bold claims as "science is real from DNA to evolution" and then mocks the creation theory as a fairy tale consistent with belief in unicorns. my son's science textbook does not state that evolution is our current best idea on how life originated but it states that evolution is how we came to be.
do you see my point? i am not contesting science as a necessary and vital part of life, heck..my whole family is in medicine, my issue is with agenda's that set out to try and disprove any and every form of religious belief through semantics that doesn't give kids a fair chance to make up their own minds.
(there are other issues...evolution is just the easiest one to debate in comparison to religion.)

and burly, in the spirit of open-mindedness...i'll read your book if you read mine:
http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Trial-Phillip-Johnson/dp/0830813241

point is, there's more evidence supporting the theory of evolution than there is supporting the 7 days + magic beard man theory.

 

[manimal]

Um, no. If evolutionary theory wasn't falsifiable, Darwin would have been 100% correct.

He wasn't.

Also, gaps in understanding don't lead to the conclusion=Jesus. That's what we smart people call a non-sequitur.

so we are at an impasse...(even though i was not condescending towards you for your belief.) you don't understand how i can believe in creation and i don't understand how you can believe in the broad assumption that is macroevolution. both sides have supportive science but neither have any concrete evidence yet creationst/intelligent design-ist are ridiculed as buffoons for believing in something just as faith-driven.

 

[Silver]

so we are at an impasse...(even though i was not condescending towards you for your belief.) you don't understand how i can believe in creation and i don't understand how you can believe in the broad assumption that is macroevolution. both sides have supportive science but neither have any concrete evidence yet creationst/intelligent design-ist are ridiculed as buffoons for believing in something just as faith-driven.

What color is the sky in your world?

I actually did laugh out loud at the bold part, btw.

 

[kidwoo]

Religion and evolution are both neither provable/falsifiable or repeatable yet, as you see above, evolution is touted as the only possibility that explains the origins of life and creation

Whoa whoa....... That's BS.


Evolution is absolutely provable and has been proven for decades in a multitude of species. Where I think you're getting confused is in species that have a much longer reproductive/regeneration cycle like humans. Then again this may actually be news to you.......

Origin of life is something related but not wholly the same.

 

[MMike]

Whoa whoa....... That's BS.


Evolution is absolutely provable and has been proven for decades in a multitude of species. Where I think you're getting confused is in species that have a much longer reproductive/regeneration cycle like humans. Then again this may actually be news to you.......

Origin of life is something related but not wholly the same.

I was going to say that. I was busy googling supporting info.....but you said it better than I would have anyway....

 

[MMike]

both sides have supportive science but neither have any concrete evidence yet creationst/intelligent design-ist are ridiculed as buffoons for believing in something just as faith-driven.

But there IS no science behind intelligent design! Criminy...............

 

[kidwoo]

But there IS no science behind intelligent design! Criminy...............

Use the word 'evidence', it'll go over better

 

[MMike]

It is my belief that the police should only use water pistols, candy canes and tickles to subdue criminals.

Though I have never studied criminology at all, I believe that this is a valid method.

So there.

 

[Silver]

But there IS no science behind intelligent design! Criminy...............

Well, God invented science, so therefore magic unicorns!

Woohoo!

 

[BurlyShirley]

from the OP of this thread

No. This marks one of several times you've either outright ignored or misunderstood very simple points I've made in this thread. What you said was:

many in the scientific community, or perhaps the politico-scientific community, parade around with extrapolated "evidence" as fact to bash the religious community and then quickly become silent when the evidence no longer supports their agenda.

The band They Might be Giants are not scientists. So far as I know they haven't "extrapolated any evidence," and then they didn't become silent after what they "paraded around with" was debunked, so I fail to see how you classified this as an example of the type I asked for. Specifically I'd like to see any example of where a religious claim proved a scientific claim wrong.

Religion and evolution are both neither provable/falsifiable or repeatable yet, as you see above, evolution is touted as the only possibility that explains the origins of life and creation is mocked when in reality, both are faith-based ideas (no evidence of micro to macro evolution and dating methods are highly inconsistent - i even got my professors to agree with me on those points)

You're pretty far off-base here.
First off, with regard to micro/macro evolution.. you'll have to explain WTF you're even talking about. Microevolution (change in genetics) is the exact same thing as macroevolution, only viewed on molecular scale. The two don't need to be reconciled in any way at all. One explains the other. Whoever gave you this talking point is a retard... or are you saying you don't believe in DNA/genetics?

Evolution (change over time) is fact. The species that exist today are not the same as pre-cambrian species. Fossil records clearly show a transition from simple to more complex organisms. No debate there. What you are attempting debate and referring to as "the theory of evolution" is the mechanism that causes these changes, which is properly known as The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Because this process takes so long to occur in nature, it's not readily repeatable in a laboratory setting, but we have many, many instances of the same repeated trends occurring across the taxonomic spectrum, so repetition actually has been achieved and observed. This process is so integral to our understanding of the natural world that none of the rest of biology even makes sense without its application. There are many converging lines of evidence that support this theory (fossil record, genetics, cladistics, biogeography, etc.) that a complete picture is available to us. To claim it is in any way "faith-based" makes no sense at all when such a complete picture is available.

my biology professor explained it very well when he said, "evolutionary science is always changing but it's the best way we have so far to explain the origin of life." i am totally cool with that because he's not preaching it as anything but what it is.

I don't know who your professor was, but either you misunderstood the person or he doesn't know what he's talking about. First off "evolution" is not the study of the "origin of life" nor does claim to explain the phenomenon. Origin of species? Yes, but not origin of the first species.

If you want to claim that a god created the first species and thereby set all natural, biological events in motion that way, fine. It's not my area of expertise and knowledge in the field of abiogenesis is not as rock solid as evolution by natural selection by any stretch. But remember there is no evidence at all to support the existence of a deity, and even if you count the bible as evidence, it wouldn't support this viewpoint. The explanations available in the bible have been completely discredited.

the problem arises when stuff like MikeD's dvd makes such bold claims as "science is real from DNA to evolution" and then mocks the creation theory as a fairy tale consistent with belief in unicorns. my son's science textbook does not state that evolution is our current best idea on how life originated but it states that evolution is how we came to be.

How exactly is creation theory any more credible than belief in unicorns? There is precisely the same amount of evidence supporting the existence of each (none). What place is there for completely unsupported speculation in a science textbook? Evolution by natural selection is sound. Science does not eventually proclaim that a theory has become accepted as a fact. The preponderance of evidence supports evolution by natural selection, therefore that is what we teach in science class. There are no competing theories.

do you see my point? i am not contesting science as a necessary and vital part of life, heck..my whole family is in medicine, my issue is with agenda's that set out to try and disprove any and every form of religious belief through semantics that doesn't give kids a fair chance to make up their own minds.

No. I don't see your point because you haven't really made one. You have only made clear a willingness to believe the unsupported in the face of the heavily supported, and have presented a manufactured controversy as means of rationalizing it.

(there are other issues...evolution is just the easiest one to debate in comparison to religion.)

and burly, in the spirit of open-mindedness...i'll read your book if you read mine:
http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Trial-Phillip-Johnson/dp/0830813241

I'll read anything someone asks me to seriously consider. Let's trade books.

 

[kidwoo]

Hey you guys remember when burly used to be a dumb republican redneck?


THAT'S evolution bltches!!!

 

[MMike]

Hey you guys remember when burly used to be a dumb republican redneck?


THAT'S evolution bltches!!!

I DO!! I was thinking the same thing!!! But that's when he was BurleySURLY...

 

[Westy]

I DO!! I was thinking the same thing!!! But that's when he was BurleySURLY...

He didn't drink in those days. See what sobriety does to you.

 

[MikeD]

Anyone see the irony in "Manimal" arguing against evolution?

