Where is the damn solid evidence for Darwinian macroevolution? All I have ever heard and read is marginal evidence and lots of supposition along with a non or atheistic worldview that specifically rules out the possibility of considering the existence of God. Science cannot imply God? Complexity cannot imply God? To you people, it cannot because evolution is true. Since evolution is true, complexity is due to evolution a priori. Tautological, completely.
Whenever a theory such as irreducible complexity is brought forth that might lend credence to the argument that you all so despise–the very NOTION of the existence of God–then research is done with the goal in mind (implicit or explicit) of finding an explanation that fits within evolutionary theory. Peer review rules out the possibility of even considering any outside-the-box thinking. Toe the pseudoscientific philosophical line or be ridiculed and marginalized.
I look at you blind believers in “science” as members of a political party. If I were to go into the Democratic National Convention and tell them that Republican ideas are correct, even if my ideas hold value they will be shunned. You Darwinists are essentially sore afraid that one day someone might posit something scientific that is unexplainable by any scientific means. And you might have to entertain the notion of God! *gasp* “But that isn’t science…we can’t consider it! God doesn’t exist, only infinitely finely-tuned physical laws that don’t vary and an essentially infinitely complex universe!” Chaotic haphazard happenstance. Yep, you guys have it all figured out.
Certainly you FSMers are among the most cynical and, yes, terrified of the notion that someday you might have to draw a conclusion that will force you to consider something that is not purely scientific (i.e. to you, that means something supporting Darwinian macroevolution) in your eyes.
I know, since I don’t agree with you guys’ philosophy I have a “poor understanding” of all things science, I’m ignorant of the plethora of evidence, blah blah blah. I’ve heard it. Save the glib condescension for the next generation of potential converts to either of your–dare I say–pathetic religions.
Nothing personal to any of you guys. I suppose you all have good intentions. I do wish you well and sincerely hope you find Truth.
-A Darwinian macroevolution-denying Physician
[this message was left as a comment on another thread]
Doesn’t it hurt your eyes to see in such harsh black and white? Throw in some grey there, soften the view.
- “All I have ever heard and read is marginal evidence and lots of supposition along with a non or atheistic worldview that specifically rules out the possibility of considering the existence of God.”
You’ve seriously never heard the suggestion of evolution guided by God, (or a god-like figure).
- “If I were to go into the Democratic National Convention and tell them that Republican ideas are correct, even if my ideas hold value they will be shunned.”
Probably, but only because to TELL someone known to be of different beliefs that yours are “correct” is arrogant and condescending. Also, a Democratic Convention is clearly an inappripriate place to discuss Republican ideas, perhaps the two should be kept to their own clearly marked arenas.
- “You Darwinists are essentially sore afraid that one day someone might posit something scientific that is unexplainable by any scientific means.”
There are oodles (noodles) of things that can’t be explained by science, all that means is we haven’t YET found out how to prove them. Because of this wonderful thing called evolution we are constantly learning, adapting, adjusting to our environment and it’s changing state and what we know about it. The scientific knowledge gained in the last hundred years alone is staggering, do you mean to suggest that a 19th c. doctor who believed a woman who died of an anuerysm actually died of a ‘weak constitution’ was a close-minded extremist? We only have what we are given, but we are given more every day.
- “Certainly you FSMers are among the most cynical and, yes, terrified…”
My favourite line. In my experience, terrified cynics tend to manifest themselves in loud, angry nay-sayers who live with their eyes closed and their fingers in their ears. So far all the Pastafarians I’ve come across are light-hearted and logical people open to relevant and appropriate discussions about beliefs. The operative word being ‘appropriate’. (I’ve noticed they’re also a heck of a lot more gracious in their arguments).
- “Save the glib condescension for the next generation of potential converts to either of your–dare I say–pathetic religions.
Nothing personal to any of you guys.”
No comment on that one, it’s just perfect on it’s own.
Haas anyone else here ever noticed that the line, “nothing personal,” is, in a manner similar to the phrase, “no offense,” almost always preceded by or found following a personally offensive statement. Give me some feedback on that, because I want to know if that is a global truth, as I suspect, or just an experience I’ve had.
@El Peatieablo Dec 13th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
@Wench Nikkiee
.
