Science and Religion

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
as all theories, evolution might be wrong. or partially wrong. or incomplete. do you deny that?

do you deny that people who hold newton mechanic to be absolute are ignorant? was einstein right to question newton and change and add to his theories?

Tinkering with certain specifics of evolution does not invalidate evolution itself. We may very well improve our understanding of the subject, but the fact that evolution has occurred is beyond question.

Originally posted by rwingett
Tinkering with certain specifics of evolution does not invalidate evolution itself. We may very well improve our understanding of the subject, but the fact that evolution has occurred is beyond question.

of course evolution happened. evolution happened in the bible too. god said and it happened.

if it turns out the process of the evolution of life is inconsistent with the theory of evolution, then that theory is wrong and must be modified and/or amended.

the question "how did it happened" must be answered. so far the theory of evolution is the best explanation, but that does not mean it is the absolute truth and that we know all there is to know about the subject. there is some reasonable doubt in most areas(maybe all) of science. that is why research is happening, even in the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
of course evolution happened. evolution happened in the bible too. god said and it happened.

if it turns out the process of the evolution of life is inconsistent with the theory of evolution, then that theory is wrong and must be modified and/or amended.

the question "how did it happened" must be answered. so far the theory of evolution is the best ...[text shortened]... eas(maybe all) of science. that is why research is happening, even in the theory of evolution.

We will continue to improve our understanding of the specifics of evolution as we go. But in general the theory of evolution is as close to being an established fact as is possible. By jabbering on like a quisling about "reasonable doubt" all you are doing is providing aid and comfort to the anti-evolutionist enemies of humanity. You are actively working to postpone their eventual, crushing defeat. The taint of collaborationism will not sit well in the new world order.

Originally posted by rwingett
We will continue to improve our understanding of the specifics of evolution as we go. But in general the theory of evolution is as close to being an established fact as is possible. By jabbering on like a quisling about "reasonable doubt" all you are doing is providing aid and comfort to the anti-evolutionist enemies of humanity. You are actively working to ...[text shortened]... tual, crushing defeat. The taint of collaborationism will not sit well in the new world order.

not really that funny. don't quit your day job, odds are you will not make it in the comedian business.


nothing is absolute, maybe only axioms. and even them might change because there might have been a mistake in defining them in the first place. these are my words. just as it is not sure string theory is or isn't anything but SF, or that the big bang happened just as it is claimed to have happened by the majority. the theory of evolution is the closest thing to the truth and dismissing it without a more logic alternate theory is wrong, but that doesn't mean it is a certainty. if you claim evolution theory as it is is a certainty, you are no better than fanatic religious freaks.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
not really that funny. don't quit your day job, odds are you will not make it in the comedian business.


nothing is absolute, maybe only axioms. and even them might change because there might have been a mistake in defining them in the first place. these are my words. just as it is not sure string theory is or isn't anything but SF, or that the big ban ...[text shortened]... im evolution theory as it is is a certainty, you are no better than fanatic religious freaks.

I clearly did not say it was a certainty. I said it was as close to certainty as is possible in the real world. It is close enough that for all intents and purposes it can be treated as though it were a certainty. We need only on rare occasions go through the formality of reminding ourselves that certainty is ever elusive.

Originally posted by rwingett
We will continue to improve our understanding of the specifics of evolution as we go. But in general the theory of evolution is as close to being an established fact as is possible. By jabbering on like a quisling about "reasonable doubt" all you are doing is providing aid and comfort to the anti-evolutionist enemies of humanity. You are actively working to ...[text shortened]... tual, crushing defeat. The taint of collaborationism will not sit well in the new world order.

Your language is consistently one of oppression. Whatever mindset you have evolved from makes me very uncomfortable. I can see you have socialist leanings, but are you in any way aware you sometimes sound like a nazi.

Originally posted by divegeester
Your language is consistently one of oppression. Whatever mindset you have evolved from makes me very uncomfortable. I can see you have socialist leanings, but are you in any way aware you sometimes sound like a nazi.

What can I say? I'm overly fond of hyperbole. Not everything I say should be taken at face value. Like if I said that when the revolution comes that you will be the first one up against the wall, you should think that I probably wasn't being serious. Probably.

Originally posted by rwingett
I clearly did not say it was a certainty. I said it was as close to certainty as is possible in the real world. It is close enough that for all intents and purposes it can be treated as though it were a certainty. We need only on rare occasions go through the formality of reminding ourselves that certainty is ever elusive.

of course, and that is what i am saying. otherwise we would have no science, and we could not apply any result in future theories or real life applications because it might not work. even newtons ideas can still be applied when building something, as long as that something is not on an atomic scale.

we just need to remind ourselves that most things can be improved then work with the best we have in waiting for that eventual improvement

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
not really that funny. don't quit your day job, odds are you will not make it in the comedian business.


nothing is absolute, maybe only axioms. and even them might change because there might have been a mistake in defining them in the first place. these are my words. just as it is not sure string theory is or isn't anything but SF, or that the big ban im evolution theory as it is is a certainty, you are no better than fanatic religious freaks.

the theory of evolution is the closest thing to the truth and dismissing it without a more logic alternate theory is wrong, but that doesn't mean it is a certainty.


