Quote from kjkent1:
I think you're missing the point, despite your extremely thoughtful analysis.
I'm not arguing the substance of evolution, Darwinism or any particular Theism. I am arguing about what I view as extremely disingenuous argumentation, that benefits no one and annoys everyone.
The originator of this thread is taking an extreme position, by stating, in effect, that the theory of evolution is lunacy, and his position is not supported by any evidence that he presents.
The proffered report of a scientific investigation can be said to draw inferences that do not necessarily follow from the experimental data. But, this doesn't make the investigation unscientific, and it absolutely doesn't render the report lunatic.
However, a person who advances the premise that a scientific finding is lunatic, because the conclusions drawn don't necessarily follow from the facts, is stretching out to reach for lunacy, because there is nothing lunatic about drawing a reasonable inference from scientific data.
I don't suggest that Z is lunatic. I suggest that he intentionally posts an extreme view, that he knows is not supported by the facts, in order to annoy others into arguing with him.
Then, when he can't convince his opponent, he resorts to ad hominem attacks in order to drive them away.
Precisely why he does this, and routinely so, is unknown to me. But, he does it nevertheless -- and it is quite annoying.
Quote from kjkent1:
I suggest that he intentionally posts an extreme view, that he knows is not supported by the facts, in order to annoy others into arguing with him.
Very straightforward.Quote from drmarkan:
So if you can disprove creationism that makes creationism scientific? The point I am making is that the only dispute that is going on between Darwinism and Creationism is how it all began. Your unwillingness to see that there is a possibility of a link between science and religion shows your unwillingness to look at all of the possibilities out there. A higher being with knowledge that is infinitely greater than ours could have created the universe in a way that we are unable to understand. This is a theory that is just as valid as the Big Bang.
Scientists are unable to prove without a doubt that the Big Bang Theory is scientific fact. That is why it is called a theory in the first place. I wonder why scientists are unable to accept the possibility that there is something greater than ourselves out there that made it all happen.
By the way, I like how you call it religious dogma when you can not absolutely disprove that God exists. The Big Bang theory then is just Darwinist dogma and deserves no more respect than Creationism.
Quote from roberk:
Here is what the other side says:
By Richard Dawkins, Fellow of the Royal Society, Oxford Don and author of many popular books on Darwinism:
'It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution,
that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)'.
In case you think he regrets that statement:
Dawkins: "I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true. "
Quote from jem:
but notice he said "believe". That statement of his can be read in two ways.
You could also read it as saying --- that those who assert that Evolution is scientifically proven...
But evolution is actually a fact . As a fact it is scientifically proven. Do you say a scientifically proven fact is still a belief ?Quote from jem:
but notice he said "believe".
That statement of his can be read in two ways.
You could also read it as saying --- that those who assert that Evolution is scientifically proven...