poll out Monday shows that less than half – 43 percent – of those who identify with the Republican Party say they believe humans have evolved over time, plunging from 54 percent four years ago. Forty-eight percent say they believe “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,” up from 39 percent in 2009.
At 67 percent and 65 percent, respectively, the numbers of Democrats and independents who believe in evolution have remained more or less the same since 2009. They’re also in step with the population nationally: Six-in-10 Americans say they believe humans have evolved.
According to the survey, a majority of white evangelical Protestants and half of black Protestants reject evolution. Overwhelming majorities of white Catholics and white mainline Protestants say they do believe in evolution, but among those half say a “Supreme being” guided it, rather than natural processes.
So there you go. In another piece I found the following nugget about eduction levels....
The more educated Americans become, however, the less likely they are to deny evolution: According to the Pew poll, acceptance of evolution correlated closely with level of education. 72 percent of college graduates acknowledge that humans have evolved over time, while only 51 percent of those with a high school degree or less accept human evolution. Young people, too, are less likely to be creationists: 68 percent of American age 18-29 accept evolution, while only 49 percent of those age 65 and up acknowledge its validity.
Interesting stuff, especially on the heels of the Science Savvy thread.
Weird. I literally don't know anyone who doesn't accept evolution as the principle force behind human, well, evolution.
No, that's not true. I knew one guy who changed to a religiious fanatic practically overnight.
Um... how come it is not 100% of college graduates acknowledge humans have evolved over time. Who pays hundreds of thousands of dollars to an educational institution to come out of it still not able to see the evidence of evolution. That is Biology 101.
I don't understand where all these literal bible groups of Christians are because that is not what Catholics believe and everyone else started from there, You can't reasonably go 'more extreme' than the source material.
Everything Pre-Moses was dictated to him by god. Take a 3 year old with no frame of reference or knowledge of the source material and show them Star Wars and see how it turns out.
Yeah, God could have explicitly explain Evolution and the secret of life, and we get Genesis as a result. Moses was cool, but he was still basically a caveman from the stupid ages.
This is a classic "generalissimo francisco franco is still dead" type of story. It comes out every year or so, more if multiple polling companies are having slow periods.
All in all, it drives links, as semi-educated people react in mock horror to the beliefs of other semi-educated people.
Polonius wrote: This is a classic "generalissimo francisco franco is still dead" type of story. It comes out every year or so, more if multiple polling companies are having slow periods.
All in all, it drives links, as semi-educated people react in mock horror to the beliefs of other semi-educated people.
At what point can you stop considering yourself semi-educated and move to educated?
nkelsch wrote: Um... how come it is not 100% of college graduates acknowledge humans have evolved over time. Who pays hundreds of thousands of dollars to an educational institution to come out of it still not able to see the evidence of evolution. That is Biology 101.
Look up "Liberty University". They teach creationism. It is not the only conservative Christian university to do so.
nkelsch wrote: Um... how come it is not 100% of college graduates acknowledge humans have evolved over time. Who pays hundreds of thousands of dollars to an educational institution to come out of it still not able to see the evidence of evolution. That is Biology 101.
I don't understand where all these literal bible groups of Christians are because that is not what Catholics believe and everyone else started from there, You can't reasonably go 'more extreme' than the source material.
Everything Pre-Moses was dictated to him by god. Take a 3 year old with no frame of reference or knowledge of the source material and show them Star Wars and see how it turns out.
Yeah, God could have explicitly explain Evolution and the secret of life, and we get Genesis as a result. Moses was cool, but he was still basically a caveman from the stupid ages.
Yes, there's nothing standing between a reasonable interpretation of the bible and Evolution. Unfortunately, there are quite a few literalists out there who think everything happened *exactly* as mentioned in the bible, and there can be no thought about interpretation or leeway at all. How they square this with the different versions and translations of the bible, who knows, but you can't reason someone out of a belief they weren't reasoned into.
They don't even square it with the contradictions within the bible so I wouldn't expect a little thing like translates to phase them.
Not to mention literalists pick and choose what they believe in. Ask how many of them don't eat shellfish or wear clothes of mixed fibres,
Automatically Appended Next Post: They don't even square it with the contradictions within the bible so I wouldn't expect a little thing like translates to phase them.
Not to mention literalists pick and choose what they believe in. Ask how many of them don't eat shellfish or wear clothes of mixed fibres,
Yes, there's nothing standing between a reasonable interpretation of the bible and Evolution. Unfortunately, there are quite a few literalists out there who think everything happened *exactly* as mentioned in the bible, and there can be no thought about interpretation or leeway at all. How they square this with the different versions and translations of the bible, who knows, but you can't reason someone out of a belief they weren't reasoned into.
That is the confusion part... Moses was *NOT* a Christian. He did not write 'the bible'. He wrote the Torah. The Torah is not and was not a literal transcription of the word of God.
The Bible's old Testament, a lot of it is taken from Jewish writings and stories since before the whole Christ thing, there were not Christians.
So you wanna take the new testament literally as a Christian, go ahead. Knock yourself out. I don't see how a Religion can take another religion's stories and texts which are not Literal in that religion and see them as literal in theirs. I can see how a group of people can start off being literal and change to a general interpretation, I just don't see how you can go the other way.
There is no foundation for a literal interpretation of the the old testament of the Bible in Christianity. It doesn't exist as Christianity didn't exist so it has no ability to determine the literalness of the author. I am genuinely confused how these people came to this belief because it isn't a foundation of Christianity.
Polonius wrote: This is a classic "generalissimo francisco franco is still dead" type of story. It comes out every year or so, more if multiple polling companies are having slow periods.
All in all, it drives links, as semi-educated people react in mock horror to the beliefs of other semi-educated people.
At what point can you stop considering yourself semi-educated and move to educated?
Well, I think you need to understand that an education never truly ends. You also need to distinguish education from training, in that it's not simply about preparing for a career or learning specific skills/information.
But, in my very humble opinion, an educated person has learned to think critically about both the beliefs of others, and his own, and is able to look past superficial cause and effect to analyze a situation. Part of that is seeing how enormously complicated even very simple appearing things can be, and part is understanding that their own world view is only a best guess.
That is the confusion part... Moses was *NOT* a Christian. He did not write 'the bible'. He wrote the Torah. The Torah is not and was not a literal transcription of the word of God.
The Bible's old Testament, a lot of it is taken from Jewish writings and stories since before the whole Christ thing, there were not Christians.
So you wanna take the new testament literally as a Christian, go ahead. Knock yourself out. I don't see how a Religion can take another religion's stories and texts which are not Literal in that religion and see them as literal in theirs. I can see how a group of people can start off being literal and change to a general interpretation, I just don't see how you can go the other way.
There is no foundation for a literal interpretation of the the old testament of the Bible in Christianity. It doesn't exist as Christianity didn't exist so it has no ability to determine the literalness of the author. I am genuinely confused how these people came to this belief because it isn't a foundation of Christianity.
That is a very profound observation, I had not considered this argument before and will be spending some time dissecting and pondering it, thank you.
nkelsch wrote: I am genuinely confused how these people came to this belief because it isn't a foundation of Christianity.
You are talking about people that also believe that Jesus was a blond haired and blue eyed white man... There is nothing logical about any of it, they simply choose to believe in things that are more comfortable to them because the alternative to the dogma is too "scary" on a personal level.
nkelsch wrote: I can see how a group of people can start off being literal and change to a general interpretation, I just don't see how you can go the other way.
This might surprise you but it has everything to do with the development of scientific materialism.
I've found when you really talk to people, they understand evolution and agree with its concepts. The differentiation comes with people believing God had at least some hand in it or none at all.
It's really all in the posing of the question. Though there are quite a few people who refuse to acknowledge fossil evidence of any sort...
gunslingerpro wrote: I've found when you really talk to people, they understand evolution and agree with its concepts. The differentiation comes with people believing God had at least some hand in it or none at all.
It's really all in the posing of the question. Though there are quite a few people who refuse to acknowledge fossil evidence of any sort...
gunslingerpro wrote: I've found when you really talk to people, they understand evolution and agree with its concepts. The differentiation comes with people believing God had at least some hand in it or none at all.
It's really all in the posing of the question. Though there are quite a few people who refuse to acknowledge fossil evidence of any sort...
QFT
I believe as a catholic and I believe in evolution. It's my opinion that God had a hand in the transition from instinctual behavior to sentient thought.
Folks who claim the theory of evolution discounts the existence of God or God's relationship with the universe are really selling God short. Pretty narrow view of an omnipotent, omniscient being if you ask me.
gunslingerpro wrote: I've found when you really talk to people, they understand evolution and agree with its concepts. The differentiation comes with people believing God had at least some hand in it or none at all.
It's really all in the posing of the question. Though there are quite a few people who refuse to acknowledge fossil evidence of any sort...
Yeah, I would like to see the same polls which differentiate 'creationism' from 'intelligent design' or if they are lumping both together as 'disbelief in evolution'.
I find a large degree of difference between those who believe that 'the laws of the universe are an action set in motion by a 'creator' and science is a gift to mankind' VS 'Dinosaurs never existed and fake bones were buried to test our faith'. I am curious if the poll makes that distinction.
I believe in evolution but looked into it, read about it, connect the dots.
To accept it at face value is little better than "creationists", question the accepted "facts" because they may only be theories that have not been disproven yet.
Polonius wrote: This is a classic "generalissimo francisco franco is still dead" type of story. It comes out every year or so, more if multiple polling companies are having slow periods.
All in all, it drives links, as semi-educated people react in mock horror to the beliefs of other semi-educated people.
At what point can you stop considering yourself semi-educated and move to educated?
Well, I think you need to understand that an education never truly ends. You also need to distinguish education from training, in that it's not simply about preparing for a career or learning specific skills/information.
But, in my very humble opinion, an educated person has learned to think critically about both the beliefs of others, and his own, and is able to look past superficial cause and effect to analyze a situation. Part of that is seeing how enormously complicated even very simple appearing things can be, and part is understanding that their own world view is only a best guess.
LordofHats wrote: Fun? What does this look like to you a game? This sir is the internet. Srs buznis.
I am genuinely curious at what point in the Protestant tree and which of the 33,000 denominations did a denomination 'break off' with a literal interpretation of the old testament and who/when did it start? If someone at least could speak to that point in defense of their belief, I would have no problem with it. While Prodestants do believe for the most part in the new testament being literal, there is no foundation for old testament literalisims in the Protestant 'tree'. I have actually spoken with Baptists, Protestant and Methodist priests on this particular issue. New Testament literal, old testament , translations of other religions.
In turn, I have no issues with Mormon beliefs because they at least have a chain of custody from the literal translation of their literal texts back to the divine prophet who got it directly from God. At least they can point to that and say 'that is why I believe'. I simply can't find that for Bible literalists as there is no chain of custody or literal divinity transcribing of that writing.
Hell, if there was a priest in 1576 who saw an angel and said 'The bible is literal! Dinosaurs never existed! Believe!' and that started a denomination offshoot and they had that chain of custody to their beliefs, so be it. I can't actually reconcile 'who told them it was literal' or why they believe it is literal. Are there any Literalists or know someone who is a literalist who can explain how that belief system started? Google fails me.
gunslingerpro wrote: I've found when you really talk to people, they understand evolution and agree with its concepts. The differentiation comes with people believing God had at least some hand in it or none at all.
It's really all in the posing of the question. Though there are quite a few people who refuse to acknowledge fossil evidence of any sort...
Yeah, I would like to see the same polls which differentiate 'creationism' from 'intelligent design' or if they are lumping both together as 'disbelief in evolution'.
I find a large degree of difference between those who believe that 'the laws of the universe are an action set in motion by a 'creator' and science is a gift to mankind' VS 'Dinosaurs never existed and fake bones were buried to test our faith'. I am curious if the poll makes that distinction.
Intelligent design is just creationism rebranded in order to sell it as a science unrelated to religion.
Manchu wrote: Folks who claim the theory of evolution discounts the existence of God or God's relationship with the universe are really selling God short. Pretty narrow view of an omnipotent, omniscient being if you ask me.
True that. Was it Descartes who said God lies just beyond are farthest concept of him?
Without trying to sound "holier than thou", I do find 2 things quite hilarious:
1. I hear more evolutionists rant about how right they are than creationists.
2. I hear more atheists preach about how there is no God(and with far more condescension) than I hear Christians, Muslims, Bhuddists, Wiccans or people of any other religion or faith preach their own beliefs.
You know how to find an atheist in a crowd? You don't need to, they will tell you. Right up there with vegetarians.
We get it, you insist you are right and they are all wrong.
Here's a thought: how does you taking away someone's belief(even if it ends up being wrong in the end) in something that they feel helps them cope? Who gives you the right to take away that comfort, even if it's a lie?
I get that you lot don't want religions imposing beliefs on you and your life, but then it seems that you do exactly the same thing by imposing your beliefs of the opposite.
My OPINION on evolution:
I deem it inconclusive. For every answer someone gets, a ton of new questions arise that demand answers. Darwin's black box and all that. Then we have irreducible complexity in molecular machines to consider.
I'm not saying it DIDN'T happen. I'm saying we don't have enough answers to say with absolute certainty one way or the other. And while many Christians (and more loudly fanatics claiming to be Christians) might preach creationism as fact, it is actually faith. And until you can prove 100% that there is no God, then you cannot discount it as a possibility(I hear you evolutionists love probability and possibility).
I don't push my beliefs on others. But I will take the wind out of someones sails if they insist on trying to do the same to me.
For all I know as fact, I could be wrong just as much as right. But please let's not all go around acting like we know every secret of the universe and how it came about.
And the "Christian God" is not the only form of intelligent design that has been discussed. Ben Stein had a good documentary a few years back on Netflix about it.
Aerethan wrote: Here's a thought: how does you taking away someone's belief(even if it ends up being wrong in the end) in something that they feel helps them cope? Who gives you the right to take away that comfort, even if it's a lie?
I always wondered how that works. Don't you find yourself wondering if you're wrong? Do you really have absolute faith that your religion (and not the thousands of other religions) is the correct one? What does that doubt do to you, in the context of your own or your loved ones' mortality?
My OPINION on evolution:
I deem it inconclusive. For every answer someone gets, a ton of new questions arise that demand answers. Darwin's black box and all that. Then we have irreducible complexity in molecular machines to consider.
Science is always inconclusive. That's the point of it. Nothing is ever "100% proven." It's always possible to find new situations the current theories can't explain, or find new theories that explain the observations better.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: I always wondered how that works. Don't you find yourself wondering if you're wrong? Do you really have absolute faith that your religion (and not the thousands of other religions) is the correct one? What does that doubt do to you, in the context of your own or your loved ones' mortality?
