Re: Religion retards scientific disovery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier
it is currently the indisputably superior account of the origin of the species.
From what I understand, physics and math don’t back up the theory.
Take Creation out of the discussion…..what are the other competing theories about the origin of species?
How did new species evolve?
How do explain the evolution of one very small component of species…..the eye? That one tiny part of the whole body is said to be statistically impossible to have evolved. And that’s just one part of the whole. Is it time? Just throw more time at the problem?
I am not trying to be confrontational, I am interested in your answers.
Re: Religion retards scientific disovery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardRoark
How do explain the evolution of one very small component of species…..the eye? That one tiny part of the whole body is said to be statistically impossible to have evolved. And that’s just one part of the whole. Is it time? Just throw more time at the problem?
How 'bout reading up on things before posting crap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml
(etc.)
It seems religious beliefs also suppress one's ability to google.
Re: Religion retards scientific disovery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardRoark
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier
it is currently the indisputably superior account of the origin of the species.
From what I understand, physics and math don’t back up the theory.
Take Creation out of the discussion…..what are the other competing theories about the origin of species?
How did new species evolve?
How do explain the evolution of one very small component of species…..the eye? That one tiny part of the whole body is said to be statistically impossible to have evolved. And that’s just one part of the whole. Is it time? Just throw more time at the problem?
I am not trying to be confrontational, I am interested in your answers.
Howard, are you really serious. They eye? Statistically impossible. C'mon.
Re: Religion retards scientific disovery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Bigguns
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardRoark
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier
it is currently the indisputably superior account of the origin of the species.
From what I understand, physics and math don’t back up the theory.
Take Creation out of the discussion…..what are the other competing theories about the origin of species?
How did new species evolve?
How do explain the evolution of one very small component of species…..the eye? That one tiny part of the whole body is said to be statistically impossible to have evolved. And that’s just one part of the whole. Is it time? Just throw more time at the problem?
I am not trying to be confrontational, I am interested in your answers.
Howard, are you really serious. They eye? Statistically impossible. C'mon.
Remenber, I am dense. Tell me how I am wrong.
Re: Religion retards scientific disovery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardRoark
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Bigguns
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardRoark
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier
it is currently the indisputably superior account of the origin of the species.
From what I understand, physics and math don’t back up the theory.
Take Creation out of the discussion…..what are the other competing theories about the origin of species?
How did new species evolve?
How do explain the evolution of one very small component of species…..the eye? That one tiny part of the whole body is said to be statistically impossible to have evolved. And that’s just one part of the whole. Is it time? Just throw more time at the problem?
I am not trying to be confrontational, I am interested in your answers.
Howard, are you really serious. They eye? Statistically impossible. C'mon.
Remenber, I am dense. Tell me how I am wrong.
Already answered by a previous post.
Re: Religion retards scientific disovery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Bigguns
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardRoark
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Bigguns
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardRoark
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier
it is currently the indisputably superior account of the origin of the species.
From what I understand, physics and math don’t back up the theory.
Take Creation out of the discussion…..what are the other competing theories about the origin of species?
How did new species evolve?
How do explain the evolution of one very small component of species…..the eye? That one tiny part of the whole body is said to be statistically impossible to have evolved. And that’s just one part of the whole. Is it time? Just throw more time at the problem?
I am not trying to be confrontational, I am interested in your answers.
Howard, are you really serious. They eye? Statistically impossible. C'mon.
Remenber, I am dense. Tell me how I am wrong.
Already answered by a previous post.
Explain to me (yourself, not The Googles) why the semi formed nonfunctional eye offered a selective advantage. And at what stage in evolution did it occur, thus insuring that all vertebrates have the exact same basic infrastructure? And why did the semi formed nonfunctional eye give an advantage in all environments simultaneously, so that in the end every species had the same basic template?
Atheists are ignorant sheep, saying whatever they are told to say by their masters in the zeitgeist.
Although maybe you guys are those intermediary beings who have not yet fully evolved intellectually, so I guess in that sense your existence makes a compelling argument for your case.
Re: Religion retards scientific disovery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardRoark
Atheists are ignorant sheep, saying whatever they are told to say by their masters in the zeitgeist.
Although maybe you guys are those intermediary beings who have not yet fully evolved intellectually, so I guess in that sense your existence makes a compelling argument for your case.
While not a complete atheist, I do take issue with this. It is the atheists who have usually, thought about, struggled with and ultimately rejected the religions of their families. They are the ones who have thought things through and not blindly accepted what they were taught. If religion is correct, then which is it? Is it the religion that says that the moon gave birth to the earth? I recall one about a giant holy crocodile. Are the Taoists right about creation or is it the Buddhists? Maybe the Hindus or is it some tribe in Middle Africa that has it right?
There are a thousand creationist ideas, so which one is it that's right? Yours? Why is that? Is it because it's what your church told you to believe?
Re: Religion retards scientific disovery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJZiggy
If religion is correct, then which is it? Is it the religion that says that the moon gave birth to the earth?
Oh that's easy!
"Great A'tuin is the star turtle (genus Chelys Galactica) that carries the Discworld through space. 10,000 miles long and nearly as big as the disc itself, not much is known about A'tuin, even it's sex remains a mystery. A mystery that the astronomers of Krull were determined to solve, unfortunately their space ship - The Potent Voyager - was misappropriated.
The Discworld is supported atop A'tuin's back by the four great elephants Berilia, Tubul, Great T'Phon and Jerakeen, and the whole assemblage is circled by the small discworld sun and moon."
All we need to figure out is what the Earth's star turtle's name is and, bingo!
Re: Religion retards scientific disovery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJZiggy
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardRoark
Atheists are ignorant sheep, saying whatever they are told to say by their masters in the zeitgeist.
Although maybe you guys are those intermediary beings who have not yet fully evolved intellectually, so I guess in that sense your existence makes a compelling argument for your case.
While not a complete atheist, I do take issue with this. It is the atheists who have usually, thought about, struggled with and ultimately rejected the religions of their families. They are the ones who have thought things through and not blindly accepted what they were taught. If religion is correct, then which is it? Is it the religion that says that the moon gave birth to the earth? I recall one about a giant holy crocodile. Are the Taoists right about creation or is it the Buddhists? Maybe the Hindus or is it some tribe in Middle Africa that has it right?
There are a thousand creationist ideas, so which one is it that's right? Yours? Why is that? Is it because it's what your church told you to believe?
You've just managed to come of with a bogus stereotype for both sides, Ziggy--a bad one of course for the good people, and an unjustifiably lofty one for the damned atheists.
I would suggest that there about an equal percentage of total sheep--people just believing the dogma spewed to them--rightly or wrongly--among Christians, among believers in pagan religions, and among atheists. That might be considered the low end--although there is a lot to be said for faith too. I would further suggest that there is a much larger percentage of deep thinkers on the high end who have explored the alternatives and come to rational conclusions among Christians than among either pagans or atheists. There is also that large segment, of course in the middle who have a degree of faith and a degree of inclination to come to an intellectual decision, which probably is the majority in all three groups.