|
|
#11
09-20-2005, 01:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: why does sklansky spend so much time on the philos section?and oth
[ QUOTE ]
What about the pre-cambrian explosion in the fossil record? [/ QUOTE ] I assume you mean the "Cambrian explosion." What about it? There is nothing about it which falsifies evolution. See, for example, this page about the Cambrian explosion . [ QUOTE ] How about the concept of irreducible complexity? Darwin had absolutely no idea about the complexity of the cell when he came up "The Origin of Species" [/ QUOTE ] Michael Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" is nothing more than an argument from incredulity: "I don't understand how this feature could have evolved, therefore god -- er, I mean an 'intelligent designer' did it. What Behe claims to be "irreducibly complex" isn't at all. See, for example, this link for a critical analysis of Behe's claims. That Darwin was unaware of genetics or cellular microbiology actually provides powerful evidence supporting the theory of evolution, since DNA evidence can be analysed independent of morphological evidence from the fossil record. These two lines of evidence overwhelmingly converge to support evolution, as manifested, for example, by the twin-nested hierarchy . [ QUOTE ] It's interesting how the more technologically advanced we get the more complex things are. ie. the universe, bio-chemistry, physics etc. This in itself points to an inteligent designer. [/ QUOTE ] Even if your claim is true (it's not), it doesn't mean "intelligent design" is a scientific theory. Indeed, in the 145 or so years since the publication of The Origin of Species, the scientific evidence has overwhelmingly supported evolution. 
|
|
#12
09-20-2005, 01:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why does sklansky spend so much time on the philos section?and oth
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Read a book on evolution and the fossil record (and I'm not talking Lucy). It's simply stunning and ovewhelming both in number and diversity. Read about the phylogenic tree. Look at the structure of cells. No one who has done these things doubts the fact that organisms have evolved from single cells to what they are today. God is a seperate issue. [/ QUOTE ] Very very untrue. What about the pre-cambrian explosion in the fossil record? How about the concept of irreducible complexity? Darwin had absolutely no idea about the complexity of the cell when he came up "The Origin of Species". It's interesting how the more technologically advanced we get the more complex things are. ie. the universe, bio-chemistry, physics etc. This in itself points to an inteligent designer. [/ QUOTE ] Actually, Darwin had no knowledge of genetics or heredity when he developed his theory of natural selection. You are still wrong about everything else. Fancy-pants symbol name is closer to correct. When an idea is a good as natural selection or the second law of thermodynamics, the underlying mechanisms are usually not so important.
|
|
#14
09-20-2005, 06:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why does sklansky spend so much time on the philos section?and oth
on #6, you completely missed the point. also, from what ive read, the fossil record is an embarrassment to evolutionists (no intermdiate transitional forms) that has failed miserably to vindicate Darwin's prediction. but that is beside the point- reread question 6. you clearly know very little about the deep philosophical implications of atheism. your thinking is narrow. reread six.
|
|
#15
09-20-2005, 06:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why does sklansky spend so much time on the philos section?and oth
why is it 'uneducated' to refer to the cambrian explosion? also, the fossil record was glaring problem in darwin's day. thus darwin predicted that the record would vindicate him over the course of a couple hundred years. it never has. where are the thousands of intermediate fossil forms (links between species) that Darwin predicted. name 10 of them for me. they simply do not exist, and Darwin's prediction has failed. archeopteryx doesn't count- if you dont know why, ill explain.
please dispense with the typical ad hominems about how guys like jeff v. are not educated. the ad hominem is a favorite tool of those who think like you. it's tiresome. you know little about that you attempt to pontificate about. do you understand what im saying in #6 yet? im sure sklansky does (and he usually does reply to my threads, fwiw).
|
|
#16
09-20-2005, 06:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why does sklansky spend so much time on the philos section?and oth
can you please explain to me yourself the 'overwhelming' evidence that supports evolution? i read the link to the analysis of behe and found it quite unpersuasive. they are arguing over seemingly archaic, incomprehensible minutiae that seems to matter little in relevance to the overarching philosophical issues. please give me your version of the great evidence for evolution. and, if you're an atheist, why do you care to argue strongly for evolution and just as strongly renounce ID? b/c it's 'true', in your view? laughable
|
|
#17
09-20-2005, 06:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why does sklansky spend so much time on the philos section?and oth
[quoteand, if you're an atheist, why do you care to argue strongly for evolution and just as strongly renounce ID? b/c it's 'true', in your view? laughable
[/ QUOTE ] What do you mean here? If a person is an atheist should they not try to further the scientific understanding of the universe?
|
|
#18
09-20-2005, 06:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why does sklansky spend so much time on the philos section?and oth
good response, bluff! you are roman catholic, no?
as for 1, why does sklansky care about 'value for society'? unless it directly affects him personally (which is highly unlikely- at least society will not drastically be changed by his futile attempts on this site to 'relieve' believers of their faith). i see no reasonable point in his efforts here. as for 6, same thing. nobody seems to understand what i am saying here. who gives a f*ck if 'ignorant' creationists dominate the science classroom? it will not affect sklansky or the other psuedo-intellectual atheists on this forum, at least not in a personal manner in a way direct enough to justify them all getting their panties in a bunch.
|
|
#19
09-20-2005, 06:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why does sklansky spend so much time on the philos section?and oth
i guess that's fine. but also pointless. why should they? it's all meaningless and there is no legitimate reason to so strongly advocate evolution and condemn id. why not attempt to further scientific deception instead? this would be no more of an irrational objective than promoting the 'truth' as they understand it. it seems pathetic to me to so religiously value evolution and materialistic theory if there really is no God. why value truth? why not be a krishna instead? it is all so vain and empty. thank God there really is a God.
|
|
#20
09-20-2005, 06:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why does sklansky spend so much time on the philos section?and other?s
that's fine, but ultimately those goals really are meaningless, and a pathetic attempt to insert your own subjective meaning existentially into a world where such meaning doesnt exist. just seems pathetic to me. but ill grant that in atheism, it's not necessarily a worse choice than simply admitting that everything is meaningless and then killing yourself, nihilistic style. each option is equally valid (or actually equally meaningless)
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