For myself, I find this kind of questioning assumes that faith is a belief or opinion that one can assert this or that knowledge about the divine. I think faith is less like this and more of an orientation to one's own experience of the world. In that sense, I don't lose much sleep wondering if Jesus really is God. And I have virtually no doubts that the highest moral obligation are articulated in the Gospel and, for that matter, that suffering is not actually meaningless.
nkelsch wrote: I am genuinely curious at what point in the Protestant tree and which of the 33,000 denominations did a denomination 'break off' with a literal interpretation of the old testament and who/when did it start?
If you want the short version, in the US it became big with the Fundamentalist movement in the early 20th century. A direct Christian reaction to shifting social values concerning science and the increasing criticism (good and bad mind you) of Christianity, its beliefs, and Biblical texts in particular. Prior to the 19th century, it was pretty taboo to openly question the Bible as truth, but generally that truth was 'vague.' It wasn't challenged, so no one ever felt the need to be 'literal' about its contents in this sense. It was mostly confined to small academic circles.
Once it was challenged it was probably inevitable that a group of Christians would pop up and respond to that challenge by taking a literalist approach to Biblical texts, especially in an era where Textual Criticism was in its infancy and traditions associated with the Bible and the books there in were infallible for many believers.
While Prodestants do believe for the most part in the new testament being literal, there is no foundation for old testament literalisims in the Protestant 'tree'.
It's not really a Protestant thing. You'll also find 'literalists' among Catholics and Orthodox Christians. By virtue of those branches age and organization, though it tends to be more common with Protestants, not because Protestants are more likely to be literalist per se but rather that there isn't much room for literalism of that variety in the other two major branches. Of course we've covered the 'liberalism' of the typical Catholic many times on these boards.
It's worth considering how much impact evolution and the scientific method in general have on daily life. It's zero for nearly everyone. Your average citizen (of any country) can happily get on with their business no matter what wacky non-scientific beliefs they may hold.
Aerethan wrote: Here's a thought: how does you taking away someone's belief(even if it ends up being wrong in the end) in something that they feel helps them cope? Who gives you the right to take away that comfort, even if it's a lie?
I always wondered how that works. Don't you find yourself wondering if you're wrong? Do you really have absolute faith that your religion (and not the thousands of other religions) is the correct one? What does that doubt do to you, in the context of your own or your loved ones' mortality?
An excellent question. Everyone of every faith (even the Pope, since apparently he's some kind of paragon of faith) has at some point doubted their beliefs. For some that doubt overcomes them and they decide to believe otherwise. For others, they contemplate their doubt, and based on what they know and how strongly they feel about the situation, their faith continues(and is often stronger).
I'm quite stubborn. There have been perhaps 2 or 3 times in my life that truly made me doubt something I believed in.
I have absolute faith that what I believe is true. Can I prove it scientifically? No. Do I feel the need to try and force you to agree with me? Not at all. Would I prefer you agreed with me? Of course.
I have never understood people who insult as a means to get people to agree with them. If you disagree with me, fine. Let's disagree and move on to some other topic of conversation. I've dropped a few friends over the years because they refuse to stop bringing up topics that they know I disagree with them on, I've even stopped talking with family members over it. It's not that I like them less as people, but it's behavior that really doesn't need to be happening among friends.
Sadly, there are fanatics for EVERYTHING. Be it science, faith, music, or goblins. And those fanatics claim a title like "Christian(see Westboro Baptist)" where nearly 100% of people who identify as Christian do not agree with the fanatics. And sadly again, those fanatics tend to get a ton of media exposure, because the media cares more about reporting bad news than it does good news.
I'll continue ranting later, my son insists that I clip his nails at this exact moment.
If you want the short version, in the US it became big with the Fundamentalist movement in the early 20th century.
So it is basically a US reaction to Rock and Roll and 'them dag nabbit youngins'. No wonder I have hardly ever seen any evidence of it in actual churches. Asking a priest/pastor about his/churches opinion on the source of the old testament is my default question and is a good source of discussion for biblical scholars. (I have family who were Theolgoists in the catholic church)
I find a helluva lot of religious people seem to have almost no real understanding from a historical context of the period of time between Moses and Jesus.
The difference is that maths "works" whether you believe in it or not, while acupuncture works because you believe in it.
That doesn't mean that acupuncture cannot be beneficial, however antibiotics work if administered to someone who is unconscious, which acupuncture wouldn't.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's worth considering how much impact evolution and the scientific method in general have on daily life. It's zero for nearly everyone. Your average citizen (of any country) can happily get on with their business no matter what wacky non-scientific beliefs they may hold.
This is an important fact. If you were to prove evolution 100% how would affect daily life? Now how about if you disproved it?
I don't see either scenario as changing how I go about my day. It would likely change what I believe in certain aspects(proving evolution still doesn't disprove God for example, there are plenty of evolutionary Christians), but it would hardly shatter my everyday life.
My OPINION on evolution:
I deem it inconclusive. For every answer someone gets, a ton of new questions arise that demand answers. Darwin's black box and all that. Then we have irreducible complexity in molecular machines to consider.
I'm not saying it DIDN'T happen. I'm saying we don't have enough answers to say with absolute certainty one way or the other.
Tell me, what are these questions that you have? I may be able to help answer them [/old man on the mountain imitation]
But in all seriousness, what are these questions that always appear? Are they related to the fact that every time we find a missing link, we have a new missing link on either side?
I was under the impression that every example of "irreducible complexity" that had been advanced by "intelligent design" proponents had been resolved in favour of evolution.
nkelsch wrote: So it is basically a US reaction to Rock and Roll and 'them dag nabbit youngins'.
Not really. As I hinted above, literalism came about because of the developing scientific -- or rather scientistic -- approach to truth, where only what can be materially demonstrated has any claim to truth. Faced with the idea that only what is literal can be true, some Christians began to insist that everything in the Bible that can be interpreted literally must be interpreted literally.
This development was largely unknown in Catholicism because Catholic tradition has never accepted the materialist notion of truth.
My OPINION on evolution:
I deem it inconclusive. For every answer someone gets, a ton of new questions arise that demand answers. Darwin's black box and all that. Then we have irreducible complexity in molecular machines to consider.
I'm not saying it DIDN'T happen. I'm saying we don't have enough answers to say with absolute certainty one way or the other.
Tell me, what are these questions that you have? I may be able to help answer them [/old man on the mountain imitation]
But in all seriousness, what are these questions that always appear? Are they related to the fact that every time we find a missing link, we have a new missing link on either side?
The concept of black boxes is basically this: You need to know what is in box A. Once you open box A you find that it contained 1 piece of useful information that isn't enough to use by itself, along with 2 new boxes ad infinitum. Every new discover brings with it more questions than it answers(perhaps not EVERY discovery, but certainly most). The two questions that every answer spawns of course are why and how. Why does X do whatever it does. Then how does X accomplish said task. And that second part ends up spawning answers that repeat the same questions. Even at the subatomic level we have the questions on why things interact they way they do and how they do so.
Now generally these questions are only interesting to critical thinkers: people who need to know how something works and why. Sometimes those same people are capable of using that knowledge towards a new goal(engineers mostly), but then there are plenty of people who want that information simply to speculate and eventually learn the next step in the process(theoretical sciences).
There are certain things that existed for years in theory. It was shown on paper that X could exist in all reality even though it did not exist at all at the time. Then years later some engineers work out how to create X using modern techniques, and a theoretical X becomes a physical X.
An example is Graphene. It's structure as a material was solved on paper in 1916, but it wasn't until 2004 that it was isolated physically into what it truly is: a 1 atom thick hexagonal lattice of carbon.
And we are only now starting to see practical implications for the stuff(it's amazing by every stretch of the imagination and could very well revolutionize many industries and products).
I've lost myself on this tangent. Basically, answers beget more questions.
Manchu wrote: Folks who claim the theory of evolution discounts the existence of God or God's relationship with the universe are really selling God short. Pretty narrow view of an omnipotent, omniscient being if you ask me.
I really..really tried to stay out of this thread...And then I read the above. I even passed it by, and read to the end of the thread..but it just kept eating at me, because it was so insulting.
I actually believe the opposite... that it is quite narrow and quite frankly a "sell out" to suggest that God resorted to billions of years of evolution to bring about the pinnacle of His creation...humanity. This is one of the fundamental problems I have with old earth creation belief. You have to do some serious bible twisting(2 Peter 3:8-9 for example) to make it fit into a modern scientific old earth view. Young earth creationism may not fit into Roman Catholic philosophical teaching, but it is in no way "narrow".
Aren't you selling God short by not allowing the Miraculous?
And on to the whole "the more educated you are the more likely you are to believe in evolution". You could easily replace the word "educated" with "indoctrinated"
Kilkrazy wrote: It's worth considering how much impact evolution and the scientific method in general have on daily life. It's zero for nearly everyone. Your average citizen (of any country) can happily get on with their business no matter what wacky non-scientific beliefs they may hold.
The problem is when our policy makers, specifically the ones dealing with science, technology, and medicine, end up having beliefs that go against proven, scientific methods. At that point, they can end up causing a lot of harm.
I have a problem with creationists due to their constant drive to push creationism into the science class room. It's not about right or wrong but an attempt to teach superstition as science alongside genuine scientific theory.
Teach creationism all you want and preach it in chrurch if you wish but keep it out of science classrooms.
Also you don't get atheists knocking on doors telling people to stop believing. You also don't get them standing In Town centres shouting that you will not go to heaven. So it's somewhat ironic that you say don't worry an atheist will tell you while not noting that a religous person will also.
carlos13th wrote: I have a problem with creationists due to their constant drive to push creationism into the science class room. It's not about right or wrong but an attempt to teach superstition as science alongside genuine scientific theory.
Teach creationism all you want and preach it in chrurch if you wish but keep it out of science classrooms.
This is also an issue. It's not a matter of 'alternate points of view,' it's a matter of people attempting to institute something which is patently wrong and entirely scientifically unfounded into the classroom.
Also when people talk about teaching them both they forget that one has a lot going for it in terms of evidence and the other just doesn't. Let's not pretend that is not the case for the sake of balanced. Not every issue is balanced and we shouldn't pretend it is.
carlos13th wrote: Also when people talk about teaching them both they forget that one has a lot going for it in terms of evidence and the other just doesn't.
I think the most fair thing to do is treat every side as if it had equal merits.
Polonius wrote: This is a classic "generalissimo francisco franco is still dead" type of story. It comes out every year or so, more if multiple polling companies are having slow periods.
The guy who runs Fark put out a book that, frankly, I think is a must-read. It explores the many ways in which the media is essentially broken and why that generally is so (in his opinion, it's actually laziness). Anyway there is a whole chapter divided into what he calls "seasonal articles" which crop up regularly - usually around the holidays because news desks don't like to work on holidays any more than we do.
And on to the whole "the more educated you are the more likely you are to believe in evolution". You could easily replace the word "educated" with "indoctrinated"
GG
Indeed... Though I have to say that my eyes have really been opened by aseries of books I have been reading recently... there is plenty of evidence to back up that they are true... the book talks of a great wall in the north protecting mankind from the evil creatures that live in the frozen wastes beyond... and we know Hadrians walland scotland exist so it must all be true!
Cling not to the false dogma and indoctrination of the old false gods and so called science and sing the song of ice and fire!
generalgrog wrote: Young earth creationism may not fit into Roman Catholic philosophical teaching, but it is in no way "narrow".
Sure it is. It is narrow because it insists that the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe must act like a human being who has little understanding of science but a well-developed conspiracy theory complex.
generalgrog wrote: Young earth creationism may not fit into Roman Catholic philosophical teaching, but it is in no way "narrow".
Sure it is. It is narrow because it insists that the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe must act like a human being with little understanding of science.
Wait... isn't that contradictory?
Isn't an "omnicient, omnipotent creator" by definitions understands the science?
Whether God understands science is neither here nor there. What I am saying is that fundamentalists Christians sell God short by assigning to him their own narrow understanding and hostile attitude toward science.
Manchu wrote: Whether God understands science is neither here nor there. What I am saying is that fundamentalists Christians sell God short by assigning to him their own narrow understanding and hostile attitude toward science.
generalgrog wrote: Aren't you selling God short by not allowing the Miraculous?
Why would God create a universe with intricate physical laws and then break all of them?
You mean like, manifesting Himself as a human being on earth to be born of a virgin? You mean like that incarnation feeding 5,000? you mean that incarnation dying, and rising from the dead 3 days later? You mean those fundamental facets of Christian doctrine/orthodoxy?
Those kinds of breaking of physical laws? If He can do those things, and it's my understanding that Roman Catholics believe that He did, why is it such a "narrow" stretch to believe in a young earth?
I don't think you meant to imply that God performs no miracles?
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Whether God understands science is neither here nor there. What I am saying is that fundamentalists Christians sell God short by assigning to him their own narrow understanding and hostile attitude toward science.
As opposed to fundamentalist Roman Catholics who want to treat anyone that disagrees with their philosophy with contempt? Really... to critique "fundamentalist" Christians as being hostile toward science is quite hypocritical as RC fundies cling tightly to their churches tradition, as though it were the only Universal truth.
And on to the whole "the more educated you are the more likely you are to believe in evolution". You could easily replace the word "educated" with "indoctrinated"
GG
Indeed... Though I have to say that my eyes have really been opened by aseries of books I have been reading recently... there is plenty of evidence to back up that they are true... the book talks of a great wall in the north protecting mankind from the evil creatures that live in the frozen wastes beyond... and we know Hadrians walland scotland exist so it must all be true!
Cling not to the false dogma and indoctrination of the old false gods and so called science and sing the song of ice and fire!
Yes..and I remember reading in my science textbooks about how the speed of light is constant, and abiogenesis was real. But lo and behold it turns out that both of those concepts may as well have written by GRR Martin. <---see what I did there?
It is pretty hostile to science to ignore huge chunks of science in order to hand wave through some fiction from a book cobbled together from the collective writings of a bunch of people a couple of thousand years ago, most of which is cobbled together from older myths, legends and religious works from the area.
Maybe, just maybe, it's a concept that's similar to a zero in mathematics. In other words, it's a symbol that denies the absence of meaning, the meaning that's necessitated by the delineation of one system from another. In analog, that's God. In digital, it's zero.
My OPINION on evolution:
I deem it inconclusive. For every answer someone gets, a ton of new questions arise that demand answers. Darwin's black box and all that. Then we have irreducible complexity in molecular machines to consider.
I'm not saying it DIDN'T happen. I'm saying we don't have enough answers to say with absolute certainty one way or the other.
Tell me, what are these questions that you have? I may be able to help answer them [/old man on the mountain imitation]
But in all seriousness, what are these questions that always appear? Are they related to the fact that every time we find a missing link, we have a new missing link on either side?
The concept of black boxes is basically this: You need to know what is in box A. Once you open box A you find that it contained 1 piece of useful information that isn't enough to use by itself, along with 2 new boxes ad infinitum. Every new discover brings with it more questions than it answers(perhaps not EVERY discovery, but certainly most). The two questions that every answer spawns of course are why and how. Why does X do whatever it does. Then how does X accomplish said task. And that second part ends up spawning answers that repeat the same questions. Even at the subatomic level we have the questions on why things interact they way they do and how they do so.
