Thoughts on Evolution?

[Franklin Richards]

All this jabbering makes me want to watch Inherit the Wind.

[YT]8rXhePoW_8I[/YT]

 

[chaseter]

There is no proof God doesn't exist, but there is no proof that he does either.

Exactly.

But why are we talking about God? This thread is supposed to be about evolution.

Evolution contradicts religion in the popular sense and all debates on here boil down to God or TDK and in some cases the former can be replaced with Christopher Nolan.

 

[Franklin Richards]

The Enlightenment has been defined in many different ways, but at its broadest was a philosophical, intellectual and cultural movement of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It stressed reason, logic, criticism and freedom of thought over dogma, blind faith and superstition. Logic wasn't a new invention, having been used by the ancient Greeks, but it was now included in a worldview which argued that empirical observation and the examination of human life could reveal the truth behind human society and self, as well as the universe. All were deemed to be rational and understandable. The Enlightenment held that there could be a science of man, and that the history of mankind was one of progress, which could be continued with the right thinking.

Consequently, the Enlightenment also argued that human life and character could be improved through the use of education and reason.

Let's continue to move forward.

 

[thorandsurfer]

Exactly.

Evolution contradicts religion in the popular sense and all debates on here boil down to God or TDK and in some cases the former can be replaced with Christopher Nolan.

Actually, the thread starter mentioned creationism and what are people's thoughts on it at the start of the thread so God and creation is very much a part of this thread from what I understand.

 

[Calvin]

No, it's the exact opposite. You are hiding being an assertion but then saying that the other side should prove to you why you are wrong. That is stupid. You are essentially being a hypocrite.

If someone says x exists, then say prove it. That's fine. They made the assertion and the burden of proof falls onto them. When you say x doesn't exist so prove to me how x exists then that is completely backwards. The burden of proof falls onto you because you made the assertion. So now prove to me why x doesn't exist. It's a logical fallacy and it's hypocritical to use that tactic. You see how all of this is a colossal waste of time and why religion and science shouldn't be mixed?

No, they're not the same at all. The very nature of each assertion is completely different, as is the process of showing proof. If the claim is something does or doesn't exist, the burden of proof is on the person saying it exists, because all you have to do for proof is show a single instance of it being in existence. To prove something doesn't exist you would have to show an infinite number of instances covering every possible moment of existence and show that it doesn't exist in any of them, which is impossible. That's why they're different, and that's why the burden of proof lies with the person claiming its existence. It's utterly simple and black and white, and really ******ed and nonsensical to see it the way you're advocating.

 

[Calvin]

There is no proof God doesn't exist, but there is no proof that he does either. But why are we talking about God? This thread is supposed to be about evolution.

That's because realistically speaking, outside of math, there's no such thing as proof something doesn't exist. See my previous post as to why that's impossible. It should really be phrased "there is no proof god exists, so logically there is no reason at all to acknowledge it as possibly existing until there is at least some amount of actual scientific or observable proof."

 

[Dr.]

No there is no Bureau of Science...don't be silly. Eliminating what you think is impossible is not any true form of discovery. Something can be improbable but still be possible. Science isn't close minded, there is almost always a possibility. Imagine if the great thinkers of our time had such closed minds and decided only upon what was impossible or possible.

Again, I think you’re conflating science (which, as you stipulate, deals with probabilities) and logical absolutes.

You allude to placing inappropriate limits on science. But there’s no prohibition against a scientist going out and trying to prove the existence of ghosts. (If she succeeds, a Nobel Prize very likely awaits.)

But if investigation of 999 “haunted” houses produces no evidence, the informal conclusion “no such thing as ghosts” is not unreasonable. Does this stand as logic? No. It hasn’t been logically demonstrated that ghosts won’t be found in the 1000th house. But the scientist is speaking here as a scientist, not a logician. And no one should really be confused about that.

