10 Feb 09
Originally posted by KellyJay in the “All eyes evolved from a common ancestor!” thread in the science forum….why would it be hard to accept that even if both
Another here claims the octopus's eye creates issues for a design, but
I have yet to see a reason for that presented that makes sense. If
we accept our bodies do change over time due to the environment and
others factors, why would it be hard to accept that even if both
ey ...[text shortened]... place over time, for the reasons they claim have
occurred, it is nearly laughable.
Kelly
eyes were at one point the same, one changed over time and GOT
WORSE while another..… (my emphasis)
Oh no not this extremely vague idea again you keep going about that “things decay over time” which obviously does not apply to evolution. We have been here many times before -evolution does NOT make a design feature ( and there is NOTHING wrong with using the word “design” here ) of something “worse” unless it is something that is no longer used or is redundant ( such at borrowing animals loosing their eyes because eyes are useless in pitch darkness etc )
Why would evolution or natural selection make things “worse”?
11 Feb 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonMy first thought was why are you bringing a debate from the science forum into the spirituality forum? (I may be wrong.)
[b]….why would it be hard to accept that even if both
eyes were at one point the same, one changed over time and GOT
WORSE while another..… (my emphasis)
Oh no not this extremely vague idea again you keep going about that “things decay over time” which obviously does not apply to evolution. We have been here many times before -evolution do ...[text shortened]... useless in pitch darkness etc )
Why would evolution or natural selection make things “worse”?[/b]
"We have been here many times before-..."
Do religion and science mix? Is one seperate from the other?
11 Feb 09
Originally posted by josephwhe explained why, so doodz wanting to offer religious arguments against evolution could refrain from doing so in the science thread.
My first thought was why are you bringing a debate from the science forum into the spirituality forum? (I may be wrong.)
[b]"We have been here many times before-..."
Do religion and science mix? Is one seperate from the other?[/b]
11 Feb 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou are suggesting evolutionary change is only good and improving?
[b]….why would it be hard to accept that even if both
eyes were at one point the same, one changed over time and GOT
WORSE while another..… (my emphasis)
Oh no not this extremely vague idea again you keep going about that “things decay over time” which obviously does not apply to evolution. We have been here many times before -evolution do ...[text shortened]... useless in pitch darkness etc )
Why would evolution or natural selection make things “worse”?[/b]
Even if that were true, which I do not believe is, who is to say over
time the human eye would get as good as the octopuses? Are you
suggesting all eyes had to have improved at the same rate over time?
What are you suggesting?
Kelly
11 Feb 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonis this a free public forum or not? we hear time and again 'scientific', reasons why we should discontinue with the advancement of our faith, in the spirituality forum, it is extremely hypocritical therefore to ask someone to refrain from posting in the science forum religious ideas if it challenges some 'scientifically', held beliefs, live and let live!
I have start this new thread in the spirituality forum about evolution purely so that people are encouraged to make their religiously motivated criticism here where it belongs rather than in the science forum.
-so fire a way….
11 Feb 09
Originally posted by KellyJayevolutionary change is not always good or improving. it is simply change. and the fact that the environment favours the ones with certain changes and not the others means the former will get to meet and do some puppies.
You are suggesting evolutionary change is only good and improving?
Even if that were true, which I do not believe is, who is to say over
time the human eye would get as good as the octopuses? Are you
suggesting all eyes had to have improved at the same rate over time?
What are you suggesting?
Kelly
this is what is appealing about evolution. it needs no conditions. you simply get together with a member of the opposite sex, have chance produce an offspring and the environment will choose if that offspring gets to live long enough to pass on his genetic material. why do you believe bulls fight among themselves for the privilege of mating? to see who is the strongest and who is more likely to produce healthy offspring, offspring that won't fall prey to predators or diseases.
evolution is appealing even to religious people such as myself because nowhere does it say god doesn't exist. simply god is not needed for the machine to work. and it beats genesis at logic.
11 Feb 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobiebetter said, if science doodz are allowed to present scientifical theories in spirituality, religious doodz can post religious theories in science.
is this a free public forum or not? we hear time and again 'scientific', reasons why we should discontinue with the advancement of our faith, in the spirituality forum, it is extremely hypocritical therefore to ask someone to refrain from posting in the science forum religious ideas if it challenges some 'scientifically', held beliefs, live and let live!
11 Feb 09
Originally posted by Zahlanzibbbbut whats hhhapppening tttto mmmme, i find myself agreeing with you, gulp, whatever next!
better said, if science doodz are allowed to present scientifical theories in spirituality, religious doodz can post religious theories in science.
11 Feb 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobiedon't be so proud about yourself. you only said that because you are too ignorant and brainwashed to understand and therefore accept science.
bbbbut whats hhhapppening tttto mmmme, i find myself agreeing with you, gulp, whatever next!
i said that because it is basic morality: if one is allowed to make science claims in spirituality, so should a religious person be allowed to make religious claims in science.
11 Feb 09
4 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou mentioned "religiously motivated criticism."
I have start this new thread in the spirituality forum about evolution purely so that people are encouraged to make their religiously motivated criticism here where it belongs rather than in the science forum.
-so fire a way….
You said nothing about a religiously motivated defense.
Many people are motivated to defend Evolution because of metaphysical philosophies and religious concepts they hold as a belief.
11 Feb 09
Originally posted by Zahlanziyou are merely reiterating my own thoughts not vice versa, your fortunate i did not copyright them, although they are clearly intellectual property, and as i was first, i may make a litigation to establish my legal rights, and also i dispute that you said it better, infact i find my own rhetoric infinitely more eloquent and intelligible than your bastardization of language, so enough of your pretense, i accept science when it is scientific, not otherwise!
don't be so proud about yourself. you only said that because you are too ignorant and brainwashed to understand and therefore accept science.
i said that because it is basic morality: if one is allowed to make science claims in spirituality, so should a religious person be allowed to make religious claims in science.
11 Feb 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"When it is scientific" according with what agent?
you are merely reiterating my own thoughts not vice versa, your fortunate i did not copyright them, although they are clearly intellectual property, and as i was first, i may make a litigation to establish my legal rights, and also i dispute that you said it better, infact i find my own rhetoric infinitely more eloquent and intelligible than your bas ...[text shortened]... of language, so enough of your pretense, i accept science when it is scientific, not otherwise!
😵
11 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetlewhen it can be subject to the scientific model my trusty fear!
"When it is scientific" according with what agent?
😵
P.S. your opponent in Sicilian played very passive 12.f3 trying for Yugoslav setup as against the dragon, better was 12.f4 immediately challenging the center, but never the less you played a beautiful game beetle, very clear in objectives and being able to realize your aims. i must have offended the Gods, Hamilton will beat me, alas a triumph of science and logic over the power of the Gods, but they will be avenged!
11 Feb 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieintellectual? are you capable?
you are merely reiterating my own thoughts not vice versa, your fortunate i did not copyright them, although they are clearly intellectual property, and as i was first, i may make a litigation to establish my legal rights, and also i dispute that you said it better, infact i find my own rhetoric infinitely more eloquent and intelligible than your bas ...[text shortened]... of language, so enough of your pretense, i accept science when it is scientific, not otherwise!