<p>
</p>
<p>The funny thing is that he thinks he’s some great champion of liberalism when he’s just as bigoted and intolerant as the religious extremists he hates. And the section where he criticizes religious moderation is a perfect parallel to Marx’s condemnation of Socialism. It’s really beautiful, thank you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>His whole point is to shed tolerance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please share one of them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People understand the concept; they simple disagree with the idea.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please elaborate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I addressed this very recently on this thread.</p>
<p>As an aside, I’m not sure how that guy’s argument is supposed to be at all persuasive. His justification really begins and ends with the idea that his world view is correct and nothing else could be concluded from rational thought.</p>
<p>It’s almost surprising that when he equated Jerry Falwell and Osama bin Laden he didn’t throw himself in there too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that the speech, in itself, is not wholly convincing.</p>
<p>"-why would you take a risk in not believing? aren’t you afraid of what’s going to happen to you AFTER you die…? "</p>
<p>See [Pascal’s</a> Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Pascal's wager - Wikipedia”>Pascal's wager - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>I am slightly disturbed by the assertion that religion absolutely is not consistent with the observations of science. I mean one of the first people to advocate for an old Earth based upon his translation of Genesis was Saint Augustine. The leader of the evolutionary world for a many decades,Theodosius Dobzhansky, was an extremely devoted Russian Orthodox. The National Academy, I believe, has endorsed the idea that God and evolution are happily co-exist (yes, I know most of the academy is atheistic…however they still have this as their stance). Finally, this is what a renowned evolutionary biologist, Stephen Jay Gould said on the issue:</p>
<p>But this is the oldest canard and non sequitur in the debater’s book. To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth million time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists. If some of our crowd have made untoward statements claiming that Darwinism disproves God, then I will find Mrs. McInerney and have their knuckles rapped for it (as long as she can equally treat those members of our crowd who have argued that Darwinism must be God’s method of action). Science can work only with naturalistic explanations; it can neither affirm nor deny other types of actors (like God) in other spheres (the moral realm, for example).</p>
<p>Forget philosophy for a moment; the simple empirics of the past hundred years should suffice. Darwin himself was agnostic (having lost his religious beliefs upon the tragic death of his favorite daughter), but the great American botanist Asa Gray, who favored natural selection and wrote a book entitled Darwiniana, was a devout Christian. Move forward 50 years: Charles D. Walcott, discoverer of the Burgess Shale fossils, was a convinced Darwinian and an equally firm Christian, who believed that God had ordained natural selection to construct a history of life according to His plans and purposes. Move on another 50 years to the two greatest evolutionists of our generation: G. G. Simpson was a humanist agnostic. Theodosius Dobzhansky a believing Russian Orthodox. Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature’s factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap.</p>
<p>But Johnson’s major premise—the inherent Godlessness of Darwinism—could be wrong, and he might still have a good argument for the major thrust of his text; the attempt to show that Darwinism is a dogma, unsupported by substantial and meaningful evidence, and propped up by false logic. But here he fails utterly, almost comically (Macbeth’s 1971 book is much better).</p>
<p>The complete discussion of religion from Gould can be found here: [Stephen</a> Jay Gould “Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge,” 1992](<a href=“Top Cash Earning Games in India 2023 | Best Online Games to earn real money”>Top Cash Earning Games in India 2023 | Best Online Games to earn real money)</p>
