d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > Science Prevails Over Religion > Evolution
Prev1121314151628Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 5,901
Joined: Dec 13 2005
Gold: 2,508.53
May 22 2009 02:52pm
Quote (mimnock @ Fri, May 22 2009, 11:36am)
if you look at the development of a snake, there are regions present in the snake embryo that form legs in mammalian embryos.
in some snake species these regions even go on to form nublike legs beneath the skin that remain present in the adult.
article on it here http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:UwF1UsyhNjwJ:www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2005-06-10-wonderquest_x.htm


I would have to dissect that snake or get a good X-ray of it to determine if it confirms or contradicts that article. I have heard it from lecturers, that the embryo diagram most used in evolution text was fabricated. If I were going to try to confirm anything I would start there.


Quote (Sioux @ Fri, May 22 2009, 12:19pm)
@Whirling Dervish:
Creation science isn't science. When you set your conclusion up, and then search for information to validate it, that isn't science. That is complete invalidation of the scientific method. Creation science is about a real a science as phrenology.


Replace that with hypothesis and it at least could be. Using the word conclusion, as you did here, you could easily swap creation science for evolution. Both parties seem a little overzealous about what they believe and seem blinded at times by findings that seem contrary to what they wish to prove.


In the end, I still do not see what this has to do with the God question, :mellow:
Member
Posts: 112,095
Joined: Jul 25 2008
Gold: 40.42
May 22 2009 02:56pm
Quote (Jazz_Thing @ Fri, 22 May 2009, 13:48)
My point was, Time, not the magazine will change this.


Will change what?
Member
Posts: 15,867
Joined: Aug 7 2008
Gold: 233.00
May 22 2009 02:57pm
Quote (AiNedeSpelCzech @ Fri, May 22 2009, 08:56pm)
Will change what?


The amount of evidence that will surely explain to the fullest detail every aspect of the Universe in favor of science, NOT religion. Try again.
Member
Posts: 502
Joined: May 20 2009
Gold: 0.00
May 22 2009 02:57pm
Quote (Jazz_Thing @ Fri, May 22 2009, 03:34pm)
I am ignorant for believing in the latest scientific advancement which explains the origin of man? I believe that you are mistaken.

Rebuttal to 1: Science can never disprove God? Well it just proved God wrong for the 239482390482903840238904 time. Starting with the position of the Earth, the Ten Commandments, do I really need to list everything that Religion has interpreted incorrectly?

Rebuttal to 2: Science is superior to Religion because humans are observers not believers. If anything you said that God is communicating with us. I say God is dead, and cannot communicate. Prove that God is not dead. I can live my life without God, knowing that God is dead and still be happy and content that other people believe in God because, ultimately God's inability to communicate only formulates an instant gratification based on an uncertain premise of the causation of human thought.

Rebuttal to 3: Even more people have lived their lives without religion just fine, where is the Argument? If anything religious folk have argued that Atheists are not moral.

Rebuttal to 4: Find a religion that has not tried to explain the origins of man.

Your little paragraph, is really nothing special to read. Please read 1-4 more carefully.



Nah, you're arguing that Science is explained by religion look at your rebuttal to 4. Would you be happy if I called "Ida" or other Transitional Fossils "God"?


Congratulations sir, you have made it to my profile. I have left an accurate description of the events that transpired here. I will no longer attempt to guide you in the correct direction after this post. There is a saying that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink it. Though comparing you to a horse severely insults the intellect of these creatures, I feel that it is an appropriate saying.

1. No, it did not. This fossil simply suggests that man evolved from a common ancestor. This affects deities in no way. I'm quite shocked that this fossil disproves the ten commandments! This is an incredible discovery!
2. Congratulations? What does this have to do with what I posted? By the way, the burden of proof is on you. Prove that God is dead and does not communicate with us. Prove that humans are observers and not believers.
3. Atheists are not immoral. You are correct that one does not need to be a theist in order to be a moral individual. I'm not sure why you brought this up though because it has nothing to do with your original claim or my rebuttal.
4. My mistake. Religion doesn't attempt to make a rigorous attempt at explaining the origins of man. Why? Because that is not the primary goal of religion.

Anyway, goodbye Jazz_Thing. I hope that you will educate yourself in the near future because your ignorance is astonishing.
Member
Posts: 112,095
Joined: Jul 25 2008
Gold: 40.42
May 22 2009 03:03pm
Quote (Jazz_Thing @ Fri, 22 May 2009, 13:57)
The amount of evidence that will surely explain to the fullest detail every aspect of the Universe in favor of science, NOT religion. Try again.


