Bill Maher and Brian Levin Discuss Islam

[homersapien 11,366]

Good try TT, but these guys are not going to admit the flaws in their belief system. If nova or 59 thinks his wife is a descendant of an ape, then so be it.

Apes and humans both descended from common ancestors so maybe you ought to study up a little before you start attacking evolution.

I take it you don't have any sort of science degree.

This has never been proven to be scientific fact.

And do me a favor. Please don't discuss this subject with anyone that knows, or might discover, you are an Auburn graduate. :no:/>

Are you kidding me? Did you just make such an arrogant, idiotic, moronic, holier-than-thou, statement?

Why, yes. I did. (Well at least the arrogant, holier-than-thou-part. Nothing I said was idiotic or moronic.)

You need to reevaluate the high pedestal that you think that you are residing on my friend. Because it's not as high as you think it is.

I don't feel I am putting myself on a pedestal at all. It's obvious that you are quite ignorant about the subject. There is no shame in that, as we are all ignorant about something. But we should try to avoid making definitive statements in public about those things.

Sorry if I was a little harsh regarding such statements casting a very poor reflection on AU, but I am sincere.

[homersapien 11,366]

I was simply agreeing with Bill Maher, the subject of this thread.

He agrees that religious people are crazy, but this doesn't mean you can equate Christian craziness to Islamic terrorist craziness.

Posting "prayers sent" after talking to yourself in hopes that this will help some stranger, you are crazy. Not as crazy as blowing up bombs to kill people, but it is still crazy.

Crazy is believing that the universe came about through something called the "Big Bang THEORY" and believing that billions of years ago we crawled out of the ocean as some sort of ancient organism and then magically evolved into the intelligent beings we are today. It takes mountains of more faith to believe that than to believe that a creator created it and us.

So, let me try to clarify your position: The theory of evolution is false.

Is that fair?

It is neither false nor true. It is an opinion. That is why it is called a theory. If scientists could come up with solid, proven, concise evidence, it would become scientific fact, but that hasn't happened yet. If it does and the evidence is substantial, it will cease to be a theory.

Oh Weegle that is sad. :no:/>

You obviously don't understand the use or meaning of the word "theory" as it applies to evolution. I know this has been explained an "infinite" number of times in an "infinite" number of internet threads on the subject, so I won't bother other than to suggest you look it up.

Evolution is the very foundation of biological sciences and has been corroborated by virtually every other field of science applied to it. It is accepted as much as any scientific "theory" (look it up) can be.

Ok I'll play, so the theory of evolution is accepted as scientific fact in the scientific community? YES. At least as much as the concept of a "fact" exists in science.

Everything in science is subject to being falsified, even "facts". The theory of evolution has been constantly tested since it was formulated by Darwin and is continuously verified on an ongoing basis, both explicitly and incidentally as a part of ongoing research in all fields, every day, on a continuing basis. That is what I meant by "foundation". It is a foundational concept of biology.

And make no mistake, I am not against science. I love science. Please explain what you mean by your above post.

Did you look up the meaning of "Theory" yet?

Verified? Give me some examples oh science master of all things Darwin.

Sorry. Not my job.

If you want a book list, search "Evolution theory explained" or some such.

[Weegle777 78]

I was simply agreeing with Bill Maher, the subject of this thread.

He agrees that religious people are crazy, but this doesn't mean you can equate Christian craziness to Islamic terrorist craziness.

Posting "prayers sent" after talking to yourself in hopes that this will help some stranger, you are crazy. Not as crazy as blowing up bombs to kill people, but it is still crazy.

Crazy is believing that the universe came about through something called the "Big Bang THEORY" and believing that billions of years ago we crawled out of the ocean as some sort of ancient organism and then magically evolved into the intelligent beings we are today. It takes mountains of more faith to believe that than to believe that a creator created it and us.

So, let me try to clarify your position: The theory of evolution is false.

Is that fair?

It is neither false nor true. It is an opinion. That is why it is called a theory. If scientists could come up with solid, proven, concise evidence, it would become scientific fact, but that hasn't happened yet. If it does and the evidence is substantial, it will cease to be a theory.

Oh Weegle that is sad. :no:/>

You obviously don't understand the use or meaning of the word "theory" as it applies to evolution. I know this has been explained an "infinite" number of times in an "infinite" number of internet threads on the subject, so I won't bother other than to suggest you look it up.

Evolution is the very foundation of biological sciences and has been corroborated by virtually every other field of science applied to it. It is accepted as much as any scientific "theory" (look it up) can be.

Ok I'll play, so the theory of evolution is accepted as scientific fact in the scientific community? YES. At least as much as the concept of a "fact" exists in science.

Everything in science is subject to being falsified, even "facts". The theory of evolution has been constantly tested since it was formulated by Darwin and is continuously verified on an ongoing basis, both explicitly and incidentally as a part of ongoing research in all fields, every day, on a continuing basis. That is what I meant by "foundation". It is a foundational concept of biology.

And make no mistake, I am not against science. I love science. Please explain what you mean by your above post.

Did you look up the meaning of "Theory" yet?

Verified? Give me some examples oh science master of all things Darwin.

Sorry. Not my job.

If you want a book list, search "Evolution theory explained" or some such.

That's what I figured you would say. Pretty funny.

