Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Of what real value is evolutionary "knowledge"?

Page 5 of 22 [ 352 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 22  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

10 May 2008, 4:47 pm

Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Gromit wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
misotheistic-evolutionary framework

I keep hearing that evolution is opposed to God, but haven't yet seen any evidence for it. Can you provide that evidence?


How about most of the threads on PPR and most of the posts made by anti-theists? If you can't see the link, it is not my fault.

Hello there, just in case you wanted some evidence that evolution is NOT opposed to God.


Yes, but you're not consistent.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

10 May 2008, 4:48 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
How about most of the threads on PPR and most of the posts made by anti-theists? If you can't see the link, it is not my fault.

Well, the issue is that evolution will be more vigorously supported by those who find ID to be more aggravating, and an anti-theist will find ID to be aggravating, often because they view it as religiously driven pseudo-science. Frankly though, some people of religion DO support evolution, for example cell biologist Ken Miller who is a Roman Catholic and who vigorously opposed ID in Kansas and testified for evolution in Selman vs Cobb County, so really it does seem that support for evolution is not on purely religious grounds. The same does not seem true for ID given that it is mostly supported by the Christian thinktank known as the Discovery Institute, and given that it was found in the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial that the proponents of ID were proposing the Christian God as the intelligent designer. So, it really does not seem like it is anti-theism vs theism but rather some theists vs everyone else.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

10 May 2008, 4:50 pm

Kalister1 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Even without the just-so stories, cladograms, homoplasies being called homologies, and all the rest, biology would be a study of natural economics. Biology would still make sense even outside of the unnecessary misotheistic-evolutionary framework.


well get right on winning your nobel prize with coming up with an alternative SCIENTIFIC THEORY that explains how everything came to be.


Even if it's non-naturalistic? Or is that a prerequisite?


:jaw drops to the ground:

:doh:

Image


This is an example of a consistent evolutionist.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

10 May 2008, 4:50 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Gromit wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
misotheistic-evolutionary framework

I keep hearing that evolution is opposed to God, but haven't yet seen any evidence for it. Can you provide that evidence?


How about most of the threads on PPR and most of the posts made by anti-theists? If you can't see the link, it is not my fault.

Hello there, just in case you wanted some evidence that evolution is NOT opposed to God.


Yes, but you're not consistent.

Feel free to point out any inconsistencies. Heck, you're the one who alternately says "evolution is bull," and "I accept evolution." How have I been inconsistent?


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

10 May 2008, 4:52 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Even if it's non-naturalistic? Or is that a prerequisite?

Ummm.... Occam's razor, if we posit some outside force intervening, we multiply entities unnecessarily and we reach a dead end for further inquiry on the causal relations of such an action. So, naturalism is a prerequisite and for good reasons given what science is trying to do.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

10 May 2008, 4:52 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
How about most of the threads on PPR and most of the posts made by anti-theists? If you can't see the link, it is not my fault.

Well, the issue is that evolution will be more vigorously supported by those who find ID to be more aggravating, and an anti-theist will find ID to be aggravating, often because they view it as religiously driven pseudo-science. Frankly though, some people of religion DO support evolution, for example cell biologist Ken Miller who is a Roman Catholic and who vigorously opposed ID in Kansas and testified for evolution in Selman vs Cobb County, so really it does seem that support for evolution is not on purely religious grounds. The same does not seem true for ID given that it is mostly supported by the Christian thinktank known as the Discovery Institute, and given that it was found in the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial that the proponents of ID were proposing the Christian God as the intelligent designer. So, it really does not seem like it is anti-theism vs theism but rather some theists vs everyone else.


I believe this.
I believe that also.
Therefore you can believe both...



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

10 May 2008, 4:56 pm

Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Gromit wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
misotheistic-evolutionary framework

I keep hearing that evolution is opposed to God, but haven't yet seen any evidence for it. Can you provide that evidence?


How about most of the threads on PPR and most of the posts made by anti-theists? If you can't see the link, it is not my fault.