“Darwin gave up his faith when his daughter died in 1951. Origin of the Species was published in 1959.”
Typing a “19″ instead of an “18″ is understandable, but twice in a row (from somebody that doesn’t usually make that many errors) is just funny. :)
.
Serious thanks El Peatieablo :)) I completely missed that….obviously! Bloody time machines :p)
Cheers.
If you think I don’t usually make many errors, you should check out some of my posts after I’ve been playing with the IDiots on a few forums for more than a day or so…..absolutely woeful. I blame having to constantly read all that illiterate garbage!
Least that’s my excuse and I’m keeping it! (:))
@Wench Nikkiee
Anything for the wenches (unless it cuts into my fishing time). ;)
.
No but seriously, that’s the first time I’ve ever noticed you making a non-typo kind of error (and it is obvious that you actually knew what should have gone there).
.
On another note, 4 days until Holiday break (or the more P.C. term, “christmas” break). \/\/007 \/\/007 !
Oh. My. Word.
Is there an infinite amount of these people out there? Maybe we should stop replying and try to ignore them. After all, if we ignore them they don’t exist, right? Or does that only work for scientific theories?
Trying to talk sense into these people is irreducibly pointless.
Stupid fucking mammals.
RAmen
Good news for everyone! Evolution is right! You can stop debating! YOU’RE WELCOME!
I felt I had to reply on this:
I find it ironic you define yourself as a physician when clearly, the practice of medicine greatly depends on the clear knowledge of Evolution. To get an FDA approval of any medicine, it must go through rigorous tests by sampling it to a surprising number of animals. Once a company believes they’ve found a medicine that reaches their goal, they first test it on small animals, maybe mice or hamsters, then move on to bigger ones such as dogs, cats, cows, and pigs. As each tests passes, the animal next to be tested become more and more closely related to humans’ biological and genetic composition. The final test subjects, which comes to no surprise to evolutionists and biologists, are chimpanzees and humans. And it’s worth noting I learned this in a summer school field trip a long time ago.
With such a tight test in place, it is very rare to see any new, government approved medicine. The biggest reason that I can trust my medications when the doctor prescribes one is because I know it went through an incredibly unforgiving test sequence, unlike the many other drugs that unfortunately fails. Without the concept of evolution in place, I would trust my medications much less.
As for the proof, I can say it’s rare to see a solid proof of evolution (one may claim the peppered moth experiment is one, but even I’m skeptical at this). However, evolution is a scientific theory (as in, still debated in countries like this one) for the simple reason that it can be disproved in the following ways:
*Make a hamster appear spontaneously
*A donkey and a rhinocerous give birth to a human baby
*That a rabbit fossil is found with the same half-life as the dinosaurs
*And so forth.
What FSM brings to clear light is that religion cannot be disproved, let alone proven. The lack of proof AND disproof, thereof, makes Creationists un-scientific, and lacks the true qualification of being taught in a science class. Controversial theories, or theories with disproofs in them (e.g. Tri-color theory on the eye), are valid.
Putting it here because it seems nicely relevant for next time someone starts asking us for evidence of intermediate species. I heard on the news this morning that they’ve what they think is the land-based creature that returned to the sea and evolved into Wales - see here for the BBC story - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7150627.stm
“If I were to go into the Democratic National Convention and tell them that Republican ideas are correct, even if my ideas hold value they will be shunned.”
.
Do think about what you’re saying, PLEASE! If you went to the Democratic National Convention and told them Republican ideas are correct - well, I don’t know how it works in America, but here it seems that if somebody goes to, say, a New Labour conference and promotes Tory ideas which have obvious reason behind them, the Labour manifestos will *mysteriously* morph into something which at least approaches the Tories’.
But politics is corrupt, anyway, so by comparing religion to it, all you’re doing is putting down religion in general.
.
And, well, if there’s no solid evidence for SCIENCE (which is, like philosophy, actually, by definition, the search for truth and evidence), then where the hell is the evidence for GOD? So, the universe can’t be ruled by laws which are solid but indescribably complex, but it can be ruled by a God who is
- A ‘jealous God’
- A ‘loving God’
- A cruel God
- A kind god
- Jesus
- Jesus’ father
- A rapist
- A murderer
- Omnipotent
- Unable or unwilling to stop evil
- Supremely powerful
- Matched in power by the Devil
AND
- Invisible?
