The Scopes Monkey Trial is 100 years old this year; surprisingly we still have evolution-deniers

[Into the Night]

And now starts the REAL bullshit posts.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

They'll go on and on and on with made up or incorrectly applied logic fallacies.

Fallacies are not 'applied'. They are YOUR fallacies. Only YOU can correct them.

This is DREADFULLY boring.

Do you ever bore yourself as much as you bore everyone else?

If you're bored, it's your own problem, not mine.

Illiteracy: Plural used as singular.

 

[Cypress]

Nothing fully explains "evolution". You know why? Because we are deaf dumb and blind creatures stumbling through a world we barely understand but it makes us feel less afraid if we convince ourselves we know what's going on. And what's the old saying? The more we learn the more we realize how much there is we don't know.

Science wouldn't be any fun if we knew the answers to all questions.

Obviously, evolutionary biology is an active area of research, and many questions have not yet been answered, even if we have a general framework for biological descent with modification worked out.

You could say the same about any scientific discipline; our knowledge is provisional and we're constantly trying to answer new and existing questions.

 

[Yakuda]

Science wouldn't be any fun if we knew the answers to all questions.

Obviously, evolutionary biology is an active area of research, and many questions have not yet been answered, even if we have a general framework for biological descent with modification worked out.

You could say the same about any scientific discipline; our knowledge is provisional and we're constantly trying to answer new and existing questions.

We will never know the answers to all the questions but some people think science eliminates the need for God. Not only is that arrogant it shows just how stupid we actually are.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Science wouldn't be any fun if we knew the answers to all questions.

Out of the many ways that I have experienced fun
in this usually trying but occasionally rewarding lifetime,
contemplating the vagaries of science has rarely been among them.

Ten days in Vegas never included much scientific study for me.
Eating, drinking, playing golf, being entertained, and rutting
don't involve too much scientific curiosity---
unless, of course, I've been doing it wrong.

 

[Cypress]

We will never know the answers to all the questions but some people think science eliminates the need for God.

It's baloney. The survey's I have seen report that half of physicists and 60 percent of biologists are religious.

Galileo, Newton, Kepler were practicing Christians.

I think it's reasonable to infer that experimental science really is a western innovation precisely because of western monotheism - natural philosophers of the early modern period went looking for, and expected to find lawful behavior in nature, because they believed in a providential law-giver.

Not only is that arrogant it shows just how stupid we actually are.

I don't think intelligence can be measured on the basis of an atheist worldview, or a religious worldview.

I do think if one isn't keeping an open mind about the deepest questions of cosmic reality, then they aren't really truth seekers.

 

[Yakuda]

It's baloney. The survey's I have seen report that half of physicists and 60 percent of biologists are religious.

Galileo, Newton, Kepler were practicing Christians.

I think it's reasonable to infer that experimental science really is a western innovation precisely because of western monotheism - natural philosophers of the early modern period went looking for, and expected to find lawful behavior in nature, because they believed in a providential law-giver.


I don't think intelligence can be measured on the basis of an atheist worldview, or a religious worldview.

I do think if one isn't keeping an open mind about the deepest questions of cosmic reality, then they aren't really truth seekers.

 

[Yakuda]

It's baloney. The survey's I have seen report that half of physicists and 60 percent of biologists are religious.

Galileo, Newton, Kepler were practicing Christians.

I think it's reasonable to infer that experimental science really is a western innovation precisely because of western monotheism - natural philosophers of the early modern period went looking for, and expected to find lawful behavior in nature, because they believed in a providential law-giver.


I don't think intelligence can be measured on the basis of an atheist worldview, or a religious worldview.

I do think if one isn't keeping an open mind about the deepest questions of cosmic reality, then they aren't really truth seekers.

They all died in the 1600s. Is that really the examples you want to use? Lmfao

That's climate change morons for sure fauci

 

[NiftyNiblick]

natural philosophers of the early modern period went looking for, and expected to find lawful behavior in nature, because they believed in a providential law-giver.

Isn't it possible that seeking moral absolutes in nature--not killing, not stealing, not raping--
is a self-preservation instinct manifesting itself in the evolutionary process?