[homersapien 11,366]

I was simply agreeing with Bill Maher, the subject of this thread.

He agrees that religious people are crazy, but this doesn't mean you can equate Christian craziness to Islamic terrorist craziness.

Posting "prayers sent" after talking to yourself in hopes that this will help some stranger, you are crazy. Not as crazy as blowing up bombs to kill people, but it is still crazy.

Crazy is believing that the universe came about through something called the "Big Bang THEORY" and believing that billions of years ago we crawled out of the ocean as some sort of ancient organism and then magically evolved into the intelligent beings we are today. It takes mountains of more faith to believe that than to believe that a creator created it and us.

So, let me try to clarify your position: The theory of evolution is false.

Is that fair?

It is neither false nor true. It is an opinion. That is why it is called a theory. If scientists could come up with solid, proven, concise evidence, it would become scientific fact, but that hasn't happened yet. If it does and the evidence is substantial, it will cease to be a theory.

Oh Weegle that is sad. :no:/>

You obviously don't understand the use or meaning of the word "theory" as it applies to evolution. I know this has been explained an "infinite" number of times in an "infinite" number of internet threads on the subject, so I won't bother other than to suggest you look it up.

Evolution is the very foundation of biological sciences and has been corroborated by virtually every other field of science applied to it. It is accepted as much as any scientific "theory" (look it up) can be.

Ok I'll play, so the theory of evolution is accepted as scientific fact in the scientific community? YES. At least as much as the concept of a "fact" exists in science.

Everything in science is subject to being falsified, even "facts". The theory of evolution has been constantly tested since it was formulated by Darwin and is continuously verified on an ongoing basis, both explicitly and incidentally as a part of ongoing research in all fields, every day, on a continuing basis. That is what I meant by "foundation". It is a foundational concept of biology.

And make no mistake, I am not against science. I love science. Please explain what you mean by your above post.

Did you look up the meaning of "Theory" yet?

Verified? Give me some examples oh science master of all things Darwin.

Sorry. Not my job.

If you want a book list, search "Evolution theory explained" or some such.

That's what I figured you would say. Pretty funny.

Why funny?

[Weegle777 78]

I was simply agreeing with Bill Maher, the subject of this thread.

He agrees that religious people are crazy, but this doesn't mean you can equate Christian craziness to Islamic terrorist craziness.

Posting "prayers sent" after talking to yourself in hopes that this will help some stranger, you are crazy. Not as crazy as blowing up bombs to kill people, but it is still crazy.

Crazy is believing that the universe came about through something called the "Big Bang THEORY" and believing that billions of years ago we crawled out of the ocean as some sort of ancient organism and then magically evolved into the intelligent beings we are today. It takes mountains of more faith to believe that than to believe that a creator created it and us.

So, let me try to clarify your position: The theory of evolution is false.

Is that fair?

It is neither false nor true. It is an opinion. That is why it is called a theory. If scientists could come up with solid, proven, concise evidence, it would become scientific fact, but that hasn't happened yet. If it does and the evidence is substantial, it will cease to be a theory.

Oh Weegle that is sad. :no:/>

You obviously don't understand the use or meaning of the word "theory" as it applies to evolution. I know this has been explained an "infinite" number of times in an "infinite" number of internet threads on the subject, so I won't bother other than to suggest you look it up.

Evolution is the very foundation of biological sciences and has been corroborated by virtually every other field of science applied to it. It is accepted as much as any scientific "theory" (look it up) can be.

Ok I'll play, so the theory of evolution is accepted as scientific fact in the scientific community? YES. At least as much as the concept of a "fact" exists in science.

Everything in science is subject to being falsified, even "facts". The theory of evolution has been constantly tested since it was formulated by Darwin and is continuously verified on an ongoing basis, both explicitly and incidentally as a part of ongoing research in all fields, every day, on a continuing basis. That is what I meant by "foundation". It is a foundational concept of biology.

And make no mistake, I am not against science. I love science. Please explain what you mean by your above post.

Did you look up the meaning of "Theory" yet?

Verified? Give me some examples oh science master of all things Darwin.

Sorry. Not my job.

If you want a book list, search "Evolution theory explained" or some such.

That's what I figured you would say. Pretty funny.

Why funny?

You make all of these arrogant statements, then refuse to give examples for your argument. You could have at least taken the lazy route and posted a bunch of links that no one would ever read.

[homersapien 11,366]

I was simply agreeing with Bill Maher, the subject of this thread.

He agrees that religious people are crazy, but this doesn't mean you can equate Christian craziness to Islamic terrorist craziness.

Posting "prayers sent" after talking to yourself in hopes that this will help some stranger, you are crazy. Not as crazy as blowing up bombs to kill people, but it is still crazy.

Crazy is believing that the universe came about through something called the "Big Bang THEORY" and believing that billions of years ago we crawled out of the ocean as some sort of ancient organism and then magically evolved into the intelligent beings we are today. It takes mountains of more faith to believe that than to believe that a creator created it and us.

So, let me try to clarify your position: The theory of evolution is false.

Is that fair?

It is neither false nor true. It is an opinion. That is why it is called a theory. If scientists could come up with solid, proven, concise evidence, it would become scientific fact, but that hasn't happened yet. If it does and the evidence is substantial, it will cease to be a theory.

Oh Weegle that is sad. :no:/>

You obviously don't understand the use or meaning of the word "theory" as it applies to evolution. I know this has been explained an "infinite" number of times in an "infinite" number of internet threads on the subject, so I won't bother other than to suggest you look it up.

Evolution is the very foundation of biological sciences and has been corroborated by virtually every other field of science applied to it. It is accepted as much as any scientific "theory" (look it up) can be.

Ok I'll play, so the theory of evolution is accepted as scientific fact in the scientific community? YES. At least as much as the concept of a "fact" exists in science.

Everything in science is subject to being falsified, even "facts". The theory of evolution has been constantly tested since it was formulated by Darwin and is continuously verified on an ongoing basis, both explicitly and incidentally as a part of ongoing research in all fields, every day, on a continuing basis. That is what I meant by "foundation". It is a foundational concept of biology.

And make no mistake, I am not against science. I love science. Please explain what you mean by your above post.

Did you look up the meaning of "Theory" yet?

Verified? Give me some examples oh science master of all things Darwin.

Sorry. Not my job.

If you want a book list, search "Evolution theory explained" or some such.

That's what I figured you would say. Pretty funny.

Why funny?

You make all of these arrogant statements, then refuse to give examples for your argument. You could have at least taken the lazy route and posted a bunch of links that no one would ever read.

So I'm "lazy" for not organizing a synopsis of over 154 years of intensive scientific study in multiple fields??

For a discussion forum on the internet??

Well, call me "lazy" then.

At least I am not so lazy to ask someone to educate me about something I haven't yet bothered to investigate on my own.

[Weegle777 78]

I was simply agreeing with Bill Maher, the subject of this thread.

He agrees that religious people are crazy, but this doesn't mean you can equate Christian craziness to Islamic terrorist craziness.

Posting "prayers sent" after talking to yourself in hopes that this will help some stranger, you are crazy. Not as crazy as blowing up bombs to kill people, but it is still crazy.

Crazy is believing that the universe came about through something called the "Big Bang THEORY" and believing that billions of years ago we crawled out of the ocean as some sort of ancient organism and then magically evolved into the intelligent beings we are today. It takes mountains of more faith to believe that than to believe that a creator created it and us.

So, let me try to clarify your position: The theory of evolution is false.

Is that fair?

It is neither false nor true. It is an opinion. That is why it is called a theory. If scientists could come up with solid, proven, concise evidence, it would become scientific fact, but that hasn't happened yet. If it does and the evidence is substantial, it will cease to be a theory.

Oh Weegle that is sad. :no:/>

You obviously don't understand the use or meaning of the word "theory" as it applies to evolution. I know this has been explained an "infinite" number of times in an "infinite" number of internet threads on the subject, so I won't bother other than to suggest you look it up.

Evolution is the very foundation of biological sciences and has been corroborated by virtually every other field of science applied to it. It is accepted as much as any scientific "theory" (look it up) can be.

Ok I'll play, so the theory of evolution is accepted as scientific fact in the scientific community? YES. At least as much as the concept of a "fact" exists in science.

Everything in science is subject to being falsified, even "facts". The theory of evolution has been constantly tested since it was formulated by Darwin and is continuously verified on an ongoing basis, both explicitly and incidentally as a part of ongoing research in all fields, every day, on a continuing basis. That is what I meant by "foundation". It is a foundational concept of biology.

And make no mistake, I am not against science. I love science. Please explain what you mean by your above post.

Did you look up the meaning of "Theory" yet?

Verified? Give me some examples oh science master of all things Darwin.

Sorry. Not my job.

If you want a book list, search "Evolution theory explained" or some such.

That's what I figured you would say. Pretty funny.

Why funny?

You make all of these arrogant statements, then refuse to give examples for your argument. You could have at least taken the lazy route and posted a bunch of links that no one would ever read.

So I'm "lazy" for not organizing a synopsis of over 154 years of intensive scientific study in multiple fields??

For a discussion forum on the internet??

Well, call me "lazy" then.

At least I am not so lazy to ask someone to educate me about something I haven't yet bothered to investigate on my own.

I didn't make the arrogant statements, you did. What do you guys say? "If you make the statement, the burden of proof is on you."?

Thought so.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Nonsense. I don't have posit anything. I can accept and believe what science has told us and perhaps speculate on what science may discover in the future but I am not compelled to fill in the missing pieces with a faith-based assumption (or more accurately "wish").

Apparently this is one of the critical differences between me and the religious. I don't need to fill in uncertainty or ignorance with a working hypothesis with no basis other than a wishful one.

Maybe there is a God. Maybe he/she/it simply said it and bang!, the universe happened. But I don't feel compelled to believe in such a proposition in the lack of evidence.

And simply accepting that "something" happened is not the same as a manifestation of religious faith.

Presumably (unless you want to delve into philosophy and physics far beyond my capabilities to understand), the belief that "something happened" is no more than a logically self-evident conclusion. But such a conclusion is still limited by the unknown relevance of this logic to reality. (After all, look how scientific advancement rocked logical assumptions in quantum mechanics).

I am sure that there are scientists (who inherited the "God gene") who do believe in a creator. But they would be the first to tell you that such a belief is not required to believe in a "naturalistic" creation theory.

