[NT] NTs and God

[EcK]

Again, that's a yes or no question.

I love you

 

[Erudur]

I just want the answer, forget the 'proof' for now.

Do you, or do not accept this:

"Flaws in theory A do not necessarily *prove* theory B." Just yes or no!

You keep posting these flaws, or suspected flaws, over and over and over, and then you keep claiming you're not offering them as 'proof'. What are you offering them as? Why are you posting them?

A few times you posted something along the lines of "x can't possibly exist without an intelligent designer - therefore the existence of x = god/intelligent designer exists". Is this your position or not? Again, that's a yes or no question.

I inceasingly have no idea what you're actually trying to get across here.

Here I am saying it:
Flaws in theory A do not necessarily *prove* theory B. Did I not say that already?

What I am trying to get across:
Darwinism (theory A) is fatally flawed.

I am guessing this isn't interesting to you, but from the dialogue above there remains a place for the discussion. EcK (and the authors of the articles he posted), seems to think "theory A" is indisputable. He is also very dismissive of those who disagree.

I suppose it has deviated from the original post, but it certainly is a good example of a couple NTs debating a topic in close proximity to the "God" topic.

 

[Kangirl]

Well it's obviously interesting enough for me to keep reading and participating.

Here I am saying it:
Flaws in theory A do not necessarily *prove* theory B. Did I not say that already?

I think you did, but I was confused because you keep offering examples of flaws in Theory A (and I'm not going to get into whether or not those flaws are valid - not personally qualified, really) and was wondering why, if you accept that these flaws don't prove Theory B, you keep offering them.

Are there 2 (or 3) different conversations going on here? It seems like one conversation is in regards to what was posted above, by me and others (theory A having flaws doesn't prove theory B) - and it looks like we apparently all agree on that, no?

The other conversation seems to be about god, and whether or not god exists. Given that 1)you and other theists appear not to need logic in order to prove or validate your faith (and I'm not saying you should) and 2)that many of the atheists view the lack of a logical reason to believe in god as reason not to believe in god, it kind of seems like there's nowhere else to go from here. Some need logic to believe and therefore don't. Some don't need it and, sometimes, do then believe.

The 3rd conversation seems to be about Darwinism and it's bullet proof-ness as a theory. I don't see what this has to do with god but if someone wants to debate Darwinism then I've got no problems with that.

What I am getting at in my long-winded way is that you appear to have accepted that there is no logical reason to believe in god. Is that correct? And don't roll out the sandcastles again because you've already conceded that they prove nothing!

I love you

Yay! Do I get chocolate?

 

[Erudur]

Well it's obviously interesting enough for me to keep reading and participating.

I think you did, but I was confused because you keep offering examples of flaws in Theory A (and I'm not going to get into whether or not those flaws are valid - not personally qualified, really) and was wondering why, if you accept that these flaws don't prove Theory B, you keep offering them.

Are there 2 (or 3) different conversations going on here? It seems like one conversation is in regards to what was posted above, by me and others (theory A having flaws doesn't prove theory B) - and it looks like we apparently all agree on that, no?

The other conversation seems to be about god, and whether or not god exists. Given that 1)you and other theists appear not to need logic in order to prove or validate your faith (and I'm not saying you should) and 2)that many of the atheists view the lack of a logical reason to believe in god as reason not to believe in god, it kind of seems like there's nowhere else to go from here. Some need logic to believe and therefore don't. Some don't need it and, sometimes, do then believe.

The 3rd conversation seems to be about Darwinism and it's bullet proof-ness as a theory. I don't see what this has to do with god but if someone wants to debate Darwinism then I've got no problems with that.

What I am getting at in my long-winded way is that you appear to have accepted that there is no logical reason to believe in god. Is that correct? And don't roll out the sandcastles again because you've already conceded that they prove nothing!

I would distinguish between logic and proof. Something can be logical but unproven, and I guess something can be logical but untrue (if, for instance, an underlying premise is false). I believe my perspectives on God are logical yet conjectural.

For instance, I believe it is logical to conclude that since I think, love, hate, remember, enjoy, desire friendships, make decisions that benefit others to my own expense, etc; that I was created by one with a greater capacity to do these same things. But I don't see how I could set up a way to test this hypothesis and therefore prove it. I also don't see how one could set up a test to disprove this hypothesis.

So, to go back to your statement above. As I ponder God, I use logic to form conjectures, but I am at a loss for proof. Though I also agree with you that many people don't need logic to believe in God, and I do think truth may be found without logic, but I am convinced it will still be logical--perhaps logical based on higher truths than mankind has discovered.