The species generally lives a less stressful life by living a certain way,
and so those "morals codes" chemically and bio-electronically evolve into our physical constitution--

that's what I consider possible.

 

[Cypress]

They all died in the 1600s. Is that really the examples you want to use? Lmfao

That's climate change morons for sure fauci

You made the claim that there is a widespread perception of war between science and religion.

Kepler, Galileo, Newton are the proof that the West's unique innovation of experimental science is probably bound up with the West's monotheistic tradition. These men went looking for natural laws and expected to find them because they believed in a Supreme law-giver.

The tale about a war between science and religion is overblown.

You are free to deny global warming, that kind of denial last had traction in the 1980s and 1990s.

 

[gmark77]

We will never know the answers to all the questions but some people think science eliminates the need for God. Not only is that arrogant it shows just how stupid we actually are.

"According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."

Scientists and Belief

When President Barack Obama announced on July 8, 2009, that he would nominate renowned geneticist Francis Collins to be the new director of the National

www.pewresearch.org

Why does a lack of belief in God make one 'arrogant'? Does that ONLY apply to Yahweh? OR does it also apply to Al'lah? How about Aharu Mazda?

 

[Into the Night]

Science wouldn't be any fun if we knew the answers to all questions.

Science isn't questions or answers, Sybil.

Obviously, evolutionary biology

There is no such thing as 'evolutionary biology'.

is an active area of research,

You cannot research what does not exist.

and many questions have not yet been answered,

What 'questions'?? What 'answers'?? Void argument fallacy. You are bullshitting again, Sybil.

even if we have a general framework for biological descent with modification worked out.

Biology is not ascent or descent, or 'modification'.

You could say the same about any scientific discipline; our knowledge is provisional and we're constantly trying to answer new and existing questions.

Science is not answers or questions, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

We will never know the answers to all the questions but some people think science eliminates the need for God. Not only is that arrogant it shows just how stupid we actually are.

Science is completely atheistic. It simply doesn't care whether any god or gods exist or not.

'We'?? How many of you are there?

 

[Into the Night]

It's baloney. The survey's I have seen report that half of physicists and 60 percent of biologists are religious.

What survey? Argument from randU fallacy.

Galileo, Newton, Kepler were practicing Christians.

So?

I think it's reasonable to infer that experimental science really is a western innovation precisely because of western monotheism - natural philosophers of the early modern period went looking for, and expected to find lawful behavior in nature, because they believed in a providential law-giver.

Science is not religion, and is completely atheistic.

I don't think intelligence can be measured on the basis of an atheist worldview, or a religious worldview.

Intelligence is not an objective term.

I do think if one isn't keeping an open mind about the deepest questions of cosmic reality, then they aren't really truth seekers.

There is no such thing as 'cosmic reality'. Science is not a Universal Truth.

 

[Into the Night]

Isn't it possible that seeking moral absolutes in nature--not killing, not stealing, not raping--
is a self-preservation instinct manifesting itself in the evolutionary process?

The species generally lives a less stressful life by living a certain way,
and so those "morals codes" chemically and bio-electronically evolve into our physical constitution--

that's what I consider possible.

Try English. It works better.

 

[Into the Night]

You made the claim that there is a widespread perception of war between science and religion.

There is, mostly because of people like you that don't understand what religion is or what science is. They are NOT mutually exclusive.

Kepler, Galileo, Newton are the proof that the West's unique innovation of experimental science is probably bound up with the West's monotheistic tradition. These men went looking for natural laws and expected to find them because they believed in a Supreme law-giver.

The tale about a war between science and religion is overblown.

There isn't any such war.

You are free to deny global warming, that kind of denial last had traction in the 1980s and 1990s.

The laws of thermodynamics have not been falsified in the 1980's or the 1990s', Sybil. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. You are also ignoring statistical mathematics. You are also ignoring all the predictions for Doom and Gloom that never came to pass.

 

[Into the Night]

"According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."

Scientists and Belief

When President Barack Obama announced on July 8, 2009, that he would nominate renowned geneticist Francis Collins to be the new director of the National

www.pewresearch.org

Why does a lack of belief in God make one 'arrogant'?

It doesn't.

