Why do you believe in the religion, or lack there of, that you follow? Just curious.

I'm a Seventh-Day Adventist. I believe in this because it follows the Bible the closest. I believe in the Bible. I think that it takes just as much faith to follow the Bible as it does to believe in evolution.

You poor bastard.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

You poor bastard.

quote:Originally posted by echo4818:

Why do you believe in the religion, or lack there of, that you follow? Just curious.

I'm a Seventh-Day Adventist. I believe in this because it follows the Bible the closest. I believe in the Bible. I think that it takes just as much faith to follow the Bible as it does to believe in evolution.

Yeah, except evolution does not require faith. It's pretty proven unlike your stuff you actually require to have faith in.

Evolution requires faith just as much as any more recognised religion does.

Though scientifically speaking, I would like to point out that /micro/evolution is "pretty proven". /Macro/evolution isnt. Im guessing you were referring to macroevolution, though I could be wrong.

WTF? It's evolution either way you look at it... Why does it matter what kind of evolution it is?

Because one (microevolution) is a logical consequence of copying anything over and over enough times, and the other (macroevolution) details a possibility of information arising from no information and hence something like a single celled animal turning into a human over time (just a random example).

Microevolution involves a trend towards information destruction over time, which can be proven empirically easily enough. Macroevolution involves a trend towards information construction by chance.

The only way I am aware of macroevolution having a chance of working is if you give it enough time to get around the astonishingly /phenomenal/ chances against it. And then, because youre talking about so much time, pretty much anything couldve happened. So you need to have faith to believe in it.

So since you have to have faith in both, you just disregard one and the other one automatically becomes the default one?

Whatever makes you sleep at night.

quote:Originally posted by DarkMage35:

Because one (microevolution) is a logical consequence of copying anything over and over enough times, and the other (macroevolution) details a possibility of information arising from no information and hence something like a single celled animal turning into a human over time (just a random example).

Microevolution involves a trend towards information destruction over time, which can be proven empirically easily enough. Macroevolution involves a trend towards information construction by chance.



You failed completely in justifying your usage of the word "faith" to describe belief in evolution. Why? Because believing in evolution takes no faith, by definition. There is evidence that supports evolution, so much so that evolution is considered a scientific fact. To claim that evolution somehow requires faith to be believed in, is outrageous.

quote:The only way I am aware of macroevolution having a chance of working is if you give it enough time to get around the astonishingly /phenomenal/ chances against it. And then, because youre talking about so much time, pretty much anything couldve happened. So you need to have faith to believe in it.

Then it seems you're not aware of what evolution entails at all.

If you believe in microevolution then you already believe in macro-evolution. Not only are the distinctions between these two concepts completely arbitrary, but as it currently is defined, macro-evolution is just many instances of micro-evolution on a organism to the point of speciation. As such, if you admit that micro-evolution is possible you have admitted that macro-evolution is possible, and more importantly, if you believe micro-evolution has been observed, then you have just observed macro-evolution in process.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-04-2006).]

Faith is just a fancy way of saying you're a believer of something unfounded and totally incongruous with being someone who is not an idiot.

Rust:

Of course I failed to justify my use of the word "faith" with regards to evolution, because I wasnt trying to do that with that post. If you insist though:

To believe in evolution, you must interpret the evidence to be favourable towards it. To interpret the evidence to be favourable towards it more so then towards some other theory, you must have faith in evolution. You must have faith in science itself before you can accept its conclusions.

Youre damned right the distinctions between micro and macroevolution are completely arbitary. The distinctions between everything are completely arbitary. Doesnt matter at all, unless the distinctions are getting in the way of understanding.

I defined micro and macroevolution in my previous post. All my writing was based on those definitions, and you should refute them based on those definitions. If, indeed, the major usage of those terms is what you describe, perhaps you can enlighten me as to what I am referring to? One form of evolution tending towards creating information, one form tending towards destroying information. Many instances of one obviously cannot add up to the other.

Evolution, as I understand it, simply refers to a change in something. Something changes over time, it can be said to be evolving.



