Evolution is an illusion

Discussion in 'SciFi & Fantasy' started by WildBlueYonder, Nov 28, 2007.

  1. Roman Banned Banned

    I'm comparing the usefulness of science to religion. You come across something you don't understand, so you appeal to God to explain it.

    That's not very helpful, as it has no predicative powers. You can't make predictions with the Bible; it's all ad hoc. And observations always have to fit your God- you can never modify God to fit your observations.

    And that's why science invented everything, and religion babbles in the dust like a retard.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Roman Banned Banned

    What I'm trying to say is; God doesn't matter. His existence is irrelevant to the efficacy of science.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tnerb Banned Banned

    This guy was booted from work for not believing in evolution and he sued them for a lot.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Funny thing.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Roman Banned Banned

    Tried to sue. Did they actually have to give him $$?
  8. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Not sure. I heard it on a Christian television show my mom watches........ Well, at least I do believe that he won the bet. And I deleted where I went on and on.

    Not sure what it means.
  9. Roman Banned Banned

    But you believe in telepathy, so stfu.
  10. Tnerb Banned Banned

    You don't believe in telepathy.
    I guess you're right, pretty harsh comment there, taken rightly

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Roman, telepathy simply has not been explained.
    I am not a weirdo to believe in telepathy. I criticize it, and "experience" "it", so to speak.

    In every case, how the hell'd we develope telepathy wer' it not for evolution LOL
  11. temur man of no words Registered Senior Member

    Why do people still think religion gives better answer to questions than science does. I thought this argument ended in 19-th century.
  12. Roman Banned Banned

    Jesus. Duh.
  13. Tnerb Banned Banned

    It never ends.

    Fools will be fools for decades to come.
    They are not, however, fools.

    ... lol
  14. Saquist Banned Banned

    Exactly. You're comparing the useful of science to religion. Why? Thery're not for the same purposes. I hate to be so blunt, but you've been lied to. One is History or Testimony the other is majority theory and discoery.

    They both have a use and purpose. Just because you're too short sighted to see it doesn't mean others can't and it doesn't mean one is "less" useful than another. You might start thinking for yourself and stopped listening to closely to the propaganda machine.

    History and testimony are reporting tools. That's their usefulness. Whether you believe it or not does not speak for usefulness. Nor has science has the tools to determine conclusively or inconclussively for that matter that this sort of reporting is false. You can only judge them vs other text of the time.

    so much for the vaccuum of scientific objectivity.
  15. dexter ROOT Registered Senior Member


    How do you justify that? Evolution has never been observed, therefor it is not scientific fact. We have genetic evidence, but evidence can only support a theory, in theory. it does not make it true.
  16. Roman Banned Banned

    Lied to?
    You mean like "this ancient book tells me god (who has a beard and a white robe, and looks like people) flooded the world and all the animals got in a big boat and that's why we have the grand canyon!"

    Heh, ok.

    Yes, it absolutely means one is less useful than the other. I could explain the presence of dinosaur bones by using the evidence gathered by tens of thousands of people over several hundred years of research, or I could simply believe they were planted their by the devil.

    Oh, right. Silly me. Let me go read an old Jew book and use it for science. Right.

    So you're saying that we should use these old books as history (ie, real explanations of real events), but we shouldn't evaluate them critically because you can't do that with these books. So we should read our bibles and accept that grasshoppers have four legs or that the earth is 6000 years old.

    Saquist, you're not making any sense, and you still don't understand what I'm saying. When was the last time anyone found blueprints to making space shuttles in the bible? What about cures for cancer, or how to synthesize low-fat mayonnaise?

    Science takes observations from reality, and does stuff. If science was ignorant of reality, how could we make skyscrapers or go to the moon or have neon lights? Reliance on what an old book says doesn't do anything for anyone. In fact, the last time that happened, humanity wallowed in darkness for hundreds of years. They ain't called the Dark Ages for nothing. The sun would still be orbiting the earth.

    If the bible is so fundamentally wrong on such things as the value of pi (Christ, if there's anything that would suggest God exists, it's math- but the bible sucks at math), why THE HELL WOULD IT BE AN ANY BETTER ACCOUNT OF ORIGINS OF LIFE AND THE UNIVERSE!?

  17. Frud11 Banned Banned

    The idea of science being about finding "exactness" and "reliability" leads to some notion of dogmatic points of view.

    There are plenty of scientists who dismiss new or radical ideas that seem to sit outside their paradigm.

    Newton was ridiculed by some senior science-dude when he published his gravity theories. Einstein too; actually it's a big list.
    Science is a boat that floats on explanations of observable phenomena. Things that we can't, or don't know enough yet to explain are always on the horizon, so keeping a steady eye on where the ship has been looks a little pointless, except that someone has to keep checking that the 'old' horizon is still there, or the boat hasn't drifted too far from the land (of reason).
    Some are looking in other directions; some think they can see things, or that they understand what keeps the boat floating, or they're furiously calculating (the value of pi to a gazillion places, or Plancks constant--performing a ritual because they worship the gods of exactness and precision), or what the purpose of the voyage might be. But it's all just deck-chatter. Where's the captain?
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2007
  18. Saquist Banned Banned

    Your bias is understandable. Religion does it's condition and Science does it's own. "Life from lifelessness"

    You could and likely will believe what ever you like and dream up fanciful euphimisms and analogies to make your point. It doesn't assuage the inappropriate suggestion that religion and science can be equated.