Some need logic to believe and therefore don't.

The reason I spent so much time on darwinism was because I think many people conclude that darwinism has answered questions that it hasn't. And from that faulty premise, they logically conclude that there is no God.

 

[Mycroft]

So, to go back to your statement above. As I ponder God, I use logic to form conjectures, but I am at a loss for proof. Though I also agree with you that many people don't need logic to believe in God, and I do think truth may be found without logic, but I am convinced it will still be logical--perhaps logical based on higher truths than mankind has discovered.

The reason I spent so much time on darwinism was because I think many people conclude that darwinism has answered questions that it hasn't. And from that faulty premise, they logically conclude that there is no God.

The only thing you've done since joining this discussion is reiterate over and over the same argument from incredulity. Your argument, as clearly demonstrated by the above comments boils down to:

- I've thought a lot about God!
- I've also thought a tad about alternative theories.
- These alternative theories were unable to convince me that God does not exist.
- Therefore, God exists.

It's called burden of proof. You seem convinced that people who ascribe to the theory of evolution operate under the following logic:

- The theory of evolution explains a few things!
- Therefore, evolution is absolutely the answer and God does not exist.

This is erroneous.

First of all, evolutionary theory does not explain or attempt to explain how life came into being. It explains how, once life has come into being, adaptations to the environment and competition from other living things leads to the evolution of a variety of species variously suited to a variety of ecological niches.

All of your attacks on evolutionary theory are irrelevant to the question of how life came into being.

Secondly, my logic, and the logic of people similar to me is such:

- Life came into existence.
- The exact manner in which life arose from chemicals is presently unknown, but evidence is mounting in favor of a variety of rational theories.
- There is presently no evidence in favor of the "God did it" theory. (And yes, it is only a theory.)
- I will therefore withhold ultimate judgment while building my world view on the basis of theories for which there is some degree of evidence, as these theories are, presently, the best that we have.

It baffles me the way believers have such difficulty grasping the notion of building one's beliefs up from the ground on the basis of evidence rather than entering into the fray with some set idea that will be ascribed to until anything can prove it wrong. (Which, as the classic "mermaid / dragon / invisible pink unicorn" comparisons demonstrate, is impossible.)

Also, quit picking on EcK. He's basically this message board's living straw man.

 

[Erudur]

I'm okay with that.

A bit into this I realized I was overreacting to EcK. I'm leaving him alone now.

Your second to last paragraph isn't really a fair assessment of "believers." But hey, to each his own.

Have you never had experiences that defy western rational explanation? A couple of those will mix things up for you a bit.

 

[Mycroft]

Have you never had experiences that defy western rational explanation? A couple of those will mix things up for you a bit.

Ration is ration, regardless of the area of the globe you hail from.

 

[EcK]

For instance, I believe it is logical to conclude that since I think, love, hate, remember, enjoy, desire friendships, make decisions that benefit others to my own expense, etc; that I was created by one with a greater capacity to do these same things.

You mean like a fast car being created by an even fastest car ?
Even applied to life, this idea would kind of tell us evolution isn't of much importance, since there's no 'emergence of new traits' but only degenerescence of a set of qualities. Man should probably have appeared a billion years ago then and then devolve into unicellular creatures. Oh wait, we have evidences of the opposite!
You can whine as much as you want, I'm just using your own logic.

Thanks for opening my eyes... by the way :rolli:

And I won't even start commenting on your subjectivity. Especially when all of the above feelings and desires can be explained by a gradual and adaptive evolution rather than some kind of 'creative leap'. That is, as you said yourself, like trying to jump to the moon.

Here, see, I'm using simple examples to explain complex concepts too.

 

[Darjur]

1# I would distinguish between logic and proof. Something can be logical but unproven, and I guess something can be logical but untrue (if, for instance, an underlying premise is false). I believe my perspectives on God are logical yet conjectural.

2# For instance, I believe it is logical to conclude that since I think, love, hate, remember, enjoy, desire friendships, make decisions that benefit others to my own expense, etc; that I was created by one with a greater capacity to do these same things. 3# But I don't see how I could set up a way to test this hypothesis and therefore prove it. I also don't see how one could set up a test to disprove this hypothesis.