Getting back onto the original topic:

I believe what I believe because I can. I refuse to detail that further at this time.

quote:

Of course I failed to justify my use of the word "faith" with regards to evolution, because I wasnt trying to do that with that post. If you insist though:

To believe in evolution, you must interpret the evidence to be favourable towards it. To interpret the evidence to be favourable towards it more so then towards some other theory, you must have faith in evolution. You must have faith in science itself before you can accept its conclusions.

You're deconstructing the issue in order to justify your statement.

What I have is confidence in the conclusions of science, not faith. Faith, by definition, requires a non-empirical basis; it requires a belief in the face of a lack of evidence. That is not at all what science is based upon, nor what my belief in science is based upon. It is based upon the existence of evidence. You cannot say that it entails faith.

quote:Youre damned right the distinctions between micro and macroevolution are completely arbitary. The distinctions between everything are completely arbitary. Doesnt matter at all, unless the distinctions are getting in the way of understanding.

Another example of this deconstruction. Not every distinction is arbitrary. While one could say a group of ideas were arbitrarily defined in the first place you can still, within those ideas, have things which are not arbitrarily defined. Thus my point.

quote:I defined micro and macroevolution in my previous post. All my writing was based on those definitions, and you should refute them based on those definitions. If, indeed, the major usage of those terms is what you describe, perhaps you can enlighten me as to what I am referring to? One form of evolution tending towards creating information, one form tending towards destroying information. Many instances of one obviously cannot add up to the other.

Those definitions do not describe evolution at all.

The genetic mutations that occur in an organism can both add or subtract information. You cannot say that "macro-evolution" is adding information, and that micro-evolution is subtracting information.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-04-2006).]

i would just like to say this:

who gives a shit about whether we were created or evolved or whatever

we are here and have one life to live so why does it matter where that life came from as long as its here

Ok...

Rust, I do not understand what you meant when you said I am deconstructing the issue. I also do not understand your objection to my assertion that all distinctions are arbitary. Maybe Im just stupid. Humour me for a bit here.

Please show me where the empirical basis for science is. I am very interested in that.

And yes, the genetic mutations that can occur in an organism can add, subtract, or simply rearrange information. I can very easily say that macroevolution is adding information and microevolution is subtracting information. With the same ease that I can say that cutting a piece of paper is cutting a piece of paper, and glueing two pieces of paper together is glueing two pieces of paper together.

quote:Originally posted by DarkMage35:

Ok...

Rust, I do not understand what you meant when you said I am deconstructing the issue. I also do not understand your objection to my assertion that all distinctions are arbitary. Maybe Im just stupid. Humour me for a bit here.

Please show me where the empirical basis for science is. I am very interested in that.

And yes, the genetic mutations that can occur in an organism can add, subtract, or simply rearrange information. I can very easily say that macroevolution is adding information and microevolution is subtracting information. With the same ease that I can say that cutting a piece of paper is cutting a piece of paper, and glueing two pieces of paper together is glueing two pieces of paper together.



Keep thinking like that and you will be a Christian in no time!

quote:Originally posted by DarkMage35:

Ok...

Rust, I do not understand what you meant when you said I am deconstructing the issue. I also do not understand your objection to my assertion that all distinctions are arbitary. Maybe Im just stupid. Humour me for a bit here.

Please show me where the empirical basis for science is. I am very interested in that.

And yes, the genetic mutations that can occur in an organism can add, subtract, or simply rearrange information. I can very easily say that macroevolution is adding information and microevolution is subtracting information. With the same ease that I can say that cutting a piece of paper is cutting a piece of paper, and glueing two pieces of paper together is glueing two pieces of paper together.

Dark, let me summarize for you: Dark is correct in his assessment. Rust is a polemicist and can't help arguing. (Its probably a clinical disorder for him. We're checking into it).

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Dark, let me summarize for you: Dark is correct in his assessment. Rust is a polemicist and can't help arguing. (Its probably a clinical disorder for him. We're checking into it).





Fuck, you people scare me. Where is the empirical evidence for science? Science is nothing more than a method of collecting and interpreting emperical evidence.