Now generally these questions are only interesting to critical thinkers: people who need to know how something works and why. Sometimes those same people are capable of using that knowledge towards a new goal(engineers mostly), but then there are plenty of people who want that information simply to speculate and eventually learn the next step in the process(theoretical sciences).
There are certain things that existed for years in theory. It was shown on paper that X could exist in all reality even though it did not exist at all at the time. Then years later some engineers work out how to create X using modern techniques, and a theoretical X becomes a physical X.
An example is Graphene. It's structure as a material was solved on paper in 1916, but it wasn't until 2004 that it was isolated physically into what it truly is: a 1 atom thick hexagonal lattice of carbon.
And we are only now starting to see practical implications for the stuff(it's amazing by every stretch of the imagination and could very well revolutionize many industries and products).
I've lost myself on this tangent. Basically, answers beget more questions.
Do you have proof that this is actually the case? I mean, it's perfectly believable that science could be an endless task, but then again, it strikes me just as believable that we simply couldn't tell how much we've really advanced since the beginning of the scientific endeavour, and even before that (because knowledge acquisition isn't remotely stricly scientific). I mean, in the end, a validated hypothesis is nothing more than a langage proposition about a fact that is held to be true.
And logically, the number of meaningful propositions is limited by the combination of the number of facts and of the positions possibly taken on those facts. As we validate ''The most common phase transition to ice occurs when liquid water is cooled below 0°C (273.15K, 32°F) at standard atmospheric pressure.'', we take one proposition from the ''hypothesis'' categorie and we put it in the ''supported'' categorie. This might in turn unveil a few propositions which we didn't care about before in the ''meaningful proposition'' category, and then we move those we think valid into ''hypothesis''.
We know what's in ''hypothesis''. We tend to have a vulgar understanding of what's in ''supported''. There's no saying how vast the pool of facts to examine is, even less how many meaningful propositions we have to go through to finally pick those which are relevant. But that doesn't suggest in the least that this 'pool' is boundless. We have simply no way of knowing. But given that, in the 116 generations since the birth of logic, we've passed from uncovering the syllogism to programming quantum-computed sudokus, I think we should suppose that there is such a thing as progress. We just have a very bad position to evaluate it.
Yes..and I remember reading in my science textbooks about how the speed of light is constant, and abiogenesis was real. But lo and behold it turns out that both of those concepts may as well have written by GRR Martin. <---see what I did there?
GG
That is the great thing about science, as we learn more about the universe, we incorporate that advancement into how we explain the universe. Things that dont fit the observations are altered so they explain what is seen or new explanations are developed and tested to make sure they explain what is observed as accurately as possible. And the great thing is all this is published and reviewed and testable and repeatable.
The exact reverse of religion, especially fundamentalist sects which warp the world to fit what they want it to be.
Manchu wrote: Whether God understands science is neither here nor there. What I am saying is that fundamentalists Christians sell God short by assigning to him their own narrow understanding and hostile attitude toward science.
As someone who grew up in a very Christian house and went to private Christian schools my whole life, this statement is not often far from the truth.
Many of the older generation of Christians think that science and God are enemies, which of course makes it sound like God is somehow threatened by science or fears it might disprove him, which indeed would be selling God short.
And like I said earlier, proving evolution would not disprove God. God very well may have initiated evolution into rolling along. Do we as humans view it as the most direct way of doing things when God can just as easily think things in and out of existence? No, but then we as humans shouldn't pretend to know how God thinks at all as we are in fact NOT omniscient.
So for the hardcore creationists, don't get offended at the idea that God may have used evolution as a means of rather indirect creation. You don't know either way, nor does anyone else on the planet.
I maintain that I've not seen enough evidence personally to convince me that evolution is the end all answer to our origin.
So let's all play nice and not pretend like we know what God(even if you don't believe He exists) is thinking behind any decision He makes. Generally in this day anyone claiming to know how God thinks, and therefore speaks(or acts in the case of some fanatics) directly on his behalf gets thrown in a loony bin. Westboro claim to know what God thinks, and look how well that's going for them.
Yes..and I remember reading in my science textbooks about how the speed of light is constant, and abiogenesis was real. But lo and behold it turns out that both of those concepts may as well have written by GRR Martin. <---see what I did there?
GG
That is the great thing about science, as we learn more about the universe, we incorporate that advancement into how we explain the universe. Things that dont fit the observations are altered so they explain what is seen or new explanations are developed and tested to make sure they explain what is observed as accurately as possible. And the great thing is all this is published and reviewed and testable and repeatable.
The exact reverse of religion, especially fundamentalist sects which warp the world to fit what they want it to be.
So lets see...10 years ago, you were an idiot and had a narrow view if you doubted some current theory that was popular. But now that it turns out that the idiots were right, we just call it scientific progress and hand waive the fact that we insulted a group of people. Yeah that about sums it up.
Manchu wrote: Whether God understands science is neither here nor there. What I am saying is that fundamentalists Christians sell God short by assigning to him their own narrow understanding and hostile attitude toward science.
As someone who grew up in a very Christian house and went to private Christian schools my whole life, this statement is not often far from the truth.
Many of the older generation of Christians think that science and God are enemies, which of course makes it sound like God is somehow threatened by science or fears it might disprove him, which indeed would be selling God short.
And like I said earlier, proving evolution would not disprove God. God very well may have initiated evolution into rolling along. Do we as humans view it as the most direct way of doing things when God can just as easily think things in and out of existence? No, but then we as humans shouldn't pretend to know how God thinks at all as we are in fact NOT omniscient.
So for the hardcore creationists, don't get offended at the idea that God may have used evolution as a means of rather indirect creation. You don't know either way, nor does anyone else on the planet.
I maintain that I've not seen enough evidence personally to convince me that evolution is the end all answer to our origin.
So let's all play nice and not pretend like we know what God(even if you don't believe He exists) is thinking behind any decision He makes. Generally in this day anyone claiming to know how God thinks, and therefore speaks(or acts in the case of some fanatics) directly on his behalf gets thrown in a loony bin. Westboro claim to know what God thinks, and look how well that's going for them.
I'm pretty much with you there Aarethen..I used to be pretty hard core against evolution on these boards as some of the Dakka members can remember, but when I started researching the stuff really hard, it became quite apparent that some of the creation scientists were overzealous in their efforts to refute evolution(read-- made stuff up). So I have learned to try and throw the bathwater out, while retaining the baby. I don't always succeed.
I can't comment on every theory in existance 10 years ago, but I would not suggest blindly believing every theory you hear. However I don't recall science descibing certain groups as 'idiots' or splitting into different factions because someone discovered that under some conditions the speed of light is variable (and I'm no scientific historian but wasn't that known more than 10 years ago?).
SilverMK2 wrote: I can't comment on every theory in existance 10 years ago, but I would not suggest blindly believing every theory you hear. However I don't recall science descibing certain groups as 'idiots' or splitting into different factions because someone discovered that under some conditions the speed of light is variable (and I'm no scientific historian but wasn't that known more than 10 years ago?).
Silver..my point is that 10-15-100 yrs ago or whatever ago it was,scientists(and non scientist laymen types) pushed a certain theory as though it were fact. And if someone tried to claim disbelief...they might be ridiculed as being a maroon, or buffoon for questioning the almighty scientific thought.
It still goes on today..look at this thread for examples of it.
Todays scientific truth may turn out to be tomorrows scientific law or it may turn out to be tomorrows scientific "oops".
My point is that I'm not against science, I'm against scientific snobbery.
So lets see...10 years ago, you were an idiot and had a narrow view if you doubted some current theory that was popular. But now that it turns out that the idiots were right, we just call it scientific progress and hand waive the fact that we insulted a group of people. Yeah that about sums it up.
GG
Are you simply hostile to the idea of expanding knowledge? It seems like you dislike the idea that our understanding of the world might be imperfect, yet improved.
Yes, theories were less correct before, and are (hopefully and usually) more correct now. How is that insulting to anybody?
Ive always tried to sort out my views on religion and never really got a grasp on it. My mother and grandparents have always been very religious, whereas my dad is of a very... Shall we say, practical mindset.
Personally, I'm actually scientifically inclined, got a degree in biochemistry saying so.
So, ive got this sort of quarter formed analogy that I occasionally ponder about when I can't sleep.
"So maybe life, the universe, everything actually is a crap shoot, but who is throwing the dice? And who is to say that, sometimes the dice aren't weighted one way or another?"
I then have another thought that also sort of touches on what Grog is saying. Maybe, if there is a god/creator/what-have-you, maybe s/he/it set up the uni/multi verse as a grand example of procedural generation and maybe he has super admin rights allowing him to fiddle with things as and when, allowing there to be rules (eg evolution), yet still keeping that little hand in of wonder.
Then there's a question of, is a miracle done by 'natural' means any less of a miracle? For example, a common thing about the feeding the 5000 was that Jesus was just such an awesome, inspiring bloke that people started taking out wee bits of food they had stashed away - I usually carry around a bag of sweets with me in my jacket pocket - and shared them amongst everyone.
So lets see...10 years ago, you were an idiot and had a narrow view if you doubted some current theory that was popular. But now that it turns out that the idiots were right, we just call it scientific progress and hand waive the fact that we insulted a group of people. Yeah that about sums it up.
GG
Are you simply hostile to the idea of expanding knowledge? It seems like you dislike the idea that our understanding of the world might be imperfect, yet improved.
Yes, theories were less correct before, and are (hopefully and usually) more correct now. How is that insulting to anybody?
Comeon Polonius you're a smart dude, not sure why you asked me that question? As a lawyer you should know better than to misrepresent my statement. Unless that was your intent?
Where did I say that theories and or the advancement of scientific knowledge were insulting?
So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and answer you, by saying that it is insulting to "knee jerk" and call people narrow minded or backwards when they question certain scientific concepts. Even if they are concepts that seem to be scientific fact.
No one minds the questioning of scientific concepts it's how science works and advances.
The problem is misinformed people not questions but calling bs on and being venomously againstsomething they don't understand because it hurts their world view.
Most people who I have heard try arguing against the theory of evolution don't understand it and also don't understand what the word theory means in a scientific context.
Kilkrazy wrote: I was under the impression that every example of "irreducible complexity" that had been advanced by "intelligent design" proponents had been resolved in favour of evolution.
That of course does not "prove" evolution.
Yes, "irreducible complexity" has been roundly dismissed as nothing more than another God of the gaps argument. Michael Behe (and by extension the entire intelligent design movement) was humiliated during his cross-examination during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in 2005. Here are some highlights:
"We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."
"ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that 'irreducibly complex' systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."
"Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor 'missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,' what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."
"Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not, in fact, irreducibly complex."
"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."
"With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. ... In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."
What Judge Jones said about intelligent design pretty much sums up the entire "movement":
ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.
Aerethan wrote: My OPINION on evolution:
I deem it inconclusive. For every answer someone gets, a ton of new questions arise that demand answers. Darwin's black box and all that. Then we have irreducible complexity in molecular machines to consider.
I'm not saying it DIDN'T happen. I'm saying we don't have enough answers to say with absolute certainty one way or the other. And while many Christians (and more loudly fanatics claiming to be Christians) might preach creationism as fact, it is actually faith. And until you can prove 100% that there is no God, then you cannot discount it as a possibility(I hear you evolutionists love probability and possibility).
I don't push my beliefs on others. But I will take the wind out of someones sails if they insist on trying to do the same to me.
For all I know as fact, I could be wrong just as much as right. But please let's not all go around acting like we know every secret of the universe and how it came about.
And the "Christian God" is not the only form of intelligent design that has been discussed. Ben Stein had a good documentary a few years back on Netflix about it.
Evolution is not at all "inconclusive" and is, in fact, very well understood. There aren't a "ton of new questions" for every one question answered, and if there was it wouldn't matter, that is how science works. The theory of evolution has passed the rigors of scientific testing for the past 150 years; it is testable and falsifiable. There is no such thing as irreducible complexity in biology, it is merely a re-branding of the an argument from ignorance fallacy and has been soundly dismissed as such. Belief in god is inconsequential to evolution; it has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen regardless of whether you believe god had anything to do with it.
Oh, that Ben Stein "documentary" (and I use that term very loosely) is called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and is merely propaganda hogwash at its finest. It is intellectually dishonest and rife with misrepresentation of facts (evolution caused the Holocaust?). It is no better than the sorry excuse for a documentary, Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?, that Fox put out in 2001. God has everything to do with intelligent design (see the wedge strategy) and is nothing more that neo-creationism trying to be passed off as real science.
As far as I know, isn't evolution not a theory, but an established and observable fact? Aren't the theories based around how evolution actually works (ie, natural selection, sexual selection, etc.)?
Kilkrazy wrote: I was under the impression that every example of "irreducible complexity" that had been advanced by "intelligent design" proponents had been resolved in favour of evolution.
That of course does not "prove" evolution.
Yes, "irreducible complexity" has been roundly dismissed as nothing more than another God of the gaps argument. Michael Behe (and by extension the entire intelligent design movement) was humiliated during his cross-examination during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in 2005. Here are some highlights:
"We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."
"ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that 'irreducibly complex' systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."
"Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor 'missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,' what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."
"Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not, in fact, irreducibly complex."
"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."
"With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. ... In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."
What Judge Jones said about intelligent design pretty much sums up the entire "movement":
ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.
Aerethan wrote: My OPINION on evolution:
I deem it inconclusive. For every answer someone gets, a ton of new questions arise that demand answers. Darwin's black box and all that. Then we have irreducible complexity in molecular machines to consider.
I'm not saying it DIDN'T happen. I'm saying we don't have enough answers to say with absolute certainty one way or the other. And while many Christians (and more loudly fanatics claiming to be Christians) might preach creationism as fact, it is actually faith. And until you can prove 100% that there is no God, then you cannot discount it as a possibility(I hear you evolutionists love probability and possibility).
I don't push my beliefs on others. But I will take the wind out of someones sails if they insist on trying to do the same to me.
For all I know as fact, I could be wrong just as much as right. But please let's not all go around acting like we know every secret of the universe and how it came about.
And the "Christian God" is not the only form of intelligent design that has been discussed. Ben Stein had a good documentary a few years back on Netflix about it.
Evolution is not at all "inconclusive" and is, in fact, very well understood. There aren't a "ton of new questions" for every one question answered, and if there was it wouldn't matter, that is how science works. The theory of evolution has passed the rigors of scientific testing for the past 150 years; it is testable and falsifiable. There is no such thing as irreducible complexity in biology, it is merely a re-branding of the an argument from ignorance fallacy and has been soundly dismissed as such. Belief in god is inconsequential to evolution; it has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen regardless of whether you believe god had anything to do with it.
