Religion vs. Evolution

[Guest Fire and Knives]

Look, all things are equally true, though some things can become more true than others due to interference, such as guns, or the internet.

 

Just make up some shit that you like and feel comfortable with and go with that. It's what everybody else is doing anyway.

[{''({o..o})''} 0]

You spoiled my plans chave.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

well i did kinda disappear out of here last night after my first little post, and I apologize for jumping to conclusions in some places where I shouldn't. After all, I am just learning.

 

I have made this my New Year's Resolution. Basically to figure out where I lie in the philosophical world. While I have my thoughts, they aren't deep, aren't studied, and I can't back them up at all...so I'm looking to change that. 

 

I guess I feel that this is a piece of me that is missing, like a deeper plane. Sure, that sounds odd, but I am just going to sit back and read anything I can get my hands on in terms of why we are here, how we got here, and where we are going, among other things.

 

2005: Rando searches for the meaning of life

Mr Piss will not kill you within the next week.

[Angle-plex 0]

VS.

[Ted the Poster 0]

You want to fight Jesus?

[Guest Failed Mascot]

Agnes is bigger than Jesus in today's society.

[Nighthawk 0]

There was a 17 page thread about this, you know.

 

Straight up, though, evolution in the common vernacular doesn't hold up at all. It's a terrible theory. So study that, or you'll be forced to concede things which are retarded. Shoot.

No, "evolution in the common vernacular" wouldn't hold up, because the "common" people using it are even dumber than the dolts here, who have A) never studied it, B) don't understand it, or C) both.

 

Really, how much study have you done on the theories and proof that support evolution?

More than you.

 

Evolution is commonly used as a catch all to describe several different theories, and in this instance, appropriately so, as it is "Religion vs. Evolution", meaning the assumption has already been made that's it's a choice between the two, when, in the concrete sense, they have no relation to each other. Your A, B, and C standards I agree with, and as we've seen in this thread, and my other one, that's what we're dealing with here. This is akin to talking to a child about sex. I'm leaving out estrogen and zygotes and pulling out because I'm over these people's heads.

 

Evolution as a word means less than love these days.

[Richard 0]

No. Animals don't have souls, thus they don't go to Heaven or Hell. They just die.

lucky bastards

[Guest Cerebus]

IDRM is correct in this case. Pope John Paul, like Pius before him, has declared that the scientific theory of evolution does not conflict with Catholic dogma. Basically, there is enough evidence to show that it is more than a hypothesis and accepting it is not in conflict with Catholicism.

[Jingus 0]

Ooh, I can't wait to see this.

 

EDIT: Between IDRM and Coey, I mean.

Same here, I have no idea which one of these overachieving icons of contrariness would come out on top here, especially since the subject at hand is at least vaguely related to the academic pursuits of both men. All I know is that it'd be fun as hell to watch. Alright you two, it's round one, FIGHT!

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Fuckin' onlookers.

[Guest Contentious C]

There was a 17 page thread about this, you know.

 

Straight up, though, evolution in the common vernacular doesn't hold up at all. It's a terrible theory. So study that, or you'll be forced to concede things which are retarded. Shoot.

No, "evolution in the common vernacular" wouldn't hold up, because the "common" people using it are even dumber than the dolts here, who have A) never studied it, B) don't understand it, or C) both.

 

Really, how much study have you done on the theories and proof that support evolution?

More than you.

 

*snip a bunch of blah blah blah*

 

Evolution as a word means less than love these days.

I seriously, seriously, SERIOUSLY doubt that you've studied it more than me or are somehow more familiar with it than I am. I study biochemistry & molecular biology for fuck's sake - this is bread & butter/read-it-at-night-to-the-kids stuff to me. It's not a terrible theory; it's one with a Hell of a lot of holes due to the course of time. And given that your remarks thus far haven't contained anything of real substance, you're only instilling more doubt. Next you'll be describing intelligent design without even realizing it, or talking about infinite numbers of monkeys typing "War and Peace"...

 

To anyone reading this thread: don't take his word for it. Hell, don't take mine. Just get "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins and the theories behind evolution & natural selection will make a Hell of a lot more sense.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

There was a 17 page thread about this, you know.

 

Straight up, though, evolution in the common vernacular doesn't hold up at all. It's a terrible theory. So study that, or you'll be forced to concede things which are retarded. Shoot.

No, "evolution in the common vernacular" wouldn't hold up, because the "common" people using it are even dumber than the dolts here, who have A) never studied it, B) don't understand it, or C) both.

 

Really, how much study have you done on the theories and proof that support evolution?

More than you.

 

*snip a bunch of blah blah blah*

 

Evolution as a word means less than love these days.

I seriously, seriously, SERIOUSLY doubt that you've studied it more than me or are somehow more familiar with it than I am. I study biochemistry & molecular biology for fuck's sake - this is bread & butter/read-it-at-night-to-the-kids stuff to me. It's not a terrible theory; it's one with a Hell of a lot of holes due to the course of time. And given that your remarks thus far haven't contained anything of real substance, you're only instilling more doubt. Next you'll be describing intelligent design without even realizing it, or talking about infinite numbers of monkeys typing "War and Peace"...

 

To anyone reading this thread: don't take his word for it. Hell, don't take mine. Just get "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins and the theories behind evolution & natural selection will make a Hell of a lot more sense.

I have a Degree in Palaeobiology and Evolution and did my disertation on the evolution of foraminifera throughout the palaeozoic chalk of southern England..

 

I know more than Coey. He is my bitch.

 

And IDRM is right about evolution being flawed. And Dawkins is more journalist than scientist. I'm surprised anybody so knowledgeable is pimping him.

[Nighthawk 0]

I seriously, seriously, SERIOUSLY doubt that you've studied it more than me or are somehow more familiar with it than I am.  I study biochemistry & molecular biology for fuck's sake - this is bread & butter/read-it-at-night-to-the-kids stuff to me.

 

You see, I'm one of those guys who knows everything. Like they have in the movies.

 

It's not a terrible theory; it's one with a Hell of a lot of holes due to the course of time.

 

Well, yeah.

 

And given that your remarks thus far haven't contained anything of real substance, you're only instilling more doubt.  Next you'll be describing intelligent design without even realizing it, or talking about infinite numbers of monkeys typing "War and Peace"...

 

What did you think I was trying to say? I haven't actually argued anything yet. Just to kill the suspense, I have argued for every word of the Bible being literal and won or stalemated. If you actually want to argue religion vs evolution, that will be the outcome. It seems like you're past that level, however, so maybe we don't have anything to argue. Evolution is flawed, you apparently recognize it. Wonderful.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

What is that infinite number of monkeys thing supposed to mean anyway? It always seemed interesting, but I never got what it was used for or what it was related to.