Diversity remains a one way street

[Gato_Solo]

Is that the same as saying
"I believe in ghosts, not explainable facts"?

No, and you know it isn't. Especially since there are no such things. Facts are nothing more than interpretations of something you see/hear/taste/smell, that can be repeated, and sensed by others with the same frequency with the same material. Notice the word interpretation. 10, 20, 30 years from now, that 'fact' could be explained away by something not catalogued, or known, at the time the observation was noted. Explain that one, and you'll understand the difference between faith in God, and faith in science. Until then, you're examples bore me. Find something else to be insolent about.

 

[Winky]

Um no?
Do you not see the fallacy in your argument
or are you merely being obstinate?

 

[chcr]

Nope. It's just a way to try and explain the universe. There is no more. You, and chcr are making it more complex than it is. At this point, you have to, because you need to place your belief in science in a position above my belief in God. Why this is such a difficult concept to get across, I'll never know.

**You need to place your belief in god in a position above my belief in science. Why this is such a difficult concept to get across, I'll never know.**

I don't know if it's so much that I need to, I simply do. Science makes sense to me, faith in the supernatural does not. I don't think it's a need though, and I certainly don't think it makes me smarter, better, whatever...
I do, however think it makes me right, as do you. You argue that your belief that "faith" in science is equatable to "faith" in god is true. I argue that it is not, that "faith" in science comes from understanding rather than simple belief (I would certainly agree that this is not the case for everyone, even some self-proclaimed scientists). Of course you think your point is more valid than mine, just as I think mine is more valid than yours. I am not going to admit that you are right because I don't think you are.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

Purely out of curiosity, I'll ask...

Which came first, your disbelief in creation, or the adherence to science having all the answers?

See, I believe in evolution. I just don't believe it explains the onset of intelligent life on earth.

I believe in science, I just don't believe that it holds the answers to the onset of life on earth.

I believe in creation, and I also believe that it has the answers science does not have. The human animal works just a little too well for it all to have been started with some accidental melding of random elements combined with that freak charge of electricity. This world has just a little too much order and predictability to have been all done by chance.

But apparently, that's just me.

 

[Gato_Solo]

**You need to place your belief in god in a position above my belief in science. Why this is such a difficult concept to get across, I'll never know.**

I don't know if it's so much that I need to, I simply do. Science makes sense to me, faith in the supernatural does not.

Then why, when God is mentioned, do so many folks get so upset, and try to denigrate my beliefs? I don't disrespect science, so why is it okay for you to disrespect religion? You use science to try to explain how the universe works, and to find out where you stand. I use faith.

 

[catocom]

No, and you know it isn't. Especially since there are no such things.

Actually "I" do believe in ghosts to a certain degree.

 

[Winky]

It is not a question of disrespecting religion.
It is merely a matter of not respecting religion at all
when matters of 'how we came to be here' are concerned.

If you want to believe that an omnipotent being snapped its fingers
and poof here we are then that is your right.

Until you can point to scientific proof positive that, that is the case
then ‘know’ that your primitive beliefs are just that!

Any attempt to equate scientific knowledge to religious faith will always be met with derision.

Except perhaps in the Middle East?

 

[chcr]

Then why, when God is mentioned, do so many folks get so upset, and try to denigrate my beliefs? I don't disrespect science, so why is it okay for you to disrespect religion? You use science to try to explain how the universe works, and to find out where you stand. I use faith.

When did I disrespect religion? It simply makes no sense to me, and I don't pretend it does. I simply state that I think my position is more valid than yours. I fully understand that you feel differently, why should I then have to defer to you simply because of that fact. That seems to be what you expect, that I recognize the validity of an argument that I simply do not find valid. I know that some people are touchy about mentioning God, but I'm not one of them. I notice that a lot of people are just as touchy about someone mentioning that they don't believe. I simply don't care. I do not however, find arguments which invoke god (or any supernatural agency for that matter) to be valid and I won't pretend that I do. I don't feel like that is disrespectful to your belief, I think pretending to believe something I didn't would be far more disrespectful.

It is not a question of disrespecting religion.
It is merely a matter of not respecting religion at all.

That's not a bad way to put it.

 

[Gato_Solo]

If you want to believe that an omnipotent being snapped its fingers
and poof here we are then that is your right.

Until you can point to scientific proof positive that, that is the case
then ‘know’ that your primitive beliefs are just that!

Any attempt to equate scientific knowledge to religious faith will always be met with derision.

Until you can point to scientific proof positive that we evolved, the same case can be made. Read the title...

The Theory of evolution. Not Proof. You can look at so-called 'facts' all day, and not find definitive proof for anything. All Evolution is, is speculation. It doesn't support my view of crationism, either, but that's what ya got. You put quite a bit of belief in your theories, don'tcha?

 

[chcr]

Until you can point to scientific proof positive that we evolved, the same case can be made. Read the title...

The Theory of evolution. Not Proof. You can look at so-called 'facts' all day, and not find definitive proof for anything. All Evolution is, is speculation. It doesn't support my view of crationism, either, but that's what ya got. You put quite a bit of belief in your theories, don'tcha?