Oh, that Ben Stein "documentary" (and I use that term very loosely) is called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and is merely propaganda hogwash at its finest. It is intellectually dishonest and rife with misrepresentation of facts (evolution caused the Holocaust?). It is no better than the sorry excuse for a documentary, Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?, that Fox put out in 2001. God has everything to do with intelligent design (see the wedge strategy) and is nothing more that neo-creationism trying to be passed off as real science.
You give me such a motoboner. Thank you!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fafnir wrote: As far as I know, isn't evolution not a theory, but an established and observable fact? Aren't the theories based around how evolution actually works (ie, natural selection, sexual selection, etc.)?
This is a point that is commonly confused. In common parlance theory is used in a fashion roughly comparable to what science would consider a hypothesis. Basically, a guess. A theory in a scientific context is a concept/idea that has been repeatedly and independently confirmed through testing and observation. Its the highest level of being proved, so to speak. So, in science, evolution is very much a theory.
This is a point that is commonly confused. In common parlance theory is used in a fashion roughly comparable to what science would consider a hypothesis. Basically, a guess. A theory in a scientific context is a concept/idea that has been repeatedly and independently confirmed through testing and observation. Its the highest level of being proved, so to speak. So, in science, evolution is very much a theory.
Well, I know the bit about scientific theory being different from more common colloquial ideas, but my point of confusion was at that of the theory of sexual selection/natural selection, and evolution. As in, is there a separation between them?
I have an unwavering belief in God and that He is the force that set everything in motion.
The more I (and humanity as a whole) learn about science and the complexity of the universe the more I am in awe that everything is even able to exist.
Science and God aren't enemies and I never understand the feeling that science somehow makes God less relevant. To me the Bible has always been focused on "God created" not "this is how God created", and the more we learn about the mystery of life the more we learn about the mystery of God.
Aerethan wrote: I maintain that I've not seen enough evidence personally to convince me that evolution is the end all answer to our origin.
The theory of evolution does not attempt to solve the question of abiogenesis, it only explains the mechanisms by which organisms have descended from the last universal ancestor. That is an important distinction to make.
d-usa wrote: Science and God aren't enemies and I never understand the feeling that science somehow makes God less relevant.
It makes god less relevant because the more you explain with science the less you have to resort to "god did it" to explain things. The whole argument for the existence of a god depends on it being impossible to explain the world without one, so if you provide that explanation then god becomes redundant. There's just no point in falling back on "god did it using the mechanisms revealed by science" because you don't need god anymore, that position is just an attempt to keep god relevant despite lacking any good reason to believe.
d-usa wrote: Science and God aren't enemies and I never understand the feeling that science somehow makes God less relevant.
It makes god less relevant because the more you explain with science the less you have to resort to "god did it" to explain things. The whole argument for the existence of a god depends on it being impossible to explain the world without one, so if you provide that explanation then god becomes redundant. There's just no point in falling back on "god did it using the mechanisms revealed by science" because you don't need god anymore, that position is just an attempt to keep god relevant despite lacking any good reason to believe.
Except nothing in science takes "God did it" away, especially since the Bible doesn't aim to explain how God did things and only tells us that He did.
People don't believe in God because they can't figure out gravity.
Unless they are physics majors and it's finals week...
Fafnir wrote: Well, I know the bit about scientific theory being different from more common colloquial ideas, but my point of confusion was at that of the theory of sexual selection/natural selection, and evolution. As in, is there a separation between them?
It's kind of complicated because those are broad concepts describing a whole field of science in a few words. But as a rough approximation:
Evolution is indisputable* fact. Populations/species change over time. Traits within a species change strength/frequency/etc over shorter periods of time, and accumulated changes produce major changes and new species over longer periods of time.
The theory of evolution by natural selection attempts to explain the observed facts of evolution. The theory, in simple form, is that random changes happen in DNA (since DNA replication is not perfect), and changes that improve an organism's chances of producing copies of itself are passed on because of that benefit, while changes that harm those chances fail and disappear. Minor changes accumulate over time until the end result is a major improvement over a distant past generation. This theory is well supported by various independent forms of evidence (observed evolution in lab experiments, DNA comparison between species, the fossil record, etc) and there is no meaningful debate over the fundamental concepts anymore.
*Well, as indisputable as anything ever gets. The objections here are about as relevant as flat earth theory, or the crazy guy on the corner screaming about the black helicopters.
d-usa wrote: Except nothing in science takes "God did it" away, especially since the Bible doesn't aim to explain how God did things and only tells us that He did.
But that's exactly what science does. If explanation X explains observation Y then there's no reason to believe that the real explanation is X plus some vague undefined Z. In that case Z is completely redundant and including it is irrational. For example, if I believe that I'm out of eggs because I had eggs for breakfast I shouldn't pay any attention to some random guy who says that my eggs are also gone because some of them hatched into chickens overnight. And I certainly shouldn't believe in some ridiculous story about how my breakfast was just the process by which they hatched into chickens.
God is the same kind of thing. The only reason to include god in your explanation is if you're starting from an assumption that you really want to believe in god and need to explain away all of the arguments against god.
People don't believe in God because they can't figure out gravity.
Of course they do. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've heard someone say "I believe in god because X couldn't happen without god".
Peregrine wrote: I can't even begin to count the number of times I've heard someone say "I believe in god because X couldn't happen without god".
I think statements like that are more often made (misguidedly) to defend faith in a specific context rather than to describe the origins of someone's faith.
People don't believe in God because they can't figure out gravity.
Of course they do. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've heard someone say "I believe in god because X couldn't happen without god".
And I can't begin to count the number of times I've heard someone say that science takes God away because they don't know why people believe in God to begin with...
d-usa wrote: And I can't begin to count the number of times I've heard someone say that science takes God away because they don't know why people believe in God to begin with...
Well, it's not like those other reasons are any better. But that's a subject for a different thread. The point here is that "god used evolution" isn't a viable theory that adds a necessary element to our understanding of the world, it's an attempt to protect the belief you already hold for other reasons. If you didn't have independent reasons for believing in god you'd never look at evolution and say "you know what, this looks like the perfect tool for god to use".
d-usa wrote: And I can't begin to count the number of times I've heard someone say that science takes God away because they don't know why people believe in God to begin with...
Well, it's not like those other reasons are any better. But that's a subject for a different thread. The point here is that "god used evolution" isn't a viable theory that adds a necessary element to our understanding of the world, it's an attempt to protect the belief you already hold for other reasons.
It's no better and no worse than "conditions just happened to be right for primordial soup to form on earth by pure chance". It doesn't have to be a necessary element to our understanding of the world.
The speed of light in Vacuum is still c wether you believe it just happens to be that way or because you believe that God made it that way. The Gravitational constant is the same wether you believe that it is the value that just randomly ended up that way or you believe that God set it that way.
The only time science suffers is if you stop looking. And you can stop looking because you throw up your hand in the air saying "God did it" or you can stop looking because you throw up in the air saying "we got c figured out, no need to research it more".
I like science because it helps me learn more about the universe that God created, but a belief in God is not needed to belief in science or to think that this universe is amazing.
d-usa wrote: It's no better and no worse than "conditions just happened to be right for primordial soup to form on earth by pure chance".
No, it's much worse because the "conditions just happened to be right" idea at least makes predictions that are theoretically testable, works only with what we know exists (the "right conditions" are well within what we know happened), and has the potential to become a better theory. Speculating about god has none of those advantages.
It doesn't have to be a necessary element to our understanding of the world.
d-usa wrote: It's no better and no worse than "conditions just happened to be right for primordial soup to form on earth by pure chance".
No, it's much worse because the "conditions just happened to be right" idea at least makes predictions that are theoretically testable, works only with what we know exists (the "right conditions" are well within what we know happened), and has the potential to become a better theory. Speculating about god has none of those advantages.
And that statement only matters because you cut out this part of my reply:
The only time science suffers is if you stop looking. And you can stop looking because you throw up your hand in the air saying "God did it" or you can stop looking because you throw up in the air saying "we got c figured out, no need to research it more".
So you can go "primordial soup just happened, we don't need to figure out anymore" and you can go "God made primordial soup, we don't need to figure out anymore".
Or, both the "everything is random" and "God played a role" group keep on researching more to find out what this primordial soup was made out of, what the conditions were, how things could have gone differently.
Switching between "random" and "God" doesn't make a lick of difference as long as you don't stop doing science.
It doesn't have to be a necessary element to our understanding of the world.
Then why include it?
Is a system that relies on everything being 100% random a necessary element to our understanding of the world?
LordofHats wrote: Fun? What does this look like to you a game? This sir is the internet. Srs buznis.
I am genuinely curious at what point in the Protestant tree and which of the 33,000 denominations did a denomination 'break off' with a literal interpretation of the old testament and who/when did it start?.
I think the above however undersells somewhat the effects of the Great Depression -- especially in conjunction with the Dust Bowl/Dirty Thirties -- the rise of radio/wireless broadcasting
"According to estimates by the National Association of Broadcasters, in 1922 there were 60,000 households in the United States with radios; by 1929 the number had topped 10 million. "
d-usa wrote: Switching between "random" and "God" doesn't make a lick of difference as long as you don't stop doing science.
I didn't say it has horrible practical consequences if you have a vague "god kind of did something maybe" religion, and there are plenty of productive scientists with that kind of religious belief. But that doesn't change the fact that it's not a rational belief to hold, or that it's nothing more than a way of defending an existing belief that you already hold for other reasons.
Is a system that relies on everything being 100% random a necessary element to our understanding of the world?
If not then why include it?
We include it because know that random events happen (as well as deterministic events that are effectively random because they're well beyond our ability to predict) and are necessary to explain the world. For example, good luck understanding how the semiconductors in your computer work if you refuse to acknowledge random events. So the question now becomes whether we should use a theory that only includes known factors (random generation of variation and non-random selection), or whether we should speculate about additional factors based on nothing more than our desire to have those additional factors exist.
d-usa wrote: Is a system that relies on everything being 100% random a necessary element to our understanding of the world?
If not then why include it?
There is no better statement to show a lack of understanding evolution than one such as this. While there is some chance involved, this argument completely ignores the role natural selection, and selection is the exact opposite of chance. Even abiogensis (again, completely separate from the framework of evolution) is not random; atoms and molecules arrange themselves not by random but according to their chemical properties.
d-usa wrote: Is a system that relies on everything being 100% random a necessary element to our understanding of the world?
If not then why include it?
There is no better statement to show a lack of understanding evolution than one such as this. While there is some chance involved, this argument completely ignores the role natural selection, and selection is the exact opposite of chance.
The initial genetic mutation that might cause a change is a random chance.
The genetic mutation being beneficial in the specific environment where it occurs is a random chance.
The mutations are random, the specimen in which they occur is random, the environment in which they occur is random, and if all the random changes combine to give that particular specimen an edge over other specimens of the same species in the area then natural selection will happen and that specimen will pass on the random changes that occur because they are beneficial.
Even abiogensis (again, completely separate from the framework of evolution) is not random; atoms and molecules arrange themselves not by random but according to their chemical properties.
And chemical properties change depending on the environment. Atoms and molecules behave differently if they exist in different conditions.
The exact same atoms and molecules that existed and combined during abiogensis would react differently if they were in a different environment (different heat, different radiation, different atoms and molecules surrounding them). They will always do the exact same thing in the exact same circumstance, but it was by chance that these exact circumstances existed to begin with.
Which is the genesis of my original premise, taking abiogensis as an example:
We know that the conditions for it to happen were complex and had to be just right. One can believe that they just happened to be that way by pure coincidence. Or one can believe that the conditions were willed to happen that way. Neither are an endpoint and you can still continue to experiment and try to learn exactly how abiogensis happened and what lead to the conditions that allowed for it to happen.
Dakka OTers have zero chance of convincing each other on politics or guns or TV shows, but obviously we'll make a lot of progress bringing the other side to our point of view on something as trivial as evolution or religion.
Genetic mutation is not entirely random. There are some parts of the DNA more prone to mutation than others and some types of mutation which are mpre likely to occur... this is why we see the same kinds of genetic diseases springing up all over the world in people who are only very distantly related.
As to chemical properties - yes, they can be very different as conditions change. I havr used this to my advantage when I was creating nanoparticles - by adjusting the pH of the solution i could control how many bonds my coating material exposed, so therefore ensure that I could add on different functional groups to the nanoparticle coating.
However, the point being that in nature you do need a series of the right conditions and events to lead to the creation of us... but so many of those 'right conditions' seemingly existed when the first complex molecules were forming that we did in fact come to be. If they were not we would not be having this conversation... or we would be having it in a very different way if conditions were such that life formed from different building blocks...
Why does it have to be converting others to our point of view? If any post I make helps someone understand something they didn't before or take consider another point of view then they were not wasted words. It also can be both enjoyable and illuminating to talk to another person who differing views to you.
Not to mention if we were trying to convert people it wouldn't be each other. In a debate you are rarely trying to change the point of view of the other person, you are trying to change the view of the mostly undecided or unsure onlookers first and foremost.
This is a point that is commonly confused. In common parlance theory is used in a fashion roughly comparable to what science would consider a hypothesis. Basically, a guess. A theory in a scientific context is a concept/idea that has been repeatedly and independently confirmed through testing and observation. Its the highest level of being proved, so to speak. So, in science, evolution is very much a theory.
Well, I know the bit about scientific theory being different from more common colloquial ideas, but my point of confusion was at that of the theory of sexual selection/natural selection, and evolution. As in, is there a separation between them?
I see what you are saying. I think Fafnir may have misread your post as saying the standard "well its just a theory" defence when that wasnt what you were saying at all. Correct me if I am wrong but what I think you were saying was that is there a difference between evolution/change in species taking place and the theory of evolution.
My answer would be this
We know species change over time, this is a fact. The theory of evolution via natural selection is what explains the method by which this takes place.
The basic idea behind evolution is extrodinarily simple, and mostly quite observable.
1) While most of an organisms genome is passed from parent to offspring, there can be some mutations in the offsprings genome. This is directly observable, you can check a parent organisms genome and compare it to an offspring, and spontaneous mutations can be seen.
2) Sometimes these mutations are beneficial, and help an organism compete better and breed more. Eventually, as creatures live and die in ordinary life, the creatures with the more adapted genes have a better chance to become the majority, because they could compete better. This is pretty self evident.
3) As more of these mutations build up, adapting a species more to it's current environment and circumstance, it slowly diverges from being classified as the same species, and becomes a new one. This is also pretty self evident, as those mutations that were beneficial don't just go away, they all build up in the population and slowly change a species to the point that its DNA is so far different from where it started with that it couldn't properly breed with it (making fertile offspring), should it have encountered it's progenitor species again (which is the most common way to classify a different species).
There are a lot more parts about how the mutations happen, what forces drive the adaptation and diversion of species ect, but that's the basics. Very very easy.
The problems people have with Evolution generally isn't those steps, which can be explained pretty easily to people and observed pretty easily, but from the conclusions that can be drawn from it when looking at our own history, because while the steps are simple, the preconception that man was formed as is by god is a strong one, and challenging that can mean challenging a persons fundamental beliefs about the origins of man (not the origins of life, per se, as Evolution actually has nothing to say on the matter directly).