Do you know why 2+2 is 4? Somewhere, there's a proof for it. A scientific law is something that must be true based on simple facts of the universe, such as conservation of energy. A theory is something that cannot be calculated purely on universal constants and math, but has strong supporting evidence, and (as yet) no inherantly contradictary evidence. Theories include gravity, relativity, and yes, evolution.

It's not a fact, but it's the best idea humanity (at least, those with any appreciation for truth and empiricism) has come up with, and there has been nothing so far to say it's wrong.

Unlike God, who not only has no contradictory evidence (save reason, but thats not empirical. Reason needs evidence to prove it premesis), but absolutely no supporting evidence.

There is not a single scrap of evidence for the existance of God, in this entire world humans have so far uncovered, that hold in the slightest fucking bit to logical, empirical, and scientific rigor.

Go win a Darwin award.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Dark, let me summarize for you: Dark is correct in his assessment. Rust is a polemicist and can't help arguing. (Its probably a clinical disorder for him. We're checking into it).



Thank you for the insults. Now, shouldn't you be answering me in that other thread? Or do you think that making ridiculous allegations and insulting me - in a thread where I never even mention your name no less - is a good way to spend your time?

quote:Originally posted by DarkMage35:

Ok...

Rust, I do not understand what you meant when you said I am deconstructing the issue. I also do not understand your objection to my assertion that all distinctions are arbitary. Maybe Im just stupid. Humour me for a bit here.

I meant that instead of analyzing what was being discussed and only that (for example, whether or not the definitions of macro/micro evolution are abtirary or not), you decide to go further and claim that "everything is arbitrary". You're not discussing the issue, but trying to amplify it on purpose in order to justify what you've said or evade it all together.

The definitions of micro/macro evolution are abitrary. You agree. Great.

quote:

Please show me where the empirical basis for science is. I am very interested in that.



This is a perfect example of the above. You initially said that evolution required faith, and now you argue that Science as a whole require faith.

In any case, Science is acquires knoweledge with the use of the scientific method. The scientific method uses observation (direct of indirect), experimentation and falsification to refute and formulate hypotheses and theories. By definition, it is empirical. That's the empirical basis of science.

quote:

And yes, the genetic mutations that can occur in an organism can add, subtract, or simply rearrange information. I can very easily say that macroevolution is adding information and microevolution is subtracting information. With the same ease that I can say that cutting a piece of paper is cutting a piece of paper, and glueing two pieces of paper together is glueing two pieces of paper together.

Well, you can say that... it will be completely and utterly wrong, but you can certainly say it.

Like I said, mutations can add or remove information. "Micro-evolution" entails mutations (or other forms of change); as such, micro-evolution can either add or remove "information". Simply saying that micro-evolution removes information while macro-evolution adds information is wrong.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-04-2006).]

I was not trying to amplify the issue. It was already that big in my mind when I first posted in this thread. I just did not detail it as such.

You have given an explanation of what science is. You have not given any empirical evidence for why science.

You asked for its empirical basis and that's exactly what I gave you. Science, by definition, has an empirical basis, as it rests on observation, and experimentation - the definition of what empiricism entails.

You are misunderstanding me. I know that science by definition rests on empirical evidence, because it is by definition a method to organise that evidence. What I want to know is where the evidence is that points to science being the better method then any other. Just because it involves a lot of empirical evidence doesnt mean it has a justification in that.

quote:Originally posted by DarkMage35:

You are misunderstanding me. I know that science by definition rests on empirical evidence, because it is by definition a method to organise that evidence. What I want to know is where the evidence is that points to science being the better method then any other. Just because it involves a lot of empirical evidence doesnt mean it has a justification in that.

This is exactly what I meant by deconstructing the issue. You said that evolution required faith. Now you're dealing with a completely different argument in order to justify your silly claim.

If evolution rests on science, and moreover, has evidence that shows it to be a scientific fact, then by definition it is not faith. Whether you believe there are other forms of acquiring knowledge better or worse than the scientific method is wholly irrelevant as that does not do away with the evidence that supports evolution.

You were quite simply erroneously attributing faith to a belief in a evolution, which contradicts the very definition of faith. You were wrong.

I am actually dealing with the exact same argument. Only its true magnitude has been revealed. I do not like to say more then necessary, hence me not detailing all this from the very start.

Yes, other forms of acquiring "knowledge" do do away with the "evidence" for evolution.

I am not in error here. The most likely two explanations are that either you have a mind that is too rigid, or I have lacking communication skills.

quote:Originally posted by DarkMage35:

I am actually dealing with the exact same argument. Only its true magnitude has been revealed. I do not like to say more then necessary, hence me not detailing all this from the very start.

Yes, other forms of acquiring "knowledge" do do away with the "evidence" for evolution.

I am not in error here. The most likely two explanations are that either you have a mind that is too rigid, or I have lacking communication skills.

There is absolutely no problem with my mind or my communication skills; there's a problem with your argument. You said that evolution required faith and are now struggling to back that up.

Your argument hinges upon you proving that there is no evidence supporting evolution (so as to justify calling it faith). Either do so or stop wasting my time.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-05-2006).]

Please note I was referring to /my/ communication skills, not yours.

I said that evolution required faith. I am not struggling to back that up. A possibility is that I am struggling to communicate it. My argument does not hinge on proving that there is no evidence to support evolution. I cannot be wasting your time as I am not forcing you to read this post.

You argument certainly does hinge upon that - it does so out of logical necessity! Since something requires faith to be believed in only when there is no evidence supporting that belief (by the definition of "faith"). Either you prove that there is no evidence supporting evolution, or you admit that there is, and thus that it requires no faith to believe in. There are no other choices.

P.S. I read your posts with the expectance of reply - with you backing up what you said - and you failed to deliver. That's a waste of time, regardless of whether or not you forced me to read.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-05-2006).]

There are /always/ other choices. I suggest that my argument in this case was more about proving that the "evidence" is ambiguous by nature, rather then it not backing up evolution. I have already explained myself, and said what I wanted to say.

I am not disagreeing with you interpreting reading my posts as a waste of time. I am disagreeing with me causing that waste of time.

quote:Originally posted by DarkMage35:

There are /always/ other choices. I suggest that my argument in this case was more about proving that the "evidence" is ambiguous by nature, rather then it not backing up evolution. I have already explained myself, and said what I wanted to say.

I am not disagreeing with you interpreting reading my posts as a waste of time. I am disagreeing with me causing that waste of time.

1. Logic can easily bring about a finite number of options. Thats one of the reasons we use it.

2. You're really bad at this.

In case it isnt obvious, I will spell it out for you:

I do not use your version of logic.

I believe in what I believe because i'm right

quote:Originally posted by DarkMage35:

In case it isnt obvious, I will spell it out for you:

I do not use your version of logic.

Then stop calling it "logic".

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Thank you for the insults. Now, shouldn't you be answering me in that other thread? Or do you think that making ridiculous allegations and insulting me - in a thread where I never even mention your name no less - is a good way to spend your time?

If you haven't noticed, I only responded to Beta because his questions were actually logical. Your arguments, (as always), are purely semantical, which focuses on something minor in order to detract from the original premise. Why? Its because you don't know how to argue against the truth. With as little time as I get on Totse, I'd rather debate someone with interesting points. Look, what this guy said about macro and microevolution is spot on. Its the reality. And if I hurt your feelings with my little joke, I apologize... But keep in the back of your mind just how many times you've used ad hom as a weapon. Let me ask my wife how many times you've called her a 'bitch' and a 'whore' only because she was beating you in a debate. You're as meanspirited as anyone I've ever met. But you know what Rust, you're getting pretty close. You're closer than half of the people on this forum.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

If you haven't noticed, I only responded to Beta because his questions were actually logical. Your arguments, (as always), are purely semantical, which focuses on something minor in order to detract from the original premise. Why? Its because you don't know how to argue against the truth. With as little time as I get on Totse, I'd rather debate someone with interesting points. Look, what this guy said about macro and microevolution is spot on. Its the reality. And if I hurt your feelings with my little joke, I apologize... But keep in the back of your mind just how many times you've used ad hom as a weapon. Let me ask my wife how many times you've called her a 'bitch' and a 'whore' only because she was beating you in a debate. You're as meanspirited as anyone I've ever met. But you know what Rust, you're getting pretty close. You're closer than half of the people on this forum.



