Spider Lad

I saw exactly what I expected to see on Question Time last night. An hour of bullying with no real open discussion or debate.

I've thought about this in the past and I'm totally with you there. If you enjoy it who gives a shit? so to speak...

Again, you cannot compare the misconceptions of the past and the methods at which they arrived at their conclusions with evolution as it stands today and the body of evidence that supports it. You know nothing about evolution, let alone the proof we have for it.

SLeep paralysis. It's to do with the mechanism that stops you from moving when you're dreaming.

You're obviously not aware of the massive weight of evidence that supports and demonstrates evolution. If your 'something' was to happen in the future or however you want to put it, then it would represent the greatest single reversal of thinking in human history. What we know about evolution can hardly be compared to other past instances where previously known 'facts' have been debunked. However, should anything come to light that were to contradict the theory we currently hold true, then as scientists we would accept that.

This feels a little reductio ad absurdum to me. Ben, you're talking about experience not religion. Some experiences could be described by some people, through lack of understanding or education, as religious. But that doesn't make it so. You appear to be so tied up in your romaticised 'spirituality'. Have you anything to offer regarding the actual topic in hand? This thread was originally about creationism and evolution, (I think Al would concede that 'Creationists vs Atheists' isn't really what he is getting at, plenty of theists aknowledge and accept the fact of evolution). Hence the accusations of waffling.

Sorry buddy, but you're waffling again. There's plenty of evidence of other animals than us displaying moralistic and altruistic behaviour towards each other. Are you going to attempt to explain that, by infering that they're trying to focus on what's true about reality? Tosh. If we think along evolutionary lines it becomes easy to understand why this behaviour (or, genes that predispose an organism to this behaviour) can become widespread. Think now, that speciation happens when colonies of an organism are isolated and environmental factors shape the gene pool (natural selection). It is easy to see how displaying these types of behaviour can be advantageous for that gene in an environment when you are only likely to come across other animals that are close enough relatives to you to be likely to share that gene also.

Incrediblyclose to the true origins of the three main branches of theism we have now. Pitching to people to buy a steak in their religion.

Anybody else get the impression that trials riders tend towards the bouldering side of climbing rather than the long pitch. I think parallels can be drawn between the two.

It isn't 'a means' to anything though. Evolution has no motive in that sense. Scientists may become motivated to direct their arguments or put forward the evidence to certain people but evolution itself is a fact, it happened.

He's just a stupid kid from a stupid little island nobody cares about. Perhaps education is substandard there and their isolation allows superstition and mysticism to replace it. He might grow up one day.

I believe that the possibility of there being a god, the god which occupies the minds of the vast majority of believers in the world today, is so remote, that to consider it, even for a second, is still to afford it a disproportionately large chunk of my lifetime. However, I would be foolish to dismiss it as a statistical probability. I don't believe in fairies, flying unicorns or mermaids but for the sake of argument it is not posssible for me to 100% dismiss the possibilty of them existing. When I want to check on my fence, I use the Hubble telescope. But I still have a fence.

Yarp. (The ultimate in arrogance and laziness, don't understand it, unwilling to educate or discover anything about it, must have been that there god, then. Our god though). I can still see the fence my friend. I fear it's the creationist contingent who do not aknowledge it.You appear to be grossly underestimating the enormity of the gulf between the two stables of evidence. Their psycho-battery form of child abuse has clearly affected you. You're just a Pascallian faggot.

And in this debate you may have noticed the creationists don't have a clear understanding of evolution and even refuse to evaluate the evidence for themselves. Whereas I'm pretty sure anyone educated in evolutionary theory will have a very good understanding of the creationist side. Maybe you should start being a little more proactive in looking at the evidence for yourself then. I'm confident that soon this particular fence will be nothing more than a speck on your horizon.

You are yet to offer anything in this topic regarding the evidence for evolution or creationism. You see my point? You come on and talk about some philisophical way of viewing it, as usual, with that fence wedged right up your arse. You are Mr Diplomacy, the wise old owl. (I aggree with Al here) Philosophy can be useful though, if only for consolation. Infact, the problem with the blinkered mindset of creationists can be expressed through Plato's idea of essentialism.

It'd probably be a huge grin. Like any genuine scientist I'd accept it. I care about the truth and the evidence that supports it. There is currently NONE to support the existence of a deity. I don't have anything invested in there not being a god, I have no need for there to not be a god. However, the devout cannot claim the equivalent and so you see how it is not possible for some to engage in open debate. (Cue long non-relevant ramble response)

No, two arseholes. One for shitting, one for talking. Diarrhoea can be excreted from either one.

Yeah, those still born babies have been sinning away like right little bastards inside the womb... You make me very angry but I also feel sorry for you. You're just a stupid child at the moment but hopefuly one day you will wake up.

I think you meant 'some scientists' can appear to be dogmatic, not 'science' itself being like a religion. You're talking about people, not science itself. Science just is. I think you're stuck in the mindset (created by religious apologist and the like) that science and religion are two battling entities. Science has revealed some undeniable evidence and truths that have shown to contradict and rubbish religious teaching. Religious zealots in turn have tried to combat it thus inventing this science vs religion stance. Science isn't motivated by the goal of disproving religion (I think it does a good job of that all by itself). True some scientists now use it to actively disprove religious myths but, I think, only as a defensive measure. Religion as I see it is the enemy of reason and free thinking.

Ben, I can never be bothered to read your posts in their entirety, mainly because they tend to waffle (particularly in this thread). I think you may be little off there though. I know how quantum physicists can moot all day, each struggling to assert their own idea on the subject). Partcularly if it's something which is difficult to prove or measure. When you're looking at the mutation of DNA, the visible divergent evolutionary paths of isolated colonies of the same species, fossils, petrified forest records, isotope dating through radioactive decay(carbon dating), etc.. this is all physical evidence that can be seen, not just ideas. These things aren't just invented or falsified to support an idea. And it's a lot harder to shoehorn physical evidence into fitting a previously conceived idea, when it pretty much speaks for itself. Unlike some aspects of physics which often amounts to no more than tossing ideas around and number crunching til it fits(yes, I'm aware that's an extremely crude way of putting it).

Not to mention that 99% of all species of organism that have ever existed (He "created") have become extinct.

I think you mean 'evolutionary biologist', and they are arguably historians themselves. They report observations they make and discover verifiable fact. There is no bias, unless you'd consider a tendency towards the truth a bias.

You can't 'force' a mutation in such a specific sense. Evolution results from mutation. If that mutation is advantageous then it results in that mutation surviving in the gene pool, evolution driven by natural selection.