Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is Darwinism the religion of atheists?

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    My beliefs are not entrenched, if compelling evidence comes along that suggests a creator I will amend my thinking accordingly.

    After 14 BILLION years without any evidence, I wouldn't hold my breath ......

    But time is relative, I suppose.


  • Options
    #33
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    Kivaro wrote: »
    After 14 BILLION years without any evidence, I wouldn't hold my breath ......

    But time is relative, I suppose.

    No, nor I, but that's science for you, always prepared to amend when new evidence comes to light, unlike say, y'know, religion.


  • Options
    #34
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    [...] prepared to amend when new evidence comes to light, unlike say, y'know, religion.
    Religion is evolving all the time to meet new memetic requirements.

    I'd love to be a fly on the wall during a meeting between a risen Jesus and a few of today's fundie christians.


  • Options
    #35
    Da Shins Kelly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,048 ✭✭✭Da Shins Kelly


    To answer your original question, no, dear.


  • Options
    #36
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Da Shins Kelly wrote: »
    To answer your original question, no, dear.

    Good for you!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Da Shins Kelly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,048 ✭✭✭Da Shins Kelly


    mickrock wrote: »
    Good for you!

    It is pretty good, thanks.


  • Options
    #38
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    mickrock wrote: »
    RichieC wrote: »
    that there is a worldwide conspiracy between scientists and leading atheists to hide the obvious supernatural hand in our creation.

    You're letting your mind run away with you.

    theres very little to be gained from debating a person who cannot see the logical conclusion to the arguments they are regurgitating.


  • Options
    #39
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    RichieC wrote: »
    theres very little to be gained from debating a person who cannot see the logical conclusion to the arguments they are regurgitating.

    You've hit the nail on the head.


  • Options
    #40
    Max Power1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,272 ✭✭✭✭Max Power1


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    I'm afraid they have, on countless occasions in the Origins thread, if you care to cast your eye over them. Or read people like Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins. There is no credible science behind ID, never has been, unlikely to ever be, even some of the original ID proponents are backing away from it as it circles the plughole.
    There is however, credible science's more dangerous retarded cousin, "pseudo science". Oft used by creationists and other similar nutjobs.


  • Options
    #41
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    “For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any critical analysis of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.”
    ―James A. Shapiro, Dept of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Chicago


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Another worthless thread, thanks mickrock.


  • Options
    #43
    18AD
    Registered Users Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭18AD


    Sorry if I missed this in an earlier post.

    In what way do you think it's "quasi-religious"?

    And most importanlty, what if it is?


  • Options
    #44
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    mickrock wrote: »
    RichieC wrote: »
    theres very little to be gained from debating a person who cannot see the logical conclusion to the arguments they are regurgitating.

    You've hit the nail on the head.

    honestly, youre embaressing yourself now...


  • Options
    #45
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Another worthless thread, thanks mickrock.

    Cheers!


    “Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest... The origin of species — Darwin’s problem — remains unsolved."
    --Scott F Gilbert, Professor of Biology, Swarthmore College


  • Options
    #46
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    You keep using these quote about what genetics and evolution don't explain, but you completely ignore us when we show you stuff that DOES.

    If you want a debate, you're going to actually have to enter into one.


  • Options
    #47
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    More quote mining, no surpise here, however appeals to authority are more to be pitied than laughed at. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/the-unexpected.html


  • Options
    #48
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    RichieC wrote: »
    honestly, youre embaressing yourself now...

    Try to improve your spelling and punctuation and you might be better understood.


  • Options
    #49
    sephir0th
    Registered Users Posts: 390 ✭✭sephir0th


    mickrock, every thread you've started has been a great example of the theological fallacy 'god of the gaps'.


  • Options
    #50
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    mickrock wrote: »
    RichieC wrote: »
    honestly, youre embaressing yourself now...

    Try to improve your spelling and punctuation and you might be better understood.

    why do you insist in dragging out youre complete failure with this type of post....

    spelling and punctuation take a back seat when on my andriod.


  • Options
    #51
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    More quote mining, no surpise here, however appeals to authority are more to be pitied than laughed at.

    Quoting professors of biology are not appeals to authority in this case.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zP8vZSkhro


  • Options
    #53
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    "Communism has never come to power in a country that was not disrupted by war or corruption, or both."
    --John F. Kennedy, President of USA 1961-1963


  • Options
    #54
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    mickrock wrote: »
    Quoting professors of biology are not appeals to authority in this case.
    So if we can find more biologists who accept neo-Darwinism, do we win? I was always a fan of Top Trumps.


  • Options
    #55
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,233 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Might I humbly submit that evolution as a theory doesn't explain, so much as describe...? It's a substition, as opposed to a superstition. It's a fact whether you believe it or not.


  • Options
    #56
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Sarky wrote: »
    You keep using these quote about what genetics and evolution don't explain, but you completely ignore us when we show you stuff that DOES.

    I must have missed where you explained what it does explain.

    What does it explain?


  • Options
    #57
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    Mickrock, what exactly is your religion/belief?


  • Options
    #58
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    18AD wrote: »
    In what way do you think it's "quasi-religious"?

    And most importanlty, what if it is?

    In the sense that people have faith in it to explain the diversity and complexity of life.

    Even if it can't explain these, some people still tend to cling to it like a religion.


  • Options
    #59
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,233 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    sephir0th wrote: »
    mickrock, every thread you've started has been a great example of the theological fallacy 'god of the gaps'.
    And a skinny fecker indeed he must be to fit through the tiny gaps that are left. Wonder how he fits that big ol' beard through...


  • Options
    #60
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,233 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    mickrock wrote: »
    18AD wrote: »
    In what way do you think it's "quasi-religious"?

    And most importanlty, what if it is?

    In the sense that people have faith in it to explain the diversity and complexity of life.

    Even if it can't explain these, some people still tend to cling to it like a religion.
    Faith may be an issue if one is required to 'explain the diversity'. But not if one sees the theory as a description of a process. Diversity is simply an emergent property of that process. See? Easy! Hope this clarifies things for you mickrock. You do seem to have a fierce bee in your bonnet over this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    18AD
    Registered Users Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭18AD


    mickrock wrote: »
    In the sense that people have faith in it to explain the diversity and complexity of life.

    Even if it can't explain these, some people still tend to cling to it like a religion.

    I hope I'm not misinterpreting your position.

    So are you arguing that people shouldn't have faith? By faith, I assume you mean trust.

    Or, that people shouldn't have wrong opinions?


Advertisement