Creation vs. Evolution

[MikeFerrara]

The telling point, in the long standing "conflict" between science and religion, is that it has always turned out that science was right (or at least much closer to the mark) than religion. Has anyone got a definitive example of a controversy between a scientific conclusion and a religious illusion where the religious illusion turned out, in the end, to be closer to reality? I can't think of a single one.

LOL, Im too busy trying to get warthaug to show me where I used religion to argue science....though I have stated more than once that I think such an approach is folly.

 

[Sas]

LOL, Im too busy trying to get warthaug to show me where I used religion to argue science....though I have stated more than once that I think such an approach is folly.

Stop trying to distract people from Thal's question, and answer it. Looking forward to your answer...

 

[Sordello]

For all you readers out there who want something interesting... Pick up a copy of Gilgamesh and read it. You will be surprised to be reading some of the Genesis stories translated as close as they can from an era 1000 years before Abraham.

Enkidu is one of the most interesting characters in the poem - Is he Adam?

If this is true, Could not the creation story truly be about Man losing his innocence as a hunter/gatherer. I could be about men becoming farmers and herders. Taking control of the world around them. Once this happens you can never go back to that simpler time.

Could this not allude to being cast out of the Garden of Eden?

 

[MikeFerrara]

The point I was trying to make is the fact that just because a theory is not complete means that we need a god to explain the rest i.e. god of the gaps.

And my point was that possibly the data doesn't support you conclusions quite as strongly as you think...Gog or no God.

How do we not have direct evidence evolution takes place? I thought we established that we do.

I never said any such thing. My own client "evolve" horses all the time.

Please explain how a god is necessary to explain the universe exists.

No need to point out any such thing. Since the existance of the universe hasn't been completely explained you don't know if the explanation requires God or not.

Besides, I really do not think saying 'God did it' explains anything.

An opinion. ok.

 

[MikeFerrara]

BS, we're sick and tired of quietly stating that 2+2=4 only to be told by people who can't add that it isn't. So we stop pulling our punches and call and idiot an idiot, as we likely should have done in the first place. We're also sick and tired of yielding to the religionists Political Correctness and pretending that all opinions start from an equal place and have equal weight. Stupid opinions that have no evidence for support except some book of fables (fill in your choice of fable) does not deserve equal standing with carefully collected and analyzed data. If I told you your wife was cheating on you would you ask for some supporting data? Would you insist on careful examination of that data before confronting her? You bet you would. But you want unsupported and unexamined fables to be taught to our children in the stead of solid science. Now which is arrogance and egotism?
See above.
I don't need a god. The fact is that abiogenesis is the only possibility that there is any evidence for. The evidence is not yet clear and perfect, but at this stage it's that, or the rantings of misogynistic pederasts who'd do best living in the bronze age, concerning the meaning of a several thousand year old set of fables that few if any of them have (or even can) read in the original.

Scientists do not pretend to "have all the answers" if we did, science would be over. But once we know that something is crap ... we do find it a waste of time to have to keep going back over, and over, and over, the same old ground.

So grow up. Just like 2+2=4, evolution is fact, abiogenesis of some form provided the origin of life, the world is spherical, the earth rotates around the sun and is not 6,000 years old, and there is no god.

Again, I challenge you to come up with just one definitive example of a controversy between a scientific conclusion and a religious illusion where the religious illusion turned out, in the end, to be closer to reality? Just one. You can't.

And I challenge you to support your contention that abiogenesis explains the origin of life. Once you do that, we can go back to whether or not "evolution" adequately explains the life we have on this planet.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Stop trying to distract people from Thal's question, and answer it. Looking forward to your answer...

Not a chance. Thal's question simply doesn't relate to any position I've presented.

No distraction intended. Warthaug made statements concerning my posts and positions that I'm asking him to support so that I can clarify anything that led him to misunderstand any point I've tried to make or the motives behind those points.

 

[MikeFerrara]

I say put up, or admit defeat and shut up.

I'm frankly sick and tired having to shovel bantha poodo.

And I don't like being put in a position by some cretinous fundamentalist that forces me to insult some folks, like Mike and Marvel, whom I genuinely like and respect (at least in other arenas).

For my part, don't concern yourself over it. I don't take a position if I'm not willing to get knocked around trying to defend it.

 

[MikeFerrara]

For all you readers out there who want something interesting... Pick up a copy of Gilgamesh and read it. You will be surprised to be reading some of the Genesis stories translated as close as they can from an era 1000 years before Abraham.

Enkidu is one of the most interesting characters in the poem - Is he Adam?

If this is true, Could not the creation story truly be about Man losing his innocence as a hunter/gatherer. I could be about men becoming farmers and herders. Taking control of the world around them. Once this happens you can never go back to that simpler time.

Could this not allude to being cast out of the Garden of Eden?

I'd love to go into this but I think the thread is going off in too many different directions...an has been. Maybe a different thread?

 

[Sordello]

I'd love to go into this but I think the thread is going off in too many different directions...an has been. Maybe a different thread?

 

[gary-ramey]

BS, we're sick and tired of quietly stating that 2+2=4 only to be told by people who can't add that it isn't. So we stop pulling our punches and call and idiot an idiot, as we likely should have done in the first place. We're also sick and tired of yielding to the religionists Political Correctness and pretending that all opinions start from an equal place and have equal weight. Stupid opinions that have no evidence for support except some book of fables (fill in your choice of fable) does not deserve equal standing with carefully collected and analyzed data. If I told you your wife was cheating on you would you ask for some supporting data? Would you insist on careful examination of that data before confronting her? You bet you would. But you want unsupported and unexamined fables to be taught to our children in the stead of solid science. Now which is arrogance and egotism?

Okay my favorite fable is the Miller Experiment which is still in textbooks today. I've said this before and I'll say it again. Science becomes nothing more than a materialistic philosophy when it fails to police an endless trail of out-dated science which has been proven false by the scientific community. The implication is they're either lazy to fix it, or they just don't care because they're creating a planet of little atheists out there in our schools.

Scientists do not pretend to "have all the answers" if we did, science would be over. But once we know that something is crap ... we do find it a waste of time to have to keep going back over, and over, and over, the same old ground.

Exactly my point. Instead of going back to enlighten people on the past mistakes of science, its expedient to move on to the next, truth-of-the-moment theory.

So grow up. Just like 2+2=4, evolution is fact, abiogenesis of some form provided the origin of life, the world is spherical, the earth rotates around the sun and is not 6,000 years old, and there is no god.

A good scientist would never make such extrapolation. But I guess that we would never confuse you with a good scientist anyway.