Religion thread Zaku DL vs Ben Kenobi

[DaShi]

And he was still fired.

[Boris Godunov]

Yeah, BORING.

I don't give a **** about the religion side of this, but please don't let BK get away with this tripe:

The assertion that one species changes into another as the sole result of random chance, has not yet been proven. It's up there with the theory that protons decay. Both are postulated to occur over large amounts of time, but neither have been observed as of yet. Therefore, there is nothing ascientific about skepticism towards macroevolution.

You are a know-nothing.

[Ben Kenobi]

Obviously.

I'd wager I've taken more science courses than you have Boris.

BTW, good to see you back. How are you?

[Boris Godunov]

How many of those science courses were in evolutionary biology?

Besides, it doesn't matter how many science courses you've taken when you make assertions that are completely wrong. Being in a class doesn't guarantee you've learned anything from it.

And I am splendid!

[MrFun]

Being in a class doesn't guarantee you've learned anything from it.

This needs special emphasis in regard to BK.

[JEELEN]

It doesn't accept abortion either, and if you sincerely believe that killing babies is important to keep the planet from getting overpopulated, well there's this whole thing called space out there.

Who's the technophobe, the church who insists that technology can and will be developed to serve man, or the people who demand that man serve technology? Me, I'd rather have moonbases and stuff so people can live on them, rather then sticking to this hunk of rock, but I guess that makes me anachronistic. Like in the 50's when people actually dreamed about these kind of things.

I'm sure it is quite effective in certain circles to twist other peoples' words, but I never mentioned killing babies (personally I'm against abortion, but not being female I consider it none of my business). As I said, condemning contraception - which is quite something else from abortion - is close to criminal, considering today's crowded Earth and sexually transmitted diseases. I also note that while the Church has accepted evolution as a valid scientific theory, you seem to have missed this belated acceptance of scientific development. I'd say that religions in general only accept science and technology insofar as it doesn't collide with official religious doctrine - which in itself, by the way, is not particular helpful to scientific development in the first place. Given the official church record as regards dissenting opinion I'm surprised to find anyone advocating the idea that religious instutions promote scientific development at all - which, again, is something different from accepting such developments. (I've also yet to learn about churches propagating off-planet colonization. The moon won't be available for human colonization for decades to come - if not longer -, and populating the moon will only further drain natural resources here.)

Muslims come and take over Christian lands, and Christians are the persecutors for trying to take that land back?

How does that relate to the senseless atrocities committed en route (against fellow Christians, but of a different persuasion) and in the Holy Land? En passant the various Crusades essentially destroyed Byzantium - a bastion of Christendom in the Near East, which had been calling for aid in the first place.

Yep, which makes it rather silly to accuse Christians of anti-semitism. Here's a clue, it ain't the Christians who were stuffing the gas chambers.

I'd say centuries of anti-Jewish propaganda had done plenty of preparation for the spread of antiSemitism in Europe. Even today there are those that claim that 'the Jews' killed Jesus, based on an inserted phrase in the New Testament.

[Nikolai]

Why would you bold a word that doesn't exist? Didn't you claim to teach English?

It exist. Take a look in the dictionary.

[Nikolai]

Yeah, BORING.

I don't give a **** about the religion side of this, but please don't let BK get away with this tripe:



You are a know-nothing.

Funny thing is, he's not wrong you know. Macro-evolution is not scientifically proven. Does not neccessarily mean it's not real, but he's not wrong.

[chequita guevara]

Why would you bold a word that doesn't exist? Didn't you claim to teach English?

Irregardless is a word. Look it up.

[chequita guevara]

Funny thing is, he's not wrong you know. Macro-evolution is not scientifically proven. Does not neccessarily mean it's not real, but he's not wrong.

It's as proven as anything can be. One does not have to observe speciation directly to be able to prove it is scientific, from a Popperian stand point (though I reject Popper's definition of science). First off, there exist creatures today that could only have come about through natural selection (nylon eating bacteria). Second, we can make predictions based on the theory about what should appear in the fossil record (given a certain set of data), and these predictions will be correct.

[Boris Godunov]

Macro-evolution is not scientifically proven.

Yes it is, to anyone with a reasonable idea of what constitutes scientific proof. So you join BK in the ranks of know-nothingness.

Repeating over and over that it isn't proven doesn't make that proposition true, as much as you may want it to be the case.

[Boris Godunov]

It's as proven as anything can be. One does not have to observe speciation directly to be able to prove it is scientific, from a Popperian stand point (though I reject Popper's definition of science). First off, there exist creatures today that could only have come about through natural selection (nylon eating bacteria). Second, we can make predictions based on the theory about what should appear in the fossil record (given a certain set of data), and these predictions will be correct.

And there are multiple observed instances of speciation.

[Ben Kenobi]

How many of those science courses were in evolutionary biology?

6 credits, a full year in first year.

Besides, it doesn't matter how many science courses you've taken when you make assertions that are completely wrong. Being in a class doesn't guarantee you've learned anything from it.

That's true, but not being in a class at all, doesn't guarantee you knowledge either.

Glad to hear you are well.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's as proven as anything can be. One does not have to observe speciation directly to be able to prove it is scientific

That is true, but until it is observed, it is not out of the realm of theory.

First off, there exist creatures today that could only have come about through natural selection (nylon eating bacteria). Second, we can make predictions based on the theory about what should appear in the fossil record (given a certain set of data), and these predictions will be correct.

Interesting point. Say that someone observed men playing hockey. Would people assume that a natural talent evolved in response to playing hockey, or would they conclude that there were pre-existing natural talents that coincidentally happened to also be helpful when playing hockey? Nylon eating bacteria are the latter.

[Guynemer]

And I am splendid!

Indeed you are.