(December 7, 2010 at 4:04 pm)Sam Wrote: That is not necessarily correct Statler. In this case, the re-working of the tree of life was done due to increased understanding.
That is, it was made more accurate without vastly affecting Evolutionary theory as a whole. In short Genome Research never destroyed the ‘model’ of evolution – it simply re-categorised the ‘products’.
Our understanding of the genome and DNA actually destroyed your theory. It showed that we were really dealing with information. In order to move from the less complex to the more complex we would need a mechanism that actually could increase information. Natural Selection (Darwin’s mechanism) has NEVER been observed to increase information so it cannot be a valid explanation anymore. To believe it is, is just a belief contrary to the evidence and is based on blind faith and wishful thinking.
Quote: Evolutionary theory deals specifically with the development of life on Earth i.e. the development and progression of species from common ancestry. As such, this definition is inapplicable.
As I pointed out above, Darwinism tries to explain a portion of the universe (life on Earth) by a mechanism that has never been observed to do what it is claimed to do. So it is absolutely a faith based system and just as much of a religious system as all the others.
Quote:“Have you ever seen a Manchester United Fan talk about them? They go giddy! Even more so than televangelists talking about Jesus! – Therefore football is a religion”
It makes no sense whatsoever.
That was not my only reason for believing Darwinism is a religion, Dawkins’ praise and worship for Darwin is just one line of evidence this is more than just science nowadays. Darwin actually has a cult following who will defend him and his beliefs vigorously (some of these followers appear to even post on this site haha).
Religions do not have to involve the worship of the supernatural as you seem to assert. Jainism is classified as a religion and involves the worship of life itself, unless of course you believe that life is not evidence based or natural haha. A more accurate way to define religions is whether the worldview meets the “Seven Dimensions of Religion”, which is used by archeologists among others to classify worldviews as religions. Keep in mind that not all seven dimensions have to be met. The dimensions are, narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. Now that I think about it, a strong case could be made that Atheism meets many of these as well; some people on here might even be dually religious
Quote: Is that because only Religious people can defend their viewpoint? Or did you just throw the whole “Valid logic is important to me” bit out of the window?
No I just think it’s funny that people who claim to be so rational and open minded would stand up for a 19th century racist who stole his ideas from those who came before him. Not really someone worthy of praise in my humble opinion.
Quote: You miss my point. Even if it were true that it had been proven the Nazis were “Deeply Influenced” by the ideas of Darwin, it wouldn’t make Evolutionary Theory culpable for their actions.
Well it would make Evolutionary Theory just as responsible for the actions of the Nazi Scientists as Islamic Fundamentalism was responsible for the actions of the culprits on 9/11. So I guess it just depends on how much you believe the terrorists Islamic beliefs fuel their actions, but the two events are very parallel.
Someone has a bit of a temper
So you don’t believe the quotes that came from Hitler’s secretary but you believe quotes that came from Nazis who were around him? Special pleading, nice.
At best you can say that Hitler was a Christian when he wrote his book long before the Holocaust began. However, while he was actually killing millions of Jews and trying to take over the world he hated Christians. Still doesn’t seem like the argument favors your position. Besides, I am sure you are aware that someone calling themselves, “A Christian” does nothing to make themselves a Christian. They have to also genuinely believe the key tenants of the Christian faith, one of which is love your enemy and forgive your trespassers. Obviously Hitler believed none of this, so it is beyond clear he was never a Christian. Just like if someone said, “I am an Atheist but I believe God exists”, I would hope you would not believe this person’s claim that they are a true atheist.
[
Quote: Genome Research was a direct result of Evolutionary Theory and the investigation of life on Earth, as such its existence is in part an effect of Evolutionary Theory.
Please show how Newton “Used Creationism” to derive the Laws of Gravity and we’ll talk. The fact is that not one part of what Newton did was related to his views on religion or the motivations you claim he had. Instead they were entirely to do with a scientific mind analysing the world.
Genome research has nothing to do with Evolutionary Theory. Creationists believe genes exist and they do gene therapy just as well as the Evolutionists do. So again, this is a non-sequitur. Actually none of Darwin’s original predictions have been verified, so it’s obvious his theory was not a good one from the get go.
Guys like Newton and Kepler will admit that their religion directly drove their scientific discoveries. Kepler was famous for saying he was just thinking God’s thoughts after Him. When you think about it, this is a profound statement that drives at the heart of what science is. Without a rational creator there would be no reason to expect the world around us to be comprehendible or to operate predictably. These men believed that nature was part of God’s special revelation and should be examined and discovered. So on the contrary, their creationists views were directly responsible for their discoveries. Bacon’s scientific method was just a tool for this type of discovery. Kind of funny but not surprising how you don’t like to give Creationism credit for it’s huge contributions to Science, but you will pass out credit to Darwinism when it is completely undeserved.
Quote: You can logically prove God exists? . . . I’m waiting.Are you really trying to logically prove that you cannot logically prove anything? Haha. Nice! I have not seen that one on here. I cannot scientifically prove that God exists, but I also cannot scientifically prove that Julius Caesar, or other people’s minds exist(ed) either. I can however logically deduce or infer their existence based on historical and scientific evidence.
The fact is you cannot prove anything by logic alone. In order for any logical argument to have any merit it must be both sound logically and in terms of the premises you state.
Also, if you understood anything about Atheism you would know that Agnosticism is completely compatible with it and in fact, with theism as well.
1. Complex specified information always requires an intelligent message sender.
2. All living organisms have complex specified information (DNA).
3. Therefore the complex specified information in living organisms requires an intelligent message sender (God).
1. Everything with a beginning has a cause (law of cause and effect)
2. The Universe has a beginning (scientifically established)
3. The Universe has a cause (God) (Proofs from J. Sarfati, “Refuting Evolution”)
Actually according to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Agnosticism and Atheism are mutually exclusive because you cannot affirm that you know something to be certain (the non-existence of God) and at the same point in time affirm that you do not know for sure. I think I will accept this source's authority on the subject over your own, no offense.