<p>Religion is a very touchy subject. People shouldn’t be telling other people what to believe. For example, I ***in hate when these Mormons come to my house and try to convert me. Don’t get me wrong, I am a man of religion but I think people should have the right to think for themselves and make their own decisions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The difference is that the universe is bound by natural laws, and works through consistent patterns presumably because it HAS to. If whatever you are calling the base properties of the universe doesn’t fall under the above, then it’s not scientifically different from a concept of a God.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I said, I only consider a 6000 year old earth to be a possibility. I recognize the amount of doubt on the issue and the number of phenomena which seem to require both a very old and a realativly young age for the earth. I am not so arrogant as to consider one view to be conclusively proven to the point that any other theory should be ridiculed and discounted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have repeatedly stated my objections to evolution. None of these have been answered. I will ask again:</p>
<p>What mechanism has ever been observed to produce new traits in a way which, if continued, would produce an entirely new type of life form whose traits were not included in the original genome of the species?</p>
<p>For this all that has been presented is Natural Selection in its various forms (which, as I have said, adds nothing to a species’ variability, but merely effects changes within the [i[existing* genetic variability of the kind), and random mutation, which can only produce a new trait if multiple highly improbable mutations happen in sequence without any harmful mutations occuring. When have never observed random mutation produce new useful genetic information?</p>
<p>What fossils have ever been found which show a clear progression between different forms? Why does the evolutionary tree have blank spaces at all the branching points?</p>
<p>mifune presented a list of “human ancestors”. I researched them, and found that in fact, if they were arranged in a “family tree”, you do not get a vertical line of descent, but rather a horizontal line of supposed “cousins”, with the common ancestors notably missing.</p>
<p>What reasonably plausible sequence of events could lead to such features as the cleanerfish/grouper relationship?</p>
<p>I will explain this again. Unless both species sprang into existence simultaneously, with the instincts already in place, the cleanerfish with the “cleaner” instinct would be eaten and outcompeted by their smarter realatives, while the groupers with the “cleanee” instinct would be outcompeted by more “pragmatic” groupers. Do you deny this? Or do you believe that at some point in the evolution of the cleanerfish/grouper a freak mass mutation brought both populations into being at once?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How is this relevant to this argument? Whether life was created or evolved naturally, the times at which different species existed is merely a feature to be determined by research.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You misunderstand me. My claim is:</p>
<p>Without the existence of “supernatural” (things that can act in one way or another, rather than simply HAVING to act according to natural laws) human thought has no validity, as there would be no such thing as “right” or “wrong” only “is” and “also is”.</p>
<p>Even if there is no God, our own minds must either be “supernatural” or have no actual ability to make choices. Since our ability to make choices must be assumed for there to be any sense in arguing that someone “should” have done something differently, any human who engages in debate has either conciously of unconciously accepted this “supernatural” natural of human thought.</p>
<p>I can elaborate on this if neccesary.</p>
<p>@Rtgrove: I agree with you, and I especially like this part of that quote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I will keep saying until I get a carpal tunnel:</p>
<p>MY OBJECTIONS TO EVOLUTION ARE NOT BASED ON MY RELIGION!!!</p>
<p>My religion allows that possibility. The evidence, however, does not give support to it.</p>
<p>lol ok. Ill see you in AP bio.</p>
<p>I suggest everyone read some Nietzche. God has become too strong. We created God. And by extension…</p>
<p>Haha thx mosbymarion…tho I will respectfully disagree with you regarding evolution. I am just as devoted a theist as I am an evolutionist. However, this thread really seems to be getting a little bit old. People who believe in God are simply saying the same things over again, and People who don’t believe in God are simply repeating themselves as well. So, I dont think I will be coming back to this thread. But, hey, thx for making me think guys =D.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I agree. It’s understandable, though, given that there are 64 pages. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nobody still answered my question. I thought that theory was stupid…</p>
<p>I’d also like to mention again that in Islam we believe that atheists :</p>
<p>1) one was ticket to hell!!!
2) never EVER, ever come out of hell…they stay there forever. While others have may have a chance. You forgot about God so he’ll forget about you in return.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s simple. God has given you so many blessings you can’t even fathom to count on your own!!!