 

[MMike]

Anyone see the irony in "Manimal" arguing against evolution?

[youtube]6iQ-mzYRl3s[/youtube]

you sir, have blown my MIND!!!!

 

[BurlyShirley]

Hey you guys remember when burly used to be a dumb republican redneck?

Well to be fair, I don't think I've gotten any smarter. At some point I just realized I was putting far more work into justifying or defending opinions than had I spent trying to form them in the first place. That's a backward way of doing things.

 

[MMike]

Well to be fair, I don't think I've gotten any smarter. At some point I just realized I was putting far more work into justifying or defending opinions than had I spent trying to form them in the first place. That's a backward way of doing things.

You sir, also, have blown my mind!!!

 

[kidwoo]

Well to be fair, I don't think I've gotten any smarter. At some point I just realized I was putting far more work into justifying or defending opinions than had I spent trying to form them in the first place. That's a backward way of doing things.

Nah, that's just the puberty talkin.

 

[stevew]

burly's desire to become a teacher will die in this thread.

twas a noble gesture.....

 

[kidwoo]

burly's desire to become a teacher will die in this thread.

twas a noble gesture.....

Nah. Kids tend to be more open minded and willing to understand than manimal is.

 

[Kevin]

I also gotta wonder about the "theory" Kevin cites that the world would be better off without religion, because historical causation is a decidedly thorny philosophical problem, and certainly nothing that can be tested in a way as to make it a theory. Sounds more like me in high school, pissed-off and cynical and railing about the evil and stupidity of "organized religion" while cranking up my NIN Pretty Hate Machine cassette, or maybe my Ministry Psalm 69...
.

Let me be more clear.
Religion has become obsolete in the past years, maybe decades.
It has served its purpose of explaining the unexplainable for the regular Joe, science does a better job at that now even though many people are too infested with religious doctrine to see it.
The only purpose it serves today is that it comforts.
In my opinion this is only because people are misseducated, and kept away from the truth by religious propaganda and doctrine.

The truth, for me, is in fact more beautifull and comforting then the fiction brought to us by religion...

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?

By Douglas Adams

 

[MikeD]

Let me be more clear.
Religion has become obsolete in the past years, maybe decades.
It has served its purpose of explaining the unexplainable for the regular Joe, science does a better job at that now even though many people are too infested with religious doctrine to see it.
The only purpose it serves today is that it comforts.
In my opinion this is only because people are misseducated, and kept away from the truth by religious propaganda and doctrine.

The truth, for me, is in fact more beautifull and comforting then the fiction brought to us by religion...



By Douglas Adams

You're stuck on a facet of religion as an explainer of phenomena. That's not all it is/can be.

I'm an atheist, so you don't need to convince me there aren't fairies in the garden.



In the meantime, let us all enjoy a They Might be Giants selection:

May it haunt your brain as it does mine.

 

[BMXman]

only there was no science behind the premise.

Where's bmxman when you need him?

 

[Kevin]

You're stuck on a facet of religion as an explainer of phenomena. That's not all it is/can be.

I'm an atheist, so you don't need to convince me there aren't fairies in the garden.



In the meantime, let us all enjoy a They Might be Giants selection:

May it haunt your brain as it does mine.

No. No Im not.
Im saying religion as a moral guide is obsolete and in fact a paradox because in the end you base youre morals not on religious guidance but on common sense.

Religion has become obsolete in every aspect of its served purpose.

 

[Kevin]

If religion has more purposes even then explanation, comforting and guidance Id love to hear about them...

 

[stevew]

If religion has more purposes even then explanation, comforting and guidance Id love to hear about them...

 

[MMike]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2011/04/14/135351303/the-triceratops-panic-why-does-science-keep-changing-its-mind?sc=fb&cc=fp

 

[Westy]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2011/04/14/135351303/the-triceratops-panic-why-does-science-keep-changing-its-mind?sc=fb&cc=fp

Scientific proof that science is wrong!