It's Always Sunny - evolution versus Christianity

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Still going on about the fish?

It's called adapting to ones environment. There are plenty of fish able to survive in both saltwater AND fresh water (salmon for example).

So who's to say that the fish we have now didn't evolve from fish that could survive in both environments, and over time, adapted to their respective environments.

In 4000 years...?

Bahahaha.

like fish in a barrel. Fuck me reading anymore of this shit will give me an aneurysm.

[LadyForCamus]

In 4000 years...?

Bahahaha.

like fish in a barrel. Fuck me reading anymore of this shit will give me an aneurysm.

It's amazing! I've never seen anything like it before; these mental gymnastics people contort their brains into in order to hold on to their beliefs!

[Crossless2.0]

Bahahaha.

like fish in a barrel. Fuck me reading anymore of this shit will give me an aneurysm.

It's amazing!  I've never seen anything like it before; these mental gymnastics people contort their brains into in order to hold on to their beliefs!  

Welcome to Huggy's Playhouse! Skeptical of evolutionary theory as it's accepted by the international community of experts / willing to speed up the process in ways no scientist would dream of if it helps to square his circle of belief / doesn't understand how dishonest that is.

[LadyForCamus]

It's amazing!  I've never seen anything like it before; these mental gymnastics people contort their brains into in order to hold on to their beliefs!  

Welcome to Huggy's Playhouse! Skeptical of evolutionary theory as it's accepted by the international community of experts / willing to speed up the process in ways no scientist would dream of if it helps to square his circle of belief / doesn't understand how dishonest that is.

Yeah, and I feel the garbage creationist websites with their garbage "scientists" only perpetuate this kind of warped perspective. If fact, I'd say they prey upon it. The incredible hypocrisy in all of this is that creationists rely on science and technology for rational decision making on a daily basis in every other facet of their lives. When it comes to gawd though, it suddenly devolves into a blithering useless pile of crap. Can we say cognitive dissonance? All together now!

[Huggy Bear]

I'll fix this for you:  Beliefs, opinions, and speculations may change on a whim regardless of facts or evidence because they, by their very nature, are not contingent upon them.

More attempts at obfuscating my point.

An opinion that isn't based on any evidence is what is called an UNINFORMED opinion. However an INFORMED opinion, one based on facts, is subject to change in light of new evidence.

Got it?

What is not subject to change under any circumstance is truth.  What's true will ALWAYS remain true, any new evidence will corroborate the truth, not change it.

Correct!  And the only way to determine the truth to the highest degree of certainty possible is the scientific method.   What you don't get to say is, "this two thousand-year-old book is the truth because God said it is, and the bible is the word of God."  Sorry.  That in no way is evidence of any truth.  

Discovery; revelation (dare I say) of our universe is a process.  The fact that the scientific method is by its very design a self-correcting machine, makes it the most accurate tool for gathering facts and evidence about the world we live in.  Facts and evidence lead to the truth, or as close to the truth as we can come.  Your pointing out of instances where science has come to an incorrect conclusion actually bolsters my point, not yours.  The difference between science and religion is that science is willing to say, "this isn't quite right.  We are going to keep working until we get the answer that best reflects reality."  Religion just screams by fiat, "this IS the truth, because it IS!" over, and over until people want to puke (namely me).

And science is why we are here in this world today.  This is why we have modern medicine, and the longest life span our species has ever seen.   Do you go to the doctor when you are sick, Huggy?  If your physician offers you the most cutting-edge treatment with the maximum possible efficacy, are you going to turn him down because "science is wrong all the time and everything is just a theory"?  Will you seek a cure in the pages of your book?  I seriously doubt it.

Tell me, Huggy:  if science is such a joke to you, why do you try so hard to reconcile its findings with your holy book?  

Did you miss the part in my post where I stated "one can benefit from both science AND spirituality? Or did you purposefully ignore that in order to pigeon-hole me into your idea of a "theist".

Just like creationism and evolution, spirituality and science aren't mutually exclusive either. Science does not deal with spiritual matters, neither does the spiritual deal with the natural. Nowhere does the bible tell you not to utilize doctors, it's when medicine fails then you have a right to go directly to God.

Here is testimony from a lady who claims to have been Divinely healed after science told her it was impossible for her to have a baby. What's unique about this video is that the original audio from 1958 is included at the end which corroborates her testimony.

---

---

Explain that.

link http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is...heory.html

Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts.

No, you're right, I shouldn't have linked you to anything that would require you to critically think.  I'm sorry, I should know better by now.

Definitions don't require critical thought.

Your own article states that theories ARE NOT facts, which was my original point.

My whole point is that scientific FACT corroborates what the bible has been saying, it doesn't disprove it, the bible told you time was relative long before the theory of relativity

LOL!  Are you kidding me?  

