Topic: Unhappy Random thoughts...

[MrDWhitey]

Frankly Athiuen, I wouldn't trust them with my thang in their mouth.

They got teeth remember.

[Athiuen]

Reminds me of that scene from 'The shawshank redemption'.

[Cannonofdoom]

I'm not arguing with you, but: Evolution is not directly observable. By definition. Because you aren't millions of years old and have not directly observed evolution.

Genetic ADAPTATION has been directly observed, but that is not proof of evolution (hence it's continued designation as "Theory") Even though it is largely the most accepted non-deistic theory of origins, it is not yet an observable process, just like the formation of solar systems is not yet an observable phenomenon.

[Athiuen]

Yeh, I obviously meant 'isn't' there because of the what you have posted.  No-one (except God perhaps), observed evolution.  I've changed it now, thanks. 


I gotta get into a habit of reading my posts after I post them.  LERN2SPEEL Ath...

[GamesPoet]

Well if God is included, then its been observed, in a manner of speaking.

[Cannonofdoom]

Well if God is included, then its been observed, in a manner of speaking.

Human observation was implied. 

[t12161991]

I'm not arguing with you, but: Evolution is not directly observable. By definition. Because you aren't millions of years old and have not directly observed evolution.

Genetic ADAPTATION has been directly observed, but that is not proof of evolution (hence it's continued designation as "Theory") Even though it is largely the most accepted non-deistic theory of origins, it is not yet an observable process, just like the formation of solar systems is not yet an observable phenomenon.

Well... If I'm going to get semantic (I am) you can never prove anything in science. Only disprove. In addition, technically everything we have ever observed is a "theory" because there is always the chance that we will disprove it. See Theory of Relativity, which, until a month ago or so, was considered essentially a law of physics. Finally, you don't have to directly obverse something in order to draw conclusions about it. Quantum physics, dark energy theory, so on and so forth. Heck, because we're involving faith, even the existence or lack thereof of a God is a conclusion we have all drawn through indirect observation.

Also, we have observed evolution, in a manner of speaking.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/darwin/textonly/bio_essay1.jsp

[Cannonofdoom]

I'm not arguing with you, but: Evolution is not directly observable. By definition. Because you aren't millions of years old and have not directly observed evolution.

Genetic ADAPTATION has been directly observed, but that is not proof of evolution (hence it's continued designation as "Theory") Even though it is largely the most accepted non-deistic theory of origins, it is not yet an observable process, just like the formation of solar systems is not yet an observable phenomenon.

Well... If I'm going to get semantic (I am) you can never prove anything in science. Only disprove. In addition, technically everything we have ever observed is a "theory" because there is always the chance that we will disprove it. See Theory of Relativity, which, until a month ago or so, was considered essentially a law of physics. Finally, you don't have to directly obverse something in order to draw conclusions about it. Quantum physics, dark energy theory, so on and so forth. Heck, because we're involving faith, even the existence or lack thereof of a God is a conclusion we have all drawn through indirect observation.

Also, we have observed evolution, in a manner of speaking.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/darwin/textonly/bio_essay1.jsp

Again, adaptation (as the writer himself labelled it) is not an observation of evolution. You are quite correct in all of your other points. I was never arguing for or against any of that, I was simply correcting semantics that were revealed to have been a typo. There's no debate right now.

[t12161991]

Going back, I'm guilty of not reading the article thoroughly. My apologies.

[Athiuen]

So the point stands: We all believe/have faith in something/someone.

[patsy02]

...but it's no less flawed than atheistic or theistic evolution.

Yes it is.

[Athiuen]

...but it's no less flawed than atheistic or theistic evolution.

Yes it is.

In the sense that they all require a certain faith to believe.

Actually I agree with you.  Creationism is stupid.

[Fandir Nightshade]

So the point stands: We all believe/have faith in something/someone.

Nope Atheism is athe absence of faith.

[Cannonofdoom]

So the point stands: We all believe/have faith in something/someone.

Nope Atheism is the absence of faith.

Well, not technically. See, the fact is that a deity or lack thereof cannot be proven or dis-proven because it is impossible to observe. Therefore atheism requires a faith in an absence of a deity, because you cannot prove that there isn't one, just like you cannot prove that there is one. Therefore, atheism cannot be called an absence of faith, it is more correctly defined as the belief that there is no supreme being. Atheism is, in one sense of the term, a religion itself.

[rufus sparkfire]

Disbelieving in something for which there is no proof is the default position. You only need faith to believe without proof.

[Shadowlord]

Complaining about US religious connection while shutting the fuck up about more and more implemented Sharia retardness in their own countries is a healthy proof of blatant ignorance.

[Aldaris]

Disbelieving in something for which there is no proof is the default position. You only need faith to believe without proof.

Saying "I can't really say one way or the other until I see some evidence either way" would be the default position, wouldn't it?

Complaining about US religious connection while shutting the fuck up about more and more implemented Sharia retardness in their own countries is a healthy proof of blatant ignorance.

Yes Shadowlord, we were in danger of forgetting to make every discussion containing the word "religion" about parallel societies in the west. Thank god you fixed that!

[Shadowlord]

Yes Shadowlord, we were in danger of forgetting to make every discussion containing the word "religion" about parallel societies in the west. Thank god you fixed that!

Lovely how you thank God for that. 

[Aldaris]

I knew you'd like it!
 

[warhammerlord_soth]

Lovely how you thank God for that. 

I wasn't around.


He had to choose the next best thing.

[Shadowlord]

He had to choose the next best thing.

That's why he failed! 

Never settle for second best...

[Cannonofdoom]

Disbelieving in something for which there is no proof is the default position. You only need faith to believe without proof.

That's my point. The belief that there is not a deity is a tenet for which there is no proof. In order to believe there is no deity without proof that there is no deity you require faith that there is not one. Saying that there is no faith required to believe there is no god is like saying there is no faith required to believe there is no giant meteor careering towards the earth right this second. There's no proof there IS one, so therefore believing there isn't one does not require faith? I would say it is a great act of faith on all our parts to believe there is not an apocalyptic space rock on a direct intercept course with our planet, however small the chances that it exists. In the absense of proof, all opinions are based on faith.

Saying "I can't really say one way or the other until I see some evidence either way" would be the default position, wouldn't it?

You beat me to the punch! 

[Aldaris]

That's why he failed! 

At, like, identifying the topic of the conversation?
 

"Why does NO ONE EVER CONSIDER THE CHILDREN?!"

[Shadowlord]

At, like, identifying the topic of the conversation?
 

It really is my own fault for not telling you.

My GW Hate detector has a new update that includes the "Sharia Lover Show Down" app.

[Aldaris]

My GW Hate detector has a new update that includes the "Sharia Lover Show Down" app.

Okay, let me get this straight: being offended that harassing gays based on religion is all right in a western society equals "Shariah Lover"?

I think your app needs some serious patching.