-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Liberals are...smarter!
- Thread starter hakr100
- Start date
Crude
Android Expert
This statement doesn't indicate that you understand evolution at all.
There is no such thing as a species in nature. WE determine what we think a species is.
If we had come to a new land and found this many different types of dogs, then they would have been declared different species.
And a "bass" wouldn't "learn" to crawl because of a severe drought. Likely a mutation would have been in the population, but it would neither help nor hurt the fish that were mutated in that way, until severe drought. Then they survive a little longer, with less water, and they reproduce more then the non-mutated fish... this is how evolution works.
noticeable evolution takes thousands of years. You think we've kept records long enough to even be a footnote in that process?
That's like saying that stars don't go through different stages, because we've never been able to observe a star going through the different stages.
And certainly, it is impossible that we've learned anything since Darwin's days.
Actually a species is a group of organisms capable of reproducing to produce a fertile offspring. It's not just a human construct.
That classification is a human construct. It is our attempt to sort life into nice little groups, and it is flawed.
Buffalo and Cows are not the same species, and yet they can reproduce to produce a fertile offspring.
n0ct3m
Android Enthusiast
This amuses me. If you say you are religious, you have to prove that a god exists. If you are anything else and you are asked for proof, all you give is a hearty "no you." Fact is, nobody knows what is what when it all comes down to it. Sure everyone has their own hunch, but nobody knows for sure.
Isthmus
Android Expert
Here is a little food for thought. The bulk of the cultures that originated most of the world's major religions were bronze and iron age cultures. modern humans have pretty much rejected most iron age practices and beliefs and expanded their knowledge base beyond anything that folks in those days would have considered possible. I suspect that a person from the days during which most modern major religions came about would find little to recognize today. My question is, why is it ok to question experiment with reject and advance upon all manner of knowledge of iron and bronze age civilizations, except for their religious beliefs?
It's not. Just don't look down on those who come to a different conclusion than you do.
Isthmus
Android Expert
But that's the point, I'm not. All I'm asking is for those who don't believe in science to not try to cherry pick and use pseudo science to try and discredit what they choose to not understand.
I have no issue with that. I personally believe in both God and Science, but that's just me.
I look at the creation story in the Bible. What science says happened is VERY VERY complicated, and I'm not a physicist or an evolutionary biologist. So, I wondered if I could explain a computer to Moses. How would I?
There are two questions I would answer.
1) What is it?
A computer... (they wouldn't understand that). A machine (they wouldn't understand that either). It's a box. It's made of silicon and metal (have to change silicon to sand). It's made of sand and metal, and powered by lightning (closest they've got to electricity).
2) What does it do?
It runs programs (too complicated). It follows instructions. It takes what you put into it and determines what to put out, and how to put it out, based on what you put in and the instructions it has. It doesn't think or know.
You couldn't look at those descriptions and ever come to the conclusion that it was talking about a computer. Never.
Isthmus
Android Expert
LOL. Sounds like you made a case to have the locals burn you as a witch though. Using lightning to make a box talk? It's the devil I tell ya!. LOL
Saintshroomie
Newbie
Ok well I've read this forum a lot but never posted before so here's my bit.
I keep seeing this argument about how morals are derived from religion. I think that is a false assumption. I think its much more likely that morals are derived simply from instinct and incorporated into religion. It doesn't take a whole religion to show me that someone trying to kill me, steal from me, or sleep with my wife is a bad thing. All would cause me injury, not to mention a bit of insult. To put it simply, they hurt, its sucks getting hurt.
I also noticed that there is this stigma that if you are atheist you believe life has no meaning. IMO this is another false assumption. I'll admit that if no deity created me to worship him, then the only original purpose left for me is to have sex (my favorite thing) and have children (meh). But that does not mean that my life cannot have any higher purpose. Instead of turning towards a deity, one could turn his attention towards bettering the lives of those around him. Now, I
I keep seeing this argument about how morals are derived from religion. I think that is a false assumption. I think its much more likely that morals are derived simply from instinct and incorporated into religion. It doesn't take a whole religion to show me that someone trying to kill me, steal from me, or sleep with my wife is a bad thing. All would cause me injury, not to mention a bit of insult. To put it simply, they hurt, its sucks getting hurt.