In all fairness the media does not help with peoples understanding of evolution at all.
How many times have you heard the headline
This animal evolved to survive in this environment.
Which is very much a misrepresentation which seems to imply the animal had control over the changes that caused it to better survive in their environment which is ot the case.
Antibiotics can easily result in strains of bacteria being resistant to that antibiotic. That is one of two certain things: either it's a concrete example of evolution, or a concrete example of God being a donkey cave. I prefer the foremost example, because nothing about it disproves a supreme being/s existence.
But I will easily swallow any example of people refusing to believe things that have proof, as long as there are people that don't believe dinosaurs existed at all, or that they died as a result of being left off the Ark. There will always be people who alter how they interpret what they see to invalidate the possibility of them being incorrect.
I absolutely believe in Evolution, I just refuse to believe that I have a concrete grip as to whether or not Evolution is a check and balance put there by a supreme intelligence, as there is no way to prove either. Either it exists because otherwise advanced life could never exist (it would be constantly be getting reset by things it can't overcome), or a supreme being put it there so they don't have to babysit us, SIMs-style. But the second theory does not invalidate the former.
carlos13th wrote: In all fairness the media does not help with peoples understanding of evolution at all.
How many times have you heard the headline
This animal evolved to survive in this environment.
Which is very much a misrepresentation which seems to imply the animal had control over the changes that caused it to better survive in their environment which is ot the case.
In English many verbs can be used as transitive or intransitive and do not change their form accordingly.
The evidence is all around you. I can't imagine what you could possibly not agree with.
I believe that god created stuff, science was just a result of his work, like mould, but not in a bad way. I like my hybrid science/god religion. makes me seem like not an idiot to either side of the argument
I am not a big believer myself, but I seriously can't see how people who strongly believe in a God of some sort cannot wrap their head around science when their describe how awesome their deity is. It's essentially a carrot dangled in front of us to better ourselves. I mean, how many parents out there are happy to see when their children figure things out for themselves?
It's the old, "science, suitably advanced, is indistinguishable from magic" theory.
carlos13th wrote: In all fairness the media does not help with peoples understanding of evolution at all.
How many times have you heard the headline
This animal evolved to survive in this environment.
Which is very much a misrepresentation which seems to imply the animal had control over the changes that caused it to better survive in their environment which is ot the case.
In English many verbs can be used as transitive or intransitive and do not change their form accordingly.
I realise it may not be entirely incorrect. But it does seem to taint peoples view of how evolution works.
Maddermax wrote: Unfortunately, there are quite a few literalists out there who think everything happened *exactly* as mentioned in the bible, and there can be no thought about interpretation or leeway at all. How they square this with the different versions and translations of the bible, who knows,...
Oh, that one's easy to answer: You just assume that any version of the bible that differs from the one you use is wrong.
Maddermax wrote: Unfortunately, there are quite a few literalists out there who think everything happened *exactly* as mentioned in the bible, and there can be no thought about interpretation or leeway at all. How they square this with the different versions and translations of the bible, who knows,...
Oh, that one's easy to answer: You just assume that any version of the bible that differs from the one you use is wrong.
I've read the King James Version before it was "new"...
d-usa wrote: Is a system that relies on everything being 100% random a necessary element to our understanding of the world?
If not then why include it?
There is no better statement to show a lack of understanding evolution than one such as this. While there is some chance involved, this argument completely ignores the role natural selection, and selection is the exact opposite of chance.
The initial genetic mutation that might cause a change is a random chance.
The genetic mutation being beneficial in the specific environment where it occurs is a random chance.
The mutations are random, the specimen in which they occur is random, the environment in which they occur is random, and if all the random changes combine to give that particular specimen an edge over other specimens of the same species in the area then natural selection will happen and that specimen will pass on the random changes that occur because they are beneficial.
Even abiogensis (again, completely separate from the framework of evolution) is not random; atoms and molecules arrange themselves not by random but according to their chemical properties.
And chemical properties change depending on the environment. Atoms and molecules behave differently if they exist in different conditions.
The exact same atoms and molecules that existed and combined during abiogensis would react differently if they were in a different environment (different heat, different radiation, different atoms and molecules surrounding them). They will always do the exact same thing in the exact same circumstance, but it was by chance that these exact circumstances existed to begin with.
Which is the genesis of my original premise, taking abiogensis as an example:
We know that the conditions for it to happen were complex and had to be just right. One can believe that they just happened to be that way by pure coincidence. Or one can believe that the conditions were willed to happen that way. Neither are an endpoint and you can still continue to experiment and try to learn exactly how abiogensis happened and what lead to the conditions that allowed for it to happen.
Again, you have missed the point: mutations are random, evolution is not. While chance plays a role, the entire process is not "100% chance" as you have characterized it.
d-usa wrote: Your "no it's not" makes a convincing argument...
You should read the entire argument, which explains very clearly why evolution is not "100% randomness" as you claimed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: One can believe that they just happened to be that way by pure coincidence. Or one can believe that the conditions were willed to happen that way. Neither are an endpoint and you can still continue to experiment and try to learn exactly how abiogensis happened and what lead to the conditions that allowed for it to happen.
But the point is "conditions were willed to happen that way" adds an extra factor (the entity doing the willing) for no reason beyond a desire to find a place to put the god you already insist on believing in for other reasons. And that's just bad science.
d-usa wrote: I did, I wrote a rebuttal, and his answer is "no it's not".
Because your rebuttal is like posting a long essay on why the sky isn't blue, or why 1+1=4. Someone could go back and pick apart every single thing you got wrong, but really all there is to say is "no".
And look, isn't that much better than just dismissing things?
It's good to talk and share. Thanks, I'll read.
SPOILER ALERT: All of those links explain what I already did. Mutations can be random, evolution is not. Hence, evolution is not "100% chance."
Your belief that it is all random chance is being dismissed because it's wrong. Don't blame me for your unwillingness to fully understand what you are arguing against.
I myself do not know anyone who does not believe in evolution.
I think however that an important reason that many people do not believe in evolution is the fact that it is not a proven truth. Evolution is at the moment the most plausible theory, but scientists are far from unanimous on it.The theory(ies) may be the most plausible, but it still has a lot of flaws and things that are yet unexplainable. The nature of science is that theories, even generally accepted and established ones, are subject to change, and sometimes have to be entirely rejected when a radical new discovery is made. For all we know, people a 100 years in the future will be laughing at us for being stupid enough to believe in a silly thing called 'evolution'
And look, isn't that much better than just dismissing things?
It's good to talk and share. Thanks, I'll read.
SPOILER ALERT: All of those links explain what I already did. Mutations can be random, evolution is not. Hence, evolution is not "100% chance."
Believe it or not, but those multiple articles did a lot better job explaining things than your one paragraph oversimplified summary of them.
Your belief that it is all random chance is being dismissed because it's wrong. Don't blame me for your unwillingness to fully understand what you are arguing against.
Well, I for one am glad that our non-random environment that resulted in our planet allowed this to happen.
But I do truly find it interesting that it appears that there are circumstances where it appears that there is a driving force behind evolution. I do like it a lot better when actual knowledge is shared. There is no point in being elitist jerks about this.
Iron_Captain wrote: I myself do not know anyone who does not believe in evolution.
I think however that an important reason that many people do not believe in evolution is the fact that it is not a proven truth.
Evolution is at the moment the most plausible theory, but scientists are far from unanimous on it.The theory(ies) may be the most plausible, but it still has a lot of flaws and things that are yet unexplainable.
The nature of science is that theories, even generally accepted and established ones, are subject to change, and sometimes have to be entirely rejected when a radical new discovery is made.
For all we know, people a 100 years in the future will be laughing at us for being stupid enough to believe in a silly thing called 'evolution'
Scientist are unanimous on the theory of evolution by means of natural selection; it is the foundation of modern biology. Yes, there are certain things within the theory that can change (orthogenesis for example) but the underlying basis of the theory has remained intact for over 150 years, only our knowledge of how it works has grown. While it is possible that the theory of evolution could be upended at any time by a radical new theory, it just isn't likely.
There are no competing theories to the cause of biological diversity outside of "a wizard did it."
Iron_Captain wrote: I myself do not know anyone who does not believe in evolution.
I think however that an important reason that many people do not believe in evolution is the fact that it is not a proven truth.
Evolution is at the moment the most plausible theory, but scientists are far from unanimous on it.The theory(ies) may be the most plausible, but it still has a lot of flaws and things that are yet unexplainable.
The nature of science is that theories, even generally accepted and established ones, are subject to change, and sometimes have to be entirely rejected when a radical new discovery is made.
For all we know, people a 100 years in the future will be laughing at us for being stupid enough to believe in a silly thing called 'evolution'
Scientists are pretty unanimous on the theory of evolution particularly biologists. Does every scientist in the world believe it? No but you could say the same about any subject on the planet.
Here is an excerpt from Kizmiller v Dover Area school district on if Intelgent design is a scicence.
"Before discussing Defendants’ claims about evolution, we initially note that an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ expert in biology, Dr. Miller, a widely-recognized biology professor at Brown University who has written university-level and highschool biology textbooks used prominently throughout the nation, provided unrebutted testimony that evolution, including common descent and natural selection, is “overwhelmingly accepted” by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees. (1:94-100 (Miller)). As the court in Selman explained, “evolution is more than a theory of origin in the context of science. To the contrary, evolution is the dominant scientific theory of origin accepted by the majority of scientists.” Selman, 390 F. Supp. 2d at 1309 (emphasis in original). Despite the scientific community’s overwhelming support for evolution, Defendants and ID proponents insist that evolution is unsupported by empirical evidence. Plaintiffs’ science experts, Drs. Miller and Padian, clearly explained how ID proponents generally and Pandas specifically, distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge in making their anti-evolution argument. In analyzing such distortion, we turn again to Pandas, the book to which students are expressly referred in the disclaimer. Defendants hold out Pandas as representative of ID and Plaintiffs’ experts agree in that regard. (16:83 (Padian); 1:107-08 (Miller)). A series of arguments against evolutionary theory found in Pandas involve paleontology, which studies the life of the past and the fossil record. Plaintiffs’ expert Professor Padian was the only testifying expert witness with any expertise in paleontology.15 His testimony therefore remains unrebutted. Dr. Padian’s demonstrative slides, prepared on the basis of peer-reviewing scientific literature, illustrate how Pandas systematically distorts and misrepresents established, important evolutionary principles."
The theory of gravity has a lot of parts that are not yet explainable too people don't fight against the theory of gravity only because it does not clash with their world view. If it wasn't for religion there would be hardly anyone making silly arguments like irreducible complexity to challenge evolution. May the theory of evolution change in the future sure as we learn more about the world are theory may change, so may any other scientific theory we have including ones that help create medicine that saves lives. But at this point in time it is the very best theory we have and is supported by a mountain of evidence. Even if the amount of evidence for it was still quite small it would still have more to support it than just saying God did it.
where is the option for us being alien created genetically engineered pig monkeys?
or for us being descendant from hybrids between chimps and pigs who got it on?
also, did you know that ligers are REAL?!
now you know, enjoy.
"Generally speaking, inter species hybrids—like mules, ligers (lion-tiger hybrids), or zedonks (zebra-donkey hybrids)—are less fertile than the parents that produced them. However, as McCarthy has documented in his years of research into hybrids, many crosses produce hybrids that can produce offspring themselves"
When I asked McCarthy if he could give a date estimate for the hybridization event, he said that there are a couple broad possibilities: (1) It might be that hybridization between pigs and apes produced the earliest hominids millions of years ago and that subsequent mating within this hybrid swarm eventually led to the various hominid types and to modern humans; (2) separate crosses between pigs and apes could have produced separate hominids (and there's even a creepy possibility that hybridization might even still be occurring in regions where Sus and Pan still seem to come into contact, like Southern Sudan)."
also, while evolution is generally accepted by scientists, how evolution works and how the process worked for humans in particular, is very much a mystery/subject of debate and study.
"extensive research into the broader issues, and shortcomings, of our currently incomplete theory of evolution. As the increasing apparent, magnificent, speed with which morphological change can occur continues to present itself for us to comprehend, the standard theory of random mutation followed by slow environmental selection, seems to stall. In my own opinion, female choice undoubtedly provides much of the functional "speed-up" we observe, but other mechanisms of mutation, or pathways for acquired characteristics to be fed back to the gonads (through retroviral transfer?), now need to be considered anew. The role of hybridization in driving morphological change, as McCarthy has observed time and time again, particularly in his studies of avian species (Oxford University Press, 2006), may be the most powerful mechanism of all.
But I do truly find it interesting that it appears that there are circumstances where it appears that there is a driving force behind evolution.
What do you mean it appears there is a driving force behind evolution? Evolution is not a progress towards single perfect species. When an environment is altered or changed so are the optimal traits for survival.
d-usa wrote: Believe it or not, but those multiple articles did a lot better job explaining things than your one paragraph oversimplified summary of them.
I'm sorry simplified summaries of complex ideas are not good enough for you. I'll try harder next time.
Well, I for one am glad that our non-random environment that resulted in our planet allowed this to happen.
But I do truly find it interesting that it appears that there are circumstances where it appears that there is a driving force behind evolution. I do like it a lot better when actual knowledge is shared. There is no point in being elitist jerks about this.
There is no "driving force" behind evolution other than an organism's need to adapt and reproduce. Much more often than not, adaptation to changing environments is not fast enough and organisms face extinction before they can fully adapt. Assigning some sort of supernatural cause to it ignores the fact that most animals that have ever lived are now extinct.
easysauce wrote: where is the option for us being alien created genetically engineered pig monkeys?
or for us being descendant from hybrids between chimps and pigs who got it on?
also, did you know that ligers are REAL?!
now you know, enjoy.
"Generally speaking, inter species hybrids—like mules, ligers (lion-tiger hybrids), or zedonks (zebra-donkey hybrids)—are less fertile than the parents that produced them. However, as McCarthy has documented in his years of research into hybrids, many crosses produce hybrids that can produce offspring themselves"
When I asked McCarthy if he could give a date estimate for the hybridization event, he said that there are a couple broad possibilities: (1) It might be that hybridization between pigs and apes produced the earliest hominids millions of years ago and that subsequent mating within this hybrid swarm eventually led to the various hominid types and to modern humans; (2) separate crosses between pigs and apes could have produced separate hominids (and there's even a creepy possibility that hybridization might even still be occurring in regions where Sus and Pan still seem to come into contact, like Southern Sudan).
Yeah I read that. If I remember rightly he is self publishing rather than publishing his work in any established scientific journals. Makes me think his "peers" do not think his work is scientifically sound. From what I have read of it most of it seems to be "Because they have bits that look similar"
Here is a pretty through refuting of his arguments.
I believe science is the language God used to create and control the universe. Where science fails or doesn't explain things, its due to our own ignorance. We're meant to learn as much as we can about the Earth and the Universe. God didn't give us brains to not use. For me, where true religion and true science meet, there Truth. (capitol 'T' ) The more I learn about the universe, the more beautiful it becomes. Its why I write science fiction.
MWHistorian wrote: I believe science is the language God used to create and control the universe. Where science fails or doesn't explain things, its due to our own ignorance. We're meant to learn as much as we can about the Earth and the Universe. God didn't give us brains to not use. For me, where true religion and true science meet, there Truth. (capitol 'T' ) The more I learn about the universe, the more beautiful it becomes. Its why I write science fiction.
Does this mean you believe in a deist God? One that set the rules set everything in motion than left it alone?
Humanity is a paradoxical combination of dualities and all the vagary in between represents the infinite combinations that we believe and assume to be facts.
In this vain, I'm a Christian who believes in both God and Evolution. Raised Catholic, I really see no problem looking at the concept of Evolution and there being a God. Yes, I can say that with a straight face.
The Earth is really old and the Bible is principally a moral guide (which context of time to when certain writings occurred) and allegorical in nature (but does have events which are real).
There exists a God but I like to think it is a separate concept from how Evolution works. How involved God can be is up for debate but I like to think Evolution is a mechanism used for adaptation and for progression (or if warranted, regression) of organisms, generating biological diversity in response to many different stimuli whether at a genetic or environmental stimuli.
In that context, my belief in God is separate from how science works.
If I were a religious man, I would say that Evolution is God's Autopilot. Otherwise everything would be a giant babysitting job, and that doesn't reflect positively on the efficiency of a perfect omnipotent being.
For the same reason there is life on other planets, for otherwise the universe is the worst waste of space ever by the worst architect ever. It would then effectively be an infinitely large version of the posters of sea life you tape behind an aquarium. And anyways there has to be life on other planets, for the other omnipotent kids have to have science projects of their own, too.
Referring to the original post, I find that when people say ,'The fact that there is a correlation between belief in evolution and education must mean that it is stupid to believe in creation,' it is actually based on a lot of other things. Primarily, that throughout the whole of secondary/tertiary education, evolution is spoken about as a definite fact by figures of authority, influencing people's views on the subject. So don't say 'Creationists are only that way because they have been raised to believe it,' unless you want to sound quite hypocritical.
Personally, I think natural selection is pretty obvious in nature, and in tests. But only on a smaller scale, essentially mutations within a species, not evolution from one type of animal to another. I really don't understand how people can say science and Christianity don't mix, I personally find it incredibly interesting to dissect/find out how stuff works, and think that it just helps to highlight some of the amazing aspects of God's creation. I can understand people believing God made creation through evolution, I just personally don't.
Anyways, this is the internet, where militant atheists rule, and other opinions are treated with no respect! Have fun guys!
The Buddha always told his disciples not to waste their time and energy in metaphysical speculation. Whenever he was asked a metaphysical question, he remained silent. Instead, he directed his disciples toward practical efforts. Questioned one day about the problem of the infinity of the world, the Buddha said, "Whether the world is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation remains the same." Another time he said, "Suppose a man is struck by a poisoned arrow and the doctor wishes to take out the arrow immediately. Suppose the man does not want the arrow removed until he knows who shot it, his age, his parents, and why he shot it. What would happen? If he were to wait until all these questions have been answered, the man might die first." Life is so short. It must not be spent in endless metaphysical speculation that does not bring us any closer to the truth. - Hanh, Thich; Philip Kapleau (2005). Zen Keys
Gutsnagga wrote: Primarily, that throughout the whole of secondary/tertiary education, evolution is spoken about as a definite fact by figures of authority, influencing people's views on the subject.
Which is because it IS a definite fact.
So don't say 'Creationists are only that way because they have been raised to believe it,' unless you want to sound quite hypocritical.
The difference is that if you're taught about evolution you can go out and confirm those lessons and come to the same conclusion. With creationism, on the other hand, there is nothing to support it. Literally the only way to believe in it is to have someone else tell you what to believe and never verify what you're told. Over and over again creationists tell blatant lies that could be disproved with a few minutes of internet searching (transitional fossils, "what use is half an eye", etc), based on the correct assumption that their followers will never bother to discover that they've been lied to.
But only on a smaller scale, essentially mutations within a species, not evolution from one type of animal to another.
This is absolutely false. Evolution on both scales is indisputable fact that is backed up by overwhelming amounts of evidence. Questioning the ability to produce new species through evolution is about as reasonable as saying that you agree that the earth is round if you just look at it a few miles at a time, but obviously flat when you consider the whole planet.
I really don't understand how people can say science and Christianity don't mix
Because science utterly demolishes core Christian beliefs about the creation of the world. The entire account provided by the bible isn't just wrong, it's laughably wrong.
Anyways, this is the internet, where militant atheists rule, and other opinions are treated with no respect! Have fun guys!
You mean where facts rule, and opinions based on ignorance get no respect.
Because science utterly demolishes core Christian beliefs about the creation of the world. The entire account provided by the bible isn't just wrong, it's laughably wrong.
It really doesn't do that, except for biblical literalists, which are a fairly small minority. Most Christians understand the difference between reality and metaphor and parable, such as the description of the creation of the world at the beginning of Genesis. Science doesn't say "there is no god", it says "that isn't something I deal with, give me something I can measure and observe". Occasionally it also says "can you get me a Mr. Pib and some Red Vines?", but we ignore it when it does that, even though those are amazing treats.
Personally, I think natural selection is pretty obvious in nature, and in tests. But only on a smaller scale, essentially mutations within a species, not evolution from one type of animal to another. I
The only difference is time. How many mutations does it take to make an animal unrecognisable from what it once was? I don't see how, or why you are making that distinction.
Ahtman wrote: It really doesn't do that, except for biblical literalists, which are a fairly small minority.
Actually not. Absolute strict 100% literalists might be rare, but even young-earth creationism (AKA "Genesis is literal fact") is a substantial minority. Apparently accurate polling is kind of difficult on a controversial subject like this, but here's some analysis: http://ncse.com/blog/2013/11/just-how-many-young-earth-creationists-are-there-us-0015164 . If you count both literalists and Christians who believe in some form of creationism that science proves to be wrong you end up with around half the US population, and that's obviously a higher percentage in some parts of the country.
Most Christians understand the difference between reality and metaphor and parable, such as the description of the creation of the world at the beginning of Genesis.
Except it doesn't make sense as a metaphor. Even ignoring the issue of the "it's just a metaphor" defense being a response being a response to knowledge advancing and making it obvious that it wasn't literal truth, a metaphor has to be a metaphor for something. And if you try to break down Genesis symbolically all you get is a vague "god did it" with all of the literary elements of the account thrown away. Literally any creation story could fill the same metaphorical role.
Science doesn't say "there is no god", it says "that isn't something I deal with, give me something I can measure and observe".
Actually, science also says that things that are not observed (or at least supported by mathematical models/indirect observation/etc) are unlikely to exist, and belief in them without evidence is irrational. Science is perfectly capable of saying that all of the proposed justifications for belief in god are either factually wrong or unfalsifiable speculation. It places belief in god on the same level as the crazy guy on the corner screaming about black helicopters and mind control plots in the chemtrails.
All Christians i know believe in science. But they disagree on the origins of life. I can understand why. When i look at evolution i see a general idea/story with tonnes of gaps and speculation. Like when they find a tooth and make a whole creature out of it etc. Or when i look at the fossil line and see, not progressive change but huge jumps and most (if not all) of those fossils are incomplete. To me i see just as much speculation on the evolutionists part. (i think the T Rex fossil is 100% complete but i cant think of any others)
In my opinion give it a few hundred years and people in the future will laugh at the ideas of people today (much like people laugh at our ancestors for their beliefs) and there will be another trend that people will flock to.
Also Christians (also other religious people) are the nicest people i have ever met. So many charities, poor people homes and nice things are done by them that i never witness in atheists over all. Of course i am generalizing as there are always people that ruin it for others on all sides but i am glad there are a lot more Christians (i say Christians because they are the predominant ones in my area) than atheists due to their attitude towards people and so on.
I see a lot of hate in this thread hence the rant but maybe you should just not care about how they believe people got here and just move on.
We are all going to live and die and be forgotten so who cares I mean if you guys represent the atheist people i really worry about the future. So much anger etc.
Gutsnagga wrote: Referring to the original post, I find that when people say ,'The fact that there is a correlation between belief in evolution and education must mean that it is stupid to believe in creation,' it is actually based on a lot of other things.
While saying belief in creationism is "stupid" may be a bit strong, the word illogical fits much better. Whether you ultimately believe in god or not, to look at all the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution by means of natural selection (the fossil record, genetics, anthropology, psychology, every field of biology) and reject that in favor of everything being the result of an invisible sky wizard, it is a denial of human logic.
Primarily, that throughout the whole of secondary/tertiary education, evolution is spoken about as a definite fact by figures of authority, influencing people's views on the subject. So don't say 'Creationists are only that way because they have been raised to believe it,' unless you want to sound quite hypocritical.
Maybe in Australia, but that is not the case in the United States (at least when I was in high school in Nevada). However, I admit that I skipped biology (going from earth science, to chemistry, then physics) but based on conversations with a science teachers I know now (in Virginia, where I currently live) they aren't allowed to present evolution as definite fact (even though it is) but it is discussed. Interesting side story, during his first year of teaching high school science, a friend of mine had a student ask him what layer of the atmosphere Heaven was in during a lesson.
Personally, I think natural selection is pretty obvious in nature, and in tests. But only on a smaller scale, essentially mutations within a species, not evolution from one type of animal to another. I really don't understand how people can say science and Christianity don't mix, I personally find it incredibly interesting to dissect/find out how stuff works, and think that it just helps to highlight some of the amazing aspects of God's creation. I can understand people believing God made creation through evolution, I just personally don't.
Evolution explains biodiversity quite well and there is plenty of evidence to support it.
Anyways, this is the internet, where militant atheists rule, and other opinions are treated with no respect! Have fun guys!
WarOne wrote: Raised Catholic, I really see no problem looking at the concept of Evolution and there being a God. Yes, I can say that with a straight face.
Also Christians (also other religious people) are the nicest people i have ever met. So many charities, poor people homes and nice things are done by them that i never witness in atheists over all.
The reason why there are few (none?) atheist charities is because atheists aren't a denomination of people united by any sort of doctrine. An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in God or any other form of deity(ies). That said, there are plenty of secular charities, and plenty of atheists who I can imagine also do work and provide donations for non-secular charities as well.
Of course i am generalizing as there are always people that ruin it for others on all sides but i am glad there are a lot more Christians (i say Christians because they are the predominant ones in my area) than atheists due to their attitude towards people and so on.
And what is this attitude towards people that atheists have? Because right now, it sounds like you're being a fair bit derisive, and that's pretty hypocritical.
Swastakowey wrote: When i look at evolution i see a general idea/story with tonnes of gaps and speculation.
Yes, evolution does not provide an absolute 100% perfect record of every single thing that has ever lived. But it has tremendous explanatory power, and all of the evidence we do have agrees with the theory. And, more importantly, there is no competing theory that even comes close. All opponents of evolution can offer is thinly-veiled religious doctrine with "Jesus" removed in a dishonest attempt to get around separation of church and state laws (intelligent design), and vague speculation about "god must have done something" without even the slightest bit of evidence to support that speculation.
Also, you seem to be holding evolution to a much higher standard than other fields. Do you refuse to accept a history textbook because we don't know every single detail of the lives of every person in the Roman empire, or do you accept that it provides useful information about the things we do know? Do you throw out all of modern medicine because we don't yet understand all about how cancer works and how to cure it? Of course not. The only reason this argument is ever raised against evolution is because of the religious groups that oppose it because it contradicts their religion.
Or when i look at the fossil line and see, not progressive change but huge jumps and most (if not all) of those fossils are incomplete.
This is a (very poor) creationist argument. We're never going to have all of the fossils to fill in every single gap. Fossils only form at all under specific conditions, and only small parts of the world are available to look for them. Who knows what is buried under a parking lot somewhere? So what we have to do is look at changing features over time and make some assumptions (based on knowledge about how biology works and similar trends in other species) to fill in the gaps. And the reason this is a credible process is that when we do draw the "family tree" of life based on the incomplete fossil record we get the same "family tree" that we get by looking at DNA evidence, geographical distribution of fossils and living species, etc. And then when new fossils are found they generally support the existing model rather than blatantly contradicting it.
Of course if you're a creationist you see fossil A and fossil B and demand an intermediate fossil to "fill in the gaps". And then when intermediate fossil C is found and fills the gap you celebrate because now there are twice as many gaps, from A to C and C to B! Now the theory of evolution is even weaker!
(Needless to say this is an utterly stupid and dishonest argument.)
Also Christians (also other religious people) are the nicest people i have ever met. So many charities, poor people homes and nice things are done by them that i never witness in atheists over all. Of course i am generalizing as there are always people that ruin it for others on all sides but i am glad there are a lot more Christians (i say Christians because they are the predominant ones in my area) than atheists due to their attitude towards people and so on.
Yeah, why not add some offensive stereotypes? The main reason that you don't see atheist charities as much is that atheists don't have a whole infrastructure dedicated to charity work under their particular brand name like churches do, they just quietly donate to existing secular charities that are doing the work they want to support. And a big part of the whole idea of "Christian charity" is funding missionaries/new church buildings/etc that somehow gives them credit for "charity work" while just supporting their own religion. It makes about as much sense as loudly bragging about how much I donate to the "buy Peregrine lots of 40k models" charity.
Gutsnagga wrote: Referring to the original post, I find that when people say ,'The fact that there is a correlation between belief in evolution and education must mean that it is stupid to believe in creation,' it is actually based on a lot of other things. Primarily, that throughout the whole of secondary/tertiary education, evolution is spoken about as a definite fact by figures of authority, influencing people's views on the subject. So don't say 'Creationists are only that way because they have been raised to believe it,' unless you want to sound quite hypocritical.
i'm sorry--WHAT!? There is no hypocrisy there. Evolution is a strongly supported theory, such that it can be taken for granted that it is a fact. There are however certain bizarre cases where the conventional ideas behind the theory of evolution fail to explain just..... .... how we end up wiith a fish that looks like it was re-flattened under a hammer, or why certain bizarre one-of-a-kind creatures exist. There's an established link between dinosaurs and today's avians, and the theory of evolution as a model is highly accurate, so much so that one would have to be fairly ignorant not to take it for granted in any post-secondary institution. There is no hypocrisy here. One has to be raised as a creationist to be one, you don't look at the two arguments independent of outside intervention or influence, look at the body of evidence, and then opt for the fairy tale....
Personally, I think natural selection is pretty obvious in nature, and in tests. But only on a smaller scale, essentially mutations within a species, not evolution from one type of animal to another. I really don't understand how people can say science and Christianity don't mix, I personally find it incredibly interesting to dissect/find out how stuff works, and think that it just helps to highlight some of the amazing aspects of God's creation. I can understand people believing God made creation through evolution, I just personally don't.
The frontiers of science today have reached--in fact they've been there for a while--a point where a christian religion approach to science is inhibition to the progress of said science. (I'm not even going to touch the christian "science" that resulted in the whole racial superiority thing past noting that it did exist). I believe "Stem cell" will spark a fire-storm, and as will "gene splicing"... Christianity religion is antithetical to scientific progress for this specific reason: At the limit of cognition, instead of simply saying, "i don't know", the christian religious scientist will make a full stop, and attribute the result to a miracle of god rather than accepting their own shortcomings, and acknowledging that someone else in the future might be able to solve the particular quandary. A religious mind will find the need to insert myths where there is no need to. A mind that approaches science independent of any mythos is forced into accepting any shortcomings and deficiencies in trying to solve the problem (well, unless there's a diametrically opposed political scape-goat around, we can always blame it on the other side's meddling and getting in our way, but, I digress...)
The time-scales at discussion for "natural" reproduction simply cannot be achieved. Consider the fact that your mind struggles to comprehend numbers over 100. The bigger the numbers get, the harder it is for the mind to actually grasp what it means. Sure, I can do integral calculus, but actually understanding what it is that calculus is, what the variables and their manipulation represents, and understanding what the magnitude of the numbers that pop out of equations means? That's incredibly hard to do. Understand this: 2000 years means something along the lines of about 100 generations..... Only 100 generations, that's a number I can understand, but apply the relevant time-scale to it, and it just completely falls out of your mind, because 2000 years is a lot of time between then and now. When we talk about thousands of years or tens of thousands of years for changes to result in a family-group of species, and even more time for branches to completely split and drift in different directions: the time scales involved are huge and beyond our comprehension. Look at something much nearer though that you can relate to. Consider, say, Rough Collies. Look at American Collies and European Collies. There are a wide number of differences between the two strains, and if we go back to the start of the collie craze and assume the two populations were identical before the craze, and remained isolated from eachother, then, inside the space of less than 50 years, the dogs in America were bred bigger, and their faces distorted. Now accounting for the fact that the two strains weren't actually isolated, the fact that there is still such a large distinction in both size and muskulo-skeletal structure resulting from selective breeding, we can prove on a shortened time-scale just how it's possible for a different species to arise out of one ancestor. Consider the labradoodle. that's something that's completely new, and yet, it's recognized as a new dog breed. You can, within your life-time, take the available set of specimens in a species and with controlled breeding create something that has a set of attributes which render it unique from it's parent contributing species.If you can do this in a lab on a short time-scale (your professional life-time), then that crazy woman that's mother nature can do it on her own sweet time over aeons. The fact that you can't grasp the scale of time required to make changes: that's fine, I can't grasp the time-scale either, but the record doesn't lie: everything came from something, and the next generation is always different from it's parent generation.
as to mutations? The mutations aren't necesarily the product of randomoness, so much as it is a need. Yes. Random mutations occurr. It's not so much "random integer from negative infinity to infinity". The randomness is controlled, as the randomness arises from a failure in the gene-strings to copy correctly, and the mixing of different sets of gene-strings that arises during procreation. I'd love to give you examples that encourage a desirable development, alas, all I can think of are degenerative examples, which I'm more than sure you can conceive of yourself.
Anyways, this is the internet, where militant atheists rule, and other opinions are treated with no respect! Have fun guys!
right, and religious crack-nuts who out-of-hand dismiss anything that requires any brain function higher retaining the ability to nod and keeping a body temperature of around 36*C don't exist on the internet.... .....or in real life ... right..... ..... ..... ....... riiiiight..... .... .. ... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.....
Peregrine wrote: Actually not. Absolute strict 100% literalists might be rare, but even young-earth creationism (AKA "Genesis is literal fact") is a substantial minority. Apparently accurate polling is kind of difficult on a controversial subject like this, but here's some analysis: http://ncse.com/blog/2013/11/just-how-many-young-earth-creationists-are-there-us-0015164 . If you count both literalists and Christians who believe in some form of creationism that science proves to be wrong you end up with around half the US population, and that's obviously a higher percentage in some parts of the country.
I know a lot of Christians and only an extreme minority believe that the world was created in a week or that there were only two humans in an actual garden. If the question is "Did god create the universe" I imagine that you will get that number, but if the question is whether god created the universe in seven Earth days I imagine that number to be significantly lower, but then this is all conjecture.
Which is why it falls more under the parable heading. As a parable about the creation of the world and that the Abrahamic god was responsible for it it works just fine. There are creation stories all over, and very few of them are meant to be taken literally, Christian or not.
Peregrine wrote: if you try to break down Genesis symbolically all you get is a vague "god did it"
Which is the point.
Peregrine wrote: Actually, science also says that things that are not observed (or at least supported by mathematical models/indirect observation/etc) are unlikely to exist, and belief in them without evidence is irrational.
I'm with Russel and his teapot around Mars, and agree that it isn't likely or rational, but you have to make a zealots leap to change that to an absolute assertion of knowledge of a negative. At some point one stops being a man of reason and becomes an donkey-cave who thinks they have all the answers, whether you want to couch it in religious or scientific terms.
Swastakowey wrote: All Christians i know believe in science. But they disagree on the origins of life. I can understand why. When i look at evolution i see a general idea/story with tonnes of gaps and speculation. Like when they find a tooth and make a whole creature out of it etc. Or when i look at the fossil line and see, not progressive change but huge jumps and most (if not all) of those fossils are incomplete. To me i see just as much speculation on the evolutionists part. (i think the T Rex fossil is 100% complete but i cant think of any others)
There is no "speculation" in the theory of evolution; the mechanisms by which it works are well defined and understood. I would seriously suggest looking in to the fossil record a bit more thoroughly. While there are obvious limits to the fossil record, numerous transitional fossils from every class of vertebrates are known.
Like Issac Asimov said: "Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
In my opinion give it a few hundred years and people in the future will laugh at the ideas of people today (much like people laugh at our ancestors for their beliefs) and there will be another trend that people will flock to.
They won't. Oh, and evolution is not a "trend." It is as much a fact that the Earth orbits the sun in our solar system.
Also Christians (also other religious people) are the nicest people i have ever met. So many charities, poor people homes and nice things are done by them that i never witness in atheists over all. Of course i am generalizing as there are always people that ruin it for others on all sides but i am glad there are a lot more Christians (i say Christians because they are the predominant ones in my area) than atheists due to their attitude towards people and so on.
Again, obvious confirmation bias is obvious. There is so much wrong with that statement on every level.
I see a lot of hate in this thread hence the rant but maybe you should just not care about how they believe people got here and just move on.
I don't see any hate. There is lots of confusion though.
We are all going to live and die and be forgotten so who cares I mean if you guys represent the atheist people i really worry about the future. So much anger etc.
I'm still failing to see where all this anger the "atheist people" are expressing.
Ahtman wrote: I know a lot of Christians and only an extreme minority believe that the world was created in a week or that there were only two humans in an actual garden. If the question is "Did god create the universe" I imagine that you will get that number, but if the question is whether god created the universe in seven Earth days I imagine that number to be significantly lower, but then this is all conjecture.
Again, look at the poll numbers. Obviously this is something that varies significantly depending on where you are, but for the US as a whole young-earth creationism is a non-trivial minority and opposition to evolution is around 50/50. You don't get things like school boards taking evolution out of the curriculum based on an extreme and irrelevant minority.
There are creation stories all over, and very few of them are meant to be taken literally, Christian or not.
And the problem is that the Christian one, taken metaphorically, is no more Christian than any of the other ones. If you reduce it to a vague "god did it" then you could just swap that whole section of the bible with another religion's creation myth and you wouldn't lose anything. The story of Genesis only has religious significance if you keep the specific details intact, and if you include any of that you have an absurd myth that can not coexist with modern science.
I'm with Russel and his teapot around Mars, and agree that it isn't likely or rational, but you have to make a zealots leap to change that to an absolute assertion of knowledge of a negative. At some point one stops being a man of reason and becomes an donkey-cave who thinks they have all the answers, whether you want to couch it in religious or scientific terms.
But that position isn't consistent with everything else you believe. At some point the chances of a factual statement being correct are so low that you can safely approximate them as zero. I can safely make an absolute assertion that I didn't have eggs for breakfast this morning, I don't have to keep considering the possibility that I might be wrong, or include a "but I'm not 100% sure of course" disclaimer every time I talk about what I had for breakfast. And you certainly couldn't make a reasonable argument that I'm no longer a "man of reason" because I make that assertion.
And, like it or not, there is no reason to treat god any differently. The pro-god side has failed utterly, and belief in god can safely be placed in the same category as black helicopters, 9/11 truthers, and mind control plots in the chemtrails. Yes, there's a tiny chance that we could be wrong, but there's no reason to consider the possibility in everyday life until some new evidence is provided. The only reason we make a special case for god is this absurd belief that it's rude and arrogant to ever criticize a religious belief.
Peregrine wrote: But that position isn't consistent with everything else you believe.
My point of contention isn't whether or not god exists, but that you are broaching an interpretation of science that is an enemy to religion, which it isn't. If your point is that there are probably more deists then realize it I would agree with that sentiment. I also don't think you really know what I believe, beyond not seeing science and religion as incompatible.
Ahtman wrote: My point of contention isn't whether or not god exists, but that you are broaching an interpretation of science that is an enemy to religion, which it isn't. If your point is that there are probably more deists then realize it I would agree with that sentiment. I also don't think you really know what I believe, beyond not seeing science and religion as incompatible.
I was assuming that you actually believed the argument you posted about the teapot and not being reasonable if you assert that there is no god. The quoted statement in that post is not consistent with what I presume you, like everyone else, believe about other things. For example, I sincerely doubt that you express any skepticism and need to remain open-minded about whether or not you have ever posted on this forum. Presumably you don't give any credit to the possibility that the negative "all these posts weren't made by my evil twin instead" assertion can't be proven 100% beyond any conceivable doubt to be false.
God is the same. The argument for god has failed so utterly that "god doesn't exist" can safely be asserted without including a "but only probably, we can never be absolutely sure" disclaimer. The only reason we pretend otherwise and talk about how science and religion can be compatible is a political decision to avoid upsetting religious people and driving them away from science. It's a pragmatic decision that a Catholic who believes in a vague "god did it" but votes against the anti-evolution candidates in school board elections is better than pushing that person to vote the other way because we've told them that science and religion are enemies and there's no way they're going to give up their religion.
Peregrine wrote: Actually not. Absolute strict 100% literalists might be rare, but even young-earth creationism (AKA "Genesis is literal fact") is a substantial minority. Apparently accurate polling is kind of difficult on a controversial subject like this, but here's some analysis: http://ncse.com/blog/2013/11/just-how-many-young-earth-creationists-are-there-us-0015164 . If you count both literalists and Christians who believe in some form of creationism that science proves to be wrong you end up with around half the US population, and that's obviously a higher percentage in some parts of the country.
I know a lot of Christians and only an extreme minority believe that the world was created in a week or that there were only two humans in an actual garden. If the question is "Did god create the universe" I imagine that you will get that number, but if the question is whether god created the universe in seven Earth days I imagine that number to be significantly lower, but then this is all conjecture.
Which is why it falls more under the parable heading. As a parable about the creation of the world and that the Abrahamic god was responsible for it it works just fine. There are creation stories all over, and very few of them are meant to be taken literally, Christian or not.
Peregrine wrote: if you try to break down Genesis symbolically all you get is a vague "god did it"
Which is the point.
Peregrine wrote: Actually, science also says that things that are not observed (or at least supported by mathematical models/indirect observation/etc) are unlikely to exist, and belief in them without evidence is irrational.
I'm with Russel and his teapot around Mars, and agree that it isn't likely or rational, but you have to make a zealots leap to change that to an absolute assertion of knowledge of a negative. At some point one stops being a man of reason and becomes an donkey-cave who thinks they have all the answers, whether you want to couch it in religious or scientific terms.
So a being that cant be seen, heard, tasted, observed trough any means, metaphorically created the universe wich should not be taken literally how this being managed to do so described in the bible, because?
Peregrine wrote: Actually not. Absolute strict 100% literalists might be rare, but even young-earth creationism (AKA "Genesis is literal fact") is a substantial minority. Apparently accurate polling is kind of difficult on a controversial subject like this, but here's some analysis: http://ncse.com/blog/2013/11/just-how-many-young-earth-creationists-are-there-us-0015164 . If you count both literalists and Christians who believe in some form of creationism that science proves to be wrong you end up with around half the US population, and that's obviously a higher percentage in some parts of the country.
I know a lot of Christians and only an extreme minority believe that the world was created in a week or that there were only two humans in an actual garden. If the question is "Did god create the universe" I imagine that you will get that number, but if the question is whether god created the universe in seven Earth days I imagine that number to be significantly lower, but then this is all conjecture.
Which is why it falls more under the parable heading. As a parable about the creation of the world and that the Abrahamic god was responsible for it it works just fine. There are creation stories all over, and very few of them are meant to be taken literally, Christian or not.
Peregrine wrote: if you try to break down Genesis symbolically all you get is a vague "god did it"
Which is the point.
Peregrine wrote: Actually, science also says that things that are not observed (or at least supported by mathematical models/indirect observation/etc) are unlikely to exist, and belief in them without evidence is irrational.
I'm with Russel and his teapot around Mars, and agree that it isn't likely or rational, but you have to make a zealots leap to change that to an absolute assertion of knowledge of a negative. At some point one stops being a man of reason and becomes an donkey-cave who thinks they have all the answers, whether you want to couch it in religious or scientific terms.
So a being that cant be seen, heard, tasted, observed trough any means, metaphorically created the universe wich should not be taken literally how this being managed to do so described in the bible, because?
Keep in mind that "micro-evolution" or evolution/adaptation within species is not disputed. So it's not entirely factual to state that young earth creationists don't believe in evolution. It's just the "macro-evolution" aspect(I.E. it took millions of years for single celled organisms to evolve into Human beings) that people have issues with.
generalgrog wrote: Keep in mind that "micro-evolution" or evolution/adaptation within species is not disputed. So it's not entirely factual to state that young earth creationists don't believe in evolution. It's just the "macro-evolution" aspect(I.E. it took millions of years for single celled organisms to evolve into Human beings) that people have issues with.
GG
They are the same thing. The only difference is time.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
They won't. Oh, and evolution is not a "trend." It is as much a fact that the Earth orbits the sun in our solar system..
Hardly. The sun and the earth's relative positioning is confirmed by first hand empirical experience(aka, blokes in space watching it and calculating accordingly). If we discovered a giant alien built space station next to Venus tomorrow that instigated mutation in other species, then evolution would go out of the window.
Peregrine wrote:
God is the same. The argument for god has failed so utterly that "god doesn't exist" can safely be asserted without including a "but only probably, we can never be absolutely sure" disclaimer.