4# So, to go back to your statement above. As I ponder God, I use logic to form conjectures, but I am at a loss for proof. Though I also agree with you that many people don't need logic to believe in God, and I do think truth may be found without logic, but I am convinced it will still be logical--perhaps logical based on higher truths than mankind has discovered.

5# The reason I spent so much time on darwinism was because I think many people conclude that darwinism has answered questions that it hasn't. And from that faulty premise, they logically conclude that there is no God.

1# If something can not be proved, then it is not logical.

2# What you described is not logical. There is no connection presented between the Effect and the Cause. What you wrote here is basically "There's A, B and C, so D caused it." This is not logic, this is a leap of logic.

3# Of course you can't. You don't even have a stable hypothesis. That is also why you can't disprove it, because there is simply nothing to disprove.

4# This is not a logical conjecture. This, is an assumption. An assumption is a belief based in the absence of proof. Logic itself cannot exist without proof, it can interact with proof in various forms and ways, but it inherently cannot exist without it.

5# I forsake god before I even knew what evolution was. As a matter of fact I never believed in a need for god.

And as to the article you pointed, I'd have to say that It's a shitty one.

All it really says is that there are some people who disagree about the importance of natural selection. The article only answer to the question "What?". There are no answers presented as to "Why?" or "How?". It's a failure of an article, in itself it's useless.

 

[Erudur]

1# If something can not be proved, then it is not logical.

Then if you believe that matter has always existed you believe something illogical, because that "assumption (or conjecture)*" cannot be proven.

2# What you described is not logical. There is no connection presented between the Effect and the Cause. What you wrote here is basically "There's A, B and C, so D caused it." This is not logic, this is a leap of logic.

It is certainly not a rigorous proof, but it is not a fallacy either.

3# Of course you can't. You don't even have a stable hypothesis. That is also why you can't disprove it, because there is simply nothing to disprove.

Stable or unstable is your subjective evaluation.

4# This is not a logical conjecture. This, is an assumption. An assumption is a belief based in the absence of proof. Logic itself cannot exist without proof, it can interact with proof in various forms and ways, but it inherently cannot exist without it.

*Look up the definition of conjecture. You're playing a semantics game.

5# I forsake god before I even knew what evolution was. As a matter of fact I never believed in a need for god.

That's fine, but according to your comment #1 that is an illogical conclusion. (I disagree with your comment #1 btw, therefore I don't brand your misguided conjecture as illogical).

--I'm being tongue in cheek with my own subjective use of "misguided."

And as to the article you pointed, I'd have to say that It's a shitty one.

All it really says is that there are some people who disagree about the importance of natural selection. The article only answer to the question "What?". There are no answers presented as to "Why?" or "How?". It's a failure of an article, in itself it's useless.

Exactly. Here are a bunch of guys considered by the article writer as experts in the field of biology. They are rejecting at least parts of darwinism and struggling to find some replacement or new version of it. It makes my point perfectly, and you nicely summarized it. i.e. "your guys" are just as confounded as "my guys" in explaining life.

*conjecture definition | Dictionary.com

 

[Darjur]

1#Then if you believe that matter has always existed you believe something illogical, because that "assumption (or conjecture)*" cannot be proven.

2# It is certainly not a rigorous proof, but it is not a fallacy either.

Stable or unstable is your subjective evaluation.

3# *Look up the definition of conjecture. You're playing a semantics game.

4# That's fine, but according to your comment #1 that is an illogical conclusion. (I disagree with your comment #1 btw, therefore I don't brand your misguided conjecture as illogical).

5# Exactly. Here are a bunch of guys considered by the article writer as experts in the field of biology. They are rejecting at least parts of darwinism and struggling to find some replacement or new version of it. It makes my point perfectly, and you nicely summarized it. i.e. "your guys" are just as confounded as "my guys" in explaining life.

1# I don't believe that.
But one can prove things in various ways. Mathematics being one of them and most theories concerning our universe have quite a decent mathematical proof behind them. A scientific theory based on nothing does not exist.

2# Tell me how is that claim you've just written not a leap of logic? It was exactly like that article. You answered to the question "What?" and that is all, what you need to next for it to be complete is to answer to the questions "How? and "Why?". As a hypothesis, it is full of fallacies.

3# This is why I disagree. An assumption or a conjecture cannot be logical. Because there is no proof.

4# Actually, it is completely logical. The natural state is skepticism. To add something to an equation, you need proof for it to be there.

