Do you accept the theory of evolution? - Part 1

[Thundercrack85]

Accepting everything in the Bible as fact without thinking about the matter critically and rationally is unhealthy.

I guess you think homosexuality is bad too, huh?

Well, obviously.

 

[Shemtov]

I guess you think homosexuality is bad too, huh?

So what if he does?
As long as he's not forcing his beliefs on others or insulting homosexuals, or judging homosexuals for being homosexuals it should not be a problem.
Personally, I feel that judging somebody who meets all the criteria I mentioned as being a bad person is a form of intolerance in itself.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I dunno, I would consider someone thinking I'm bad for being a certain way, insulting.

I'd also consider judging something to be wrong, to be... judging.

 

[Shemtov]

I dunno, I would consider someone thinking I'm bad for being a certain way, insulting.

That's my point.
It's possible to believe homosexuality is wrong but not judge the homosexual.
People believe stealing is wrong, but they don't judge people who have to urge to steal as being bad people. And a lot of people would give a thief who gave into a really bad urge slack

 

[Thundercrack85]

That's my point.
It's possible to believe homosexuality is wrong but not judge the homosexual.

I've heard this before, and I'm not really sure how you pull that one off. A lot of people seem to be failing at it nonetheless, then.

People believe stealing is wrong, but they don't judge people who have to urge to steal as being bad people. And a lot of people would give a thief who gave into a really bad urge slack

We used to cut their hands off. Now we literally judge them in court...

 

[Bill]

Would you please do me a favor and define "science" in your own words? I'm curious as to what you think science actually is.

This ought to be good...

 

[TheGuy]

Sometimes, I'd like to believe that after we die we are resurrected in another person or even animals.

Just a random thought.

 

[chaseter]

I'd argue that evolution can be a threat to your faith, depending on the kind of faith you have. I think evolution makes the concept of a personal god that micro-manages our daily lives and answers prayers somewhat defunct.

When we're finally able to answer the question of where life comes from (which I expect in my lifetime, BTW), only Deistic concepts of a higher power will be intellectually tenable if the answer is purely natural.

When we finally answer the question of what caused the Big Bang (that I am most definitely not expecting in my lifetime... unfortunately), if that answer turns out to be natural, then, and only then, will all faith in a higher power become intellectually untenable, making atheism the default position. But I doubt this'll happen for millenia.

It only challenges your faith if you think it does. It in no way contradicts the Bible.

If that is defining God as a micro manager...well he sorta already is. He knows every step you take and he gives you all these rules to live your life by. If you don't follow those rules, you will be punished.

 

[chaseter]

You have to be very careful when discussing so-called "vestigial" organs. An organ or anatomical trait that has been altered through evolutionary time, even diminished, is not necessarily vestigial in the traditional sense: it may still serve a purpose that is different from its original purpose.

There is still some debate, for example, over the vestigiality of the human appendix. This organ is known to be useful in plant-eating vertebrate species as a sort of fermentation chamber that aids in the digestion of cellulose-rich food sources. It does not perform this function in humans, and has been reduced in size. It was classified as vestigial until we began to realize that it may play a role in the function of the human immune system. So is it truly vestigial?

We could compare this example to that of reduced leg and hip bones present in cetaceans (whales and dolphins). It is incredibly difficult to devise a scenario in which this completely internal structure plays any important role in the functional biology of the organism as a whole. We can be reasonably comfortable calling this structure vestigial by comparison.

Still, we should be careful when considering whether any of these reduced structures perform any useful function(s). It may well be that the human tailbone plays some role in bipedal locomotion. If I were to guess, I'd say that it's possible that it has something to do with the sinusoidal pattern of movement present in virtually all vertebrates (most of which possess a muscular, post-anal tail) from fish to lizards to even mammals. With respect to why the great ape lineage actually lost their tails, I can't speculate. That just isn't my field.

I think it's pretty obvious our appendix used to do something. It can be removed and not alter the life of the person it is taken out of. It's now largely pointless. It was probably used back when we didn't eat much meat and more so ate vegetation.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Please, nobody go consulting a science book or a scientist, now.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I think it's pretty obvious our appendix used to do something. It can be removed and not alter the life of the person it is taken out of. It's now largely pointless. It was probably used back when we didn't eat much meat and more so ate vegetation.

I can't tell if you missed my point or are simply ignoring it. I'm arguing that classifying organs as vestigial can be extremely tricky, and that just because its function is unclear doesn't necessarily mean that it can rightly be assigned that label. Our spleen, for instance, performs known functions in the human body, yet we can live without it.