Sorry, sorry but once again, the "theory" of evolution involves how we evolved, not that we evolved. That we evolved is accepted as fact in every single evolutionary theory. It's the interpretation of fact that's the problem. It is a "fact" that the sun will rise each morning, until the morning it doesn't. The fossil record is clear, the DNA evidence is unquestionable (except to those who have a vested interest in questioning it). Define "proof." I suspect the only proof you would accept is to be able to watch it happen, and it happens far to slowly for that.

 

[abooja]

I know that some people are touchy about mentioning God, but I'm not one of them. I notice that a lot of people are just as touchy about someone mentioning that they don't believe. I simply don't care. I do not however, find arguments which invoke god (or any supernatural agency for that matter) to be valid and I won't pretend that I do. I don't feel like that is disrespectful to your belief, I think pretending to believe something I didn't would be far more disrespectful.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Sorry, sorry but once again, the "theory" of evolution involves how we evolved, not that we evolved. That we evolved is accepted as fact in every single evolutionary theory. It's the interpretation of fact that's the problem. It is a "fact" that the sun will rise each morning, until the morning it doesn't. The fossil record is clear, the DNA evidence is unquestionable (except to those who have a vested interest in questioning it). Define "proof." I suspect the only proof you would accept is to be able to watch it happen, and it happens far to slowly for that.

You lost me with this one statement...the "theory" of evolution involves how we evolved, not that we evolved. That has never been proven. It's been speculated, theorized, and argued about for generations, but it hasn't, as yet, been proven. If it has, then show me a web-site, a paper, anything to back that claim. Then we can go back to the belief argument...which is what I'm arguing, anyway.

 

[chcr]

In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

Evolution is a "fact." Natural selection is a "theory." I know you don't agree, but the "fact" remains.
Darwin advanced the "theory" of natural selection, not the "theory" of evolution. Evolution was a given, as far as he was concerned. He was trying to explain the mechanism. He has been misinterpreted ever since.

Honestly, Gato, this has been a stimulating discussion, but nothing either of us say will dissuade the other. Shall we move on to something else?

 

[Winky]

Well said Chic!

 

[Gato_Solo]

Evolution is a "fact." Natural selection is a "theory." I know you don't agree, but the "fact" remains.
Darwin advanced the "theory" of natural selection, not the "theory" of evolution. Evolution was a given, as far as he was concerned. He was trying to explain the mechanism. He has been misinterpreted ever since.

Honestly, Gato, this has been a stimulating discussion, but nothing either of us say will dissuade the other. Shall we move on to something else?

Quite stimulating, but until you can show me that evolution is a fact, then this whole argument is without standing on either side.

 

[chcr]

Here you go.


More seriously:

The short proof.

 

[Winky]

"then this whole argument is without standing on either side"

Now that is priceless!

 

[Gato_Solo]

"then this whole argument is without standing on either side"

Now that is priceless!

I'm glad you have the insight to understand that. At least chcr is offering something other than liberalesque comments...which brings me to this...

chcr, This site is better, but it's still missing something critical. If evolution is constant, which is stated in all of those journals, et al, then how come we have no proof that we are different from our ancestors, say, 1000 years ago? Dredging up bones from the fossile record is nice, but species die off for unexplained reasons all the time. Evolution has nothing to do with it. Climate, yes. Predation, yes. But evolution? No. As for life evolving from a soupy slime aeons ago, I have only this to say. Life comes from pre-existing life. This is a fact. This is also been proved time, and time, again. Do not confuse adaptation with evolution, either. Darwin's observations of birds neglected something...those birds on the different Galapagos Islands could interbreed, and produce viable offspring.

 

[chcr]

If evolution is constant, which is stated in all of those journals

Really? Which journals. It's been long understood that evolution does not occur at a constant rate (although I know that many people still assume that it does), but occurs in response to catastrophic events (i.e. the extinction of the dinosaurs) when there are ecological niches to fill. The fossil evidence is once again clear regarding this. There is a catastrophic event followed by an "explosion" of new species. We are both taller and live longer than people from 1000 years ago although this is not evolution (some theorize that it's a precursor). We are not substantially different from humans of 25,000 years ago and more. It simply doesn't happen that quickly and there has been nothing to necessitate it anyway. An "explosion" of species will take hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Frankly it is most likely that the next "explosion" of species will include something to fill the niche that we leave empty.

Do not confuse adaptation with evolution

Darwin's theory pretty much states that adaptation is evolution (if it leads to a new species). Note that I find Darwin's theory to be inconsistent and far from complete. It was probably the best he could have done at the time but other sciences have advanced so much since his time.

 

[catocom]

Evolution is a "fact." Natural selection is a "theory." I know you don't agree, but the "fact" remains.
Darwin advanced the "theory" of natural selection, not the "theory" of evolution. Evolution was a given, as far as he was concerned. He was trying to explain the mechanism. He has been misinterpreted ever since.

Honestly, Gato, this has been a stimulating discussion, but nothing either of us say will dissuade the other. Shall we move on to something else?

LOL chic, I thought you were through a long time ago, when you and I were back and forth.