5# I don't see any problem whatsoever with what has been said in the article. What was said is that the theory of evolution needs a little revision. That is all. There were no mention of the theory being fundamentally flawed or anything like that, all that was said is that the amount of importance on certain aspects of it need to be changed. This is nothing new, this shit happens every week in the scientific arena. Hell the theory of evolution itself has gone through a lot of changes already in the past 100 years, this is nothing new or shocking.

P.S.

In the scientific arena, no one gives a shit who you are. If there is no proof presented with a theory or a hypothesis behind it. You can go fuck yourself. Your degree says only minimal things about your credibility.

The fact that someone has a Hab. Doctorate in something or something equal to that does not mean shit. They can be as wrong as anyone else. Hell, Einstein himself was fundamentally wrong in a lot of his views, even thought he himself is written in the history books as one of the greatest scientist to exist.

 

[Kangirl]

For instance, I believe it is logical to conclude that since I think, love, hate, remember, enjoy, desire friendships, make decisions that benefit others to my own expense, etc; that I was created by one with a greater capacity to do these same things.

It doesn't matter if you *believe* this is logical. It isn't. And not because I don't believe it isn't, but because it. isn't. That's the great thing about logic - personal belief has f*ck all to do with it.

- Life came into existence.
- The exact manner in which life arose from chemicals is presently unknown, but evidence is mounting in favor of a variety of rational theories.
- There is presently no evidence in favor of the "God did it" theory. (And yes, it is only a theory.)
- I will therefore withhold ultimate judgment while building my world view on the basis of theories for which there is some degree of evidence, as these theories are, presently, the best that we have.

Yeah, this.

 

[Eric B]

The only thing you've done since joining this discussion is reiterate over and over the same argument from incredulity. Your argument, as clearly demonstrated by the above comments boils down to:

- I've thought a lot about God!
- I've also thought a tad about alternative theories.
- These alternative theories were unable to convince me that God does not exist.
- Therefore, God exists.

It's called burden of proof. You seem convinced that people who ascribe to the theory of evolution operate under the following logic:

- The theory of evolution explains a few things!
- Therefore, evolution is absolutely the answer and God does not exist.

This is erroneous.

First of all, evolutionary theory does not explain or attempt to explain how life came into being. It explains how, once life has come into being, adaptations to the environment and competition from other living things leads to the evolution of a variety of species variously suited to a variety of ecological niches.

All of your attacks on evolutionary theory are irrelevant to the question of how life came into being.

Secondly, my logic, and the logic of people similar to me is such:

- Life came into existence.
- The exact manner in which life arose from chemicals is presently unknown, but evidence is mounting in favor of a variety of rational theories.
- There is presently no evidence in favor of the "God did it" theory. (And yes, it is only a theory.)
- I will therefore withhold ultimate judgment while building my world view on the basis of theories for which there is some degree of evidence, as these theories are, presently, the best that we have.

It baffles me the way believers have such difficulty grasping the notion of building one's beliefs up from the ground on the basis of evidence rather than entering into the fray with some set idea that will be ascribed to until anything can prove it wrong. (Which, as the classic "mermaid / dragon / invisible pink unicorn" comparisons demonstrate, is impossible.)

But what often happens in this issue is that the evolution side takes the lack of evidence for God as making it a safe bet to conclude that he is just a "delusion" as people like Dawkins call it. They then criticize the so-called "God of the gaps" tactic and include the issue of origins as one of these "gaps" like others that were once explained as supernatural, but then shown to be natural. So they overgeneralize, that because these other gaps were "filled", then ALL gaps, including original of life and the universe will be also, so God can now safely be dismissed as false. That's no longer going on evidence; it's jumping to a conclusion based on speculation of future discoveries; which is itself unprovable. You might not do this, but many others you can read today, do.

 

[Darjur]

Fuck it, wrong topic again.

 

[Erudur]

1# I don't believe that.
But one can prove things in various ways. Mathematics being one of them and most theories concerning our universe have quite a decent mathematical proof behind them. A scientific theory based on nothing does not exist.

2# Tell me how is that claim you've just written not a leap of logic? It was exactly like that article. You answered to the question "What?" and that is all, what you need to next for it to be complete is to answer to the questions "How? and "Why?". As a hypothesis, it is full of fallacies.

3# This is why I disagree. An assumption or a conjecture cannot be logical. Because there is no proof.

4# Actually, it is completely logical. The natural state is skepticism. To add something to an equation, you need proof for it to be there.