Isn't it strange how the people here who have actually studied logic at least respect Rust's argueing style, whereas those who have no fucking clue how a premesis interacts with a conclusion disparage him?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

If you haven't noticed, I only responded to Beta because his questions were actually logical. Your arguments, (as always), are purely semantical, which focuses on something minor in order to detract from the original premise. Why? Its because you don't know how to argue against the truth. With as little time as I get on Totse, I'd rather debate someone with interesting points. Look, what this guy said about macro and microevolution is spot on. Its the reality. And if I hurt your feelings with my little joke, I apologize... But keep in the back of your mind just how many times you've used ad hom as a weapon. Let me ask my wife how many times you've called her a 'bitch' and a 'whore' only because she was beating you in a debate. You're as meanspirited as anyone I've ever met. But you know what Rust, you're getting pretty close. You're closer than half of the people on this forum.



1. None of my arguments in that thread involve semantics. None. I quite simply do not debate definitions of words in that thread. Period. That you go, knowing this full well, and willingly make these accusations in order to excuse your obvious ineptitude at defending your ridiculous beliefs, is extremely pathetic to say the least.

The fact that you're willing to ignore all of the logical fallacies I've pointed out in your reasoning by using that tired cop-out, is testament to just how much you care about the truth, which is 'not at all'.

2. DarkMage35's statements are not correct.



a. Evolution has evidence supporting it, and therefore one requires absolutely no faith in order to believe in it.

b. Micro-evolution can add genetic information, making his other statements regarding that equally erroneous.

3. If you think I give a shit about your insults then you're sorely mistaken. I only highlight them to show your blatant hypocrisy. To show how dishonesty is no barrier to your crusade.

Now please, either answer the points I have brought up, or do us a favor and spare us your bullshit. We've heard your shitty excuses time and time again.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-06-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by DarkMage35:

There are /always/ other choices. I suggest that my argument in this case was more about proving that the "evidence" is ambiguous by nature, rather then it not backing up evolution. I have already explained myself, and said what I wanted to say.



The point being that for your statements to be correct, it is necessary that you prove that evolution has no evidence. If you do not do so, then evolution cannot be said to require faith in order to believe, and thus you were completely incorrect. There are no other alternatives. Either you prove that no evidence supports evolution, or you admit that evidence does.



quote:

I am not disagreeing with you interpreting reading my posts as a waste of time. I am disagreeing with me causing that waste of time.

I assume you're honest enough to give a reply to what I have said. When you do not, then you've wasted my time by providing no answer. Next time shall I assume you will do as you did here, so as to not waste time reading your posts?



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-06-2006).]

i'll break the apparent norm here for a moment. i have no clue why i believe what i do. i dont know what i believe anymore. some days it feels like someone is controlling your every move from the sidelines, and others it's like there is a vast nothingness.

Rust. I have already provided my answers. I can see one point where I was unclear, but you have not gone after that. If you find it I will be happy to discuss it. Thats "discuss", mind, not "attempt to discredit with strawmen".

I myself am a self proposed agnostic, but I still have some faith in an afterlife, mostly because of my upbringing, it's hard not to think about "Heaven" and "Hell". I guess this is what's keeping me from offing myself, just in the off chance that there is indeed a hell that I'll be boiling in for the rest of eternity.

While this is definately hypocritical, I don't like it when people argue over the moot point of the existence of God as well as the existence of evolution. To me it's silly to be fighting so heatedly over something that you have never seen or experienced. I myself take most if not all information before my earliest memories with a grain of salt.

quote:Originally posted by DarkMage35:

Rust. I have already provided my answers. I can see one point where I was unclear, but you have not gone after that. If you find it I will be happy to discuss it. Thats "discuss", mind, not "attempt to discredit with strawmen".

No, you have not provided an answer. An answer would be something that either admits that there is evidence which points towards evolution, or a complete refutation of all the alleged evidence. Anything else would not be an answer as it would neither justify your usage, nor admit that you were wrong; the only two possibilities here.