Btw, “ghosts” is a somewhat loaded example to use because it’s not far removed from the religious notion of an afterlife. Try, instead, a concept that you firmly reject. How about leprechauns? If a scientist said “there’s no such thing as leprechauns,” would you pedantically protest on logical grounds? Or would you take the statement in context and assume she was talking about the persuasive lack of evidence for leprechauns?

 

[Bubonic]

There is no proof God doesn't exist, but there is no proof that he does either. But why are we talking about God? This thread is supposed to be about evolution.

Because it is too difficult for people to post in two separate threads.

 

[chaseter]

No, they're not the same at all. The very nature of each assertion is completely different, as is the process of showing proof. If the claim is something does or doesn't exist, the burden of proof is on the person saying it exists, because all you have to do for proof is show a single instance of it being in existence. To prove something doesn't exist you would have to show an infinite number of instances covering every possible moment of existence and show that it doesn't exist in any of them, which is impossible. That's why they're different, and that's why the burden of proof lies with the person claiming its existence. It's utterly simple and black and white, and really ******ed and nonsensical to see it the way you're advocating.

I don't believe that Bigfoot exists. I guess that means that it's up to someone else to prove that he does exist

The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. THE END. Don't make an assertion if you can't back it up. Plain and simple. It's a logical fallacy to go around saying something doesn't exist for certain when you don't know for certain because you have NO proof to back up your assertion. It's hypocritical to sit on one one side of the aisle asking for proof to back up claims when you are making claims without proof.

 

[Calvin]

I don't believe that Bigfoot exists. I guess that means that it's up to someone else to prove that he does exist

The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. THE END. Don't make an assertion if you can't back it up. Plain and simple. It's a logical fallacy to go around saying something doesn't exist for certain when you don't know for certain because you have NO proof to back up your assertion. It's hypocritical to sit on one one side of the aisle asking for proof to back up claims when you are making claims without proof.

What the hell? Of course the burden of proof is on the person saying bigfoot exists! Your example demonstrates that I'm right. Who the hell, other than you, would think the burden of proof lies with the people that see no reason to believe in bigfoot? You still are either ignoring, or just plain don't understand the logical difference between arguing for something existing, and arguing that there's no proof of something's existence. They are not at all on equal footing, and they do not share an equal burden of proof, and I explained as clear as day why that is logistically two posts ago. There is no such thing as finding proof that something does not exist outside of mathematical concepts. It's not that the "I don't see evidence of its existence" stance has no proof, it's that there actually is no mechanism of finding that proof as it's unprovable by it's very nature, the complete opposite of finding proof for something's existence. For the latter, a single observable/documented/confirnmed instance showing that thing existing is "proof". That's why the burden of proof is on proving something's existence, and why it's meaningless and nonsensical to put burden of proof on disproving the existence of something.

 

[chaseter]

I said bigfoot does not exist so with your logic everyone else has to prove to me that he does. Nobody is talking about what anyone else thinks. I made a statement and it's up to anyone else to prove me wrong.

I also know for a fact that you don't exist. It is now your responsibility or anybody else's to prove to me with physical evidence that you do exist. It isn't my responsibility to back up my claim that something does not exist.

 

[JAK®]

I think you've misunderstood the point of the burden of proof, chaseter. It doesn't mean that you have to prove someone wrong every time they make a claim. It means that if you make a claim, you have to back it up, especially if that claim is extraordinary.

If you said Bigfoot does not exist, nobody has to prove to you that he does just because you made that claim. They only have to do that if they claim that he does exist.

Of course, since you are saying Bigfoot doesn't exist, you also have to prove why you are so certain. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

 

[Anubis]

How about we just argue about it on a superhero message board, and let some big brain or theologian prove it?

 

[JAK®]

How about we just argue about it on a superhero message board, and let some big brain or theologian prove it?

Evolution? It's been proven. It's only called a theory because millions of years of changes is hard to recreate in a lab.

