Octopus And Squid Evolution Is Officially Stranger Than We Could Have Ever Imagined

[SoldierMan]

You really are talking nonsense now. How you manage to extrapolate there being statues to something makes it a religion is really nonsensical.

If I said that ONLY because there were statues you would have a point, but that ISN'T what I said was it? Man, you people just don't listen.

 

[SoldierMan]

A philosopher who is interested in both religion and evolution has stated that some people's belief in evolution is "akin" to religion.

He is not "admitting" anything; he is not claiming that he himself is a follower of this religion of evolution.

He would say, "what nonsense" and he'd be right.

Let's just stop at "it is not like a traditional religion" because, yanno, it is not a religion.

There are statues of chickens. Does that mean people follow the religion of chickens?

So your argument for the existence of the religion of evolution is that someone said that belief in evolution "is akin" to religion.

The end.*


(* Well, that and an unsourced quote from someone who says that Darwin said something, but without citing who, nor when or where)





Very firm footing there, SoldierBoy.

Again, you take what was said and twist it to mean something else. Not very honest of you scuddy.
It is not my problem if you have basic comprehension issues.

"Michael Ruse is a philosopher of science, particularly of the evolutionary sciences."

Unlike you he is not a nobody and people actually ask him to speak at conferences, so unless you are saying those kinds of people's opinions are worthless his opinion can be held upand be counted.

 

[SoldierMan]

I'm sure SoldierBoy wishes it had been forgotten, and the same about his "Intelligent Design" drive-by shit-post.

Dang straight it was a drive-by. What the problem is?
I didn't know it was a rule that we had to type out an essay every time we post. Do you lead by example scuddy.

 

[OCP]

LOL You just don't get it. A prominent figure in the evolutionary world admits that it is a religion for him and others but even that is not good enough for you. If you asked him if it was he would say yes. He had the guts to admit it. Of course it is not like a traditional religion but for all intents and purposes for some it is. There are no churches of evolution (although I'm sure there are many places setup to honour Darwin, so I guess that could count) but there are the figureheads of evolution like Dawkins and Darwin. Statues are erected of Darwin, and people follow the figureheads with a level of fundamentalism seen mainly in religions.

But like I said even though you have a figurehead admitting as much it is still not enough for you, nothing ever will be for someone like you.

I have met 2 people who believe the world.is flat. Does 2 opinions make that a religion too then?

As an agnostic atheist I have never come across anyone that considered or professed evolution to be a religion.

Nb. I am 44 so lump me in whatever category that will suit your narrative.

 

[SoldierMan]

I have met 2 people who believe the world.is flat. Does 2 opinions make that a religion too then?

As an agnostic atheist I have never come across anyone that considered or professed evolution to be a religion.

Nb. I am 44 so lump me in whatever category that will suit your narrative.

Actually there are many more people than you think that believe the world is flat and for many it DOES form part of their religion, so I think you used a bad example there.

Whatever though. My point is that the fanaticism with which some evolutionists study both their evolutionary views AND the opposing Judeo Christian views just so that they can argue that their view is the correct one and Christianity is just flat out wrong is just plain fanatic. It consumes their lives 24/7.

And the fact that you do have a prominent evolutionary thinker saying that for him and some evolution is like a religion, well that just backs up what I am saying. Obviously many evolutionists won't want to admit as much because for many they have become what they despise, a religious fanatic.

I am NOT saying that all evolutionists/atheists see it that way, far from it. Many of my friends believe in evolution but they don't freak out when we debate and I tell them that I think macro-evolution is just-so assumptions based on nothing but best guesses.

Just mention the word evolution, or that it is wrong and many fly off the handle, they can't take it they launch into just how stupid we are and how brilliant they are. Kinda like scuddy is displaying.

I spent many years debating on internet forums the evolution/creationism/ID field and after a while I just got enough and gave up. Don't get me wrong there is merit in what people debate but it more often that not becomes aggressive and confrontational rather than any actual constructive debate.

There are exceptions like on Uncommon Descent where they play the ball and not the man.

Anyway believe what you want but I will stick to what I am saying that for some evolution is like a religion, it consumes people's lives, it has become their antidote to the Christian view on reality. They can hold it up and say, see, my view is correct, there is no God, there is no creator, we are nothing but a cosmic accident. There is no meaning. There are no rules. I can do what I want.

 

[scudsucker]

Whatever though. My point is that the fanaticism with which some evolutionists study both their evolutionary views AND the opposing Judeo Christian views just so that they can argue that their view is the correct one and Christianity is just flat out wrong is just plain fanatic. It consumes their lives 24/7.

"some" working hard for you there. Prove that these people exist, and that this consumes their lives.

