Discussion: Evolution

[Carcharodon]

That makes Little Timmy scared.



I should start taking bets about what the next topic will be. Abortion, maybe?

Little Timmy gets the gloved-hand.

 

[mightiest_mortal]

Awwww... cant we leave it open for a while, it ALWAYS livens up around this thread whenever Venomfang drops by.

 

[Halcohol]

Awwww... cant we leave it open for a while, it ALWAYS livens up around this thread whenever Venomfang drops by.

Well, until that happens, I'll be right over here on the edge of my seat.

 

[souloffire]

Check further down the evoultionary tree,they came from rodents that surived the meteor impact that killed the Dinosaurs.

Why do people still refuse to accept this?Is there religious reasons?Humans are not special from any other animal.

Dude, where have you been for 22 pages? Of course it's religious reasons.

 

[raybia]

You didn't give reasons. You gave quotes from authorities in evolutionary biology, intentionally taken out of context in order to give the impression that they were saying something they were not. You were, at best, propagating other people's clear attempts at deceit.

That a bold accusation. Prove it.

Yes indeed, everyday I and my fellow "Darwinists" pray to Darwin, and on sundays we visit the Darwin temples spread across the world. I try my best to follow all the moral laws and traditions laid out by my evolutionary religion, but sometimes it gets hard to do. And of course my religion makes many specific statements about spirituality, and how we should all better ourselves...

Oh, wait...

Belief in evolution is no more a religion than belief in gravity.

In science its called theory, in religion its called faith. Semantics.

I really have no interest in "converting" you, believe it or not. But responding to your posts have turned out to be an excellent way to expose the way creationists think and act when trying to "debate" evolution.

Thats quite an accomplishment. Too bad I'm not a creationist.

 

[gregtestagent]

I'm all for Darwinism, as one of the first steps taken to answer some very big questions, but the contention here is that evolution is a scientific fact and no longer a THEORY. I do not beg to differ, but I would like to hear you prove your point.

 

[sithgoblin]

In science its called theory, in religion its called faith. Semantics.

The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

A current "theory" in science is an explanation of nature that has never been refuted and is supported empirically. Get your head around it.

 

[Kent]

That a bold accusation. Prove it.

Ok, I'll concede that these out of context quotes might not have found themselves into your hands through someone's intentional attempt at deceit.
It might also be the result of some of the most insanely shoddy research I've ever seen... that or stupidity/ignorance.

Either someone somewhere along the line read the quotes in context and therefore knew that people reading them would think they said things that they in fact did not. In which case it is deceit.
Or someone somewhere along the line read the quotes in context, but didn't understand the context. In which case it is stupidity/ignorance.
Or someone somewhere along the line came into contact with these quotes out of context (some of which have large amounts of text skipped, the skipping of which gives a misleading impression) and decided they didn't need to look them up for themselves. In which case it's insanely shoddy research.

So I guess I retract my accusation of deceit, and replace it with deceit or stupidity/ignorance, or insanely shoddy research. Neither of which speaks very highly of the sources you've chosen to use in these discussions.

If you have actually come up with these quotes all by yourself without using for instance a creationist source, then you stand accused of one of the three. I would, however, like to think this is not the case.

In science its called theory, in religion its called faith. Semantics.

It's not semantics.
There have been people treating their faith as factual for thousands upon thousands of years, and doing so has not produced unique technology and/or ideas that anyone can use regardless of if they share said faith or not (and that cannot be trivially derived by any other, non-religious, means).

On the other hand... when we treat well established scientific theories as if they were factual it gives us actual results (note here that science in the modern sense has only been around for a couple of hundred years).
The computer you're sitting at as you're reading this is based on treating quantum theory (among other theories) as factual.
Sending probes into outer space, or into orbit around planets in our solar system is based upon treating Einstein's theory of general relativity as factual.
Genetic algorithms that design circuits so complex that even experts can't tell how they work is based on the theory that mutation + natural selection can generate design without an "intelligent designer" specifying said design.
Modern medicine is here because we've chosen to treat the germ theory of disease as factual...
And so on...

Thats quite an accomplishment. Too bad I'm not a creationist.

Perhaps you're not. But you use all the same (impotent) arguments and tactics. Close enough for me.

 

[raybia]

A current "theory" in science is an explanation of nature that has never been refuted and is supported empirically. Get your head around it.

The belief of a flat earth was a current "theory" at one point too. Get your head around that.

 

[raybia]

Ok, I'll concede that these out of context quotes might not have found themselves into your hands through someone's intentional attempt at deceit.
It might also be the result of some of the most insanely shoddy research I've ever seen... that or stupidity/ignorance.

Either someone somewhere along the line read the quotes in context and therefore knew that people reading them would think they said things that they in fact did not. In which case it is deceit.
Or someone somewhere along the line read the quotes in context, but didn't understand the context. In which case it is stupidity/ignorance.
Or someone somewhere along the line came into contact with these quotes out of context (some of which have large amounts of text skipped, the skipping of which gives a misleading impression) and decided they didn't need to look them up for themselves. In which case it's insanely shoddy research.

