Saying that evolution is true is just as much a statement of faith as saying Christ will live forever. How is that “smart”?
dw
And today DRF, I’m introducing you to a new idea. Empirical scientific fact… backed up by evidence, scrutiny and research. That’s very smart.
DRF
You are not introducing any new ideas. You appear to believe that my comment indicates acceptance of a particular belief system and, as a result, a lack of knowledge. Sorry, I have made no such statement. Such assumptions would show terrible ignorance and prejudice on your part.
Furthermore, “empirical scientific fact” with regards to evolution does not exist. It is not called the law of evolution, after all. Natural evolution has not accounted for the countless “tiny steps”, acting contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, required for life to exist as it currently does on our planet, let alone the universe. It is at best a very incomplete theory. Accepting such “evidence” is, by definition, faith.
reality
FIRST of all, DRF, you don’t understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Some brief research on ANY website OTHER than a Creationist one should clear it up for you (hint: closed systems). Unless you lack the knowledge necessary to grasp the concept. I’ll take your word for it that you do not.
I recommend reading Daniel Dennett’s ‘Darwin’s Dangerous Idea’ for a thorough, complete and scientifically satisfying explanation of how natural evolution DOES indeed account for those required “countless ‘tiny steps'”. (hint: cranes, not skyhooks. Get it?)
Finally, among the many empirical scientific facts supporting evolution:
-traits are inherited from generation to generation through genes (empirical fact, no?)
-mutations can indeed occur in aforementioned genes, altering traits (empirical fact, no?)
-quickly-reproducing populations of organisms (such as viruses) have been observed to undergo evolution via aforementioned means. Empirical fact? YES.
(furthermore, EVERY legitimate fossil EVER found has supported current evolutionary theory)
As you can see, dw’s assumptions regarding your belief systems are well-founded, as your ideas fly in the face of (..wait for it..) empirical fact and are only attractive to those wishing to protect a fragile dogma.
You’re an idiot.
Nerf Jihad
DRF: You apparently don’t understand what the difference between a Theory and a Law is, so I can’t be held personally responsible for treating your stupid little feelings with care or humanity. You’re an idiot for misunderstanding the 2nd law of thermodynamics and how it pertains to Evolution vs. The Cosmos. The Law of Entropy dictates that within a closed system, chaos and entropy will increase over time. This is true only in closed systems. The planet Earth is an open system. We’re being supplied with more energy than is mentally comprehensible from the sun. The caveat in question says that entropy can be reversed in a high enough energy environment, provided that reversal isn’t outside the bounds of the law of conservation of matter / energy. Basically, the earth is allowed to ‘go backwards’ up that ramp of entropy so long as the sun’s downward trend is faster than the earth’s upward trend.
Now that we’ve covered your first error in perpetuity, let’s give that second one a good yank.
“It’s just a theory” doesn’t mean “It’s just an idea he came up with after a night of heavy drinking, drug abuse, and sex with underage prostitutes.” It’s an explanation for a particular natural phenomenon. There’s the Law of Gravity, which says that massive bodies (not unlike your mother) are attracted to other massive bodies. The Theory of General Relativity introduced the idea of a curvature on three-dimensional spacetime. It also produced workable and testable predictions, something that Creationism can’t and won’t do.
You’re stuck in a bronze-age mythology that was stolen piecewise from the cultures surrounding it. Hell, your martyr didn’t even suffer that badly. He spent a few days nailed to some wood, got a spear rammed through him, resurrected, and ascended bodily to heaven (the details of this event aren’t even recalled accurately by the apostles (who wrote of Jesus decades after he could’ve lived, having had no actual contact with him (which puts another question forward: the romans had very strict taxation records, why wasn’t Jesus mentioned in the tax records, much less the periodicals of the era?))). Take Prometheus: The man who stole the secrets of fire from the gods. This guy was acting for our benefit as a species, and he’s punished for it. How was he punished? He was chained to the side of a canyon. An eagle would swoop down every day and tear out his liver, and every night it would grow back. This went on for centuries.
Jesus doesn’t have squat on Prometheus for suffering.
Lucid
As an outspoken atheist and fan of the sciences, I would dearly love to add to the discussion hre, but alas, DW, Reality, and Nerf Jihad have done quite the bang-up job, my input isn’t needed.
Lucid
Damn the stuck key!
Anon
Nerf Jihad, my friend, you win the internets.
Renay
Did the guy exist? Jesus, I mean. Jeez, grow up. Read a book.
Read a book.
I think that may be the problem, Renay. Read *another* book, maybe 😉
Don
@Nerf Jihad. An even better example of suffering is the holocaust. Did Jesus suffer more than those in the holocaust? Not even close.