Is that how you define "vestigial?" Non-essential? I'm not sure that's an accurate definition.

EDIT: I've just looked this up, and I have found definitions of "vestigial" that include reduced or altered function. By this definition (i.e., altered function), it can be considered vestigial. However, this is NOT necessarily the same as saying that it is without function, which is the crux of my point.

 

[chaseter]

With current scientific knowledge it is. In 20 years we may discover that Prometheus was correct and we were created by aliens. It's all relative to time.

 

[Doctor Evo]

With current scientific knowledge it is. In 20 years we may discover that Prometheus was correct and we were created by aliens. It's all relative to time.

Was this directed at me? I can't tell. It doesn't really address the point in question.

EDIT: OH, I see. My mistake. All I'm trying to say is that just because an organ's function isn't readily apparent doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Actually, what you've said here offers support for my point: speaking in absolute terms on scientific topics is typically a bad idea for the very reason you just mentioned. Which is why I cautioned you against the claim that the human tailbone serves no purpose. I don't believe that to be a sound argument.

 

[chaseter]

What is the appendix used for in other animals? The breakdown of cellulose and complex sugars founds in fruits and leafy foods. What do humans mostly eat? Do they eat leaves? Is our diet mostly composed of uncooked plant matter? No...we eat process and cooked foods. It's also why are wisdom teeth are disappearing. We are eating less plant matter. It's vestigiality is theory like evolution because we don't have a neaderthal in the freezer so we can check on the size of his appendix. It may do something, it's still connected to other organs, but it's original function is likely diminished...hence we don't really need it anymore. It doesn't help people live longer. It can be removed and not alter the life or the repoductive value of the person. Same with wisdom teeth. We are bound by our current knowledge. In 20 years, we may know more about it than we do now.

 

[Doctor Evo]

What is the appendix used for in other animals? The breakdown of cellulose and complex sugars founds in fruits and leafy foods. What do humans mostly eat? Do they eat leaves? Is our diet mostly composed of uncooked plant matter? No...we eat process and cooked foods. It's also why are wisdom teeth are disappearing. We are eating less plant matter. It's vestigiality is theory like evolution because we don't have a neaderthal in the freezer so we can check on the size of his appendix. It may do something, it's still connected to other organs, but it's original function is likely diminished...hence we don't really need it anymore. It doesn't help people live longer. It can be removed and not alter the life or the repoductive value of the person. Same with wisdom teeth. We are bound by our current knowledge. In 20 years, we may know more about it than we do now.

Again, I can't tell whether you're intentionally ignoring my point concerning absolute statements in scientific contexts. You keep talking about the potential for new knowledge, but then seem to refuse to acknowledge the concept or apply it to your own statements (re: the function of the tailbone). My issue is that you outright claim that it has no function.

There is some evidence to suggest that the appendix may play a role in the human immune system. Even if this were not the case, the argument that an organ or structure is non-essential to the survival and reproduction of an organism is NOT the same as the argument that it has no function. I'm not sure why you see the two as equivalent.

The most pertinent point I've been trying to make is that we must be careful when we make these statements, particularly in a scientific context. To repeat what I said earlier (and this is very important): just because an organ's function isn't readily apparent doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Also, the idea that the diminishing of the ORIGINAL function automatically means that an organ becomes non-essential ("ut it's original function is likely diminished...hence we don't really need it anymore.") is incredibly flawed. You need your lungs, don't you? According to current theory, your lungs may actually be a repurposed physostomous swim bladder used for buoyancy in the group of fishes that ultimately gave rise to terrestrial vertebrates.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I'm re-reading my original post, and I think I can see that I placed too much emphasis on the term "vestigial." I meant to convey the point I'm trying to make explicit now, but I can see that that got lost based on my apparent misapplication of the term (which I interpreted as meaning "without function," which isn't strictly accurate). So I can better see now where you're coming from with your argument. Still, I'd like to reiterate the point that making absolute claims with respect to the function or non-function of these organs is a dangerous game in science. That's what I'm trying to say (in case that was still unclear).

 

[Doctor Evo]

Please, nobody go consulting a science book or a scientist, now.

 

[childeroland]

It only challenges your faith if you think it does. It in no way contradicts the Bible.

If that is defining God as a micro manager...well he sorta already is. He knows every step you take and he gives you all these rules to live your life by. If you don't follow those rules, you will be punished.

Which rules are those? And how are rule breakers punished? What about the people who live their lives right and are still punished, or those who don't and get away without punishment?

