Evolution Versus Devolution

[IntellectualDiscussionFTW]

You want me to take a neutral stance, while others contend that God doesn't exist?

No, thanks.

If you guys won't take a neutral stance; I'm surely not going to, either.

You have just as much evidence for the creation week as I do ... none.

The point is that I recommend a neutral stance dealing with theories that have evidence supporting them if you aren't qualified to challenge the evidence. My statement didn't address the matters of God's existence and the creation week because they fall under different criteria: they have no evidence supporting them. However, there is solid evidence contradicting the creation week, allowing me to challenge it. There is no hard evidence that contradicts evolution for you to stand on, and you are not qualified to challenge the evidence in support of evolution because you have demonstrated that you clearly haven't studied it intensively like those who formulated the theory have.

TL;DR - You misunderstood my statement. I was only contending that you shouldn't challenge evidence-based statements if you don't have the credentials to do so. Your examples are not evidence-based claims.

 

[IntellectualDiscussionFTW]

Kinda like science verifying science, isn't it?

Not exactly. The point is that religious circular logic uses unproven statements to prove more unproven statements. Science has no circular logic. It begins with the new evidence, and ends with a conclusion based on the evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

The point is that I recommend a neutral stance dealing with theories that have evidence supporting them if you aren't qualified to challenge the evidence.

When have I ever challenged evidence here?

You bring me all the evidence you can to support cosmic evolution and watch what I do with it.

Better yet, ask your colleagues here who know me.

I'm sure they have a thesaurus-full of words to describe my style ...

 

[AV1611VET]

Not exactly.

Yes ... exactly.

 

[IntellectualDiscussionFTW]

When have I ever challenged evidence here?

You bring me all the evidence you can to support cosmic evolution and watch what I do with it.

Better yet, ask your colleagues here who know me.

I'm sure they have a thesaurus-full of words to describe my style ...

You challenge the evidence supporting evolution.

 

[IntellectualDiscussionFTW]

Yes ... exactly.

You don't really understand the concept. Your religious logic for belief in God and the word of God is a closed circle, because you bend the facts to fit your hypothesis rather than bending your hypothesis to fit the facts. Scientific logic runs in either a line or a branched tree, sometimes revisiting earlier points, but never entirely closing off, and thus never refusing to accommodate new knowledge. So, not really. They are nothing alike.

 

[AV1611VET]

You challenge the evidence supporting evolution.

Link, please?

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't really understand the concept. Your religious logic for belief in God and the word of God is a closed circle, because you bend the facts to fit your hypothesis rather than bending your hypothesis to fit the facts. Scientific logic runs in either a line or a branched tree, sometimes revisiting earlier points, but never entirely closing off, and thus never refusing to accommodate new knowledge. So, not really. They are nothing alike.

I'm not going to argue with you, ID ... you don't know me that well.

 

[IntellectualDiscussionFTW]

Of the two choices, I pick devolving.

Romans 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Yes, pockets of evolving occur, but in the long run, it amounts to polishing brass on a sinking ship; as devolution will eventually catch up.

(Of course, we Christians know that God will intervene long before that happens. )

Although you did say "pockets of evolution occur", on the larger scale you challenged it.

 

[IntellectualDiscussionFTW]

I'm not going to argue with you, ID ... you don't know me that well.

It has nothing to do with how well I know you. You don't need to know someone to have intellectual discussion...I imagine that's why certain forums (including this one) exist.

 

[Tiberius]

Kinda like science verifying science, isn't it?

Nah, nothing like it.

Science uses many different techniques to find out a piece of information. If all the different techniques give the same result, then it's likely that the result is correct. After all, how could such widely varied techniques all be wrong by the same amount?

Religion, on the other hand, only has the one technique, so if it's wrong, you;ve got nothing to test it against.

 

[Tiberius]

When have I ever challenged evidence here?

You bring me all the evidence you can to support cosmic evolution and watch what I do with it.

Better yet, ask your colleagues here who know me.

I'm sure they have a thesaurus-full of words to describe my style ...

I bring you evidence that the sun has been around for 5 billion years, and let's see if you refuse to challenge that evidence.

The instant you say it's only been around for 6000 years, you are challenging that evidence.

 

[mzungu]

All the world's religions will do well to listen to these wise words:

​

 

[Cromulent]

Ah but Buddhism is just diabolical mimicry. Look at how evil all the Buddhists are!

 

[mzungu]

Ah but Buddhism is just diabolical mimicry. Look at how evil all the Buddhists are!

Yes and worst of all their religion has no God!

Excerpt from http://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Do Buddhist believe in god?[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origin in fear. The Buddha says: [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,
sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines".[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dp 188[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Primitive man found himself in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with him. Finding no security, he created the idea of gods in order to give him comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddha’s teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have god’s words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand god’s nature, that their god exists and that the gods of other religions do not. Some claim that god is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god. It is not surprising that with so many different religions spending so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their gods that still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found. Buddhists suspend judgement until such evidence is forthcoming.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The third reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is that the belief is not necessary. Some claim that the belief in a god is necessary in order to explain the origin on the universe. But this is not so. Science has very convincingly explained how the universe came into being without having to introduce the god-idea. Some claim that belief in god is necessary to have a happy, meaningful life. Again we can see that this is not so. There are millions of atheists and free-thinkers, not to mention many Buddhists, who live useful, happy and meaningful lives without belief in a god. Some claim that belief in god’s power is necessary because humans, being weak, do not have the strength to help themselves. Once again, the evidence indicates the opposite. One often hears of people who have overcome great disabilities and handicaps, enormous odds and difficulties, through their own inner resources, through their own efforts and without belief in a god. Some claim that god is necessary in order to give man salvation. But this argument only holds good if you accept the theological concept of salvation and Buddhists do not accept such a concept. Based on his own experience, the Buddha saw that each human being had the capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect understanding. He shifted attention from the heavens to the heart and encouraged us to find solutions to our problems through self-understanding.[/FONT]

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes and worst of all their religion has no God!

The catchword in that Buddhist phrase is "proves."

 

[Tiberius]

The catchword in that Buddhist phrase is "proves."

Do you fail to comprehend how that is important?

If Buddhism says, "A" and science says, "Not A," then the Dalai Lama would be willing to change his faith based on evidence.

We all know you much prefer sticking your head in the sand and denying reality whenever it disagrees with you (even though you are perfectly happy to enjoy the benefits of that disagreement).

 

[IntellectualDiscussionFTW]

Do you fail to comprehend how that is important?

If Buddhism says, "A" and science says, "Not A," then the Dalai Lama would be willing to change his faith based on evidence.

We all know you much prefer sticking your head in the sand and denying reality whenever it disagrees with you (even though you are perfectly happy to enjoy the benefits of that disagreement).

Even a lot of Catholics were willing to change their faith and accept evolution as another one of "God's miracles". They know the deal about when parts of their religion get blown out of the water by science.

 

[AV1611VET]

If Buddhism says, "A" and science says, "Not A," then the Dalai Lama would be willing to change his faith based on evidence.

Show me where it says that, please.

You Arab-phoned "proof" to "evidence" in order to give some validity to your point, didn't you?

 

[mzungu]

Show me where it says that, please.

You Arab-phoned "proof" to "evidence" in order to give some validity to your point, didn't you?

Gladly: