Kirk Cameron: "Evolution is unscientific", atheism impetus behind school shootings

Status
Not open for further replies.
happyfunball said:
"Life" is not some mystical status that inanimate objects obtain. Learn about cellular biology and then see if you can make this same argument.


How much do you know about Physiological Selection? This guy is asking me "at what point does the evolving specie become infertile to the parent stock?"

Do you know the answer to this question? I believe it he is leading me into a physiological selection discussion. And he also asked me what was Darwin's main objection to his own theory.
 
JayDubya said:
I'm an atheist. Hi. Moral relativism is bullshit.

yeah, you're quite the iconoclast. i'd ask why you think moral relativism is bullshit, but then i remember that atheists are often as dogmatic as their fundamentalist peers.
 
methane47 said:
Personally I believe in adaptation as in adapting to an environment like a disease gaining an immunity to medication...

And Technological Evolution where Humans become smarter as their tools become more complex.

Rather then random, spontaneous mutation...

How can you possibly believe in adaptation and not believe in the mechanism that brings about the variation making adaptation possible? This doesn't even make sense.
 
ItsInMyVeins said:
I'm not in the mood to read all that caus I'm so damn tired right now, but I bet it doesn't really explain where everything originated at first and what was before.

Um, it doesn't set out to try to explain that...

The big bang is simply saying (this is ultra simplified) the universe used to be much more infinitely dense and smaller than it is now (as space is expanding)
 
The reason why evolution is so important to science is that evolution is the unifying theme of biology.

As for origin of life their are many hypothesis of how life began. Al Oparin, tried to test his hypothesis by exposing an atmosphere rich in hydrogen, methane, water, and ammonia to an electrical discharge which forces amino acids to form. Then he envisioned that the organic molecules would, over vast spans of time, accumulate in the shallow seas to form an "organic soup."

Then he evisioned smaller organic molecules to combine to form polymers. Evidence shows that organic molecules may have formed and accumulated on rock or clay surfaces rather than the primordial seas. Also laboratory experiments have confirmed that organic polymers from spontaneously from monomers on hot rocks or clay surfaces.

Scientist have never been able to create life in the labratory but they have formed protobionts (assemblages of abiotically produced organic polymers). They have recovered protobionts that resemble living cells in many ways. These protobionts exhibit many functional and structural attributes of living cells. They often divide in half after they have sufficiently grown. Protobionts maintain an internal chemical enviroment that is different from the external enviroment and some show the beginnings of metabolism.

Also they have formed microspheres by adding whater to abiotically formed polypeptides. Some produce electrical potential across their surface and can absorb materials from their surrondings. They can also respond to changes in osmotic pressure as though membranes enveloped them, even though they contain no lipids.

However, it is a MAJOR or rather major series of steps to go from simple molecular aggregates such as protobionts to living cells.

I don't see why their needs to be soo much Christianty bashing. I am a christian myself and I see evolution as a means of how God created the earth.
 
Drinky Crow said:
yeah, you're quite the iconoclast. i'd ask why you think moral relativism is bullshit, but then i remember that atheists are often as dogmatic as their fundamentalist peers.

Atheism and dogmatism should be polar opposites in theory, but that is for another debate.

As for morality, there is some increasing evidence that humans are not the only morals animals in the world and that our morals may not be so different. Give this a read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?ex=1332043200&en=84f902d5855a9173&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
 
happyfunball said:
Atheism and dogmatism should be polar opposites in theory, but that is for another debate.
No, they aren't. The soviets proved well enough that you don't need religion to have dogma.
 
mckmas8808 said:
How much do you know about Physiological Selection? This guy is asking me "at what point does the evolving specie become infertile to the parent stock?"

Do you know the answer to this question? I believe it he is leading me into a physiological selection discussion. And he also asked me what was Darwin's main objection to his own theory.

Inability to reproduce does not differentiate b/w species for one thing, so his question is irrelevant.

Evolution is not Darwin's theory, but whatever. I don't know his main objection to the theory of evolution but whatever it is, that is ancient history. The theory of evolution is supported by an incredible amount of empirical evidence.
 
Hitokage said:
No, they aren't. The soviets proved well enough that you don't need religion to have dogma.

Dogma is just as irrational as religion. Atheism is a rational conclusion based on the evidence. Does that mean you can have atheists that have dogmatic beliefs, sure. But, the two have nothing in common.
 
mckmas8808 said:
"at what point does the evolving specie become infertile to the parent stock?"
It's all relative, and there are varying degrees of compatability, like how the horse and donkey are close enough to produce mules. Members of a group will remain compatable in-group, but if it splits into two non-interbreeding populations, then one or both are free to change enough so that they become entirely incompatable. That's why the definition of a species is "can't or don't interbreed" rather than just "can't".
happyfunball said:
Dogma is just as irrational as religion. Atheism is a rational conclusion based on the evidence. Does that mean you can have atheists that have dogmatic beliefs, sure. But, the two have nothing in common.
Well, isn't that self-serving.
 
Drinky Crow said:
yeah, you're quite the iconoclast. i'd ask why you think moral relativism is bullshit, but then i remember that atheists are often as dogmatic as their fundamentalist peers.

Some people get confused to what moral relativism actually means. Moral relativism != Hey, lets all do what we want because we are all right. Its simply an observation. Morals are defined by a society / group, based on time, location, culture, religion etc. Within that group / society they are the set of morals the members must obide by - thats the relative part, it can change on who, where and when you are.
Ofcourse morals change and evolve, and yes even the Christian "absolute" morals, not to mention the bible doesnt even tackle most of todays moral quandaries. Even something simple as thou shalt not murder ( or is it kill?, because if its murder than the statement is: it is illegal to kill someone illegally - duh), is not very simple is it? Capital punishement, wars, abortion etc. Or thou shall not steal - downloading music, profit model in capitalist markets etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom