MonroeTalks.com > Categories > Science & Technology > ..which came first?


Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Author Topic: ..which came first?  (Read 2943 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

marilyn.monroe

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9218
Re: ..which came first?
« Reply #45 on: January 15, 2009, 08:25:35 AM »

Darwin should have just stuck to science, as Dawkins should. :)
Logged

zard0z

  • Guest
Re: ..which came first?
« Reply #46 on: January 15, 2009, 08:57:14 AM »

Darwin should have just stuck to science, as Dawkins should. :)


His work is purely scientific, you seem to be the only with a problem here and the only one who's seeing it as a religion, which it is NOT...This is getting to be a worn out discussion.

Evolution is not a religion...
Logged

marilyn.monroe

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9218
Re: ..which came first?
« Reply #47 on: January 15, 2009, 09:02:24 AM »


His work is purely scientific, you seem to be the only with a problem here and the only one who's seeing it as a religion, which it is NOT...This is getting to be a worn out discussion.

Evolution is not a religion...
I disagree that Darwin's work was purely scientific. Don't really see how you can say that...but I see that is your opinion.

No, the theory of evolution in and of itself is not a religion, but it has been incorporated by some into their "religion" or perversion of science call it what you want.

Logged

zard0z

  • Guest
Re: ..which came first?
« Reply #48 on: January 15, 2009, 09:45:36 AM »

I disagree that Darwin's work was purely scientific. Don't really see how you can say that...but I see that is your opinion.

No, the theory of evolution in and of itself is not a religion, but it has been incorporated by some into their "religion" or perversion of science call it what you want.




OK, you refuse to accept it, and that's fine, you've made your mind up and it's set, but that does not give you the right to tell the rest of us that we are wrong either or that WE can't accept evolution as the process of change which the majority have...Or even hint that it is some sort of a scientific religion(whatever the hell that is anyway) just because it tackles the aspect of creation and that it's a taboo for Christians to question.  You're the one that's not able to separate the science from the religion here...You've gone as far as calling it Intelligent Design, but you don't want to consider what that process really is.  OK

How is it a "perversion" of science...?    How is trying to figure out the origins of life on this planet a perversion of science...?  I would say and think it is the very essence of what science is all about.

...Like I said, this is getting to be the same old worn out discussion...You're saying the same things you have in the past and I'm saying the same things I have in the past and it's going nowhere.

Don't take any of this personally...I do respect your opinion, but when I see some of the things you write on here about evolution I have no other course but to speak out if I see something that I don't agree with...Everyone on this message board has that same right to do so as well with me and have, yourself included...LOL
Logged

marilyn.monroe

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9218
Re: ..which came first?
« Reply #49 on: January 15, 2009, 09:51:00 AM »

You win.

Evolution is not a theory. It has been proven.
Every utterance from Darwin and Dawkins and so on are true.
I'm a closed-minded idiot who will now keep her mouth shut.

TYHAND

Logged

zard0z

  • Guest
Re: ..which came first?
« Reply #50 on: January 15, 2009, 10:22:49 AM »

You win.  (this isn't about winning  ???  )

Evolution is not a theory. It has been proven. (yes it is an accepted theory!)
Every utterance from Darwin and Dawkins and so on are true. ( I didn't say that!)
I'm a closed-minded idiot who will now keep her mouth shut. (I never called you an idiot or tell you to shut up!)

TYHAND  (I have absolutely no idea what this means...)


I said don't take it personally, I'm sorry if I can't formulate the words any better to make you understand that... :P  I even said I respect your opinion, but I just have problems with some of what you say. Nothing more, I don't have a problem with YOU!


Logged

zard0z

  • Guest
Re: ..which came first?
« Reply #51 on: January 15, 2009, 10:36:03 AM »

Here are two websites on evolution for anyone who would like to know what it really is about...The first one is by far the best site I have found to get a good grasp of understanding of what evolution means.


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/



All of this is for purely educational purposes and for you to walk away with your own opinion and conclusion...Whatever it may be, I don't care.
Logged

T-M-T

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3951
Re: ..which came first?
« Reply #52 on: January 15, 2009, 10:39:59 AM »

Here are two websites on evolution for anyone who would like to know what it really is about...The first one is by far the best site I have found to get a good grasp of understanding of what evolution means.


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/



All of this is for purely educational purposes and for you to walk away with your own opinion and conclusion...Whatever it may be, I don't care.

Those are both excellent.  Thanks for posting.
Logged

T-M-T

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3951
Re: ..which came first?
« Reply #53 on: January 15, 2009, 10:43:32 AM »

You win.

Evolution is not a theory. It has been proven.
Every utterance from Darwin and Dawkins and so on are true.
I'm a closed-minded idiot who will now keep her mouth shut.

TYHAND



TYVM
Logged

DeamonCohln

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 626
    • Deamon Cohln's YouTube
Re: ..which came first?
« Reply #54 on: January 15, 2009, 10:45:38 AM »

Darwinism...well that has come to mean a lot of things. In the case of Darwinian evolution...it's a religion. Think about that.

"The book is readable even for the non-specialist and attracted widespread interest on publication. The book was controversial because it contradicted religious beliefs that underlay the then current theories of biology, and it generated much discussion on scientific, philosophical, and religious grounds."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species

PS I'm not scientifically illiterate, and if you keep it up, you can forget any meaningful convo.

I already realize that this is not going to be meaningful seeing as you do not know the basics of evolutionary theory or the history of modern biology. You bring up Darwinism, can't even define, it, then state it's a religion. That's because it's a Straw-man set up by pseudoscientist to attack good science.
Logged

"To secure peace is, to prepare for war"
-Don't Tread on Me - Metallica.

Lethlweapn

  • Guest
Re: ..which came first?
« Reply #55 on: January 15, 2009, 05:18:06 PM »

You win.

Evolution is not a theory. It has been proven.
Every utterance from Darwin and Dawkins and so on are true.
I'm a closed-minded idiot who will now keep her mouth shut.

TYHAND



For Z

Thank You, Have A Nice Day
Logged

zard0z

  • Guest
Re: ..which came first?
« Reply #56 on: January 16, 2009, 11:48:25 AM »

For Z

Thank You, Have A Nice Day


Thanks Lethl, I ended up googling it...LOL

I don't have a problem with an LOL every now and then(because it has a good conveyance of the humor someone is going after), but to rely on Internet short hand for so many words is well, kind of you know, it just drives me nuts, we have a well defined language and alphabet, no need to cut corners and dumb up the conversation, no wonder the education system is failing so horribly, no one whats to spell the damn words out...
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up