Hello there, just in case you wanted some evidence that evolution is NOT opposed to God.


Yes, but you're not consistent.

Feel free to point out any inconsistencies. Heck, you're the one who alternately says "evolution is bull," and "I accept evolution." How have I been inconsistent?


I accept the scientific aspects of evolutionary theory, I just don't accept the bull of a storyline some evolutionists try to feed the public via books, TV, movies, textbooks, teachers, etc. I'm not accepting it based on popularity, authority, but only what is actually falsifiable compared to that which fluffs up the story to make it fun.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

10 May 2008, 5:02 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Hello there, just in case you wanted some evidence that evolution is NOT opposed to God.


Yes, but you're not consistent.

Feel free to point out any inconsistencies. Heck, you're the one who alternately says "evolution is bull," and "I accept evolution." How have I been inconsistent?


I accept the scientific aspects of evolutionary theory, I just don't accept the bull of a storyline some evolutionists try to feed the public via books, TV, movies, textbooks, teachers, etc. I'm not accepting it based on popularity, authority, but only what is actually falsifiable compared to that which fluffs up the story to make it fun.

In other words, you selectively choose which scientific knowledge you desire to accept. You still have not answered my question. You accused me of being inconsistent, and I asked you to back up that accusation. Do so or recant it.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

10 May 2008, 5:16 pm

Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Hello there, just in case you wanted some evidence that evolution is NOT opposed to God.


Yes, but you're not consistent.

Feel free to point out any inconsistencies. Heck, you're the one who alternately says "evolution is bull," and "I accept evolution." How have I been inconsistent?


I accept the scientific aspects of evolutionary theory, I just don't accept the bull of a storyline some evolutionists try to feed the public via books, TV, movies, textbooks, teachers, etc. I'm not accepting it based on popularity, authority, but only what is actually falsifiable compared to that which fluffs up the story to make it fun.

In other words, you selectively choose which scientific knowledge you desire to accept. You still have not answered my question. You accused me of being inconsistent, and I asked you to back up that accusation. Do so or recant it.


You just don't listen when you choose not to...

The evolutionary storyline contradicts the Bible. You have already admitted to selectively reading into the Biblical texts whatever you see fit. However, if you were to read the Bible as the grammar dictates you would see that the evolutionary storyline contradicts the Bible and the two views are mutually exclusive. However, as you read the text selectively and read into it whatever you think should fit, you feel that you are consistent with science, as you see it, and the Bible, as you read into it. You are consistent in your own philosophy of hermeneutics. However, you are not consistent in reality.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

10 May 2008, 5:29 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
You just don't listen when you choose not to...

The evolutionary storyline contradicts the Bible. You have already admitted to selectively reading into the Biblical texts whatever you see fit. However, if you were to read the Bible as the grammar dictates you would see that the evolutionary storyline contradicts the Bible and the two views are mutually exclusive. However, as you read the text selectively and read into it whatever you think should fit, you feel that you are consistent with science, as you see it, and the Bible, as you read into it. You are consistent in your own philosophy of hermeneutics. However, you are not consistent in reality.

That is not even remotely true. I do not "selectively read into the Bible whatever I see fit." But I also do not take every single word of it literally, nor is there a very strong theological basis for doing so. Jews do not take those texts literally. Catholics do not take the Bible entirely literally. I am Presbyterian (Calvinist) and if you bothered to understand what that means you would know that we also do not take the Bible literally in every single word. I'm sick of your arrogance of assuming that everyone who isn't a fundie moron like yourself isn't a real Christian.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

10 May 2008, 5:33 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Gromit wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
misotheistic-evolutionary framework

I keep hearing that evolution is opposed to God, but haven't yet seen any evidence for it. Can you provide that evidence?


How about most of the threads on PPR and most of the posts made by anti-theists? If you can't see the link, it is not my fault.

Hello there, just in case you wanted some evidence that evolution is NOT opposed to God.


Yes, but you're not consistent.