He also created you; so you might as well be obedient. He has the power to do pretty much anything and could take anything away from you on a whim. We were created to worship God(Allah).</p>
<p>eastafrobeauty-</p>
<p>What theory are you even talking about? Pascal’s Wager isn’t a theory. I have a theory that you were brainwashed from a young age. How do you feel about that theory? That’s irrelevant, but I digress.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Am I correct to say that as opposed to living a life in solitude, disbelieving in god and allah, that I am going straight to hell, but if I walk into a restaurant with a bomb on my person and proceed to annihilate myself and and all the patrons, I’d wake up in “heaven” with 40 or so females with intact hymens?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>GIVE SOLID REASONS! We do not believe in your so called allah! mohammed was full of it. </p>
<p>Ok in all seriousness eastafrobeauty, you’re probably beyond being saved. You’ll live your life thinking allah actually means something. You’ll think god is more than just dog spelled backwards. When it’s one person it’s a delusion but when it’s a million people it’s a religion…</p>
<p>^ Please show a little more respect for people. I don’t believe Islam either, but I don’t go around throwing uncalled for and irrelevant insults.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think I’m pretty much aware of everything AP bio teaches on Evolution. I studied for it last year, though I ended up deciding last-minute to take chem instead.</p>
<p>AP bio makes an excellent case for naturalselection and variation within kinds, but provides no adequate answers to any of the objections I listed. If answers exist, they aren’t being given in the textbooks… Or anywhere else that I can find.</p>
<p>
Because all Muslims are terrorists? Stupid *<strong><em>ing *</em></strong>.</p>
<p>Alright Mosby, here goes. and yea I got a 5 in bio. </p>
<p>
The evidence against that is overwhelming. I mean the fact that you even consider it shows that you aren’t neutral - there’s absolutely NO GOOD SCIENTIFIC evidence that the earth is 6000 years old! </p>
<p>Indulge yourself please:
[Age</a> of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth]Age”>Age of Earth - Wikipedia)
[The</a> Age of the Earth](<a href=“http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html]The”>The Age of the Earth)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Spontaneous mutation, or induced mutation through radiation. Darwin’s finches are a classic example of allopatric speciation, a process where geographic barriers separate the gene pools and allow them to grow more distant over time. New traits are rarely sudden occurrences - minor mutations over a long period of time ultimately produce new traits. </p>
<p>
Given that life has existed over several billion years and the small mutations occur in every generation, highly improbable mutations over a single generation become highly probable given the enormous amount of time. </p>
<p>
Happens all the time. Take HIV - a virus that is particularly bad at replicating itself and thus mutates at a much faster rate. The reason why we haven’t been able to kill it is because each medication induces a resistant strain, or more correctly, kills all the non-resistant mutations. Similar occurrences happen in bacteria, insects (when we attempt to apply pesticides), etc.</p>
<p>Though if I’m understanding you correctly, I suppose your question is, why doesn’t a dog spontaneously sprout wings and fly up trees. To answer that, you’d have to understand the impossibility of viewing a multi-billion year process in real time. It’s pretty much the equivalent of taking a random snapshot of a soccer game and then asking “well strangely, I don’t see them scoring a goal.” </p>
<p>
Well humans for one: [List</a> of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils]List”>List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia)
And hundreds of other animals as well. </p>
<p>It’d be absurd to expect the tree to be complete. Do you realize how fossils form, and how improbable their formation is? I mean we can hardly find stuff from a few hundred years ago… don’t think you think you’re expecting a bit much for scientists to find every piece of every animal that has come into existence? </p>
<p>
A respectable question - and often poorly answered. The reason why you don’t get a ladder is because barriers (commonly geographic barriers) can separate the common ancestor and lead to speciation and parallel evolution over a long period of time. </p>
<p>
Mutualism is a poorly understood aspect of evolutionary science. A few theories are explained below. [mutualism[/url</a>]
[url=<a href=“http://www.pnas.org/content/95/15/8676.full]The”>http://www.pnas.org/content/95/15/8676.full]The</a> evolution of interspecific mutualisms ? PNAS](<a href=“http://www2.mcdaniel.edu/Biology/eco/mut/mutualism.html]mutualism[/url”>http://www2.mcdaniel.edu/Biology/eco/mut/mutualism.html)</p>
<p>
I would argue that there is no such thing, and if there were, it would in no way prove the existence of a supernatural being. See [Occam’s</a> razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam’s_razor]Occam’s”>Occam's razor - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>
And I believe in Santa Claus. He’ll give you charcoal for Christmas! Unsubstantiated claims and beliefs are absurd. </p>
<p>
Well apparently He created me to question authority and also created me with a passion to discover fundamental truth. So blame him, not me, for quoting this: </p>
<p>“Suppose there is a God who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong. That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven unless god wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy.” -Richard Carrier</p>
<p>I think the rhetoric and meaning here is beautiful. In summary, believe what you want to believe, but belief without question is hardly a good belief at all.</p>