To maintain a belief in a totally naturalistic universe, that presupposes that no supernatural beings were involved in the universe's creation, which entails that either nothing spontaneously became something or that something eternally existed with no beginning. You might not think much about it, but those presuppositions are there. Otherwise, you can't really say that you believe in a totally naturalistic "first cause" in the first place. That's all I'm saying.

Well, your faith presumably compels you to believe in a supernatural creator.

My only "faith" is in the scientific method and I don't believe in anything that hasn't been revealed to science. I don't believe in supernatural explanations because there is no evidence for it and I don't need to believe it. I could be wrong. And as soon as God reveals himself, I will start to believe in it.

So I don't believe an anything that can only be taken on faith, including the assumption that "something had to exist instead of nothing". I don't know. Science doesn't know. I believe that if it can be known, science will reveal it. But it's possible it can't be known. Either way I am not compelled to believe anything because I have to (or want to).

To borrow one of your phrases: is this really that hard to understand?

Now if you insist on equating our "faiths", I suppose that's your prerogative. But what's your point? [/color]

My point is that, you seem to be taking this tack that people who believe in a god are doing so on faith while you believe in whatever you believe about how things began totally on the evidence. Now if your position is simply that you "don't know" how things really began then that's slightly different than affirming that you believe in a completely naturalistic universe. If you insist on the latter, then you need to acknowledge that element of faith in your presuppositions and not act like you're in some position of intellectual superiority over someone who, for instance, believes in everything you do except that they are a theist who takes a faith position that a supernatural entity was the first cause.

It may not be your intent to come off that way, but that's how it's reading to me.

[japantiger 4,051]

Nonsense. I don't have posit anything. I can accept and believe what science has told us and perhaps speculate on what science may discover in the future but I am not compelled to fill in the missing pieces with a faith-based assumption (or more accurately "wish").

Apparently this is one of the critical differences between me and the religious. I don't need to fill in uncertainty or ignorance with a working hypothesis with no basis other than a wishful one.

Maybe there is a God. Maybe he/she/it simply said it and bang!, the universe happened. But I don't feel compelled to believe in such a proposition in the lack of evidence.

And simply accepting that "something" happened is not the same as a manifestation of religious faith.

Presumably (unless you want to delve into philosophy and physics far beyond my capabilities to understand), the belief that "something happened" is no more than a logically self-evident conclusion. But such a conclusion is still limited by the unknown relevance of this logic to reality. (After all, look how scientific advancement rocked logical assumptions in quantum mechanics).

I am sure that there are scientists (who inherited the "God gene") who do believe in a creator. But they would be the first to tell you that such a belief is not required to believe in a "naturalistic" creation theory.

To maintain a belief in a totally naturalistic universe, that presupposes that no supernatural beings were involved in the universe's creation, which entails that either nothing spontaneously became something or that something eternally existed with no beginning. You might not think much about it, but those presuppositions are there. Otherwise, you can't really say that you believe in a totally naturalistic "first cause" in the first place. That's all I'm saying.

Well, your faith presumably compels you to believe in a supernatural creator.

My only "faith" is in the scientific method and I don't believe in anything that hasn't been revealed to science. I don't believe in supernatural explanations because there is no evidence for it and I don't need to believe it. I could be wrong. And as soon as God reveals himself, I will start to believe in it.

So I don't believe an anything that can only be taken on faith, including the assumption that "something had to exist instead of nothing". I don't know. Science doesn't know. I believe that if it can be known, science will reveal it. But it's possible it can't be known. Either way I am not compelled to believe anything because I have to (or want to).

To borrow one of your phrases: is this really that hard to understand?

Now if you insist on equating our "faiths", I suppose that's your prerogative. But what's your point? [/color]

My point is that, you seem to be taking this tack that people who believe in a god are doing so on faith while you believe in whatever you believe about how things began totally on the evidence. Now if your position is simply that you "don't know" how things really began then that's slightly different than affirming that you believe in a completely naturalistic universe. If you insist on the latter, then you need to acknowledge that element of faith in your presuppositions and not act like you're in some position of intellectual superiority over someone who, for instance, believes in everything you do except that they are a theist who takes a faith position that a supernatural entity was the first cause.

It may not be your intent to come off that way, but that's how it's reading to me.

Bingo.

[AUDub 11,147]

I didn't make the arrogant statements, you did. What do you guys say? "If you make the statement, the burden of proof is on you."?

Thought so.

Here you go, Weegs. It's not necessarily evolution in action, in that the examples here aren't creating new species. Speciation takes a very long time. It is a few good examples of the driving force behind evolution, also known as natural selection. Given enough time, the animals we see now will eventually diverge into completely different species.

http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

[homersapien 11,366]

I was simply agreeing with Bill Maher, the subject of this thread.

He agrees that religious people are crazy, but this doesn't mean you can equate Christian craziness to Islamic terrorist craziness.

Posting "prayers sent" after talking to yourself in hopes that this will help some stranger, you are crazy. Not as crazy as blowing up bombs to kill people, but it is still crazy.

Crazy is believing that the universe came about through something called the "Big Bang THEORY" and believing that billions of years ago we crawled out of the ocean as some sort of ancient organism and then magically evolved into the intelligent beings we are today. It takes mountains of more faith to believe that than to believe that a creator created it and us.

So, let me try to clarify your position: The theory of evolution is false.