 

[Anubis]

I was talking about the existence of God or Burden of proof or whatever the thread devolved into.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Evolution isn't always a slow change JAK. Like I said in Elephants it has happened over a few generations. It's no longer discussed as theory, but as fact.

 

[JAK®]

Evolution isn't always a slow change JAK. Like I said in Elephants it has happened over a few generations. It's no longer discussed as theory, but as fact.

Scientific theory is pretty much fact. However, I'm pretty sure that no species has been observed evolving into another species within our lifetime (nor should we expect there to have been).

That's what scientific theory is, a fact that can't be replicated in a lab.

 

[Danalys]

well evolution is contingent on mutation and natural selection and they are both facts. if mutation and natural selection exist and have the effects we observe then it's logically impossible that evolution doesn't follow. if genetic diversity and isolation of populations from others and natural selection occurs evolution must happen. it's not only true it's logically impossible with the established facts for it not to be true. i suppose someone could argue last fridayism style that evolution hasn't always been true.

 

[Bill]

What the hell? Of course the burden of proof is on the person saying bigfoot exists! Your example demonstrates that I'm right. Who the hell, other than you, would think the burden of proof lies with the people that see no reason to believe in bigfoot? You still are either ignoring, or just plain don't understand the logical difference between arguing for something existing, and arguing that there's no proof of something's existence. They are not at all on equal footing, and they do not share an equal burden of proof, and I explained as clear as day why that is logistically two posts ago. There is no such thing as finding proof that something does not exist outside of mathematical concepts. It's not that the "I don't see evidence of its existence" stance has no proof, it's that there actually is no mechanism of finding that proof as it's unprovable by it's very nature, the complete opposite of finding proof for something's existence. For the latter, a single observable/documented/confirnmed instance showing that thing existing is "proof". That's why the burden of proof is on proving something's existence, and why it's meaningless and nonsensical to put burden of proof on disproving the existence of something.

What you're talking about is a negative existential claim, and they are impossible to prove. Which is why you shouldn't be making such a claim, even if the burden of proof is, according to the rules of debate, not on the onus of the person making a claim in the negative. It is, however, still dogmatic to claim that no gods exist without offering any support, logical or empirical, to substantiate your reasoning. Support, mind you, not proof. If you are going to make a claim in the negative, such as "There are no gods at all," then it is polite, and reasonably expected, to be able to offer some supporting reasoning for such a claim.

 

[chaseter]

I think you've misunderstood the point of the burden of proof, chaseter. It doesn't mean that you have to prove someone wrong every time they make a claim. It means that if you make a claim, you have to back it up, especially if that claim is extraordinary.

That is exactly what I have been arguing! I was lampooning him in that post. Any claim/assertion is required to have supporting evidence. If a scientist says evolution does not exist then he won't be taken seriously unless he backs up his claim. It isn't up to other scientists to spend time trying to prove his claim wrong. That's completely stupid. Same thing goes for when a scientist claims that evolution does exist. They have evidence or data to go along with their assertion or else nobody gives a ****.

Calvin apparently comes from some far away land where a negative claim can be made and then that is regarded as fact unless someone brings forth evidence to prove him wrong, a complete backwards way of how the world works.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Evolution has been observed occurring in anti-biotic resistant bacteria in laboratories.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

When someone says God exists, just say prove it. When you say God does not exist, then you are also obviously required to prove it as well.

chaseter how exactly can you prove something is not there? You can say a giant Abe Vigoda lives in the clouds. I can't prove a giant Abe Vigoda doesn't live in the clouds. The burden of proof should always lie foremost with the one making the fantastic claim. The existence of God has yet to be proven, just as no one has yet to prove the existence of a giant cloud-hopping Abe Vigoda. I'm open to tangible evidence of both, because to me they're equally ridiculous concepts.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Evolution has been observed occurring in anti-biotic resistant bacteria in laboratories.

Isn't that viruses?

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Isn't that viruses?

Sorry, my mistake. Point stands.

 

[Colossal Spoons]

No, it's mostly bacteria