Does that ONLY apply to Yahweh? OR does it also apply to Al'lah? How about Aharu Mazda?

What about Wotan? Or does it also apply to Apollo? How about Janus?

 

[Yakuda]

You made the claim that there is a widespread perception of war between science and religion.

Kepler, Galileo, Newton are the proof that the West's unique innovation of experimental science is probably bound up with the West's monotheistic tradition. These men went looking for natural laws and expected to find them because they believed in a Supreme law-giver.

The tale about a war between science and religion is overblown.

You are free to deny global warming, that kind of denial last had traction in the 1980s and 1990s.

Where? Cite it

Name three current scientists.

Cite where you claimed that. You aret really trying to suggest science is filled with church goers are you?

You don't pay attention to you? Fucking sad. I mentioned the bullshit and you reinforced my point that the climate criers have determined that the science on climate change is settled. So much for your high minded bullshit about science is open to new evidence. That's a load of horseshit. You people think everyone is as stupid as you.

 

[Cypress]

Isn't it possible that seeking moral absolutes in nature--not killing, not stealing, not raping--
is a self-preservation instinct manifesting itself in the evolutionary process?

The species generally lives a less stressful life by living a certain way,
and so those "morals codes" chemically and bio-electronically evolve into our physical constitution--

that's what I consider possible.

Okay, but honestly that doesn't make sense to me.

We have been inculcated with a Judeo-Christian ethos for so many thousands of years, it's become so ingrained in us, that sometimes we start to think that universal love, mercy, charity are scientific.

Evolution by natural selection has nothing to do with ensuring all members of your species flourishes. Evolution is an arms race to ensure your own genetic code stays in the game, even at the expense of rivals and strangers among your own species. That's why noted atheist Richard Dawkins titled his book "The Selfish Gene".

You don't see chimpanzee troops bringing food to a rival troop, or sharing resources with them. To the extent there is cooperation and altruism among individual packs, families, tribes it is based on self interest.

The reason parables like the Good Samaritan was so radical for it's time, is that it taught self sacrifice even on behalf of complete strangers or even rivals who are never in a position to reciprocate or pay you back. The themes of social justice and self sacrifice found in the Hebrew prophets and New Testament were unprecedented in world literature to that point, and they are not rooted in Darwinian principles of evolution.

 

[Damocles]

A Century Ago, a High School Teacher From a Small Tennessee Town Ignited a National Debate Over Human Evolution​

The Scopes “monkey trial” garnered international attention, and the battle that was fought continues in some form in other states today

“On the surface, the trial was about something that seemed small—whether a high school teacher who taught evolution in his biology class broke the law,” says Brenda Wineapple, author of Keeping the Faith: God, Democracy and the Trial That Riveted a Nation, published last year. “But it was really about change, and how we embrace it or resist it.”

Loading…

www.smithsonianmag.com

Let me channel my inner evolution denier... (see if I can keep a straight face)....

It's just a "Theory"... so it isn't settled! The Intelligent Design "theory" is just as applicable!

Satan tricked us with fossils and permineralization experiments!

(How'd I do?)

 

[Trumpet]

This is very poor wording on your part. "Bahavior" is arbitrary, or is governed by rules, and is never random. Hence, there is no such thing as "random behavior." It is a contradiction in terms.

Otherwise, Darwin's theory of evolution is based entirely on random occurrence of events.


Examples involving engineered things are inherently invalid and don't work. Evolution is like shaking up a solution of many substances and the heavier substances settling to the bottom, the lightest substances floating to the top, liquids separating based on density, etc.


I believe you mean a hypothetical evolution of eyes since no one knows how eyes evolved, or if Darwin's theory is even correct.


Correct. All acceptable proposals for how eyes might have evolved per Darwin's theory of evolution involve very small changes over long time periods.


It's better to say that it is simply entirely random. The moment you claim a "probability," you put yourself on the hook to explain both what that probability is and how you computed it.


Correct ... according to Darwin's theory. If some Christians are correct, everything happened a few thousand years ago, and I'm going to have some explaining to do when I get called into Peter's office.


Well, it has the advantage of working over a long but unknown period of time. It could be millions of years. It could be billions of years. Nobody knows.