Jesus was supposed to have sacrificed so greatly. He saved the entire human race. The worst murderers in the world would probably sacrifice themselves for an entire race. Isn’t it more of a sacrifice when it is for a smaller cause. Plenty of people have sacrificed themselves for others. Firemen sacrifice themselves for strangers all of the time. So their sacrifice is greater than Jesus’. But wasn’t Jesus without sin? Nope. “If you have anger in your heart you have committed murder”. Jesus screamed at, and drove the moneylenders out of the temple with beatings. That sounds pretty angry to me, so Jesus committed murder, according to him.
So yea, Jesus=ultimate sacrifice? Not even close.
V
A point in fact, DRF is correct if you take the time to actually read Charles Darwin’s Theory. Darwin himself postulated (as a proof of his theory) that within 50 years many, many transitional fossils would be discovered, ending any debate & proving gradual mutation through natural selection. He went on that the lack of these findings would “disprove” his theory. The scientific community’s fear of religious repression (well founded) has made Darwin’s theory an “untouchable third rail” of science for too long. A more current scientific / evidence based theory known as “punctuated equilibri” (sp) has been proposed, but “faith” in Darwin is preventing reasonable discussion as to the merits of this theory.
Remember, the heliocentric model came after the geocentric model, which was a “fact” of science. And we take on “faith” the concept that “man” once believed that the earth was flat, when we have large amounts of evidence that ancient man was more aware of the celestial realms than most of mankind is today.
The fact is, for all of our arrogance, we don’t know $#!7, and much of what we think we know is probably wrong, even with theories as simple as electronics.
“Modern man” can’t explain the million ton quarried stones at Baal Bek, and we seem to completely ignore how ill equipped humans are to survive natural selection, in both the macro and micro environment; or that natural selection should have eliminated most of the genetic weakness in humans from the gene pool while we evolved to our current state.
Well.. there is Ardi, who was found in or around Ethiopia. An Ape who is bi-pedal, but her feet have the ability to grasp. That seems fairly transitional, probably part of the family of apes who first started to stand erect.
If we aren’t related to any of these apes in the past, how did we get here then? Did god all of a sudden decide to create man as he was after apes? Maybe God is an ape. Obviously he resembles one since we were made in his likeness.
I’m no believer, but I do find the theory of the blind watchmaker interesting.
bobby
I like how some have chosen to illuminate us about the actions of Christ, as if they had been present at any or all of the events in his life. Then they tell us the meaning of his actions because they are such good judges of that which they did not witness. I guess everybody knows everything..no, wait, that’s….I mean…
Shanty
A better comment would have been “Just like Bugs Bunny will live forever”.
Jamie
I agree with DRF – there are two faiths exemplified in this poster!
Brilliant. I love smart graffiti.
I think what amuses me most, is how it’s such a a low key retort to an absurd poster.
It’s very British in that respect.
Saying that evolution is true is just as much a statement of faith as saying Christ will live forever. How is that “smart”?
And today DRF, I’m introducing you to a new idea. Empirical scientific fact… backed up by evidence, scrutiny and research. That’s very smart.
You are not introducing any new ideas. You appear to believe that my comment indicates acceptance of a particular belief system and, as a result, a lack of knowledge. Sorry, I have made no such statement. Such assumptions would show terrible ignorance and prejudice on your part.
Furthermore, “empirical scientific fact” with regards to evolution does not exist. It is not called the law of evolution, after all. Natural evolution has not accounted for the countless “tiny steps”, acting contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, required for life to exist as it currently does on our planet, let alone the universe. It is at best a very incomplete theory. Accepting such “evidence” is, by definition, faith.
FIRST of all, DRF, you don’t understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Some brief research on ANY website OTHER than a Creationist one should clear it up for you (hint: closed systems). Unless you lack the knowledge necessary to grasp the concept. I’ll take your word for it that you do not.
I recommend reading Daniel Dennett’s ‘Darwin’s Dangerous Idea’ for a thorough, complete and scientifically satisfying explanation of how natural evolution DOES indeed account for those required “countless ‘tiny steps'”. (hint: cranes, not skyhooks. Get it?)
Finally, among the many empirical scientific facts supporting evolution:
-traits are inherited from generation to generation through genes (empirical fact, no?)
-mutations can indeed occur in aforementioned genes, altering traits (empirical fact, no?)
-quickly-reproducing populations of organisms (such as viruses) have been observed to undergo evolution via aforementioned means. Empirical fact? YES.
(furthermore, EVERY legitimate fossil EVER found has supported current evolutionary theory)
As you can see, dw’s assumptions regarding your belief systems are well-founded, as your ideas fly in the face of (..wait for it..) empirical fact and are only attractive to those wishing to protect a fragile dogma.
You’re an idiot.
DRF: You apparently don’t understand what the difference between a Theory and a Law is, so I can’t be held personally responsible for treating your stupid little feelings with care or humanity. You’re an idiot for misunderstanding the 2nd law of thermodynamics and how it pertains to Evolution vs. The Cosmos. The Law of Entropy dictates that within a closed system, chaos and entropy will increase over time. This is true only in closed systems. The planet Earth is an open system. We’re being supplied with more energy than is mentally comprehensible from the sun. The caveat in question says that entropy can be reversed in a high enough energy environment, provided that reversal isn’t outside the bounds of the law of conservation of matter / energy. Basically, the earth is allowed to ‘go backwards’ up that ramp of entropy so long as the sun’s downward trend is faster than the earth’s upward trend.