    If you're saying that science is a religion or religion is science then I could understand your position. Science being something you choose to believe in and draw hope and have faith in. Or if religion is how you judge the entire world.

    But it seems as if you're actually saying that science has more use to you than religion. That you have no need for hope or faith. That's a much different statement. It's also more clear and understandable.

    I've already had a tread that explains the grammatical misinterpretation that creationist believe that "day" is a litteral day. The funny thing, on that thread is that it wasn't the creationist like "Iceagecivilizations" that objected the strongest, it was the aethist it was the scientific. The side that was supposed to be unbiased and analytical to the facts came in an angry horde.
    Skinwalker, Ophilite (or whatever his name was) riverwind,nova,

    This was intresting because the analysis was strictly a linguistic comparison which they had not known before. You see it's INTRESTING to introduce information to a society and and watch the results. On this forum that information was met with anger, cynicism, and contempt. (except for riverwind) It was as if they took it personally. I believe that it did strike them personally. I believe they had a personal stake in maintaining the bible was completely devoid of anything logical, sensical or remotely resembling the truth. It was like I had taken something away from them.
    I believe what I took was their assured expectation that the bible was just a book with no meaning.

    No I don't really understand what you're saying. I must admit that the expectation to find space shuttle blue prints in a history document would be puzzling. Could you elaborate on why you have this expectation.

    I would point out that the Bible didn't say the sun orbited the Earth.
    I would also point out that the Bible wasn't the cause of the Dark Ages.
    But reliance on the Bible is a personal choice. Reliance on the Bible is a moral decision. It's a set of consistent standards that otherwise would fluctuate radically as it does today. It's like ANSI. A common understanding of justice and wisdom that many agree with and others feel repressed by. It also is hope. Science doesn't offer these things. To expect science to offer hope and morals is misguided.

    I'm not aware of any outstanding example of bad math in the Bible.
    I am aware of example of good math. Simple addition and subtraction such as the account of Noah's Log of time of the months of the Flood.

    I'm also not aware of the Bible ever calculating hte circumfrence of a circle.

    I'm sure you think so but it does not equate to truth.

    Sure you can. Reason is how you do so.
  19. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    That's because religions controlled humankind until the 19 century or

    thereabouts. Anyone that tried to come up with anything other than what

    the church or religions stated were either exiled, censored or killed!
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2007
  20. that is funny, people who say they don't believe in 'something' or even its 'existence' flail away at it, as if they have to or are compelled to cut off its ugly head, before it breeds. I don't go making threads about or taking time to argue the finer points of fairies, trolls, vampires or werewolves because they are 'fantasy'; yet people that put 'religion' in that same category, are ever vigilant, ruthless attackers, as if it really mattered to them? why?
  21. Saquist Banned Banned

    That's a good point.
    If they viewed religion as fantasy then why so much resistence to the revealing of some truth within it? There seem to be agenda with a biased tilt.

    To be truthful religion deserves it's reputation.
    However, this doesn't necessarily rule that the scriptural text of some religion's are without merrit simply because the religion that uses it is without merrit. It is natural to allow behavior to reflect truth of whole but the bible is itself contradicts the behavior and thus can not equate with people's bad behavior.

    In fact Fraggle Rock made it clear to me that this perception of religion is pervassive on this forum if not through out science as a community. We reall can't blame him for his view. I would hope though tempering the bias would be a goal of all. After all isn't that indorsing a prejudice?
  22. Frud11 Banned Banned

    Religion is perceived as the antithesis of science, by those who view science (somewhat religiously) as a tool with which to uncover "truth", or "actual" facts and figures -observation via "experiment".
    The tool of scientific method is used, something that is supposedly divorced from "meaning" and philosophy -the aim is objective determination, "just the facts", but in practice, because scientists are also people, they cannot achieve this "complete objectivity", any experiment or planned activity necessarily must connect with some worldview. Some scientists are avowedly religious, too. Some are pretty damn dogmatic -even about squishing dogma wherever they find it.

    The idea of using a tool is straightforward enough -a tool doesn't "use" itself. In that sense, a tool is not a tool unless it's used (I've been in stoushes over that particular viewpoint). The user cannot disconnect from all ideas and belief about what the tool does, or how it's used.
  23. Saquist Banned Banned

    Then I must question how this tool is being used.
    Like using a quarter inch nut-driver to big for the bolt the scientific method should not be used on religious nuts. The fit is just not right and it could result in stripping the tread or wearing the bolt round. Which would be bad for the driver and the bolt.

Share This Page