The evidence already heavily weighs in on the side of Science (if the two must be seen as a continuum where one is right and the other isn't, which it doesn't) but it will -never- completely invalidate religion. Ever ever.
Member
Posts: 15,867
Joined: Aug 7 2008
Gold: 233.00
May 22 2009 03:04pm
Quote (KrystalS_eEXPipi @ Fri, May 22 2009, 08:57pm)
Congratulations sir, you have made it to my profile.  I have left an accurate description of the events that transpired here.  I will no longer attempt to guide you in the correct direction after this post.  There is a saying that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink it.  Though comparing you to a horse severely insults the intellect of these creatures, I feel that it is an appropriate saying.

1. No, it did not.  This fossil simply suggests that man evolved from a common ancestor.  This affects deities in no way.  I'm quite shocked that this fossil disproves the ten commandments!  This is an incredible discovery!
2. Congratulations?  What does this have to do with what I posted?  By the way, the burden of proof is on you.  Prove that God is dead and does not communicate with us.  Prove that humans are observers and not believers.
3. Atheists are not immoral.  You are correct that one does not need to be a theist in order to be a moral individual.  I'm not sure why you brought this up though because it has nothing to do with your original claim or my rebuttal.
4. My mistake.  Religion doesn't attempt to make a rigorous attempt at explaining the origins of man.  Why?  Because that is not the primary goal of religion.

Anyway, goodbye Jazz_Thing.  I hope that you will educate yourself in the near future because your ignorance is astonishing.


Goodbye, you are only 14 years old, you have plenty of time to learn about how God will be eventually extinguished by Science.

I'm glad I made it to your profile because honestly, this thread has caused more controversy on this forum than anything thusfar. The inventor thread sucked.

Listen very closely.

The fossil, is the most complete assertion about the Origins of man TO DATE. This of course says nothing about disproving God.

However this is a stunning defeat for Religion, and you must concede to the truth otherwise you somehow believe that Religion can explain the origins of man.

God is dead because I never hear him, I've never heard anything about God being spoken except in the Bible. Furthermore if God were alive he would surely express himself in a way that would affirm verily his existence. I am perfectly happy with myself, my family, my vocation etc etc without a belief in God.

Hm, Alright I'll let you dodge my request to find a religion that DOESN'T attempt to explain the origins of man. In the mean time, let me tell you that the primary goal of religion can be replaced by scientific advancements. Try again.

Quote (AiNedeSpelCzech @ Fri, May 22 2009, 09:03pm)
The evidence already heavily weighs in on the side of Science (if the two must be seen as a continuum where one is right and the other isn't, which it doesn't) but it will -never- completely invalidate religion.  Ever ever.


I have to disagree.

This post was edited by Jazz_Thing on May 22 2009 03:06pm
Member
Posts: 11,397
Joined: Jul 30 2008
Gold: 2.57
May 22 2009 03:12pm
Quote (Jazz_Thing @ Fri, May 22 2009, 09:04pm)
Goodbye, you are only 14 years old, you have plenty of time to learn about how God will be eventually extinguished by Science.



pretty obvious that its a multi
Member
Posts: 5,901
Joined: Dec 13 2005
Gold: 2,508.53
May 22 2009 03:13pm
Quote (Jazz_Thing @ Fri, May 22 2009, 04:04pm)
I've never heard anything about God being spoken except in the Bible.


Are you saying you have never heard anyone state that God has spoken to them, except for the people found in the Bible? :unsure:

Member
Posts: 112,095
Joined: Jul 25 2008
Gold: 40.42
May 22 2009 03:14pm
Quote (Jazz_Thing @ Fri, 22 May 2009, 14:04)
I have to disagree.


I know you do, because you have an irrational dislike of religion and you're incredibly illogical. :(
Member
Posts: 15,867
Joined: Aug 7 2008
Gold: 233.00
May 22 2009 03:32pm
Quote (AiNedeSpelCzech @ Fri, May 22 2009, 09:14pm)
I know you do, because you have an irrational dislike of religion and you're incredibly illogical.  :(


If religion was created by man, and man was created by a common ancestor, what is the significance of religion?
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
Prev1121314151628Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll