30 Jul 14
Originally posted by C HessActually it has to cover the beginning. For without the beginning, there would be nothing to evolve, even if that were possible. It is usually said to start with the Big Bang, etc., etc., etc.
Evolutionary theory doesn't deal with cause or purpose, and it only attempts to describe
the nature of biological life. Not exactly a poster boy for your definition of religion there.
Atheism doesn't fit either since it's not concerned with any of these criteria for religion.
30 Jul 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThere are several definitons of religion and as I pointed out, the theory of evolution will fit at least one of them.
Get a better dictionary RJ, this is from the Oxford online dictionary:[quote]1 The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion
1.1 A particular system of faith and worship: the world’s great religions
1.2 A pursuit or interest followed with grea ...[text shortened]... on is specifically to do with the supernatural except in sense 1.2 when it is used analogically.
30 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMy point exactly. Do you think that when Kelly said 'dog' he was including wolves? One would think he would have used a different word/phrase if that was the case.
Mildly amusing.
Canis lupus is the main heading of the species, to which they both belong.
So in one example, he was saying that you can't even cross a sub-species boundary, and in the other example he happily included over 150 000 species.
Glad to see that you are amused by his obvious lack of forethought.
30 Jul 14
Originally posted by RJHindsIt {evolution}is usually said to start with the Big Bang, etc., etc., etc
Actually it {evolution} has to cover the beginning. For without
the beginning, there would be nothing to evolve, even if that were
possible. It {evolution}is usually said to start with the Big Bang,
etc., etc., etc.
Only by idiots.
30 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by C HessIt is like this you change a little here and a little there in a dog, it is a dog
For crying out loud! Two versions:
1. Accumulated small changes lead to bigger changes.
2. Accumulated small changes lead to bigger changes, but at some arbitrary point, this
process stops, and so there's a limit to how big these changes can really get.
Now, I ask you, which one of those do you think requires some level of explanation?
changing. You go beyond that and you are now claiming that you could end
up with a cat, so somewhere out there would be a huge number of different
types of dats, since you have dogs slowly morphying into something else,
all the while not losing any parts of the required systems within it that it
needs to stay alive!
Not only do they keep on functioning sometimes new parts of new systems
spring forth that may not be required yet, and these do not rob any of the
required systems to remain a dog of anything they require to function
properly. Because you know small changes turning a dog into a cat is no
big deal!
The arguments I have read about the eye forming or other brand new body
parts has the same type of steps of only a huge amount of faith can believe
in! A light sensitive spot just happen by chance, then everything that could
have made that spot useful just randomly mutated into being either right
before, during, or after! The odds be dammed that random mutations that
are not being directed to any specific work just happens to do very specific
work to make it happen!
There have been claims that nerves that were one type just changed into
another to make the eye useful and connect it to body parts that also just
changed to make it all useful,. These leaps in faith are huge, but as a true
believer knows it is true, it gets preached, this stuff is just factual or so
stinking close if you don't believe you must be less than!
If you don't see that as a religion in my opinion, you are a true believer!
It is so bad, if you don't believe you most certainly should NOT be allowed to
express another view within schools, because anything not in agreement
needs to be shown as stupid, and worthless.
Kelly
30 Jul 14
Originally posted by C HessMy claim is that a dog has several systems within it that make up a dog.
Actually, you're making the positive claim. As I have already demonstrated in this or the
other thread (I honestly can't keep track anymore), the logical conclusion is that if you
allow small changes to accumulate they result in big changes. A big change would be a
land-living mammal form evolving into a whale, or an eyeless form evolving eyes. (These ...[text shortened]... you decided that this showstopper exist somewhere in nature, you need to
point it out, not me.
These could be changed a little here or there, but it will remain a dog. So
what do we see in life with dogs, they change and you still get dog kinds!
It is very true with everything else in life, butterflies to butterflies! I see
what I claim is true! For those that believe they see changes from one type
of animal into another type, well they see it in the fossil, because you know
fossils speak to them and actually mouth the words, I turned into this from
that! Either that, or someone says in their head then speaks it out loud, I
think this could be related to that, others agree, and it is now a fact or as
close as you can come to it.
Kelly
30 Jul 14
Originally posted by KellyJayI bet you cannot define exactly what makes a dog a dog. In other words your claim is actually meaningless. It is only still a dog because you choose to say it is a dog. If you encountered a Chihuahua and a Great Dane in the wild, you would not think they were the same species.
So what do we see in life with dogs, they change and you still get dog kinds!
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
30 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayLet me see if I understand you correctly. Because you haven't seen evolution produce
My claim is that a dog has several systems within it that make up a dog.
These could be changed a little here or there, but it will remain a dog. So
what do we see in life with dogs, they change and you still get dog kinds!
It is very true with everything else in life, butterflies to butterflies! I see
what I claim is true! For those that believe they ...[text shortened]... e related to that, others agree, and it is now a fact or as
close as you can come to it.
Kelly
entirely new organs or remove existing ones, to your mind, one has to have an incredible
amount of faith to believe that entirely new "kinds" of life can be produced by evolution,
because the right tiny changes has to happen in just the right time and order, and your
plausibility calculator tells you that the chances of this happening once, let alone for
thousands of different "kinds", are practically non-existant. Is that your argument in a
nutshell?
30 Jul 14
Originally posted by C HessBasically, I believe he is saying that it must happen very fast, because there are too many parts that can't wait around for thousands of years to change, because they would die before that would happen. This probably isn't exactly his point , but I think it would need to be explained.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Because you haven't seen evolution produce
entirely new organs or remove existing ones, to your mind, one has to have an incredible
amount of faith to believe that entirely new "kinds" of life can be produced by evolution,
because the right tiny changes has to happen in just the right time and order, and your
...[text shortened]... sands of different "kinds", are practically non-existant. Is that your argument in a
nutshell?