 

[Piper Maru]

10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
[YT]5MXTBGcyNuc[/YT]

An abbreviated introductory primer to cladistic phylogenetics, the most compelling and overwhelming evidence of evolution and our place in nature.

 

[chaseter]

Which rules are those? And how are rule breakers punished? What about the people who live their lives right and are still punished, or those who don't and get away without punishment?

What rules....are you serious?

If you don't repent/ask for forgiveness...the punishment is Hell. All sin is equal in the eye's of the lord correct? Stealing a milky way is just as bad as killing someone and if you don't repent/ask for forgiveness, you get judged and Hell it is. Or, the lesser punishment is living in the slums of Heaven apparently. You don't get to live as close to God as Mother Teresa.

 

[Greens]

It only challenges your faith if you think it does. It in no way contradicts the Bible.

If that is defining God as a micro manager...well he sorta already is. He knows every step you take and he gives you all these rules to live your life by. If you don't follow those rules, you will be punished.

What's the point of those rules if God knows what you're going to do at all times?

 

[chaseter]

Exactly...what's the point of praying to save your life from cancer when it's already mapped out. The Bible wreaks of Man's interference...which is sad. It's why I dumped religion but I still have faith.

 

[childeroland]

What rules....are you serious?

If you don't repent/ask for forgiveness...the punishment is Hell. All sin is equal in the eye's of the lord correct? Stealing a milky way is just as bad as killing someone and if you don't repent/ask for forgiveness, you get judged and Hell it is. Or, the lesser punishment is living in the slums of Heaven apparently. You don't get to live as close to God as Mother Teresa.

EDIT: In case you're not being sarcastic...
What if you steal a milky way because you're starving and you have no other way to eat? Do you still go to hell?

What if you kill in self-defense? What if you're peer pressured into stealing the milky way and you were too scared not to? Is your cell in hell right next to the murderer or in a place not as hot or close to the devil (to echo sinners not being as close to God as Mother Theresa)?

How about child molesters...do you burn as badly as them, or less so? What if the milky way stealer forgets to ask forgiveness but the child molester does ask? Even though the store owner is out one candy bar and the molested child is shattered for life...does the ex-molester make it to the slums of heaven while the candy bar stealer ends up in hell?

 

[Doctor Evo]

Don't Make Your Kids Creationists, Bill Nye Says

By Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer | LiveScience.com

Science educator and former TV host Bill Nye has struck out against creationism in a new video, calling the worldview "untenable" and "inconsistent."

In a video posted on YouTube by Big Think, Nye said that rejection of evolution "holds everybody back," and urged adults to support the teaching of evolution in schools. Anti-evolution education bills are a perennial issue in state legislatures around the country.
"I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine, but don't make your kids do it, because we need them," Nye said. "We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future."

Anti-evolution beliefs generally come in two flavors: creationism, which holds to a literal Biblical translation of the origin of life, and intelligent design, which can be more flexible about the timeline and methods but holds that a deity must have been involved in the creation of life.

Nye, who is most famous for hosting the children's show "Bill Nye the Science Guy" in the 1990s, did not mention any specific anti-evolution efforts by name, but according to the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a nonprofit dedicated to promoting evidence-based science information in schools, multiple states are currently considering legislation that would limit the teaching of evolution.

In Missouri, for example, a new amendment to the state constitution states that no student should be compelled to participate in educational activities that violate his or her religious beliefs, a rule that education advocates fear could mean that children could skip vast swathes of important information in science class.

In Kentucky, GOP lawmakers have questioned state testing that includes questions on evolution, according to an Aug. 14 story in the Lexington Herald-Leader. Kentucky is the only state with a statute on the books allowing for teachers to teach Biblical creation theories, though a 2006 investigation by the Louisville Courier-Journal found no evidence that any schools were actually doing so, according to the NCSE.

Other laws try to work around the teaching of evolution without mentioning the controversy outright. This April, Tennessee instituted a new law requiring state and local education authorities to help teachers "find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies." The bill mentions evaluating the "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories," including such hot-button topics as evolution, global warming and human cloning.

In his new video, Nye argues that without an understanding of the timeline of evolution, the world becomes "a mystery instead of an exciting place."

"I mean, here are these ancient dinosaur bones or fossils, here is radioactivity, here are distant stars that are just like our star, but they're at a different point in their lifecycle," Nye said. "The idea of deep time, of this billions of years, explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your world view just becomes crazy, just untenable, itself inconsistent."

http://news.yahoo.com/dont-kids-creationists-bill-nye-says-220930156.html

 

[AnakinSolo]

I like Bill Nye's thinking.