2 Peter 3:8 - But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

This is no way Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, lol.   Science doesn't corroborate the bible.  You just happened to retrospectively find vague, and poetic prose from the bible that doesn't particularly contradict the scientific theory that you already know about.  Thanks to the scientific method.. And Einstein.

I said the bible stated that time was relative, you know as in time being different in relation from one thing to another. "One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." States exactly that fact.

Evolution is a fact in so much that each creature evolves after its "kind", cats evolve from cats and dogs from dogs, But the idea that we all evolved from some primordial soup is pure conjecture.

Your understanding of evolutionary biology is incorrect, and I suspect willfully ignorant, but that has been demonstrated in this thread already.  You just refuse to acknowledge it.   Www://talkorigins.org.  You're welcome.

I'm welcome for what exactly? For you posting a website that was at the center of the same debate a year ago?

"and by species, I mean from one animal into another, "

Someone is moving their goal posts. I love seeing these new flying goal posts, can I buy them at Academy?

I suppose I'd better include the quote or I'd be accused of "moving the goal posts"
http://atheistforums.org/thread-24368-po...#pid618632

Called it.
I was saying this a year ago btw, that why I included the link...

Guess you don't realize there are multiple definitions of "species"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-spec...html#part2
from robvalue's link

2.0 Species Definitions

A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community. Three recent reviews in the Journal of Phycology give some idea of the scope of the debate (Castenholz 1992, Manhart and McCourt 1992, Wood and Leatham 1992). There are a variety of different species concept currently in use by biologists. These include folk, biological, morphological, genetic, paleontological, evolutionary, phylogenetic and biosystematic definitions. In the interest of brevity, I'll only discuss four of these -- folk, biological, morphological and phylogenetic. A good review of species definitions is given in Stuessy 1990.

[LadyForCamus]

More attempts at obfuscating my point.

An opinion that isn't based on any evidence is what is called an UNINFORMED opinion. However an INFORMED opinion, one based on facts, is subject to change in light of new evidence.

Um, no obfuscation necessary. You are attempting to describe a well established scientific theory as merely a 'belief, speculation, and/or opinion,' and therefore not trustworthy. I am correcting you. And it is my informed opinion that you don't have a coherent grasp on the scientific method. You understand that a hypothesis and a scientific theory are two different things, yes?

And since you ignored me, I'll ask again: as a person who is so committed to the truth, how do you justify declaring the writings of a two thousand-year-old book "truth"? Just...because it says so?

Did you miss the part in my post where I stated "one can benefit from both science AND spirituality? Or did you purposefully ignore that in order to pigeon-hole me into your idea of a "theist".

Of course you can, when you afford yourself the privilege of cherry-picking which scientific evidence you accept and which you reject based on personal preference and comfort level.

Just like creationism and evolution, spirituality and science aren't mutually exclusive either. Science does not deal with spiritual matters, neither does the spiritual deal with the natural. Nowhere does the bible tell you not to utilize doctors, it's when medicine fails then you have a right to go directly to God.

See above.

Here is testimony from a lady who claims to have been Divinely healed after science told her it was impossible for her to have a baby. What's unique about this video is that the original audio from 1958 is included at the end which corroborates her testimony.

---

---

Explain that.

Oh, for Christ's sake, Huggy. Where to begin? First of all, the video doesn't explain what type of fertility issue the woman suffered from, so we are missing crucial information right from the beginning. Many, many, women who suffer from infertility problems go on to bear children. Just like many people who have been given terminal cancer diagnoses go spontaneously into remission against all odds. Rare, medical phenomena occur all the time. My question to you is: where is the line of demarcation between rare medical occurrences and divine intervention, and how did you establish such criteria? And remember, if you are asserting something is a 'miracle' that burden of proof is yours. Of course, all of this ignores the fact that testimonials are one of the lowest quality, and least reliable forms of scientific evidence. People lie.

Your own article states that theories ARE NOT facts, which was my original point.

Lol, yes you are correct that they are two different things. You just don't seem to understand what those differences are.

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Got it?

i said the bible stated that time was relative, you know as in time being different in relation from one thing to another. "One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." States exactly that fact.

Right, and your point was that the bible figured it out before Einstein did. My point is that Einstein figured out a whole hell of lot more than simply 'time is relative,' so why isn't the theory of special relativity outlined in detail in your book? I'll answer that. Because the bible is not actually predicting anything. Someone came across one vague quote that could be interpreted as 'time is relative,' already having that very specific idea in their mind to start with. Nothing supernatural about that.

I'm welcome for what exactly? For you posting a website that was at the center of the same debate a year ago?

For providing you with a reputable, scientifically accurate source of information. You should try using it some time.

