|
Biochemistry chart of a single human cell (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cpt.Cocaine
That's a load of bull.
Gravity is far too complex to 'just exist' by coincidence. There must be an intelligent being pushing things downward. |
:stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| I'm pretty sure the borders of the universe are patrolled by sandworms. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cpt.Cocaine
There must be an intelligent being pushing things downward. |
Curses, they're on to me! |
|
|
| Alex |
I believe in evolution, but I also believe Dawkins has the idiot gene.
Anyway, I don't think someone needs to be labeled an "evolution denier" if the person raises legitimate questions about the Darwinian theory of evolution. His theory was both intensely embraced as well as intensely scrutinized by many of the great scientists of the time. I remember a prominent botanist raised some interesting points, it's a shame I cant remember his name, I'll try and look it up.
I think that evolution needs to be developed more (that play on words wasn't intentional) and I think it's rather silly to simply paint legitimate criticism with the creationist or "denier" brush. Evolution is a matter of science and should be treated as such. Lots of criticism and less blind acknowledgment like naturalists love to label people who don't share their opinions.
I also think the issue of evolution, and science in general, should remain an agnostic one to keep the bull opinions of both parties (super-naturalists and naturalists) and all the nonsensical meta-physics separate from the real scientific work. Obviously that wont happen though, a Baptists will say dinosaurs were on the ark and Dawkins will say that evolution explains everything ever. C'est la vie. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
I think that evolution needs to be developed more (that play on words wasn't intentional) and I think it's rather silly to simply paint legitimate criticism with the creationist or "denier" brush. |
when they stop being a creationist or denier then we'll stop calling them such. i dont think anyone mistakes legitimate criticism and scientific scrutiny with the obvious bollocks of the ID brigade. being ridiculed is what they deserve. |
|
|
| Alex |
Well, do you mean intelligent designers as the ones that just re-made creationism and called it intelligent design?
Or do you mean the people like the head of the human genome project that claim "intelligent design" as counterpart to evolution?
I agree that if someone wants to re-brand Creationism as intelligent design just for the sake of not being laughed at, they still deserve the humiliation. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| Its obvious that humans and dinosaurs were living at the same time. hell they still are. KFD anyone? |
|
|
| Alex |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Its obvious that humans and dinosaurs were living at the same time. hell they still are. KFD anyone? |
You think it's funny. I don't.
Some of the people I've grown up with are Baptists and truly believe that not only were dinosaurs on the ark but that they also still exist. I used to laugh, but now I realize that they are truly serious and I've had to go through the process of using both Darwin's theories as well as those of other prominent evolutionary thinkers. Huxley is actually one of the best to use, he was Darwin's attack dog more or less and was an agnostic. In fact I think he invented the term agnostic, anyway some of the points he used in his debates really resonate and sink in with die hard creationists, so I tend to reference back to him whenever I'm talking with someone who outright denies evolution as completely false. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
Well, do you mean intelligent designers as the ones that just re-made creationism and called it intelligent design?
Or do you mean the people like the head of the human genome project that claim "intelligent design" as counterpart to evolution?
I agree that if someone wants to re-brand Creationism as intelligent design just for the sake of not being laughed at, they still deserve the humiliation. |
i mean anyone that believes there is a place for god when discussing biological and ecological diversity. anyone who tries to poke holes in evolution because of their assumed premise (god exists), and also because they are unable to present their own competing idea that doesn't stink of fecal matter.
engaging in polite debate is nice and all (or so i hear! :p) but some ideas gain legitimacy that way. i'll stick to mockery, simply because im no biologist :D |
|
|
| Renzo |
| lol Dawkins. No bigger tool exists. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| I don't find a belief in a god and evolution incompatible. |
|
|
| Alex |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renzo
lol Dawkins. No bigger tool exists. |
Well... Dawkins is a brilliant biologist, but he made the school boy error of poking his nose into meta-physics, philosophy and religion.
Three things he knows absolutely nothing about and demonstrates on a frequent basis.
The guy did win a nobel prize, so props to him for being a brilliant man of science, but many of the "debunking" he does in his books isn't based on science and I think people need to be made aware of that and then make up their own minds.
Not to mention he's an arrogant prick :p.
** The above in bold is a scientific statement, 9 out of 10 dentists recommend it. |
|
|
|
|
