- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Faith in "Science" = "man made religion" (Evolution related)
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:08 pm to mattloc
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:08 pm to mattloc
quote:
the point of the video seems to be that some form of faith is required to believe either Darwinian evolution or creationism
There is faith required to believe anything that is not 100% proven.
With that said, some of these things are easier to believe and have more contextual evidence behind them than others. Requiring less of a leap of faith.
The difference here is that one side is a lot more willing to admit uncertainty than the other, at least from what I have experienced.
This post was edited on 7/28/14 at 3:11 pm
0
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:12 pm to mattloc
quote:
Please go on.... What is this demonstrable mechanism whereof you speak?
Duplicating the environment of the early earth as we understand it to have been in a closed system, we can create every single necessary building block of life. Amino acids, nucleotides, simple sugars, lipids, etc.
The next step would be seeing how long it takes for those building blocks in that system to become simple cells, but since that would take exponentially longer than any human life (or the entirety of human existence thus far for that matter) this is an unrealistic expectation for modern science in the same way trying to observe grand evolutionary changes from lifeform to lifeform is unrealistic.
This post was edited on 7/28/14 at 3:13 pm
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:14 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Anyone who believes life was created as a result of abiogenesis is basing their belief solely on blind faith since there is NO scientific evidence.
False
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:18 pm to TK421
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:23 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Regardless of faith, you don't give religion enough credit. It does have it's warts though, no question.
I give religion plenty of credit, and it is beneficial to the lives of millions of decent people.
This isnt about the validity of religion though, its about the idea that evolution a "religion" in and of itself and moreover that it is incompatible with belief in God. Both of these are demonstrably false, given the nature of physical evidence and the BILLIONS of religious people around the world who accept some form of biological evolution. I dont have any issue with someone who wants to say God is responsible for evolution.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:23 pm to Roger Klarvin
This is in no way a "demonstrable mechanism". Your whole answer is representative of the vodoo nature of evolutionary "science"
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:25 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The next step would be seeing how long it takes for those building blocks in that system to become simple cells, but since that would take exponentially longer than any human life (or the entirety of human existence thus far for that matter) this is an unrealistic expectation for modern science
An unrealistic expectation = not demonstrable.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:28 pm to mattloc
The evidence for evolution and abiogenesis are in no way similar. Abiogenesis is a theoretical mechanism demonstrable only in mechanism but not in biological history due to the time elapsed and the lack of any means of measuring early cellular development.
Evolution is demonstrable in both mechanism and biological history and is the most well studied concept in all of modern biology.
One is simply an idea kicked around to explain the origin of life, the other is the foundation of the biological sciences.
Evolution is demonstrable in both mechanism and biological history and is the most well studied concept in all of modern biology.
One is simply an idea kicked around to explain the origin of life, the other is the foundation of the biological sciences.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:30 pm to TK421
quote:
An unrealistic expectation = not demonstrable.
Do you realize how many things you take for granted would have to be considered not demonstrable using this logic?
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:39 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Do you realize how many things you take for granted would have to be considered not demonstrable using this logic?
Sure, but I also care about the meaning of words. You said something that was demonstrably false. For a scientist, you seem to not give a shite about reality.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:43 pm to Korkstand
quote:Not ridiculous at all . . . if you are agnostic or theistic.
I don't have any particular belief in abiogenesis, because I don't have a fricking clue how it happened. How is that ridiculous?
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:43 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
we can create every single necessary building block of life.
Strange wording there Roger. Even in duplicating there is a Creator.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:45 pm to Lg
quote:
Strange wording there Roger. Even in duplicating there is a Creator.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:51 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
this is an unrealistic expectation for modern science in the same way trying to observe grand evolutionary changes from lifeform to lifeform is unrealistic.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:56 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:That is less the question regarding your earlier statement than is actual observability. Abiogenesis is not yet observable. Perhaps in the future, but obviously not now.
Do you realize how many things you take for granted would have to be considered not demonstrable using this logic?
Posted on 7/28/14 at 4:00 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
I see it happening every time people express their belief that God created life
Vague much? Life in general (that actually evolves)... Or life as in everything was created on purpose and nothing changes over time? Not even a little change... Would you be that ignorant?
Posted on 7/28/14 at 4:05 pm to HeadChange
I'm not replying to anybody in particular... just a thought I have.
I cannot figure out why many on the right are so ignorant when it comes to science. It's embarrassing.
I'm a conservative and I cringe at some of the arguments they make on national television when it comes to certain topics on science.
I cannot figure out why many on the right are so ignorant when it comes to science. It's embarrassing.
I'm a conservative and I cringe at some of the arguments they make on national television when it comes to certain topics on science.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 4:09 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
I cannot figure out why many on the right are so ignorant when it comes to science
People in general are ignorant when it comes to science. Leftists believe vaccinations cause autism.
The real problem I have is the fact that atheists in the U.S. have somehow convinced themselves they are automatically knowledgeable about Biology. I don't care if you have read the latest Dawkins book (random barista at Starbucks), I've taken collegiate Biology courses.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 4:10 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:There is plenty of "embarrassment" over scientific ignorance to geaux around.
I cannot figure out why many on the right are so ignorant when it comes to science. It's embarrassing.
just sayin'
Posted on 7/28/14 at 4:10 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:I feel like you are being pedantic over my choice of words and definitions, while ignoring your own.
Not ridiculous at all . . . if you are agnostic or theistic.
Why does a self-proclaimed atheist have to have a particular belief in abiogenesis, lest he invite ridicule? Is it not sufficient to simply acknowledge the obviousness that life came into existence somehow, without speculating on how it came to be until evidence or a testable theory is available?
Page 11 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News