Religion of Evolution: UTEOTW

[UTEOTW]

In the same thread where I mentioned whales as an off topic answer to a question, I also mentioned some horse material in the same answer. Again, I hope that by bringing this to the front that we can divert any horse discussion that might come about to this thread and prevent the original thread from going too far off topic.

Again, I would suggest that anyone interested start with the first page. This thread went into some odd directions after that.

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian observes:
Actually, it depends on how far back you go. Ungulates are no longer considered monophyletic, but placentals are. The perissodactyls form one large group, and the artiodactyls another.

But they have a common ancestor. They just don't have a unique common ancestor; there are other groups that derive from that one.

Sure sounds like a religion to me.

That would explain why you think ID is a science. You have it backwards. Science depends on evidence. Religion depends on faith.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
P of E:

"Apparantly JC makes the following equation: empirical nonsense = religion."

Nonsense. They don't equate.

"I deplore this identity, and I wish to declare that I do not believe my religion is empirical nonsense."

Me too.

"I also wish to declare that my science is not empirical nonsense, either, and I challenge JC to point out any way in which asserting we are related to the apes can be shown to be empirical nonsense."

It's not empirical knowledge. It's hypothetical, theoretical and highly speculative.

"Part of the challenge is to keep the assertion on an empirical level, leaving out all appeals to religious sources for the conclusion."

Huh?

I'm sorry, JC, I wrongly assumed you know what "empirical" means just because you used it in a sentence. Let me rephrase. Part of the challenge is to keep the assertion limited to assetions with actual evidence and actual reasons for the assertion.

Lessseenow. you wrote "It's not empirical knowledge. It's hypothetical, theoretical and highly speculative." End of discussion. No reasoning, no evidence, just a default pronounement.

Funny why scientists keep ignoring such pronouncements, isn't it? THey keep asking for evidence and reasoning based on evidence. The nerve of those guys.