Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 7/30/2018 at 2:50 AM, Bristolhibby said:

If someone truly believes in religion, then there is no point arguing with them.

I could just as easily ask for proof that a god exists, then trash everything said.

I am interested in the evelotoonary science in this thread though.

J

Your bang on !!

The only "proof" of any God that I know of is a load of man made handwritten fairy tales (Bible(s)) - by men (who didn't know any better) in the iron age

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, glasgow jock said:

Your bang on !!

The only "proof" of any God that I know of is a load of man made handwritten fairy tales (Bible(s)) - by men (who didn't know any better) in the iron age

To be fair, the 1st / 2nd century AD (Christianity) and the 6th / 7th century AD (Islam) aren't really the Iron Age 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, biffer said:

To be fair, the 1st / 2nd century AD (Christianity) and the 6th / 7th century AD (Islam) aren't really the Iron Age 

But it was the Dark Ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Kimba said:

Salvation is always entirely FREE though, so even if you did not do anything else, you would still be going to heaven.  You just wouldn't have any rewards, which will be taking up positions in the heavenly government. 

This is fascinating stuff. Approx how many are in the heavenly government. I had always assumed it to be an autocracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Larky Masher said:

But it was the Dark Ages.

Welllllllllllll...........

The term ‘Dark Ages’ was originally coined to cover the period between classical antiquity and the ‘modern’ era. So from about the 4th or 5th century to the 9th or 10th. So it wouldn’t include the period when the New Testament was written. But it was also a period specifically referring to Europe, so it wouldn’t cover the writing of the Qu’ran either. 

So, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Eisegerwind said:

This is fascinating stuff. Approx how many are in the heavenly government. I had always assumed it to be an autocracy.

4 . yes defo 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mariokempes56 said:

4 . yes defo 4.

Can you show your working out. This thread is not just a matter of posting any old shite you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did dogs evolve from wolves?

If we can't agree what is meant by dog, evolve and wolf, we won't get far. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, exile said:

Did dogs evolve from wolves?

If we can't agree what is meant by dog, evolve and wolf, we won't get far. 

Isn’t it more accurate to say that neither evolved from the other, but that both share a common ancestor? Given the similarities between the species, that ancestor probably bore many common features of both dog and wolf. Out of interest, could a dog & wolf breed? If so, aren’t they classed as not yet being divergent species?

I might be talking a bit of crap here...trying to remember the stuff I read a while ago on it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either way, my point is, if we can't agree what a species is (tricky) , we won't get anywhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Huddersfield said:

Isn’t it more accurate to say that neither evolved from the other, but that both share a common ancestor? 

I believe that through DNA all dogs can be traced back to the Asian Wolf and the timeline is quite short compared to human evolution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

Spot on.

And the same point has to be made about the existence/influence of god. As far as I am aware not even those who staunchly believe in god have managed to unearth irrefutable proof of the existence of their god. Right I am out of here before I get shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, biffer said:

To be fair, the 1st / 2nd century AD (Christianity) and the 6th / 7th century AD (Islam) aren't really the Iron Age 

Smart boy wanted !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a man of science I had always believed in evolution, but then one day I was thinking about myself and I realised that it's not possible for something so perfect to have come into being by chance. I had to have been created by something really amazing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, glasgow jock said:

Smart boy wanted !!

I don't actually understand what this means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Toepoke said:

Smart boy wanted?

 

in context to what he replied to though - don't know if he agrees, disagrees, insults, compliments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, George Saint said:

As a man of science I had always believed in evolution, but then one day I was thinking about myself and I realised that it's not possible for something so perfect to have come into being by chance. I had to have been created by something really amazing.

I feel much the same way. I believe that I created myself. I had a wee bit of help from others, but my near perfectness is mainly down to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, biffer said:

in context to what he replied to though - don't know if he agrees, disagrees, insults, compliments.

He thinks you are being a smart arse but, for some reason, he is trying to be polite about it. Ally Bongo sent me the photo version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

He thinks you are being a smart arse but, for some reason, he is trying to be polite about it. Ally Bongo sent me the photo version.

I'm just being smarter than him. Not sure if that's a high enough bar to be a smart arse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, George Saint said:

As a man of science I had always believed in evolution, but then one day I was thinking about myself and I realised that it's not possible for something so perfect to have come into being by chance. I had to have been created by something really amazing.

Im sure the Great White Shark feels the same not to mention the cockroach

After a nuclear holocaust he will be here - you wont

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Im sure the Great White Shark feels the same not to mention the cockroach

After a nuclear holocaust he will be here - you wont

He's quoting a Stewart Lee joke about Richard Dawkings. I think he is anyway, it's been changed up a bit, but he was also watching Stewart Lee recently so i guess i'm right.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, biffer said:

I'm just being smarter than him. Not sure if that's a high enough bar to be a smart arse. 

Self praise in no praise at all !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×