5# I don't see any problem whatsoever with what has been said in the article. What was said is that the theory of evolution needs a little revision. That is all. There were no mention of the theory being fundamentally flawed or anything like that, all that was said is that the amount of importance on certain aspects of it need to be changed. This is nothing new, this shit happens every week in the scientific arena. Hell the theory of evolution itself has gone through a lot of changes already in the past 100 years, this is nothing new or shocking.

#1 - my point is that whatever your cosmological view is, there is an underlying assumption that cannot be proven. Therefore, by your definition, your underlying position is illogical. Go ahead and go out on a limb and articulate your basic cosmological view and I'll respond directly to it.

#2 - it is inductive reasoning and contains leaps. but that is different than an illogical statement or a fallacy. You seem to be confusing inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning) with fallacy. It is a hypothesis that is unproven.

Given A as an established truth, there may be a truth outlined as A>B>C>D>E>F. If A is true and I am able to identify B,C,D and E, then I can deduce F. But I may be able to stumble upon F through inductive reasoning even if I only discover C. i.e. I see A and C and conjecture that F is true. Now it may also be that I inductively conclude G. In that case one could show G to be a fallacy by deducing A,B,C,D,E and F.

All of these fall apart if A is false, both the deductive conclusion and the inductive conclusion.

#3 - see #2. btw, you can verify definitions on dictionary.com or wikipedia. it would help if you'd take the time to understand the terms you are using before you use them. "conjecture" and "assumption" are interchangeable terms the way you are using them.

#4 - I agree that, as stated, it may be logical, but it may not be true. But if I apply your misconception of logicality/illogicality this would have the same level of fallacy as my statement was because like my statement it contains logical leaps.

"I forsake god before I even knew what evolution was. As a matter of fact I never believed in a need for god."

This may be true, but it may also be true that God exists, and further, that you need God. You made the logical leap that God does not exist, and that you do not need him. You've been cagey with what you do believe, but presumably, in some way or form, you believe that the world as we know it came about without God, or has always been this way. That belief is a logical leap, and yet still may or may not be true.

#5 - your take on the article is severely clouded by your own bias or your lack of understanding. These statements about the shortcomings of darwinism are huge and significantly erode some longstanding orthodoxies.

P.S.

In the scientific arena, no one gives a shit who you are. If there is no proof presented with a theory or a hypothesis behind it. You can go fuck yourself. Your degree says only minimal things about your credibility.

The fact that someone has a Hab. Doctorate in something or something equal to that does not mean shit. They can be as wrong as anyone else. Hell, Einstein himself was fundamentally wrong in a lot of his views, even thought he himself is written in the history books as one of the greatest scientist to exist.

Aww, now you're just trying to flatter me.

And based on your brilliant discourse so far, I am sure you are just the guy to straighten out ol' Einstein aren't cha.

 

[Mycroft]

But what often happens in this issue is that the evolution side takes the lack of evidence for God as making it a safe bet to conclude that he is just a "delusion" as people like Dawkins call it. They then criticize the so-called "God of the gaps" tactic and include the issue of origins as one of these "gaps" like others that were once explained as supernatural, but then shown to be natural. So they overgeneralize, that because these other gaps were "filled", then ALL gaps, including original of life and the universe will be also, so God can now safely be dismissed as false. That's no longer going on evidence; it's jumping to a conclusion based on speculation of future discoveries; which is itself unprovable. You might not do this, but many others you can read today, do.

This demonstrates the "exists until proven otherwise" thinking that is inherently erroneous. Again, Invisible Pink Unicorns.

 

[Nonsensical]

In general, NTs belief in things that they can conceptually reason out in their head..with logic. NFs are more prone to 'just understand' things, even if they are very far-fetched out of reason. I still think that some NTs believe, or can believe in God. Hell..no one knows if there is a god or not. Some people 'just know', and others need proof until they can believe of his existence.

 

[EcK]

In general, NTs belief in things that they can conceptually reason out in their head..with logic. NFs are more prone to 'just understand' things, even if they are very far-fetched out of reason. I still think that some NTs believe, or can believe in God. Hell..no one knows if there is a god or not. Some people 'just know', and others need proof until they can believe of his existence.

when talking about factual data such as the existence of a god and telling you 'just know', by definition, you don't.

just sayin'

 

[Darjur]

#1 - my point is that whatever your cosmological view is, there is an underlying assumption that cannot be proven. Therefore, by your definition, your underlying position is illogical. Go ahead and go out on a limb and articulate your basic cosmological view and I'll respond directly to it.

