One more step for evolution...

lightgigantic said:
The problem is that the common response to the notion of discussing god is that it is frequently brought up that there is no evidence of god (by the reductionist model of course).
Click to expand...

Not at all.
The reductionist isn't concerned in the slightest with the concept of god.
Regardless, you're correct with respect to the common response. Generally speaking, when one is faced with a novel idea, one tends to seek out evidence. Assuming one is rational of course.
 
glaucon said:
Not at all.
The reductionist isn't concerned in the slightest with the concept of god.
Regardless, you're correct with respect to the common response. Generally speaking, when one is faced with a novel idea, one tends to seek out evidence. Assuming one is rational of course.
Click to expand...

Then obviously the reductionist model is not sufficient to determine such evidence
 
glaucon said:
As I've already said, the reductionist doesn't seek evidence of the mind.
Click to expand...
are you saying that they simply don't desire to acquire evidence of the mind or that the paradigms that they work with to determine the nature of reality are not suffcient to make headway
 
When are we going to get the 'many anomalies in the fossil record'? I'm getting bored of the 'mind' strawman.
 
Of course we all know that turtles, sharks and crocodile are among the most advanced life forms on the planet (very well adapted to the general environmental conditions), since they've been around, relatively unchanged, for millions of years.

Who cares about mind?! Gimme that shell, some cold bloodedness and razor sharp double rowed teeth and I'm ready for the eons!

Of course I speak for all evolution advocates here. :D
 
MarcAC said:
Of course we all know that turtles, sharks and crocodile are among the most advanced life forms on the planet (very well adapted to the general environmental conditions), since they've been around, relatively unchanged, for millions of years.

Who cares about mind?! Gimme that shell, some cold bloodedness and razor sharp double rowed teeth and I'm ready for the eons!

Of course I speak for all evolution advocates here. :D
Click to expand...

I don't see your point.
 
wsionynw said:
You're reaching again Light. Who's next in your list, Kent Hovind?
Click to expand...

You accuse creationists of being selective in their choice of evidence yet you feel adequate to judge a book by its cover.

You declare that theists are closed minded because they will not go out and read a 200+ page book on atheism yet you can't even respond to an 8 paged link.

What do you expect to gain form thread discussions?

Surely you must have realised in your first 20 minutes of posting on forums like this that NOBODY changes their stance.

As far as I can see the only benefit is to see how people respond to issues that refine our world views. (Since our world views are shaped by many more influential things then the premises that we dally in here (and the net is such a whimsical medium), it is highly improbable to change someone's world views, particularly if they are older than their early twenties or late teens). If you want to actually iniate some sort of change in consensus it would be more productive to get out of th e virtual world and into the real world of lecturing (something sites like these can help you assimilate data for)
 
lightgigantic said:
Surely you must have realised in your first 20 minutes of posting on forums like this that NOBODY changes their stance.

As far as I can see the only benefit is to see how people respond to issues that refine our world views. (Since our world views are shaped by many more influential things then the premises that we dally in here (and the net is such a whimsical medium), it is highly improbable to change someone's world views, particularly if they are older than their early twenties or late teens). If you want to actually iniate some sort of change in consensus it would be more productive to get out of th e virtual world and into the real world of lecturing (something sites like these can help you assimilate data for)
Click to expand...
Wow. Light. I... I... agr... ughhh... agre... agree with you. Arrrggggg!!!!
 
Light, your link is not reputable. It would be like me posting a link by Richard Hoagland giving us details on planetary geometry.

The PDF for a start, praises Behe, who was humiliated in court by both the scientists and the judge. His 'evidences' for intelligent design/evolution debunking was overturned point by point. You have to get it out of your head that biologists and scientists are biased, because they will always go where the evidence leads them. And put simply, there is no evidence for for creationism, and every evidence for evolution. It just happens that biology plays an emotional role in the mind of the theist who wants to think god made them, so they have to get involved in pseudoscience to try to increase gods role.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top