I also noticed that there is this stigma that if you are atheist you believe life has no meaning. IMO this is another false assumption. I'll admit that if no deity created me to worship him, then the only original purpose left for me is to have sex (my favorite thing) and have children (meh). But that does not mean that my life cannot have any higher purpose. Instead of turning towards a deity, one could turn his attention towards bettering the lives of those around him. Now, I
Saintshroomie
Newbie
You are absolutely right, I apologize for the generalization. However, I would put forth that any scientist who handles his scientific beliefs as if they were a religion is nothing more than a psuedo scientist. Religion by its very nature is metaphysical and therefore "beyond" science as it were.
No matter how you put it, the idea of refuting religion with science is like trying to sit in the corner of the oval office, you just won't get there. Religion will always pull the trump card, god is omnipotent and can do whatever he likes and science just can't comprehend it.
So what I think is the only real way to look at it is to try to comprehend the logic behind why believe in the first place, of which I know there is some I just think it's weak. I think its also more plausable that religion is nothing more than a construct designed by mankind to protect himself from others, provide comfort from thoughts of death, as well as provide the appearance of wisdom when it comes to the unknown.
If people want to believe in religion that's their choice, and I say go for it, it has its good qualities about it, teaches compassion and if you don't take it too far keeps you from killing me. But I think its just naive to take anything based on faith.
Saintshroomie
Newbie
You don't have to do anything if you say you are religious, lets clear that up first.
However, if you make the assertion that God is real, don't be surprised when someone asks you to provide evidence to that. After all, if you made that assertion you just put it squarely in the cross-hares of logical evaluation, unless of course you just expected everyone to take it at face value. This goes for any belief, hypothesis, or theory.
As for the comment you quoted, its true, you can't prove that something doesn't exist if there is no proof it does, because there simply is no proof...
I do however agree with you in that shifting the burden of proof is no way to argue your point...if your belief is the one being debated.
If I said the theory of evolution was absolutely true, it wouldn't fall on you to prove me wrong would it? It would fall on me to provide believable evidence or be called a liar. That's not to say you couldn't prove me wrong, just that it's not your belief we're evaluating, and if I want you to believe it then I need facts as to my assertion.
Saintshroomie
Newbie
After reviewing my post, I must admit, I worded that terribly and I think I showed a tad bit of ignorance on the subject of negative proof. And I feel I must revise my previous notion. I did some research and found that yes it is true that you can
I would argue that you are wrong. There are some things that every scientist accepts as fact, that are hard to let go.
We are not at a point where religion CAN be refuted by science. There is just too much that science doesn't know.
For instance, the expansion of the Universe should be slowing down due to gravity, but it is actually accelerating. We don't know why. It defies all science as we currently understand it.
That's actually kind of ironic. The statement that it is "naive to take anything based on faith." is rather naive.
You take lots of things on faith. Every scientist does. I'm fairly certain that no scientist today goes back and proves every single scientific concept. They take the past work on faith. They have faith in the process, even though things previously understood to be fact are often proven false.
Granted, people have faith in science and religion for different reasons, they both require faith.
Here is how I look at it. I have seen evidence in my life, that proves to me, the existence of God.
Now, I am well aware that this evidence is subjective.
I am also aware that unless you come to that same conclusion independently, that there is no point in me trying to convince you that he exists.
I also know that the holes in our scientific knowledge are exactly where I would think they would be (origin of life [not evolution theory], origin of universe, etc...).
I'm not trying to convince you, because I know that I can not scientifically prove that God exists.
However, remember this: Up until recently, it was impossible to prove that LOVE exists.
hakr100
Android Expert
There's no proof of that in any form.