[Huggy Bear]

Um, no obfuscation necessary.  You are attempting to describe a well established scientific theory as merely a 'belief, speculation, and/or opinion,' and therefore not trustworthy.  I am correcting you.

 

Look, if a scientific theory is not a fact (defined by your own source) then it is opinion, that's all there is to it. You made it very clear that theories can change, Facts however do not.

And it is my informed opinion that you don't have a coherent grasp on the scientific method.  You understand that a hypothesis and a scientific theory are two different things, yes?

Seriously? Weren't you the one claiming life had been created in a lab, and even linked to sources YOU thought backed up that claim? Anyone with half a brain knew that was a bogus claim seeing how that would have been the biggest achievement in the history on mankind, yet you want to talk about my level of understanding...

oook

And since you ignored me, I'll ask again:  as a person who is so committed to the truth, how do you justify declaring the writings of a two thousand-year-old book "truth"?  Just...because it says so?

If you understood the Bible, you couldn't see it as anything other than the truth. Bid not Jesus say that the scriptures (speaking of the old testament) testify of him? The whole bible is about Jesus Christ.

What if I told you the Jesus Christ was depicted right there in the garden of Eden.

Of course you can, when you afford yourself the privilege of cherry-picking which scientific evidence you accept and which you reject based on personal preference and comfort level.

Please.

All I did was show that the bible and evolution don't contradict insomuch as animals do evolve, I just don't believe we all evolved from an amoeba.

Oh, for Christ's sake, Huggy.  Where to begin?  First of all, the video doesn't explain what type of fertility issue the woman suffered from, so we are missing crucial information right from the beginning.  Many, many, women who suffer from infertility problems go on to bear children.  Just like many people who have been given terminal cancer diagnoses go spontaneously into remission against all odds.  Rare, medical phenomena occur all the time.  My question to you is: where is the line of demarcation between rare medical occurrences and divine intervention, and how did you establish such criteria?  And remember, if you are asserting something is a 'miracle' that burden of proof is yours.   Of course, all of this ignores the fact that testimonials are one of the lowest quality, and least reliable forms of scientific evidence.  People lie.

So you completely gloss over the fact that there was an audio recording 1958 (which was not part of the TV program but was added later) that corroborates that she was telling the truth? Also a man (William Branham) who never seen her before being able to tell her where she was from and what her trouble was.

The reason he did that wasn't to show off, it was to get the people to believe in God, since healing is based on faith.

Your own article states that theories ARE NOT facts, which was my original point.

Lol, yes you are correct that they are two different things.  You just don't seem to understand what those differences are.

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."  Got it?

Now you're fully embracing that scientific theories are not facts? So why couldn't you agree on that 4 pages ago, sheesh.

Right, and your point was that the bible figured it out before Einstein did.  My point is that Einstein figured out a whole hell of lot more than simply 'time is relative,' so why isn't the theory of special relativity outlined in detail in your book?  I'll answer that.  Because the bible is not actually predicting anything.  Someone came across one vague quote that could be interpreted as 'time is relative,' already having that very specific idea in their mind to start with.   Nothing supernatural about that.

It's not an interpretation, that's exactly what the bible states, that time is relative.

God Is a God of order, not chaos, there is a reason for how things work, relativity existed long before it was ever defined. Radio waves existed long before there was a radio. Aerodynamics existed long before there were aeronautical engineers.

got it?

I'm welcome for what exactly? For you posting a website that was at the center of the same debate a year ago?

For providing you with a reputable, scientifically accurate source of information.  You should try using it some time.

A reputable, scientifically accurate source of information you say?
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/welcome.html

Visitors to the archive should be aware that essays and FAQs appearing in the archive have generally not undergone a rigorous peer review procedure by scientific experts. Rather, they have been commented on and critiqued by the readership of the talk.origins newsgroup. While many of the participants in talk.origins are well regarded scientists, this informal procedure is not as demanding as the process a scientist goes through to publish a paper in a scientific journal. It is important to keep this fact in mind when reading the contents of this archive. Because most of the essays have not undergone rigorous peer review, some of them may contain errors or misstatements of fact. Any errors you identify should be reported to the authors or to the editor. The archive also maintains a contact page.

If this is acceptable to you, I don't want to hear complaints of any sources I link not being peer reviewed.

[robvalue]

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

[Nihilist Virus]

[Huggy Bear]

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

You seem to be under the impression that I don't believe in evolution despite the fact of me stating otherwise. What I don't believe is that all life evolved from an amoeba, so show me exactly where that has been proven.

---

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/...gbooktalk/

Everything we are and everything in the universe and on Earth originated from stardust, and it continually floats through us even today. It directly connects us to the universe, rebuilding our bodies over and again over our lifetimes.