Is that fair?

It is neither false nor true. It is an opinion. That is why it is called a theory. If scientists could come up with solid, proven, concise evidence, it would become scientific fact, but that hasn't happened yet. If it does and the evidence is substantial, it will cease to be a theory.

Oh Weegle that is sad. :no:/>

You obviously don't understand the use or meaning of the word "theory" as it applies to evolution. I know this has been explained an "infinite" number of times in an "infinite" number of internet threads on the subject, so I won't bother other than to suggest you look it up.

Evolution is the very foundation of biological sciences and has been corroborated by virtually every other field of science applied to it. It is accepted as much as any scientific "theory" (look it up) can be.

Ok I'll play, so the theory of evolution is accepted as scientific fact in the scientific community? YES. At least as much as the concept of a "fact" exists in science.

Everything in science is subject to being falsified, even "facts". The theory of evolution has been constantly tested since it was formulated by Darwin and is continuously verified on an ongoing basis, both explicitly and incidentally as a part of ongoing research in all fields, every day, on a continuing basis. That is what I meant by "foundation". It is a foundational concept of biology.

And make no mistake, I am not against science. I love science. Please explain what you mean by your above post.

Did you look up the meaning of "Theory" yet?

Verified? Give me some examples oh science master of all things Darwin.

Sorry. Not my job.

If you want a book list, search "Evolution theory explained" or some such.

That's what I figured you would say. Pretty funny.

Why funny?

You make all of these arrogant statements, then refuse to give examples for your argument. You could have at least taken the lazy route and posted a bunch of links that no one would ever read.

So I'm "lazy" for not organizing a synopsis of over 154 years of intensive scientific study in multiple fields??

For a discussion forum on the internet??

Well, call me "lazy" then.

At least I am not so lazy to ask someone to educate me about something I haven't yet bothered to investigate on my own.

I didn't make the arrogant statements, you did. What do you guys say? "If you make the statement, the burden of proof is on you."?

Thought so.

OK you got me.

I am not going to assume the responsibility of educating you, so you are free to believe evolution is a false theory.

(Just pleeeeease don't talk about it with people who know you (presumably) graduated from Auburn. )

[jj3jordan 2,051]

I see a lot of adaptation, something creationists know exists and do not deny. There are also references to adaptation, best explanation available, or no explanation at all. A finch with a small beak is still a finch. And they picked an animal with both live births and eggs, and said it was changing from one to the other? What about animals with both sex organs, are they transitioning also? None of these examples support evolutionary theory. All it said was actual speciation takes too long so we don't have examples.

Faith is belief in things unseen or unproven. My faith in God is easy since I see Him in all life everyday. Your faith in evolution is very similar, but you have made the jump from unproven unseen species change to fact. That is simply not the case.

[Weegle777 78]

I was simply agreeing with Bill Maher, the subject of this thread.

He agrees that religious people are crazy, but this doesn't mean you can equate Christian craziness to Islamic terrorist craziness.

Posting "prayers sent" after talking to yourself in hopes that this will help some stranger, you are crazy. Not as crazy as blowing up bombs to kill people, but it is still crazy.

Crazy is believing that the universe came about through something called the "Big Bang THEORY" and believing that billions of years ago we crawled out of the ocean as some sort of ancient organism and then magically evolved into the intelligent beings we are today. It takes mountains of more faith to believe that than to believe that a creator created it and us.

So, let me try to clarify your position: The theory of evolution is false.

Is that fair?

It is neither false nor true. It is an opinion. That is why it is called a theory. If scientists could come up with solid, proven, concise evidence, it would become scientific fact, but that hasn't happened yet. If it does and the evidence is substantial, it will cease to be a theory.

Oh Weegle that is sad. :no:/>

You obviously don't understand the use or meaning of the word "theory" as it applies to evolution. I know this has been explained an "infinite" number of times in an "infinite" number of internet threads on the subject, so I won't bother other than to suggest you look it up.

Evolution is the very foundation of biological sciences and has been corroborated by virtually every other field of science applied to it. It is accepted as much as any scientific "theory" (look it up) can be.

Ok I'll play, so the theory of evolution is accepted as scientific fact in the scientific community? YES. At least as much as the concept of a "fact" exists in science.

Everything in science is subject to being falsified, even "facts". The theory of evolution has been constantly tested since it was formulated by Darwin and is continuously verified on an ongoing basis, both explicitly and incidentally as a part of ongoing research in all fields, every day, on a continuing basis. That is what I meant by "foundation". It is a foundational concept of biology.

And make no mistake, I am not against science. I love science. Please explain what you mean by your above post.

Did you look up the meaning of "Theory" yet?

Verified? Give me some examples oh science master of all things Darwin.

Sorry. Not my job.

If you want a book list, search "Evolution theory explained" or some such.

That's what I figured you would say. Pretty funny.

Why funny?

You make all of these arrogant statements, then refuse to give examples for your argument. You could have at least taken the lazy route and posted a bunch of links that no one would ever read.

So I'm "lazy" for not organizing a synopsis of over 154 years of intensive scientific study in multiple fields??

For a discussion forum on the internet??

Well, call me "lazy" then.

At least I am not so lazy to ask someone to educate me about something I haven't yet bothered to investigate on my own.

