--> The Cult of Evolution – the Opiate of the Atheists

NoDNC.com - STOP Democrat Corruption ^ | NoDNC.com Staff

[js1138]

Why would you call a doctor when your child's life is in danger. Doctors rely on science, and science is just guessing.

[wallcrawlr]

"further attack"...remind me when I started "attacking"

that is not an "attack"

Gods Word only allows one way into Heaven.

and I dont want you to "participate", I would like you to provide the supposed post by Elsie that you are using to slander him. Please dont continue slandering people.

[BikerNYC]

Science is trying to find the answer and it pretends that its best guesses are answers.

That is where you make your mistake.

Answers never change. They stay the same forever. Religion has a lot of answers.

The conclusions of science are never answers because they are always subject to change. Nothing is ever settled in science. It is always about the theory that is best supported by the evidence today.

Newton did not have an answer to the question of gravity, he had a theory, a guess supported by evidence, which, while good, proved insufficient. Einstein 's theory of gravity was better because it explained more of the evidence.

Get away from thinking that science gives answers and settles questions. It is always about the theory that best explains the evidence that we have today.

[From many - one.]

I consider it an attack. You may consider it what you wish.

A statement isn't slander/ libel if it is true.

More when I get back from work.

[Hendrix]

"Sure they are answers. When we use science we have the ability to approach truth too."

Approaching truth and finding the truth are not the same thing. Basically, you are just saying it is a best guess, but you won't admit to save your life. LOL Now who is dogmatic.


"I was asking what method YOU use to arrive at what you have called *answers*. Divine revelation? Are you perhaps the Intelligent Designer we have been hearing about and therefore don't need to arrive at new information?"

I never said I had the answers or that I had any means of obtaining the answers. I just point out that science does not have the perfect way to find the answers either, and the theories are nothing more than best guesses based on imperfect information. Theories are not facts.



It's a well evidenced explanation about how life changed over time. Is it imperfect? Sure... no theory is based on perfect knowledge. There is NO better way to approach truth though, so it is what we are stuck with. The only people who look foolish are the ones who claim to have a direct link to the Divine Truth.

I never said that I have a better way to find answers, but science does not have the perfect way either. The bottom line is that nobody knows the answer. Evolution is just a best guess based on imperfect information--it is not a fact.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The article would make a good appendix to the book "The Republican War on Science."

[CarrotAndStick]

You can say that again. Perhaps the maddening greed for people to have "perfect", one-stop answers, instead of a long, winding and often tiresome process of finding out the truth causes them to be so confrontational with science. Perfectionism is a dangerous disease, isn't it?

[Hendrix]

And your point is? The fact that a doctor does not know everything and bases part of his knowledge on best guesses does not prove anything. Some things in medicine are known, and that is what I would hope could be used for my child.

[FostersExport]

Organisms don’t ‘develop’ mutations. Mutations are random changes that may or may not be beneficial. A randomly mutated light-sensitive organ can clearly be beneficial, but the organism will need to ‘figure out’ why. And I mentioned a basic ‘eye’ to give lie to the nonsense that creationists keep mentioning about the eye disproving evolution. Not all ‘eyes’ are as complicated as ours.

On the other hand, I give you the example of a two-headed snake. They are surprisingly common. As it happens, two heads isn’t beneficial for the snake, as it can’t decided which way to go (which I find quite funny). This means that the mutation isn’t a big hit for he snake population and hence why you don’t see more of them. Yet, the mutation crops up again and again. It hasn’t come about with a ‘purpose’, though, because it’s actually a handicap.

[CarrotAndStick]

The fact that a doctor does not know everything...

This line cleverly tries to belittle the much more relevent, noble, reasonable and valid fact that he is striving to know more, and hasn't given up yet. Unlike the Creationists, who seem to know it all.

[csense]

Feelings of love, companionship and bonding are evolutionary mutations that vastly improve chances of survival.

If they're evolutionary mutations, then they must a have a physical component. I would love to hear your explanation as to what these physical processes are, and which gene, or genes, code for them.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Approaching truth and finding the truth are not the same thing."

I never said they were.

" I never said I had the answers or that I had any means of obtaining the answers...I never said that I have a better way to find answers, but science does not have the perfect way either. The bottom line is that nobody knows the answer."

Ah, Feyerabend. The argument from epistemological incredulity. How's that working for ya?

[wallcrawlr]

oh ok...I see how it is.

[Hendrix]

"The conclusions of science are never answers because they are always subject to change."

I know that science treats everything that way, and it does that as part of its scientific method of making sure it works toward finding the right answers.

However, the fact that science does this does not mean that there are not in fact definite answers. In short, don't confuse the scientific method with answers. There are answers to everything. We just don't know all of them yet.

[general_re]

No textbook (math or physics or any science), or scientific theory can prove or even hint at the true beginnings of the universe.

Sure it can. But if you don't want to see, I guess you won't see.

[Hendrix]

It has been fun guys, but I have got to get back to work.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"However, the fact that science does this does not mean that there are not in fact definite answers. In short, don't confuse the scientific method with answers. There are answers to everything. We just don't know all of them yet."

How can we know ANY of them, according you?

[CarrotAndStick]

Physical component? Well, I should have mentioned love, hatred and other feelings fall in the realms of social, and not biological evolution. I used that misleading line directly from a question posed to me by the very person to whom I replied earlier. The pysical component for these feelings to have survived in favour of isolation, loneliness and inter-personal, non-binding hatred, is the very fact that societies which stick together, stay stronger, and last longer.

[Erasmus]

It would seem to me that if scientists create life where none was before, then that is a demonstration that intelligence creates life.

....and that the life thus created has every right to call the scientists "God."

[malakhi]

One again, simply explain to me from the theory of evolution how the five senses came about from single-celled creatures that had no idea they even needed such things? Explain to me how and where emotions came from? They serve no purpose in evolutionary theory. Why fear before even knowing what fear is? Why be happy or sad when there is no basis for such philosophical underpinnings? Why isn't there a single "super race" that has already destroyed all other animals under "natural selection"? How did so many different varieties of species come about rather than consolidated species?

Have you even bothered doing a google search to try to find answers to your questions? I'd guess not.