Now that we’ve covered your first error in perpetuity, let’s give that second one a good yank.
“It’s just a theory” doesn’t mean “It’s just an idea he came up with after a night of heavy drinking, drug abuse, and sex with underage prostitutes.” It’s an explanation for a particular natural phenomenon. There’s the Law of Gravity, which says that massive bodies (not unlike your mother) are attracted to other massive bodies. The Theory of General Relativity introduced the idea of a curvature on three-dimensional spacetime. It also produced workable and testable predictions, something that Creationism can’t and won’t do.
You’re stuck in a bronze-age mythology that was stolen piecewise from the cultures surrounding it. Hell, your martyr didn’t even suffer that badly. He spent a few days nailed to some wood, got a spear rammed through him, resurrected, and ascended bodily to heaven (the details of this event aren’t even recalled accurately by the apostles (who wrote of Jesus decades after he could’ve lived, having had no actual contact with him (which puts another question forward: the romans had very strict taxation records, why wasn’t Jesus mentioned in the tax records, much less the periodicals of the era?))). Take Prometheus: The man who stole the secrets of fire from the gods. This guy was acting for our benefit as a species, and he’s punished for it. How was he punished? He was chained to the side of a canyon. An eagle would swoop down every day and tear out his liver, and every night it would grow back. This went on for centuries.
Jesus doesn’t have squat on Prometheus for suffering.
As an outspoken atheist and fan of the sciences, I would dearly love to add to the discussion hre, but alas, DW, Reality, and Nerf Jihad have done quite the bang-up job, my input isn’t needed.
Damn the stuck key!
Nerf Jihad, my friend, you win the internets.
Did the guy exist? Jesus, I mean. Jeez, grow up. Read a book.
Read a book.
I think that may be the problem, Renay. Read *another* book, maybe 😉
@Nerf Jihad. An even better example of suffering is the holocaust. Did Jesus suffer more than those in the holocaust? Not even close.
Jesus was supposed to have sacrificed so greatly. He saved the entire human race. The worst murderers in the world would probably sacrifice themselves for an entire race. Isn’t it more of a sacrifice when it is for a smaller cause. Plenty of people have sacrificed themselves for others. Firemen sacrifice themselves for strangers all of the time. So their sacrifice is greater than Jesus’. But wasn’t Jesus without sin? Nope. “If you have anger in your heart you have committed murder”. Jesus screamed at, and drove the moneylenders out of the temple with beatings. That sounds pretty angry to me, so Jesus committed murder, according to him.
So yea, Jesus=ultimate sacrifice? Not even close.
A point in fact, DRF is correct if you take the time to actually read Charles Darwin’s Theory. Darwin himself postulated (as a proof of his theory) that within 50 years many, many transitional fossils would be discovered, ending any debate & proving gradual mutation through natural selection. He went on that the lack of these findings would “disprove” his theory. The scientific community’s fear of religious repression (well founded) has made Darwin’s theory an “untouchable third rail” of science for too long. A more current scientific / evidence based theory known as “punctuated equilibri” (sp) has been proposed, but “faith” in Darwin is preventing reasonable discussion as to the merits of this theory.
Remember, the heliocentric model came after the geocentric model, which was a “fact” of science. And we take on “faith” the concept that “man” once believed that the earth was flat, when we have large amounts of evidence that ancient man was more aware of the celestial realms than most of mankind is today.
The fact is, for all of our arrogance, we don’t know $#!7, and much of what we think we know is probably wrong, even with theories as simple as electronics.
“Modern man” can’t explain the million ton quarried stones at Baal Bek, and we seem to completely ignore how ill equipped humans are to survive natural selection, in both the macro and micro environment; or that natural selection should have eliminated most of the genetic weakness in humans from the gene pool while we evolved to our current state.
Lucky not to be arrested:
http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=12245&start=0
Well.. there is Ardi, who was found in or around Ethiopia. An Ape who is bi-pedal, but her feet have the ability to grasp. That seems fairly transitional, probably part of the family of apes who first started to stand erect.
If we aren’t related to any of these apes in the past, how did we get here then? Did god all of a sudden decide to create man as he was after apes? Maybe God is an ape. Obviously he resembles one since we were made in his likeness.
I’m no believer, but I do find the theory of the blind watchmaker interesting.
I like how some have chosen to illuminate us about the actions of Christ, as if they had been present at any or all of the events in his life. Then they tell us the meaning of his actions because they are such good judges of that which they did not witness. I guess everybody knows everything..no, wait, that’s….I mean…
A better comment would have been “Just like Bugs Bunny will live forever”.
I agree with DRF – there are two faiths exemplified in this poster!