I didn't make the arrogant statements, you did. What do you guys say? "If you make the statement, the burden of proof is on you."?

Thought so.

OK you got me.

I am not going to assume the responsibility of educating you, so you are free to believe evolution is a false theory.

(Just pleeeeease don't talk about it with people who know you (presumably) graduated from Auburn. :(/> )

Awwwww!!!! Taking your ball and going home now?

[homersapien 11,366]

Nonsense. I don't have posit anything. I can accept and believe what science has told us and perhaps speculate on what science may discover in the future but I am not compelled to fill in the missing pieces with a faith-based assumption (or more accurately "wish").

Apparently this is one of the critical differences between me and the religious. I don't need to fill in uncertainty or ignorance with a working hypothesis with no basis other than a wishful one.

Maybe there is a God. Maybe he/she/it simply said it and bang!, the universe happened. But I don't feel compelled to believe in such a proposition in the lack of evidence.

And simply accepting that "something" happened is not the same as a manifestation of religious faith.

Presumably (unless you want to delve into philosophy and physics far beyond my capabilities to understand), the belief that "something happened" is no more than a logically self-evident conclusion. But such a conclusion is still limited by the unknown relevance of this logic to reality. (After all, look how scientific advancement rocked logical assumptions in quantum mechanics).

I am sure that there are scientists (who inherited the "God gene") who do believe in a creator. But they would be the first to tell you that such a belief is not required to believe in a "naturalistic" creation theory.

To maintain a belief in a totally naturalistic universe, that presupposes that no supernatural beings were involved in the universe's creation, which entails that either nothing spontaneously became something or that something eternally existed with no beginning. You might not think much about it, but those presuppositions are there. Otherwise, you can't really say that you believe in a totally naturalistic "first cause" in the first place. That's all I'm saying.

Well I disagree. I think saying I don't know is good enough. Why should I be compelled to believe in one of the two scenarios you propose (which are naturally limited by the capacity of the human mind) in order to believe in a naturalistic creation theory? After all, either choice has the capacity to be "natural" or true.

How does anything change if I choose one?

You obviously want me to do that, presumably so you can make a logical case for the supernatural. But I reject the idea that human logic represents the ultimate test or standard of what "is". Heck, modern physics demonstrates that.

But if you wish, for the sake of argument, I will assume those choices represent the only degree of freedom possible and choose one. Does it matter to you which one I choose for the purpose of making your point?

How about everything in some form, energy, dark energy or matter has been here "forever"? Do you want to work with that?

Well, your faith presumably compels you to believe in a supernatural creator.

My only "faith" is in the scientific method and I don't believe in anything that hasn't been revealed to science. I don't believe in supernatural explanations because there is no evidence for it and I don't need to believe it. I could be wrong. And as soon as God reveals himself, I will start to believe in it.

So I don't believe an anything that can only be taken on faith, including the assumption that "something had to exist instead of nothing". I don't know. Science doesn't know. I believe that if it can be known, science will reveal it. But it's possible it can't be known. Either way I am not compelled to believe anything because I have to (or want to).

To borrow one of your phrases: is this really that hard to understand?

Now if you insist on equating our "faiths", I suppose that's your prerogative. But what's your point? [/color]

My point is that, you seem to be taking this tack that people who believe in a god are doing so on faith while you believe in whatever you believe about how things began totally on the evidence.

Well, my beliefs and faiths are based on a lot more than just the evidence, as undoubtedly, are yours. Some of us are naturally inclined to believe in the supernatural and others - like myself - are naturally inclined to believe what is "real" (demonstrated or proved). In the later case, it is perfectly natural to recognize what we don't know as something we don't know, and may not be even capable of knowing.

Now if your position is simply that you "don't know" how things really began then that's slightly different than affirming that you believe in a completely naturalistic universe. If you insist on the latter, then you need to acknowledge that element of faith in your presuppositions and not act like you're in some position of intellectual superiority over someone who, for instance, believes in everything you do except that they are a theist who takes a faith position that a supernatural entity was the first cause.

Well that's the closest I have come so far to understanding your point, but I think your premises are wrong and so you are "barking up the wrong tree" so to speak..

You are correct that if my claim is that I don't know anything I can't possibly believe in a naturalistic cause without a basis of faith (since I don't know).

But that's not what I am saying. I feel confident that I do know what science has proven or demonstrated to the extent I have studied it. Furthermore, I am willing to accept the truth of science that I haven't studied - or wouldn't understand if I did - based on my faith in the scientific process, which as I have said, is qualitatively different from faith in the supernatural.

But science doesn't claim to know everything, Just the opposite, it is constantly focused on what we don't know, which greatly exceeds what we do. The limits of my knowledge cannot exceed the limits of science. (And to be honest my limits are way way less than the actual scientific limits.) So when it comes to an ultimate explanation or ultimate knowledge science doesn't know so I cannot possibly know.

But I will concede you are on to something. Maybe the problem is with your characterization of how I feel about religion, which is not accurate. I am not denigrating your ultimate belief in the supernatural. I have no standing to do so. I can't insist you are wrong while still maintaining I don't know. I am not insisting you are necessarily wrong in your belief of a ultimate, supernatural being or existence.

Who knows, you may be right. We may in fact be part of a advanced species computer program being run by their equivalent of a 12 year old human.