But is just about as certain as it can be just like it is just about as certain as it can be that the Earth is round.

…if you claim evolution theory as it is is a certainty, you are no better than fanatic religious freaks..…

Do “fanatic religious freaks” base their beliefs on real creditable physical evidence or flawless logic?
Being certain of what for all practical purposes is a scientific fact doesn’t make you a “fanatic”.
I am totally 100% certain that the earth is round with not even a hint of credible doubt in my mind -does that make me some kind of crazed “fanatic”?

Originally posted by divegeester
Your language is consistently one of oppression. Whatever mindset you have evolved from makes me very uncomfortable. I can see you have socialist leanings, but are you in any way aware you sometimes sound like a nazi.

…you sometimes sound like a nazi….

Hear we go again -a theists that has got desperate enough to compare the evolutionist (and sometimes also atheists) with the nazis.

This is obviously not a fair comparison but two could play at that game and I could say:

“Evolutionists base their belief on credible reasoning/evidence.

Creationist do NOT base their belief on reasoning/evidence.

The nazis do NOT base their belief on reasoning/evidence.

Therefore, Creationist are like the nazis but evolutionists are not”

But, of course, as I have already said, this is not a fair comparison because I could also say “nazis were strong believers in herbal medicine (this is a historical fact) therefore all herbalists are like the nazis”. -this is obviously a totally unfair comparison. So however you are trying to compare rwingett with the nazis, it is totally unfair and uncalled for.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b] …you sometimes sound like a nazi….

Hear we go again -a theists that has got desperate enough to compare the evolutionist (and sometimes also atheists) with the nazis.

This is obviously not a fair comparison but two could play at that game and I could say:

“Evolutionists base their belief on credible reasoning/evidence.

Creationist ...[text shortened]... owever you are trying to compare rwingett with the nazis, it is totally unfair and uncalled for.[/b]

are you trying to tell the forum, that Nazi ideology was not profoundly influenced by and adopted as a direct result of Darwinian evolutionary theory, applied in a social/political sense, for if you are, you are seriously either ill informed or delusional!

let us remind ourselves of the original subtitle of Darwins book,

The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

and of Mr.Hitlers infamous book, Mein Kampf, my struggle

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b] …you sometimes sound like a nazi….

Hear we go again -a theists that has got desperate enough to compare the evolutionist (and sometimes also atheists) with the nazis.

This is obviously not a fair comparison but two could play at that game and I could say:

“Evolutionists base their belief on credible reasoning/evidence.

Creationist ...[text shortened]... owever you are trying to compare rwingett with the nazis, it is totally unfair and uncalled for.[/b]

I think that he's just saying that my tone appears strident at times. But then anyone who does not afford his religion the respect he feels it deserves would come across as being strident to him. I strongly suspect that if someone said something he agreed with in exactly the same tone, he would scarcely notice it. It just goes back to what I've said in other threads: people who say things you disagree with naturally appear to be 'strident', while people with whom you agree naturally appear to be more level headed and reasonable. In any event, I take no offense at anything divegeester may say.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
are you trying to tell the forum, that Nazi ideology was not profoundly influenced by and adopted as a direct result of Darwinian evolutionary theory, applied in a social/political sense, for if you are, you are seriously either ill informed or delusional!

let us remind ourselves of the original subtitle of Darwins book,

The Preservation of Fa ...[text shortened]... oured Races in the Struggle for Life

and of Mr.Hitlers infamous book, Mein Kampf, my struggle

So you're saying that anyone who writes a book with the word 'struggle' in the title (or subtitle) is a Nazi?

Originally posted by rwingett
So you're saying that anyone who writes a book with the word 'struggle' in the title (or subtitle) is a Nazi?

do your historical research and don't make me list quotations from Nazi ideology and Darwin himself, for it may be too harrowing even for a confirmed atheist like yourself! for to be sure this ideology and its application have resulted in more slavery, misery, poverty, killing, murder, ignorance and butchery than the meanest religion!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
do your historical research and don't make me list quotations from Nazi ideology and Darwin himself, for it may be too harrowing even for a confirmed atheist like yourself! for to be sure this ideology and its application have resulted in more slavery, misery, poverty, killing, murder, ignorance and butchery than the meanest religion!

We already had this argument. It was pointless then and appears it would be just as pointless now. So you can have the soapbox to yourself, you pro-genocide crusader.