#2 - it is inductive reasoning and contains leaps. but that is different than an illogical statement or a fallacy. You seem to be confusing inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning) with fallacy. It is a hypothesis that is unproven.

Given A as an established truth, there may be a truth outlined as A>B>C>D>E>F. If A is true and I am able to identify B,C,D and E, then I can deduce F. But I may be able to stumble upon F through inductive reasoning even if I only discover C. i.e. I see A and C and conjecture that F is true. Now it may also be that I inductively conclude G. In that case one could show G to be a fallacy by deducing A,B,C,D,E and F.

All of these fall apart if A is false, both the deductive conclusion and the inductive conclusion.

#3 - see #2. btw, you can verify definitions on dictionary.com or wikipedia. it would help if you'd take the time to understand the terms you are using before you use them. "conjecture" and "assumption" are interchangeable terms the way you are using them.

#4 - I agree that, as stated, it may be logical, but it may not be true. But if I apply your misconception of logicality/illogicality this would have the same level of fallacy as my statement was because like my statement it contains logical leaps.

"I forsake god before I even knew what evolution was. As a matter of fact I never believed in a need for god."

This may be true, but it may also be true that God exists, and further, that you need God. You made the logical leap that God does not exist, and that you do not need him. You've been cagey with what you do believe, but presumably, in some way or form, you believe that the world as we know it came about without God, or has always been this way. That belief is a logical leap, and yet still may or may not be true.

#5 - your take on the article is severely clouded by your own bias or your lack of understanding. These statements about the shortcomings of darwinism are huge and significantly erode some longstanding orthodoxies.



6# Aww, now you're just trying to flatter me.

And based on your brilliant discourse so far, I am sure you are just the guy to straighten out ol' Einstein aren't cha.

1# As I said. There are various ways of proving something.Going back in time and filming the whole ordeal is not the only way to present proof. Mathematical proof as an example can be easily used in these cases.

2# It is not a stable hypothesis precisely because it is incomplete. In an argument, this is a fucking logical fallacy, it can be used as a prime example for the term "non sequitor".

An inductive logic is a system of reasoning that extends deductive logic to less-than-certain inferences. In a valid deductive argument the premises logically entail the conclusion, where such entailment means that the truth of the premises provides a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion. Similarly, in a good inductive argument the premises should provide some degree of support for the conclusion, where such support means that the truth of the premises indicates with some degree of strength that the conclusion is true.

What you have is just "A, thus B". That is a fucking logical fallacy.

3# Sorry but arguing in my third foreign language is a bit hard as it is without the extra vocabulary definitions to keep track off. And I really couldn't give a shit about the differences between assumption and conjecture.

4# Until something is proven, the default position is skepticism. One does not logically believe in something he has no proof for.

This gentlemen Mycroft sums it up:

This demonstrates the "exists until proven otherwise" thinking that is inherently erroneous. Again, Invisible Pink Unicorns.

Do you logically conclude that on gods side there were 72 masturbating T-rexes helping him out? No you do not, why? Because you have no fucking need to believe in any of the T-rexes.

Just the absolute same is with me. I just have no fucking need to believe in either the T-rexes or a god.

Why? Because there is no bloody rigid proof which would show me the need for a supreme being of any fucking kind.

5# Your view on the article is as severely biased as is mine. It's just biased in the opposite direction. You are looking for stuff to nit-pick about evolution and I am waiting for a research paper that both answers to what is wrong with evolution, why is it wrong and what is the proposed solution to fix the problem. I do not see that in that article which in turn means that this article has absolutely no worth to me and that I am disappointed to have wasted my time reading it. In all actuality, it can't be even fucking used as a point in this argument.

It does not tell anything of value. What we have here is just a speculation, nothing more. I have no knowledge to what this research will lead to, but its existence is worthless at this point in time.

6# Sorry, but I wasn't referring to you. You have yet to bring any solid material.

Yes and as a matter of fact I just broke the Space-Time fabric went back to the past and lodged my foot into Einsteins rectum for being wrong.

 

[Kangirl]

Gah! Darjur, you leave the masturbating T-Rexes out of this! They *definitely* exist and are doing god's work!

Erudur - why can't you just say that no, there is no logical reason to believe in god, but you have faith anyway? That would be acceptable. But people are right in pointing out that nothing you've posted indicates a logical reason to believe in god.

I think most people in this thread would concede that Darwinism as it stands *may* be flawed (not a strange occurence in the history of scientific theories!). That's fine. But it doesn't necessitate belief.