[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Index by Month]
Re: Evolution in a microcosm
"Religions all
fall into the category of explanations to make people
feel more
secure, but since the existence of gods isn't
testable, why should we
believe in them? And why does a non-testable story
make people feel
more secure anyway? That one always baffles me.
What upsets me is when people are raised religious and
never question
what they've been taught. Most people have never even
realized that
the existence of gods is not testable. I'm not
saying that they
should immediately believe evolution, but there's
certainly no excuse
for making up mystical stories of gods and angels.
Pay attention to
any time you see a person explaining a phenomenon to
another person.
Every where the person says "well God did that", you
can just replace
"God" with "I don't know" and that's really what
they're saying. I
think they should just say "I don't know"."
I am not going to touch this one however Zack never
once mentioned religion or God yet you keep wanting to
fill us with your ideological Dogma. You feel a need
for everyone to agree with your ideology. Please for
the very last time drop it. If you insist on such
conversation. Sart a yaho group or something and call
it what you want. I personaly disagree with what you
are saying and do not apreciate the fact that you
insist to push your ideas on the rest of us. And no I
do not blindly follow my faith I have good and valid
reasons for what I beleive. But by it's very nature
faith is just that faith. However I do not believe in
blind faith either. Nor am I gonna get into this with
you and be guilty of the very thing I am comdeming. So
Brian would you please just drop it, ok? I have no
problem with Mike W talking about Phylogony I love
science but opinions of the exsistance or lack there
of God is a matter to be left out of the Apisto list.
Dave Sanchez
--- Brian Ahmer <ahmer.1@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> That was a great email Zack. I actually agree with
> everything you
> said, even though we have different opinions on the
> validity of
> macro-evolotion. I'm actually fine with people not
> accepting
> evolution. As you said, it's not good to have blind
> faith in the
> evolution idea. To really understand the mechanics
> of genetics and
> evolution takes years of study which is of course
> not going to happen
> for the general public. So I think it's great that
> you don't accept
> it. Personally, I do believe it but only through
> devoting my
> professional life to studying the evidence and
> making sure I
> understand the mechanisms as well as is currently
> possible (and
> seeing it before my eyes in these bacterial genomes,
> the genome
> sequences are just awesome!).
>
> I also completely agree with you that religion and
> evolution aren't
> the only options. People shouldn't believe either
> blindly. So most
> people automatically assume that evidence against
> one is evidence for
> the other. But at least evolution is testable and
> gods are not. I
> suspect that the reason that religion gets thrown
> into the mix is
> that when people can't scientifically explain a
> phenomenon, they have
> this strange need to make something up. I promote
> the idea of being
> honest with ourselves and saying "heck if I know".
> Religions all
> fall into the category of explanations to make
> people feel more
> secure, but since the existence of gods isn't
> testable, why should we
> believe in them? And why does a non-testable story
> make people feel
> more secure anyway? That one always baffles me.
>
> What upsets me is when people are raised religious
> and never question
> what they've been taught. Most people have never
> even realized that
> the existence of gods is not testable. I'm not
> saying that they
> should immediately believe evolution, but there's
> certainly no excuse
> for making up mystical stories of gods and angels.
> Pay attention to
> any time you see a person explaining a phenomenon to
> another person.
> Every where the person says "well God did that", you
> can just replace
> "God" with "I don't know" and that's really what
> they're saying. I
> think they should just say "I don't know".
>
>
> >I don't know why some feel the need to shy away
> from this subject. I agree
> >with others who consider this an enjoyable
> discussion. We're all adults here
> >and should be able to handle some intelligent
> discussion of a very pivotal
> >idea. The occurrence of macro-evolution or the lack
> thereof is very
> >prevalent with regards to our Apistos. It affects
> how we identify or
> >understand the relation of our fish--whether what
> we have is really a new
> >species in a chain or whether it is just a
> variation of a pre-existing
> >species. Whether we go into the examination of a
> fish with the pre-existing
> >notion that we must fit the fish into our
> evolutionary model affects how we
> >identify our fishes.
> >
> >I find it interesting that it is the proponents of
> macro-evolution who have
> >felt it necessary to bring in religion. Those of us
> capable of offering an
> >intelligent discussion about the occurrence of
> macro-evolution have yet to
> >mention religion. I have only given reasons why I
> don't accept evolution and
> >haven't stated any affiliation to an alternative
> religion from evolution. So
> >far the biggest lack of education or intelligence I
> have seen comes from the
> >other side. I wonder how well anyone understands
> the alternatives, or do
> >they just believe in their religion of evolution
> because that is all they
> >have taken the time to study? I have studied
> evolution in-depth and at
> >length and find no merit in it.
> >
> >Most of what has been offered in favor of
> macro-evolution has been devoid of
> >substance or evidence in favor, but rather has
> simply attacked alternative
> >views with simplistic dogma. I don't agree with the
> ideas of macro-evolution
> >for many well-thought-out reasons and therefor
> differ in my opinions of what
> >constitutes the identification of a new species. I
> am happy to discuss with
> >others who can behave like adults the logic of my
> views. If you're not
> >interested in this subject, there are other threads
> and you don't have to
> >read this one. If you are interested, whether as a
> contributor or observer,
> >you're free to participate.
> >
> >Regards all,
> >
> >Zack Wilson
> >losing more and more respect for Ph.D's.
> >
> >
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >This is the apistogramma mailing list,
> apisto@listbox.com.
> >For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe
> or get help,
> >email apisto-request@listbox.com.
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> Brian Ahmer, Ph.D.
>
> ============================================
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Microbiology
> The Ohio State University
> 376 Bioscience Building
> 484 West 12th Ave
> Columbus OH 43210
>
> 614-292-1919
> ahmer.1@osu.edu
> http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~microbio/ba.html
> ============================================
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the apistogramma mailing list,
> apisto@listbox.com.
> For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe
> or get help,
> email apisto-request@listbox.com.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
http://sports.yahoo.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@listbox.com.
For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
email apisto-request@listbox.com.