Evolution? How?

None of his complaints about science do anything to establish his contentions for his imaginary friend.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

I think after reading this you'll find that the word religion is very hard to define.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm

Religion can most definitely be defined by what it is not:

Religion is not science, not even close, not even in the same ballpark.

Can you imagine praying to god for crude oil will to turn into gasoline? No oil refineries needed!

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Real Life has no proof that creationism is true. The best he can do is try and critique modern science.

Scientists do a vastly better job of critiquing modern science than real live will ever accomplish.

Modern science is improving over time precisely because of scientist's critiquing.

Ironically, if Real Life actually has any legitimate critiques of Evolution, his criticisms would only help improve modern science, not hurt it.

How funny because the obvious implication of your last paragraph is that you believe that 'improving modern science' to be synonomous with 'supporting the theory of evolution'; when in fact they are not synonomous terms at all.

But nice try.

0 Replies

No, that is a completely false statement. A theory of evolution, unlike religionist scripture, is not held to be immutable and inerrant. It would be, and will be, altered as the evidence directs. This demonstrates, however, the extent to which you either do not understand, or are willing to publicly lie about scientific theory.

0 Replies

Set, The religionists continue to twist and turn the realities of science to fit their narrow image of creationism, sacrificing all common sense, logic, and reality.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

None of his complaints about science do anything to establish his contentions for his imaginary friend.

Since this thread's topic is Evolution, it would seem that critique of evolution is well within the topic. If ya can't stand the heat.............

0 Replies

The only heat emanating here is the religionist's definition of "evolution." Hell is scary isn't it?

0 Replies

I can stand the heat just fine, but i wonder if you can--after the the topic, which accurate is not Evolution, but rather "Evolution? How?"--is posted in the Spirituality and Religion forum. Your imaginary friend is definitely fair game on that basis.

I understand, though, why you make your pronouncements from the dining room, on the side away from the kitchen. Here, let me crank up the heat:

What circumstantial evidence do you have for a direct creation as the cause of the species diversity on this planet?

0 Replies

Real Life you are such a silly boy!

Evolution is modern science just like geology and chemistry and genetics. Do you plan on debunking all of modern science with one fell swoop swoop of your all-powerful bible?

0 Replies

Evolution could not exist without geology and chemistry and genetics, so let's hear why those disciplines are wrong too.

Betcha Real Life is too scared to answer

0 Replies

Real Life is a scaredy-cat Smile

0 Replies

I would include in that list astronomy, paleoanthropology, and mathematics.

0 Replies

Don't forget physics.

0 Replies

Real Life can't argue against evolution without arguing against all of science.

Can you imagine praying to god for crude oil to turn into gasoline? No oil refineries needed!

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Real Life you are such a silly boy!

Evolution is modern science just like geology and chemistry and genetics. Do you plan on debunking all of modern science with one fell swoop swoop of your all-powerful bible?

Chum,

Geology is a branch of science. Same thing for chemistry, etc.

Evolution is a scientific theory. Geology is not a theory. Neither is chemistry. Get it?

Try to keep the distinction straight. Trying to equate evolution with branches of science makes you sound ridiculous.

0 Replies

Biology and Medicine both rely on evolution so much that you may as well scrap them both if you scrap evolution....which we won't be doing ('cept maybe in Kansas, where there appears to be little of either worth worrying about)

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Biology and Medicine both rely on evolution so much that you may as well scrap them both if you scrap evolution....which we won't be doing ('cept maybe in Kansas, where there appears to be little of either worth worrying about)

Biology and medicine would do fine if evolution had never been thought of. Your panic is not well founded. Doctors would continue to treat disease and practice medicine without a hitch.

Since you've probably never been to Kansas, I guess this is just another thing you speculate and spout about with no real knowledge, eh?

0 Replies

Where do you think flu vacine comes from? How do you think they develop flu vacine without understanding evolution?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Where do you think flu vacine comes from? How do you think they develop flu vacine without understanding evolution?

Don't pretend that flu viruses 'evolve', CI. They are still viruses.

That successive generations are different from one another is no more remarkable than you being different from your parents.

And that viruses can resistant chemical attacks on them is no more remarkable than your body's ability to do so. Are you 'evolving' when your body responds to a threat to keep you alive and well? (You probably think so but you aren't.)

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Geology is a branch of science. Same thing for chemistry, etc.

Yes very good Real Life! Head of the class you go!

real life wrote:

Evolution is a scientific theory.

Nonaughty Real Life! To the back of the class you go! Evolution is as much a branch of science as chemistry. Have you ever heard of the atomic theory? Chemistry is dependant on atomic theory. Did you know that? But according to your ?'logic' a theory is not very good, so you must think chemistry is not very good too.

real life wrote:

Geology is not a theory. Neither is chemistry. Get it?

Naughty Real Life! To the back of the class you go! In fact both geology and chemistry are based on theories. Get it?

real life wrote:

Try to keep the distinction straight.

Try and keep your distortions straight naughty boy!

real life wrote:

Trying to equate evolution with branches of science makes you sound ridiculous.

In that case thank you, because in your books ridiculous must mean reasonable.

You can't argue against evolution without arguing against all of science.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know