Proof Darwin was wrong

I spent a good 15 seconds laughing at "fatal flaw #3", so I couldn't reply that it was garbage in the first 10 seconds either...

Originally posted by josephw
Well, I don't know whether or not they're liars, but is there a so called working formula for evolution?

As you know, I don't know squat about algorithms.

Since intelligent design (read creationism) is such valid science, do you have a working formula for how God created the earth in 6 days?

Originally posted by forkedknight
Since intelligent design (read creationism) is such valid science, do you have a working formula for how God created the earth in 6 days?

creationists don't need a working formula because their claim is not a scientifical theory that needs to be proven but an undisputable fact. because the a book written thousands of years ago says it is.

This is what I've always said: Don't mix religion and science - they don't simply go very well together.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
This is what I've always said: Don't mix religion and science - they don't simply go very well together.

But that amounts to an admission that one is wrong, whilst attempting to pretend that both are correct but incompatible. Why not just say "science beats religion".

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why not just say "science beats religion".

Wouldn't that be provocative?

I say that everyone has their right to a religion - if - they grant the same right to anyone else.
But as religions can't be proven (If they in fact can be proven, it is not a religion (anymore)) religion is a matter of faith, and no more than that.

In the aspect of science, science beats religion big time. But in the aspect of religion, it beats science too.

Science doesn't deal with religion (like what happens after the death) so trying to scientificly prove religious matters will surly fail.
Religion doesn't deal with science (like what does god say about gravitation radiation) so praying for the scientific answers will surely fail.

So, my point is, always has been, don't mix science with religion, and vice versa.
Don't treat religion with proofs, don't treat science with faith.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Wouldn't that be provocative?

And whats wrong with that? Why lie just to 'be nice'?

I say that everyone has their right to a religion - if - they grant the same right to anyone else.
Of course everyone has a right to be deluded - did I say otherwise? But allowing others to delude themeselves is not the same as claiming that they are correct (as you were doing).

But as religions can't be proven (If they in fact can be proven, it is not a religion (anymore)) religion is a matter of faith, and no more than that.
But they can be disproven.

But in the aspect of religion, it beats science too.
How? You think that deluding yourself beats science? How so?

Science doesn't deal with religion (like what happens after the death) so trying to scientificly prove religious matters will surly fail.
Since religions always make claims about the physical universe, science can deal with those claims. Logic can take care of some of the other claims (such as what happens after death). Theists love to talk about what happens after death, but not one single one of them is actually willing to discuss the technicalities -except those who actually think that nothing happens after death (yes some thiests do not believe in an afterlife).

Religion doesn't deal with science (like what does god say about gravitation radiation) so praying for the scientific answers will surely fail.
It frequently tries to. You claiming it doesnt wont change that.

So, my point is, always has been, don't mix science with religion, and vice versa.
And I think that your only reason for such an attitude is because you do not want to criticize religion (be provocative) even though you know it is nonsense.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And whats wrong with that? Why lie just to 'be nice'?

I say that everyone has their right to a religion - if - they grant the same right to anyone else.
Of course everyone has a right to be deluded - did I say otherwise? But allowing others to delude themeselves is not the same as claiming that they are correct (as you were doing).

But as ou do not want to criticize religion (be provocative) even though you know it is nonsense.

I think that you and I have completely different views on the matter. I just don't make it into a fight who is right and who is wrong.

If they are wrong, well, let them be wrong. If they want to be deluded, well, let them.

If there is two standpoints, A and B, which of these are right and wrong? If you say A is right because you happen to have this standpoint, does it automatically make it right? I say no. This is how war starts. "I am right and you are wrong!" "I am better than you!" "I am nearer God than you are!" This is not how I work, this way of thinking is not mine.

So if you want to go into every detail and prove them wrong, thing for thing, then you will fail. But perhaps you find the struggle more rewarding than the outcome? You perhaps prefer the fight over the result? Well, that's your way. But you won't change the world, I'm afraid.

If I don't think the way you do, will you fight me too?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I think that you and I have completely different views on the matter. I just don't make it into a fight who is right and who is wrong.

But you are using your reluctance to start a fight (and thus refusal to outright call anyone 'wrong'😉, to justify your claim that religion and science cannot overlap or interfere in each others territory. That is bad logic.
I am not trying to start a fight, I am hoping instead to enlighten you and help you see the flaw in your logic.

If you had simply said "I dont agree with religious claims, but will not argue with them either" then I would have said fine, live and let live. But you did not. You said that Science is incapable of dealing with relgious claims.

If there is two standpoints, A and B, which of these are right and wrong? If you say A is right because you happen to have this standpoint, does it automatically make it right? I say no.
So if I say 1+1=2 and you say 1+1=3 then you are claiming that our standpoints are equivalent?
What if I look in your fridge and say "its empty" and you look in your fridge and say "It contains an invisible pink unicorn". Are we equivalent?
I disagree. I think that with discussion, the right standpoint can be understood and agreed upon by both parties.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you are using your reluctance to start a fight (and thus refusal to outright call anyone 'wrong'😉, to justify your claim that religion and science cannot overlap or interfere in each others territory. That is bad logic.
I am not trying to start a fight, I am hoping instead to enlighten you and help you see the flaw in your logic.

If you had simply ...[text shortened]... with discussion, the right standpoint can be understood and agreed upon by both parties.

Please, don't use examples that are obvious what is right and what is wrong. 1+1=2, true. A fridge may be empty, true. Now we're using claims that are much more difficult to see the value of thruth in it. Like "is there any god". Then it's about religious claims that cannot be proven.

Wars have been started by people who claim they are right. Is this feeling (of being right) worth killing for? I say no.

Some fundamental christians saying that evolution is false of religious grounds are stepping into the scientists playground. If they want to disprove evolution, then they have to do it scientifically. They can't.

Some fundamental atheists saying that there is no god above any natural explanation of scientific reasons are stepping into the believers playground. If they want to disprove any higher being, then they have to show it. They can't.

So there is no reason to mix religion with science. It's different ballgames. I have said it before and I will say it again. They don't mix!