But for me, the actual track record of science is compelling enough to believe science is on the right track to discover the ultimate truth (even if it turns out to be God). That not a faith-based belief. It's based on an actual record of discovered facts.

If I have done any denigrating of religious faith, it has been targeted toward the religious-based rejection of things we actually do know, at least for the most part, such as the role of evolution in creation.

It may not be your intent to come off that way, but that's how it's reading to me.

[Weegle777 78]

I didn't make the arrogant statements, you did. What do you guys say? "If you make the statement, the burden of proof is on you."?

Thought so.

Here you go, Weegs. It's not necessarily evolution in action, in that the examples here aren't creating new species. Speciation takes a very long time. It is a few good examples of the driving force behind evolution, also known as natural selection. Given enough time, the animals we see now will eventually diverge into completely different species.

http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

Thanks brother, but I have done extensive research and reading on evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, and such. I've read Origin of the Species, but have never really found any compelling evidence that would sway my opinion. And believe it or not, if someone gives me a really compelling argument on anything, I will give it its due diligence. I'm not really as closed minded as many here think.

[homersapien 11,366]

I didn't make the arrogant statements, you did. What do you guys say? "If you make the statement, the burden of proof is on you."?

Thought so.

Here you go, Weegs. It's not necessarily evolution in action, in that the examples here aren't creating new species. Speciation takes a very long time. It is a few good examples of the driving force behind evolution, also known as natural selection. Given enough time, the animals we see now will eventually diverge into completely different species.

http://listverse.com...tion-in-action/

Well, unless you are a microbe with a reproduction span of about 15 minutes.

[homersapien 11,366]

I see a lot of adaptation, something creationists know exists and do not deny. There are also references to adaptation, best explanation available, or no explanation at all. A finch with a small beak is still a finch. And they picked an animal with both live births and eggs, and said it was changing from one to the other? What about animals with both sex organs, are they transitioning also? None of these examples support evolutionary theory. All it said was actual speciation takes too long so we don't have examples.

Faith is belief in things unseen or unproven. My faith in God is easy since I see Him in all life everyday. Your faith in evolution is very similar, but you have made the jump from unproven unseen species change to fact. That is simply not the case.

Don't know if you are addressing this to me, but if so, just look at my responses to Weegle. Apparently, they are as applicable to you as him.

[homersapien 11,366]

Awwwww!!!! Taking your ball and going home now?

No. I just recognize a fool's errand when presented with one.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

Are we seriously debating evolution up in here?

[homersapien 11,366]

Are we seriously debating evolution up in here?

Well, it was supposed to be about Islam but we got sidetracked.

Apparently, we have some "hard core" who remained unconvinced. I don't get it either.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

Look the Catholic church has accepted it. That's pretty much the last straw when it comes to holding out on a scientific concept.

[homersapien 11,366]

Look the Catholic church has accepted it. That's pretty much the last straw when it comes to holding out on a scientific concept.

You'd think.....

[homersapien 11,366]

I see a lot of adaptation, something creationists know exists and do not deny. There are also references to adaptation, best explanation available, or no explanation at all. A finch with a small beak is still a finch. And they picked an animal with both live births and eggs, and said it was changing from one to the other? What about animals with both sex organs, are they transitioning also? None of these examples support evolutionary theory. All it said was actual speciation takes too long so we don't have examples.

Faith is belief in things unseen or unproven. My faith in God is easy since I see Him in all life everyday. Your faith in evolution is very similar, but you have made the jump from unproven unseen species change to fact. That is simply not the case.

Don't know if you are addressing this to me, but if so, just look at my responses to Weegle. Apparently, they are as applicable to you as him.

Oh, I forgot to ask: What makes you so certain evolution is not "God's plan"?

[japantiger 4,051]

Nonsense. I don't have posit anything. I can accept and believe what science has told us and perhaps speculate on what science may discover in the future but I am not compelled to fill in the missing pieces with a faith-based assumption (or more accurately "wish").

Apparently this is one of the critical differences between me and the religious. I don't need to fill in uncertainty or ignorance with a working hypothesis with no basis other than a wishful one.

Maybe there is a God. Maybe he/she/it simply said it and bang!, the universe happened. But I don't feel compelled to believe in such a proposition in the lack of evidence.

And simply accepting that "something" happened is not the same as a manifestation of religious faith.

Presumably (unless you want to delve into philosophy and physics far beyond my capabilities to understand), the belief that "something happened" is no more than a logically self-evident conclusion. But such a conclusion is still limited by the unknown relevance of this logic to reality. (After all, look how scientific advancement rocked logical assumptions in quantum mechanics).

I am sure that there are scientists (who inherited the "God gene") who do believe in a creator. But they would be the first to tell you that such a belief is not required to believe in a "naturalistic" creation theory.

To maintain a belief in a totally naturalistic universe, that presupposes that no supernatural beings were involved in the universe's creation, which entails that either nothing spontaneously became something or that something eternally existed with no beginning. You might not think much about it, but those presuppositions are there. Otherwise, you can't really say that you believe in a totally naturalistic "first cause" in the first place. That's all I'm saying.

Well I disagree. I think saying I don't know is good enough. Why should I be compelled to believe in one of the two scenarios you propose (which are naturally limited by the capacity of the human mind) in order to believe in a naturalistic creation theory? After all, either choice has the capacity to be "natural" or true.

How does anything change if I choose one?

You obviously want me to do that, presumably so you can make a logical case for the supernatural. But I reject the idea that human logic represents the ultimate test or standard of what "is". Heck, modern physics demonstrates that.

But if you wish, for the sake of argument, I will assume those choices represent the only degree of freedom possible and choose one. Does it matter to you which one I choose for the purpose of making your point?

How about everything in some form, energy, dark energy or matter has been here "forever"? Do you want to work with that?

Well, your faith presumably compels you to believe in a supernatural creator.

My only "faith" is in the scientific method and I don't believe in anything that hasn't been revealed to science. I don't believe in supernatural explanations because there is no evidence for it and I don't need to believe it. I could be wrong. And as soon as God reveals himself, I will start to believe in it.

So I don't believe an anything that can only be taken on faith, including the assumption that "something had to exist instead of nothing". I don't know. Science doesn't know. I believe that if it can be known, science will reveal it. But it's possible it can't be known. Either way I am not compelled to believe anything because I have to (or want to).

To borrow one of your phrases: is this really that hard to understand?

Now if you insist on equating our "faiths", I suppose that's your prerogative. But what's your point? [/color]

My point is that, you seem to be taking this tack that people who believe in a god are doing so on faith while you believe in whatever you believe about how things began totally on the evidence.

Well, my beliefs and faiths are based on a lot more than just the evidence, as undoubtedly, are yours. Some of us are naturally inclined to believe in the supernatural and others - like myself - are naturally inclined to believe what is "real" (demonstrated or proved). In the later case, it is perfectly natural to recognize what we don't know as something we don't know, and may not be even capable of knowing.

Now if your position is simply that you "don't know" how things really began then that's slightly different than affirming that you believe in a completely naturalistic universe. If you insist on the latter, then you need to acknowledge that element of faith in your presuppositions and not act like you're in some position of intellectual superiority over someone who, for instance, believes in everything you do except that they are a theist who takes a faith position that a supernatural entity was the first cause.

Well that's the closest I have come so far to understanding your point, but I think your premises are wrong and so you are "barking up the wrong tree" so to speak..

You are correct that if my claim is that I don't know anything I can't possibly believe in a naturalistic cause without a basis of faith (since I don't know).

But that's not what I am saying. I feel confident that I do know what science has proven or demonstrated to the extent I have studied it. Furthermore, I am willing to accept the truth of science that I haven't studied - or wouldn't understand if I did - based on my faith in the scientific process, which as I have said, is qualitatively different from faith in the supernatural.

But science doesn't claim to know everything, Just the opposite, it is constantly focused on what we don't know, which greatly exceeds what we do. The limits of my knowledge cannot exceed the limits of science. (And to be honest my limits are way way less than the actual scientific limits.) So when it comes to an ultimate explanation or ultimate knowledge science doesn't know so I cannot possibly know.

But I will concede you are on to something. Maybe the problem is with your characterization of how I feel about religion, which is not accurate. I am not denigrating your ultimate belief in the supernatural. I have no standing to do so. I can't insist you are wrong while still maintaining I don't know. I am not insisting you are necessarily wrong in your belief of a ultimate, supernatural being or existence.

Who knows, you may be right. We may in fact be part of a advanced species computer program being run by their equivalent of a 12 year old human.

But for me, the actual track record of science is compelling enough to believe science is on the right track to discover the ultimate truth (even if it turns out to be God). That not a faith-based belief. It's based on an actual record of discovered facts.

If I have done any denigrating of religious faith, it has been targeted toward the religious-based rejection of things we actually do know, at least for the most part, such as the role of evolution in creation.

It may not be your intent to come off that way, but that's how it's reading to me.

Understanding Micro Evolution hardly explains how something sprang from nothing; how chemicals came together to order themselves, create proteins and amino acids, learn to process energy, learn to store information and replicate.; how species suddenly appear; fully formed; the lack of transitional species..etc., .I could go on....using some examples of micro evolution to infer the origin of the cosmos or life on this planet (or any other)doesn't even make sense. Neither Darwin; nor any other biologist to date, has put together a plausible case for a "randomly" created universe....only the laws that explain how how an already created and miraculous universe operates. Titan said it very well...They are not the same. Explaining what a protein does (science); is not the same as explaining how a protein came into being. If you don't have a belief in how it all started...just say so...but you can't (logically at least) use an unrelated, partially proven theory to refute someones belief in intelligent design or a God designed existence. And it doesn't follow that because one does believe in Intelligent Design or a God Designed existence; that they don't believe in science or evolution....micro evolution is pretty easy to see...that doesn't mean it explains our species or the universes existence. And before you scream "charlatan, evolution, partially proven?"...yes, partially proven by Darwin's own admission. It's no different than Einstein's theories that work well in some cases and are just wrong in others (Gravity; but not in the Quantum space)...Darwin was bright..he just made too many leaps of faith (no pun intended) with his observations to what he couldn't observe.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

While Darwin was a key figure in the theory of evolution, the man died in 1882. Quite a bit has been discovered since then; so placing the burden on his theories is absurd. It's like saying that Mendel wasn't right about genes, so genetics is false. He wasn't wrong, he just had a tiny fraction of the whole.