And the fact that you do have a prominent evolutionary thinker saying that for him and some evolution is like a religion, well that just backs up what I am saying.

But, he did not say what you say he is saying. His words: "evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion."

This is not an "admission" and it is not stating that he himself - no matter how much you'd like this to be true - thinks that evolution is a religion. You keep suggesting that people have no comprehension; but you obviously did not read what you posted.

Obviously many evolutionists won't want to admit as much because for many they have become what they despise, a religious fanatic.

No one needs to "admit" anything; no one is a fanatical follower of the non-existent "religion". You keep saying these people exist but you cannot name a single one or point to any proof that such people exist.

Just mention the word evolution, or that it is wrong and many fly off the handle, they can't take it they launch into just how stupid we are and how brilliant they are. Kinda like scuddy is displaying.

I have not stated how stupid you are, nor how brilliant I am. I have repeatedly asked or you to provide evidence of what you claim - which, as it is not at all forthcoming, can therefore rightly be described as nonsense.

I spent many years debating on internet forums the evolution/creationism/ID field and after a while I just got enough and gave up.

Doesn't stop you from shit-posting and then arguing without evidence. Maybe you should give up.

Don't get me wrong there is merit in what people debate but it more often that not becomes aggressive and confrontational rather than any actual constructive debate.

Hmm. Does the word "irony" mean anything to you? How about "hypocrisy"?

There are exceptions like on Uncommon Descent where they play the ball and not the man.

The mysterious "they" again - another anonymous entity.

Anyway believe what you want but I will stick to what I am saying that for some evolution is like a religion, it consumes people's lives, it has become their antidote to the Christian view on reality. They can hold it up and say, see, my view is correct, there is no God, there is no creator, we are nothing but a cosmic accident. There is no meaning. There are no rules. I can do what I want.

Well, that's nice dear. You can also stick to saying the sky is purple and the force of gravity is caused by leprechauns in the center of the sun, for all the good it will do you.

 

[SoldierMan]

"some" working hard for you there. Prove that these people exist, and that this consumes their lives.

But, he did not say what you say he is saying. His words: "evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion."

This is not an "admission" and it is not stating that he himself - no matter how much you'd like this to be true - thinks that evolution is a religion. You keep suggesting that people have no comprehension; but you obviously did not read what you posted.

No one needs to "admit" anything; no one is a fanatical follower of the non-existent "religion". You keep saying these people exist but you cannot name a single one or point to any proof that such people exist.

I have not stated how stupid you are, nor how brilliant I am. I have repeatedly asked or you to provide evidence of what you claim - which, as it is not at all forthcoming, can therefore rightly be described as nonsense.

Doesn't stop you from shit-posting and then arguing without evidence. Maybe you should give up.

Hmm. Does the word "irony" mean anything to you? How about "hypocrisy"?

The mysterious "they" again - another anonymous entity.

Well, that's nice dear. You can also stick to saying the sky is purple and the force of gravity is caused by leprechauns in the center of the sun, for all the good it will do you.

Hello scuddy, having a good day my baby boy?

 

[SoldierMan]

@scudsucker
You telling me that from the below quotes that he is not equating evolution to a secular religion for some, including Thomas Henry Huxley? You telling me that is your takeaway?? Come on man, your bias/fanaticism is blinding you to what is written in black and white.

And certainly, there's no doubt about it, that in the past, and I think also in the present, for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion.

I think, for instance, of the most famous family in the history of evolution, namely, the Huxleys. I think of Thomas Henry Huxley, the grandfather, and of Julian Huxley, the grandson. Certainly, if you read Thomas Henry Huxley, when he's in full flight, there's no question but that for Huxley at some very important level, evolution and science generally, but certainly evolution in particular, is functioning a bit as a kind of secular religion. Interestingly, Huxley -- and I've gone through his own lectures, I've gone through two complete sets of lecture notes that Huxley gave to his students -- Huxley never talked about evolution when he was actually teaching. He kept evolution for affairs like this, and when he was talking at a much more popular sort of level. Certainly, though, as I say, for Thomas Henry Huxley, I don't think there's any question but that evolution functioned, at a level, as a kind of secular religion.

If you look both at his printed stuff, and if you go down to Rice University which has got all his private papers, again and again in the letters, it comes through very strongly that for Julian Huxley evolution was functioning as a kind of secular religion.