So I guess I retract my accusation of deceit, and replace it with deceit or stupidity/ignorance, or insanely shoddy research. Neither of which speaks very highly of the sources you've chosen to use in these discussions.

If you have actually come up with these quotes all by yourself without using for instance a creationist source, then you stand accused of one of the three. I would, however, like to think this is not the case.

Forgive me for only spending only a few minutes responding to this topic. I do have a life and don't have the time to do an indepth thesis that would satisfy you. Not that it would make a difference anyway. Like me, your mind is already made up.


It's not semantics.
There have been people treating their faith as factual for thousands upon thousands of years, and doing so has not produced unique technology and/or ideas that anyone can use regardless of if they share said faith or not (and that cannot be trivially derived by any other, non-religious, means).

On the other hand... when we treat well established scientific theories as if they were factual it gives us actual results (note here that science in the modern sense has only been around for a couple of hundred years).
The computer you're sitting at as you're reading this is based on treating quantum theory (among other theories) as factual.
Sending probes into outer space, or into orbit around planets in our solar system is based upon treating Einstein's theory of general relativity as factual.
Genetic algorithms that design circuits so complex that even experts can't tell how they work is based on the theory that mutation + natural selection can generate design without an "intelligent designer" specifying said design.
Modern medicine is here because we've chosen to treat the germ theory of disease as factual...
And so on...

Regardless, in religion its called faith and in science its called theory.

Sometimes a person's faith is determined to be false and some theories are determined to be false.

If a particular faith and theory are evidentially determined to be correct then those who followed that course are the beneficaries.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Regardless, in religion its called faith and in science its called theory.

Two very different things.
see, in "faith" you have been told of god's existence and your faith allows you to believe it is so.
in theory, there would have to be something supporting the claim.
and a logical chain of events leading up to the present assertion.
a progression of events that leads to no other conclusion, but that there is a god. religion doesn't work that way.
the comparison of the two is unnecessary and immaterial.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Thanks for saving me the typing.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

 

[Kent]

The belief of a flat earth was a current "theory" at one point too. Get your head around that.

Yes, the history of science shows that scientific theories can be replaced by other theories.
It is however also the case that the better theories have to be able to explain the success of the theory it replaces...

The example of the flat earth is true locally. That is, if you observe a small enough area of the earth (like maybe your home town) it is true that it is very accurately described as flat rather than spherical. So, "spherical earth theory" explains the success of "flat earth theory", simply because at small enough scales of length, the earth will be locally flat, even if globally it is spherical (this is why video games can describe curved surfaces effectively with (flat) polygons).

Let me repeat that:
"A replacing theory has to be able to explain the success of the previous theory."

...The idea that man and apes have no common ancestor does not do this. It cannot explain any of the molecular, paleontological, biogegraphical (etc) data, that current evolutionary theory can explain, and it most certainly can't explain more data. It is therefore not a valid candidate for a replacing theory.

 

[raybia]

Two very different things.
see, in "faith" you have been told of god's existence and your faith allows you to believe it is so.
in theory, there would have to be something supporting the claim.

Faith in G-d is not with supporting claims too. Among other things, is the existence of life and human life, the earth and all of creation. Now you dismiss that as a supporting claim just like I dismiss the supporting claims of Darwinism but its not up to others to dismiss what we individually accept.


and a logical chain of events leading up to the present assertion.
a progression of events that leads to no other conclusion, but that there is a god. religion doesn't work that way.
the comparison of the two is unnecessary and immaterial.

The comparsion of the two was to demonstrate that both faith and theory require belief to accept them.

Faith and any particular theory would both be rejected once something brings about the decision to reject them.

The logic of the day has been applied to many past theories that are no longer in vogue, but while it may lead to the present assertion it doesn't always lead to correct answer.

 

[raybia]

Let me repeat that:
"A replacing theory has to be able to explain the success of the previous theory."

...The idea that man and apes have no common ancestor does not do this. It cannot explain any of the molecular, paleontological, biogegraphical (etc) data, that current evolutionary theory can explain, and it most certainly can't explain more data. It is therefore not a valid candidate for a replacing theory.

Time will tell.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

The comparsion of the two was to demonstrate that both faith and theory require belief to accept them.

no, one requires Logic, the other asks you to put logic aside.

 

[raybia]

no, one requires Logic, the asks you to put logic aside.

Both require belief, and logic is applied to theory though it is not usually applied to religion.

However if religion was properly understood, then logic would be applied to it, and it would lead to a better understand.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Both require belief, and logic is applied to theory though it is not usually applied to religion.

However if religion was properly understood, then logic would be applied to it, and it would lead to a better understand.

No, man, and this is a simple flat out NO.
Logic has no place in religion, if it did, there would be...uh....no religion.
I required faith to know that there is a supreme being that has these laws I have to follow that he told some other dudes a thousand years ago.
that's faith, it's so illogical that if I tried to do it with another concept it would sound preposterous.
I don't need faith to see how science applies to every aspect of my existence. it's not about faith.
I don't "believe" in evolution, by logical progression I "see" it.
could this theory prove incomplete? sure, hence a theory.
do I believe that 6,000 years ago two people ate fruit and hence the world?
no, sorry it's illogical.
I can't have a logical progression to tell me there is a god.

 

[ultimatefan]

Evolution is the best theory we have so far to explain how life has developed on the planet. It´s not perfect, it has its holes, but none that justify creationism or intelligent design, which is basically just a way to rephrase creationism and try to make it more pallatable.

What sometimes irritates me about religious people is not their beliefs, each person is entitled to believe in what they want, what pisses me off is the intolerance towards other beliefs. Funny thing is sometimes some rigid religious person tries to debate his/her ideas with me and they try to argue, but they come up with poor arguments and when they don´t have an argument they´ll appeal to the good-for-all-purposes blind faith argument, or that "it´s that way cuz it´s in the Bible (or Coran or whatever) and that´s it". Another funny thing is, even though even more or less reasonable religious people will speak of the importance of the leap of faith, faith without proof, etc., but it´s exactly that kinda faith that has brough the worst consequences of religion, like fanatics, religious war, etc.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Regardless, in religion its called faith and in science its called theory.

Faith is an action. I have faith in X because I believe it.

Theory is a set of data arranged to such a way to make a sensical, testable, observable and logical proof out of said data. Faith is no such animal. Faith is not something I can test or observed or use in practical application...unlike a theory.

I cannot, for example, run an automobile on faith. If I sit in a car with no motor and pray REAAAALLLLLYYYYYY hard the car still will not run...but if I utilize a theory about how chemicals react to produce energy and motion and I can construct a device that then will run that automobile.

I cannot test faith in the same way you test a scientific theory. For example it's arguable that faith in the Buddhist religions is less than faith in Christian religions and Islamic (since there are less Jewish peoples). However I can in no way use this to empirically measure which claim or belief system holds up more strongly to philosophical or historical scrutiny. However I can test theories empically to see which holds more weight in exampling the same phenomena.

Faith is not grounded in facts and logic either. For example if I have faith in myself to accomplise a race it does not in fact actually change the situation of that race. If I am physically unable to do something my faith does not change the situation.

 

[raybia]

Evolution is the best theory we have so far to explain how life has developed on the planet. It´s not perfect, it has its holes, but none that justify creationism or intelligent design, which is basically just a way to rephrase creationism and try to make it more pallatable.

What sometimes irritates me about religious people is not their beliefs, each person is entitled to believe in what they want, what pisses me off is the intolerance towards other beliefs. Funny thing is sometimes some rigid religious person tries to debate his/her ideas with me and they try to argue, but they come up with poor arguments and when they don´t have an argument they´ll appeal to the good-for-all-purposes blind faith argument, or that "it´s that way cuz it´s in the Bible (or Coran or whatever) and that´s it". Another funny thing is, even though even more or less reasonable religious people will speak of the importance of the leap of faith, faith without proof, etc., but it´s exactly that kinda faith that has brough the worst consequences of religion, like fanatics, religious war, etc.

Its funny that you should say that because no where in this thread will you find me ridiculing anyone for their beliefs yet there are examples of where I have been.

I have stated my position and my beliefs and I am not going to waver from them. I don't think any less than any of you for not agreeing with me nor for the belief system that any of you have, but its no way intolerance on my part that I won't change or apologize for what I belief in.

Time will tell who is right in their belief system. If I'm wrong in any of mine then I hope that proper guidance will come my way to lead me to the truth, but I am not going to alienate myself from those who differ from me, I hope all of you feel the same way.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Its funny that you should say that because no where in this thread will you find me ridiculing anyone for their beliefs yet there are examples of where I have been.

Your blase' treatment of most posters here and insistence that somehow the science and research people post is no more than conjecture and heresay (not to mention using out of context quotes, refusing to acknowledge logical dilemmas in your arguments) and your general attitude towards everyone whose posted against you is pretty much counter to this claim...sorry.

If you consider reasonable and factually based responses to misconceptions you've tried to spread like the plague as "intolerance" I suggest you lessen the ego a little.

I have stated my position and my beliefs and I am not going to waver from them.

Ah yes...the definition of tolerance if I am not mistaken.

Time will tell who is right in their belief system.

Again...and for the LAST TIME. Science is no more a belief than math is a belief or manufacturing clock radios is a belief.

Until you understand this, or until this concept is within your grasp you will never see the problem with the way you've approached this thread or your attitude towards most here...You're so full of yourself that you have found or tapped into some divine truth that you have somehow blinded yourself into believing that everyone should share in this. Science could give two flying f***s what "THE TRUTH" is. It's only concerned with the physical realm, not some metaphysical God induced definition for things. Geez.

 

[OverMyHead]

Atheism is a religion, just like Christianity.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Atheism is a religion, just like Christianity.

No one here is talking about Atheism versus Christianity, or even Evolution versus Christianity...or even Evolution versus God although some people feel (incorrectly) there is a contention.

This thread is about Evolution...period.