Feel free to point out any inconsistencies. Heck, you're the one who alternately says "evolution is bull," and "I accept evolution." How have I been inconsistent?


I accept the scientific aspects of evolutionary theory, I just don't accept the bull of a storyline some evolutionists try to feed the public via books, TV, movies, textbooks, teachers, etc. I'm not accepting it based on popularity, authority, but only what is actually falsifiable compared to that which fluffs up the story to make it fun.


im still waiting for you to state in a sentence what these things you believe about evolution are... or these non-facts you keep referring to... i don't care what other people there are out there who say it's BS.... in your own words... summarize what is wrong with evolution.


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

10 May 2008, 5:37 pm

You know what, Parakeet, since you're so consistent in following the Bible, unlike heretics like myself, let me ask you something. Do you have some kind of bizarre hormonal imbalance that the picture of yourself you have as your avatar has no facial hair? You're 22, and if you read the Bible as the grammar dictates you would see that you're not supposed to shave, so clearly you don't what with you being so consistent in your Biblical interpretation and all, so I assume that you simply don't grow any facial hair.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

10 May 2008, 5:41 pm

Orwell wrote:
You know what, Parakeet, since you're so consistent in following the Bible, unlike heretics like myself, let me ask you something. Do you have some kind of bizarre hormonal imbalance that the picture of yourself you have as your avatar has no facial hair? You're 22, and if you read the Bible as the grammar dictates you would see that you're not supposed to shave, so clearly you don't what with you being so consistent in your Biblical interpretation and all, so I assume that you simply don't grow any facial hair.


I have a beard now, the picture is 2 years old. I also try to follow Leviticus 11, but not in exclusion of food presented to me "don't ask what is put before you" as Paul states.



Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

10 May 2008, 5:47 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Even without the just-so stories, cladograms, homoplasies being called homologies, and all the rest, biology would be a study of natural economics. Biology would still make sense even outside of the unnecessary misotheistic-evolutionary framework.


well get right on winning your nobel prize with coming up with an alternative SCIENTIFIC THEORY that explains how everything came to be.


Even if it's non-naturalistic? Or is that a prerequisite?


S-C-I-E-N-T-I-F-I-C ............. that's the prerequisite.


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

10 May 2008, 5:48 pm

Sedaka wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Gromit wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
misotheistic-evolutionary framework

I keep hearing that evolution is opposed to God, but haven't yet seen any evidence for it. Can you provide that evidence?


How about most of the threads on PPR and most of the posts made by anti-theists? If you can't see the link, it is not my fault.

Hello there, just in case you wanted some evidence that evolution is NOT opposed to God.


Yes, but you're not consistent.

Feel free to point out any inconsistencies. Heck, you're the one who alternately says "evolution is bull," and "I accept evolution." How have I been inconsistent?


I accept the scientific aspects of evolutionary theory, I just don't accept the bull of a storyline some evolutionists try to feed the public via books, TV, movies, textbooks, teachers, etc. I'm not accepting it based on popularity, authority, but only what is actually falsifiable compared to that which fluffs up the story to make it fun.


im still waiting for you to state in a sentence what these things you believe about evolution are... or these non-facts you keep referring to... i don't care what other people there are out there who say it's BS.... in your own words... summarize what is wrong with evolution.


What I accept: natural selection acting on mutations, new species do arise, etcetera. Id est, what is observable and testable.

What I cannot accept: cladograms, homoplasies being passed off as homologies, etc. Id est, anything which is non-falsifiable.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

10 May 2008, 5:49 pm

Sedaka wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Even without the just-so stories, cladograms, homoplasies being called homologies, and all the rest, biology would be a study of natural economics. Biology would still make sense even outside of the unnecessary misotheistic-evolutionary framework.


well get right on winning your nobel prize with coming up with an alternative SCIENTIFIC THEORY that explains how everything came to be.


Even if it's non-naturalistic? Or is that a prerequisite?


S-C-I-E-N-T-I-F-I-C ............. that's the prerequisite.


Whose definition of SCIENTIA do you accept?