I think that this -- and I'm not saying this now particularly in a critical sense, I'm just saying this in a matter-of-fact sense -- I think that today also, for more than one eminent evolutionist, evolution in a way functions as a kind of secular religion. And let me just mention my friend Edward O. Wilson. Certainly, I think that if you look at some of the stuff which caused some much controversy in the 1970s, what is interesting is not so much the fact that Wilson was talking about trying to include humans in the evolutionary scenario. Everybody was doing that. It was not so much even the fact that he was using what is now called sexist language, like "Man," because I went to look at Richard Lewontin's book, which he published the year before Wilson, and in the index it says "Homo sapiens, see 'Man'" -- so, I mean, we were all committing that sort of mistake, as it is now judged. But certainly, if you look for instance in On Human Nature, Wilson is quite categorical about wanting to see evolution as the new myth, and all sorts of language like this. That for him, at some level, it's functioning as a kind of metaphysical system.

But I am coming here and saying, I think that philosophically that one should be sensitive to what I think history shows, namely, that evolution, just as much as religion -- or at least, leave "just as much," let me leave that phrase -- evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically. I guess we all knew that, but I think that we're all much more sensitive to these facts now. And I think that the way to deal with creationism, but the way to deal with evolution also, is not to deny these facts, but to recognize them, and to see where we can go, as we move on from there.

 

[scudsucker]

Hello scuddy, having a good day my baby boy?

Please do not involve me in your weird fantasy life.

What do these phrases mean to you: "a bit as a kind of ", "as a kind of", "in a way functions as a kind of", "at some level", "functioning as a kind of ", "akin to" ?

You are STILL basing all of your "evidence" on one person's opinions, as well. Could you maybe branch out a little, show some actual proof rather than opinion?

 

[SoldierMan]

Please do not involve me in your weird fantasy life.

What do these phrases mean to you: "a bit as a kind of ", "as a kind of", "in a way functions as a kind of", "at some level", "functioning as a kind of ", "akin to" ?

You are STILL basing all of your "evidence" on one person's opinions, as well. Could you maybe branch out a little, show some actual proof rather than opinion?

You answered your own question my boy, though you don't see it.

Because he is one of the few people who are honest enough to admit as much.

Did you see the crowd's reaction to Ruse's comments. The word he used was "shock", that he said as much, probably because many people hadn't been introduced to that way of thinking before. An all consuming worldview shaped by evolution, surely it couldn't be AKIN to a secular religion. Oh yes it can.

No hardcore atheist is going to admit that evolution is like a religion for them it goes against everything they stand for, namely religion and God are false. So don't expect Dawkins' latest book title to read "Evolution: My Great Religion" but as was said by Ruse for many that is exactly what it is AKIN to.

But their words and even more so their actions speak volumes.

 

[Dave]

Actually there are many more people than you think that believe the world is flat and for many it DOES form part of their religion

Could you explain the above when read in conjunction with the definition of a religion?

Oxford Dictionaries defines religion as the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.[1]

 

[scudsucker]

You answered your own question my boy, though you don't see it.

I am not your baby boy, no matter what you get up to when you are alone.

Because he is one of the few people who are honest enough to admit as much.

For reasons of your own, you are trying to make "admission" a key part of your evidence. Mr. Ruse is not admitting anything.

Did you see the crowd's reaction to Ruse's comments. The word he used was "shock", that he said as much, probably because many people hadn't been introduced to that way of thinking before.

Certainly, in the history of humanity, no one, not a single soul has been introduced to religious thinking before. Indubitably.

An all consuming worldview shaped by evolution, surely it couldn't be AKIN to a secular religion. Oh yes it can.

In your opinion, so far, and in no one else's.

No hardcore atheist is going to admit that evolution is like a religion for them it goes against everything they stand for, namely religion and God are false. So don't expect Dawkins' latest book title to read "Evolution: My Great Religion" but as was said by Ruse for many that is exactly what it is AKIN to.

Because evolution is not a religion in any form at all.

But their words and even more so their actions speak volumes.

I guess, at your age, you need the volume - but the words you are hearing are only happening in your head.

 

[SoldierMan]

Could you explain the above when read in conjunction with the definition of a religion?

Another definition that Google Dictionary has is the following:

• a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

Remember it is a secular religion because it is akin to religion, because it has many of the features of religion. Great devotion being particularly exact in this regard.

 

[SoldierMan]

I am not your baby boy, no matter what you get up to when you are alone.

For reasons of your own, you are trying to make "admission" a key part of your evidence. Mr. Ruse is not admitting anything.

Certainly, in the history of humanity, no one, not a single soul has been introduced to religious thinking before. Indubitably.

In your opinion, so far, and in no one else's.

Because evolution is not a religion in any form at all.

I guess, at your age, you need the volume - but the words you are hearing are only happening in your head.

Oh, you're hopeless my boy.