Yeah…. definitely more plausible…
.
There’s a fundie group who come into our school sometimes - lovely people, except when they start preaching - and the best argument they can come up with for God seems to boil down to ‘you can’t see him, therefore he exists’.
Gravity is a definite; if you drop a lead weight on a fundie, it will fall on their head.
Centrifugal force is a definite; if you spin a bucket of water around on a piece of string, is ‘God’ holding the water in the bucket?
Evolution is not a definite; it is, however, a theory which has been proved far more efficiently than the concept of ‘God’, and, as a logical human being, I will tend towards the better-proved theories.
.
The day you can offer me as many proofs for God as I can offer you proofs against, I will convert. But that day hasn’t come yet, and I doubt it ever will.
.
.
Sorry for the long post, people.
“that you all so despise–the very NOTION of the existence of God”
Sorry, hi, I’m a Pastafarian. We believe the world was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Maybe you have us confused with someone else?
Kindest regards,
Expie
“You Darwinists are essentially sore afraid that one day someone might posit something scientific that is unexplainable by any scientific means. And you might have to entertain the notion of God! *gasp* “But that isn’t science…we can’t consider it! God doesn’t exist, only infinitely finely-tuned physical laws that don’t vary and an essentially infinitely complex universe!” - or perhaps keep searching for the “scientific” explanation - before we fall flat on our faces and praise the FSM for it’s magical wonders.
Blasphemer!
I hope he simmers slowly withe the tomatoes and parsley in hell, for pastafarianisim is truth and all who oppose it will be dealt with.
the evidence lies in the fact that a flying spaghetti monster is as likely to exist as your god. We think that a large amount of tasty pasta is more interesting than a bearded giant man in the sky who, out of all the other spices, created us to look like him.
How’s about this, prove your ID theory and I will become a christian. I am sure that god will forgive me, after all, all I have to do is ask right? Until then keep your ignorance to yourself. It is pompous overly sanctimonious asses such as yourself that apply theirt own brand of meta-science to these arguments and serve to only confuse the poor marginally educated homeschoolers that seem to be making up the front ranks of christian soldierdom these days.
Certainly you FSMers are among the most cynical and, yes, terrified of the notion that someday you might have to draw a conclusion that will force you to consider something that is not purely scientific
OMG LOL were worshipping a FREAKIN’ SPAGHETTI MONSTER lol.
charles darwin studied and observed and tried to draw the most logical conclusions from the available evidence. no one risks eternal unpleasantness if they disagree with one of his points. try questioning a sunday school teacher about how noah could have swam to australia and then came back bringing, kangaroos,tasmanian devils, the funnel web spider,and the countless other creatures native only to that continent. how many trips would he have to make? and two of each no less, carrying 2 kicking kangaroos would have been a huge challenge in itself, the funnel web spiders are highly venemous and would have to be handled very gently. the duckbill platypus, and tasmanian devils dont get along either so that would have made that swim a 2 tripper right? theories can be changed if proof is staring you right in the face. you are required to believe what the pastor tells you without question and face eternal torture if you disagree. thats why native americans were called indians, the church said the earth was flat and the mere suggestion of a round world meant the loss of your standing in the community, your job and probably your life as it was heresy to attempt to use common sense. these people are trying to hold on to their wealth by any means possible. if god spoke to you in a dream and told you to sacrifice your child would you do it? he has asked that before of abraham. or has that part been altered out? you cant let someones interpretation of a 3500+ year old book cloud common sense.
If it isn’t explainable, we ain’t interested. That’s kind of the point about the whole FSM phenomena - why can’t the FSM lie at the limit of science, instead of a Christian (or other god)? The saddest thing about your viewpoint is that it leads us nowhere - I guess that is the reason you are a physician. The reason you will never publish anything in a peer-reviewed journal is not that you think outside the box, but that your box is empty. You can’t publish a paper that just attacks someone else’s research for being incomplete - you have to come up with alternate explanations based on the same evidence. And there are only so many papers you can publish claiming “god did it” “irreduceable complexity” “god works in mysterious ways,” etc. The bible is finite as well. So twenty years from now, even your “Journal of Bible-based non-macroevolutionary biology” is going to be pretty boring and repetitive.