Religion thread Zaku DL vs Ben Kenobi

[JEELEN]

Neither is Darwinism. He makes no predictions. He never says, "this is how animals are going to adapt", because he simply doesn't know. It isn't falsifiable.

[...]

Christians are fine with science. Christians have a problem with religion masquerading as science, as Darwinism can be, or environmentalism Gorebaloney. You ask the right questions. Is it falsifiable? No. Can it be replicated in a lab? No.

I wasn't talking about Darwinism but evolution theory, which makes no predictions - nor does biology in general; that doesn't make it non-falsifiable. As I've noted earlier, your conception about evolution theory is not quite up-to-date.

I also like to remark that not all Christians 'are fine with science' - and repeat that historically speaking - nor have they always been. Once again, replication in lab conditions may be alright for physics, in biology there are certain ethical issues relating to that - as I'm sure you are well aware of as a Christian -; it does not follow that evolution theory, because of this is not falsifiable. As a scientific theory, it can be corrected when facing new data - as all scientific theories should.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And there is another question (well, I want to know if Sloww has ever felt the presence of God, or just has faith regardless of that) about the change in an individual that believes (because of faith and things he has thought out) and then feels the presence of God, and the change resulting from that. I'd imagine a partial conformation would make you more.. I dunno... something. Though I have heard people who say they've felt a presence talk about the peace and bliss that comes over them... consistent with a message of love. Which, of course, makes me wonder about those who hate in the name of religion...

[Boris Godunov]

Uh I was a Darwinist not all that long ago.

There's no such thing as a "Darwinist." I sincerely doubt you ever called yourself such. And given your demonstrated lack of understanding of evolutionary theory, I don't think you ever had enough knowledge to make a conversion to disbelief of evolutionary theory particularly relevant.

I have a problem when people who think they understand lecture me on science. I'm perfectly willing to consider scientific evidence. What you've offered here, is a complete waste of time.

This is not true. You've been schooled on your terribly bad representations of science before, and you've just blithely ignored it. Your claiming that speciation hasn't been observed is a perfect example of this, as nobody with knowledge of the science would make such a false assertion, unless it was because they were ignoring the science in favor of another agenda, like religion.

I was a Darwinist first, and I left because things in Darwinism didn't hold together.

Ah, portraying acceptance of evolution as an "ism" akin to religion and talking about "leaving" as if it were a church. Classic

What's wrong with the argument. Are you suggesting that the ability to digest nylon isn't related to the ability to digest other things? The argument is perfectly valid. We cannot conclude that just because animals can digest synthetic materials, that the animals evolved to eat them. It could also be that the animals already had the ability to digest nylon, but never exercised it until Nylon was introduced to their environment.

Not according to scientists who actually know what they're talking about:

http://www.ejbiochem.org/cgi/content/abstract/116/3/547

"There are two possible reasons for an enzyme to be active on an unnatural substrate: one is that an unnatural compound could be decomposed by an enzyme if it were an analogue of that enzyme's physiological substrate, and the other is that an unnatural substrate could be decomposed by a newly evolved enzyme. The data obtained in this study show that 6-aminohexanoic-acid-oligomer hydrolase has no activity on any physiological substrates, including the linear and cyclic amides and peptides tested..."

I eagerly await hearing why these experts are mistaken, despite the scads of science classes they've taken!

Ok, glad we got that out of the way. If we are dealing with authorities, you'll be perfectly happy if I quote Darwinists? You don't think I've read these scientists who are wiser than either of us.

I'd rather talk about what actually scientific experiments have shown. I'm not interesting in your quote mining scientists, or presenting quotes from scientists who don't have the expertise needed, or quotes from scientists that are out-of-date.

So does that mean that scientists obey Darwin like a religion? It's a theory. If it works, great. All theories have rough edges, that's the whole point of them. Questioning Darwinism is a essential part of science.

No. *YOU* were the one who first made a classic Argument from Authority by claiming that your having (allegedly) taken more science courses than me somehow gave more credence to the nonsense you were spewing. I was pointing out here, based on your believing that is somehow impressive, that you should be shutting up and accepting what actual biologists have to say, since they're much more educated than you. That you completely lost track of that particular item between one post and the next and instead thought I was making a genuine argument is just another example of how mind-bogglingly frustrating it is to argue with you.

[Boris Godunov]

That's a good question.
God says that people have intrinsic worth and value. Darwin says just the opposite. He's utilitarian, your value depends on what you can do.

Darwin was a utilitarian? That'd be news to him.

Not content to misportray the science, you seek to defame the man. That's sad.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7856157.stm

Darwin was not a philosophical utilitarian. He argued in The Descent of Man that it would be wrong for "stronger" humans to withhold aid to those who were "weaker," as it would endager sympathy, "the noblest part of our nature." He abhored slavery, spoke out against the ill treatment of indigenous peoples and rejected the idea of "higher" or "lower" races. He never argued that social policy should mirror that was observed to occur in nature--in fact, he argued the opposite.