Ruse states it multiple times in his speech yet you constantly deny it. Just like you denied Dawkins' admission of directed panspermia being potentially the cause of the origin of life on earth. It's in stereo and in full colour but you deny it. Truly amazing.

Even Dawkins isn't as hard headed and stubborn as you That is quite some feat my boy!

 

[scudsucker]

my boy.

I think your god has something to say about homosexual relations - though I notice that your particular religion is big on homosexual child rape, so perhaps that is what you are alluding to.

Ruse states it multiple times in his speech yet you constantly deny it.

Apparently age has affected your reading ability.

Just like you denied Dawkins' admission of directed panspermia being potentially the cause of the origin of life on earth.

Apparently age has affected your reading and hearing ability.

Even Dawkins isn't as hard headed and stubborn as you That is quite some feat my boy!

Repeatedly asking for evidence from a believer in magic sky fairies is indeed stubborn; it is with morbid curiosity to see how far you will go to completely avoid showing any evidence for your ridiculous contentions.

Now we have cleared that up, are you going to admit that you have but one source - Ruse - and only his opinion to back you up? That, in fact you have failed to make a case at all?

 

[SoldierMan]

I think your god has something to say about homosexual relations - though I notice that your particular religion is big on homosexual child rape, so perhaps that is what you are alluding to.


Apparently age has affected your reading ability.


Apparently age has affected your reading and hearing ability.


Repeatedly asking for evidence from a believer in magic sky fairies is indeed stubborn; it is with morbid curiosity to see how far you will go to completely avoid showing any evidence for your ridiculous contentions.

Now we have cleared that up, are you going to admit that you have but one source - Ruse - and only his opinion to back you up? That, in fact you have failed to make a case at all?

No, not at all. The fact is we are dealing with a stubborn hard headed fanatic (you) who fails at basic comprehension even when in black and white or full colour video. So a case has been made (though admittedly not comprehensive as it is a topic that I haven't fully delved into, but a case nevertheless) but you are incapable of seeing it.

 

[scudsucker]

So a case has been made (though admittedly not comprehensive as it is a topic that I haven't fully delved into, but a case nevertheless) but you are incapable of seeing it.

You have typed out words, but you have not made a case.

If I am incapable of seeing it, perhaps your case is as nebulous as your sky fairy friend - ie, it fails on even the most basic scrutiny.

Perhaps you have more evidence to offer than Mr. Ruse's opinion? No?

 

[SoldierMan]

You have typed out words, but you have not made a case.

If I am incapable of seeing it, perhaps your case is as nebulous as your sky fairy friend - ie, it fails on even the most basic scrutiny.

Perhaps you have more evidence to offer than Mr. Ruse's opinion? No?

LOL Like I said even video evidence isn't good enough for your hardheadedness so what good will words typed out be.

 

[scudsucker]

LOL Like I said even video evidence isn't good enough for your hardheadedness so what good will words typed out be.

SoldierBoy,

1) the video evidence does not prove that Dawkins believes there is a creator. It proves that he believes that no one knows how the first molecule replicated itself. His words are "No one knows". Those words have a meaning, SoldierBoy.

2) Further, the video evidence has nothing to do with:
2.a) Your claim that octopus evolution is powered by Intelligent Design
2.b) Your claim that evolution is a religion
2.c) Your claim that atheism is a religion

 

[SoldierMan]

SoldierBoy,

1) the video evidence does not prove that Dawkins believes there is a creator. It proves that he believes that no one knows how the first molecule replicated itself. His words are "No one knows". Those words have a meaning, SoldierBoy.

2) Further, the video evidence has nothing to do with:
2.a) Your claim that octopus evolution is powered by Intelligent Design
2.b) Your claim that evolution is a religion
2.c) Your claim that atheism is a religion

1) My poor baby boy I never said that Dawkins believes that, I have said over and over and over (there's that thick skull of yours again) that he said that there is a chance that aliens created us. He doesn't rule it out. Do you FINALLY get that now sonny? Hand clap if you do.

2) Evolution has only ever proven that it can work with EXISTING DNA, other than that it breaks what has already been made. Look at various dog breeds, while not technically evolution, the changes that gave us the various breeds are due to front loading, the dog's DNA was capable of those changes with existing information or DNA. We have never witnessed macro-evolution, or the creation of new features it is a myth.

2b) I have given some good evidence, your stubbornness just refuses to admit it. Remember Google Dictionary lists "a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion." as a religion. That sums up quite a few prominent firgureheads within the evolution movement just like Ruse said.

2c) I said that atheism is a religion but used it as a blanket term to include evolution. When delving deeper into the topic when asked to explain then I explained that the atheist uses evolution as his religion. Wow have you been struggling with that the whole time You a bit slow there.