Not quite. There is a certain logic to the whole, 'God created everything' aspect, it simply requires acceptance of the fact that we do not completely understand the laws of space and time as currently exist. The fact of which is more or less supported by current scientific observation of sub-atomic particles.
WarOne wrote: Raised Catholic, I really see no problem looking at the concept of Evolution and there being a God. Yes, I can say that with a straight face.
I just wanted to put in that I have thoroughly enjoyed some of Dr. Hugh Ross's work, and find myself agreeing with a lot of his ideas. I thoroughly recommend reading his paper on correlations between the big bang theory and the book of the bible Genesis, it was quite interesting, although unfortunately I cannot recall its title.
Not quite. There is a certain logic to the whole, 'God created everything' aspect, it simply requires acceptance of the fact that we do not completely understand the laws of space and time as currently exist. The fact of which is more or less supported by current scientific observation of sub-atomic particles.
Yet by saying that we are making the huge assumption that we some how know there is some kind of deity that created everything.
And the problem is that the Christian one, taken metaphorically, is no more Christian than any of the other ones.
Which is partially because it's not actually a Christian one, but the old Jewish one we kept around, because Jesus was surprisingly silent about metaphysics.
If you reduce it to a vague "god did it" then you could just swap that whole section of the bible with another religion's creation myth and you wouldn't lose anything. The story of Genesis only has religious significance if you keep the specific details intact, and if you include any of that you have an absurd myth that can not coexist with modern science.
However, one thing that the Genesis account makes clear, which many other creation stories do not, is that the God in question is supremely powerful. Yaweh didn't fight the chaos, or birth it, or mold it through labor: he simply commanded that it exist. It's actually kind of important.
The other difference between the Genesis account and other creation myths (aside from lack of murder or incest) is that the seven days of creation crudely symbolize our current understanding of how life began: starting with light/energy, then created planets/earth, then plants, animals, and finally humans. As a way of explaining the story of life to nomads, it's not half bad. It's really not absurd, as long as you move past god as a prime mover.
Disclaimer: whenever the word "religious" or "God" appears, assume the context is Abrahamic and probably Christian. I have no desire to endure the usual barrage of "but but but Buddism!" sophistry.
Manchu wrote: Folks who claim the theory of evolution discounts the existence of God or God's relationship with the universe are really selling God short. Pretty narrow view of an omnipotent, omniscient being if you ask me.
Setting aside the fact that the Christian concept of capital-G "God" is logically self-refuting(an omniscient creator is incompatible with "free will", and no amount of the standard semi-coherent semantic contortions can change that), people who consider that Evolution, and science in general come to that, diminish God and religion as concepts do so because, simply, they do. It wasn't too long ago in human history that thunderstorms were a manifestation of God's anger, that demons lurked in every shadow causing diseases in the unrighteous, that the Earth was the unchanging unmoving centre of the Heavens created from whole cloth by God in six days less than 10,000 years ago, etc etc etc etc. As science explained the reality behind the myths, one by one either the religion quietly dropped those myths(diminishing the religion), or they reinterpreted God's role in the process from "Almighty Creator" to "invisible hand", which diminishes God since you've demoted it from all-powerful instigator and micro-manager of, well, everything, to a vague, nebulous "perhaps" which is entirely unnecessary for the function of the new scientific explanation.
The religious can believe God had a hand in Evolution if they wish, but no part of the Theory(and remember we're using the scientific definition of the word, so no "just a theory" shenanigans please) requires its involvement, and simple parsimony should lead inevitably to the conclusion that if your unprovable, unobservable, unevidenced, illogical concept isn't indicated by, implied by, or necessary for the function of the Theory, then there's no rational reason to assume or assert that it is or should be.
gunslingerpro wrote: I've found when you really talk to people, they understand evolution and agree with its concepts. The differentiation comes with people believing God had at least some hand in it or none at all.
It's really all in the posing of the question. Though there are quite a few people who refuse to acknowledge fossil evidence of any sort...
Yeah, I would like to see the same polls which differentiate 'creationism' from 'intelligent design' or if they are lumping both together as 'disbelief in evolution'.
I find a large degree of difference between those who believe that 'the laws of the universe are an action set in motion by a 'creator' and science is a gift to mankind' VS 'Dinosaurs never existed and fake bones were buried to test our faith'. I am curious if the poll makes that distinction.
There is no difference between "creationism" and "intelligent design", the latter is merely a cloak for the former created by the more fanatical aspects of American Christianity in an attempt to sneak their belief system into school science classes. Intelligent Design is a specific set of beliefs and assertions, and it goes far beyond the vague Deistic notion most people seem to think it represents; it is essentially all the same "watchmaker" arguments Creationists have been using since Darwin's era, just with any specific references to "God" or Christianity stripped out.
Hell, Arethean has fallen victim to one of its lies right here in this thread; "irreducible complexity" - hasn't been shown to exist. Every example of the concept that has been presented by Creationists, science has shown that the portions they claimed were irreducibly complex had sub-components which served a function in an evolutionary ancestor of the organism.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
They won't. Oh, and evolution is not a "trend." It is as much a fact that the Earth orbits the sun in our solar system..
Hardly. The sun and the earth's relative positioning is confirmed by first hand empirical experience(aka, blokes in space watching it and calculating accordingly). If we discovered a giant alien built space station next to Venus tomorrow that instigated mutation in other species, then evolution would go out of the window.
Wrong. The Theory of Evolution would be adapted to account for the new evidence until such time as the mechanisms we have observed and which the Theory explains are proven so wildly incorrect that a new Theory must arise in its place. That is the scientific process. If your hypothetical aliens merely "started off" the process, it's not Evolution but Abiogenesis which would need to be reexamined. If your hypothetical aliens had taken an active role in Evolution, deciding which species should live and which should become extinct, whatever mechanism they used to achieve that goal would replace the concept of Natural Selection within the Theory of Evolution, but the Theory as a whole would stand since the myriad other directly observed parts and processes of the Theory would stand intact and retain their explanatory value.
Equally, we could discover an alien space station next to Venus tomorrow that was using holographic technology to beam false images into every telescope and human eyeball ever to regard the sky, and that actually Geocentrism was right all along and the Jovian Moons are made of eight different varieties of British Cheddar cheese. No scientific Theory is ever unassailable, untouchable, categorically and absolutely true, they're just the best explanations we currently have, they will improve in accuracy over time(as Evolution has, as Gravitation has, as Quantum Theory has...), or they will be supplanted by something better. The objection being made to fantastical dross like Creationism, and the dismay scientists express when people dismiss Evolution because their millenia-old holy book written by scientifically illiterate desert-dwellers, these come because people are putting pure unverifiable speculation and beliefs which are quite often in direct opposition to the observed facts on par with one of the most comprehensive, far-reaching, thoroughly-evidenced, and staggeringly complex works humanity has ever undertaken as a species. It's like a heavily baked pothead spewing nonsense about how gravity is just, like, an illusion, maaaaaann, except millions of people inexplicably take him completely seriously and demand his ramblings be taught in schools. I know that will sound offensive to the religiously inclined, but you have to understand that while you absolutely have the right to believe whatever you like, from a strictly scientific perspective your beliefs are no more useful or accurate than any other unsupported speculation.
WarOne wrote: Raised Catholic, I really see no problem looking at the concept of Evolution and there being a God. Yes, I can say that with a straight face.
To be fair Genesis is directly followed by Cain and Abel (who we can only assumed married their sisters as there were no other humans on earth) which has plenty of incest and murder.
Not quite. There is a certain logic to the whole, 'God created everything' aspect, it simply requires acceptance of the fact that we do not completely understand the laws of space and time as currently exist. The fact of which is more or less supported by current scientific observation of sub-atomic particles.
Yet by saying that we are making the huge assumption that we some how know there is some kind of deity that created everything.
I never said that we had to assume he existed. Rather that saying 'God does not exist' is not the safe logical assertion that Peregrine claimed it was.
As things stand, we watch matter do all sorts of crazy things. We cannot physically detect gravity. There are many physics puzzles yet to be solved. The only current assertion that is logically feasible is, 'Under our current understanding of physics, God does not exist'. But knowing that our current understanding of physics is far from complete, that becomes something of a pointless statement.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
They won't. Oh, and evolution is not a "trend." It is as much a fact that the Earth orbits the sun in our solar system..
Hardly. The sun and the earth's relative positioning is confirmed by first hand empirical experience(aka, blokes in space watching it and calculating accordingly). If we discovered a giant alien built space station next to Venus tomorrow that instigated mutation in other species, then evolution would go out of the window.
Wrong. The Theory of Evolution would be adapted to account for the new evidence until such time as the mechanisms we have observed and which the Theory explains are proven so wildly incorrect that a new Theory must arise in its place. That is the scientific process.
Incorrect. The theory of evolution would not be adapted. It would be the theory of evolution being disproved, and replaced with another theory, namely that of an alien space station causing mutations instead of it randomly and naturally occurring (The Theory of Alien mutation?).
Regardless, the point originally made was that we can currently and empirically measure/watch the earth orbiting the sun. Chaps have gone up in spacecraft to see it happen, and orbital telescopes track their own movement and that of Earth. Whereas evolution remains a 'theory'.
It's the difference between the theory of gravity, and me walking along the pavement on a daily basis without falling off the world. On the first count, there is the possibility of another theory supplanting the theory of gravity. Discounting matrix style explanations, me walking along the pavement will continue to be me walking along the pavement, regardless of updates in scientific theory. Likewise, the earth will continue orbiting the sun regardless of changes in theories of astrophysics.
In other words, I was pointing out a bad analogy. Evolution is not 'as much of a fact as the earth orbiting the sun'.
I know that will sound offensive to the religiously inclined, but you have to understand that while you absolutely have the right to believe whatever you like, from a strictly scientific perspective your beliefs are no more useful or accurate than any other unsupported speculation.
Quite frankly, I'm not particularly an atheist, or a theist. If God caused the world, brilliant, if something else did, great. I don't feel the need to 'believe' in the Big Bang Theory or Zeus any more than I feel the need to 'believe' in the postman.
Well, that's Philosophy I've read,
And Law and Medicine, and I fear,
Theology too, from A to Z;
Hard Studies all, that have cost me dear,
And so I sit, poor silly man,
No wiser now than when I began.....
Yet I take no pleasure in anything now,
For I know I know nothing, I wonder how,
I can still keep up the pretence of teaching,
Or bettering mankind with my empty preaching.
Not quite. There is a certain logic to the whole, 'God created everything' aspect, it simply requires acceptance of the fact that we do not completely understand the laws of space and time as currently exist. The fact of which is more or less supported by current scientific observation of sub-atomic particles.
Yet by saying that we are making the huge assumption that we some how know there is some kind of deity that created everything.
I never said that we had to assume he existed. Rather that saying 'God does not exist' is not the safe logical assertion that Peregrine claimed it was.
As things stand, we watch matter do all sorts of crazy things. We cannot physically detect gravity. There are many physics puzzles yet to be solved. The only current assertion that is logically feasible is, 'Under our current understanding of physics, God does not exist'. But knowing that our current understanding of physics is far from complete, that becomes something of a pointless statement.
Setting aside the fact that the Christian concept of capital-G "God" is logically self-refuting(an omniscient creator is incompatible with "free will", and no amount of the standard semi-coherent semantic contortions can change that), people who consider that Evolution, and science in general come to that, diminish God and religion as concepts do so because, simply, they do.
There's a lot packed in here, a lot of it not so much wrong as coming from one very specific viewpoint.
First, the free will paradox is no trickier when considered without a god. And paradoxes are where having an omnipotent god is really useful.
It wasn't too long ago in human history that thunderstorms were a manifestation of God's anger, that demons lurked in every shadow causing diseases in the unrighteous, that the Earth was the unchanging unmoving centre of the Heavens created from whole cloth by God in six days less than 10,000 years ago, etc etc etc etc. As science explained the reality behind the myths, one by one either the religion quietly dropped those myths(diminishing the religion), or they reinterpreted God's role in the process from "Almighty Creator" to "invisible hand", which diminishes God since you've demoted it from all-powerful instigator and micro-manager of, well, everything, to a vague, nebulous "perhaps" which is entirely unnecessary for the function of the new scientific explanation.
I suppose that's one way to look at it, but that's assuming two things. First, that origin stories are an essential aspect of religion, and second, that understanding mechanics of the universe somehow makes its creator less impressive. I don't think either is true. And understanding the process of the universe does not diminish god. I really don't see how understanding that thunder is rapidly expanding air makes god less impressive.
The religious can believe God had a hand in Evolution if they wish, but no part of the Theory(and remember we're using the scientific definition of the word, so no "just a theory" shenanigans please) requires its involvement, and simple parsimony should lead inevitably to the conclusion that if your unprovable, unobservable, unevidenced, illogical concept isn't indicated by, implied by, or necessary for the function of the Theory, then there's no rational reason to assume or assert that it is or should be.
Which is one reason people don't want to add God to the theory. I myself see no reason to include god in Evolution as we currently understand it. I do, however, include Evolution in god, as I currently understand him.
There is no difference between "creationism" and "intelligent design", the latter is merely a cloak for the former created by the more fanatical aspects of American Christianity in an attempt to sneak their belief system into school science classes. Intelligent Design is a specific set of beliefs and assertions, and it goes far beyond the vague Deistic notion most people seem to think it represents; it is essentially all the same "watchmaker" arguments Creationists have been using since Darwin's era, just with any specific references to "God" or Christianity stripped out.
This is, alas, pretty accurate.
Of course you can, Cognitive Dissonance is a well-understood concept.
So is undeserved smugness, as you clearly don't understand it. What you probably mean is Doublethink, which while still an incorrect assessment, as it least possible.
Regardless, the point originally made was that we can currently and empirically measure/watch the earth orbiting the sun. Chaps have gone up in spacecraft to see it happen, and orbital telescopes track their own movement and that of Earth. Whereas evolution remains a 'theory'.
This is false.
Evolution is proven and verified daily. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are empirical proof of the Theory of Evolution. Selective crops used by farmers are empirical proof of the Theory of Evolution. Even animal breeding done by humans for centuries is empirical and verifiable proof of the Theory of Evolution. Etc, etc, etc...
Like many before me have already explained, the "theory" part in the Theory of Evolution refers to the scientific term:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.
While you are trying to say that it is still only an hypothesis... The Theory of Evolution is just as empirically verifiable as the earth orbiting the sun (and so is the Theory of Gravity btw).
Regardless, the point originally made was that we can currently and empirically measure/watch the earth orbiting the sun. Chaps have gone up in spacecraft to see it happen, and orbital telescopes track their own movement and that of Earth. Whereas evolution remains a 'theory'.
This is false.
Evolution is proven and verified daily. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are empirical proof of the Theory of Evolution. Selective crops used by farmers are empirical proof of the Theory of Evolution. Even animal breeding done by humans for centuries is empirical and verifiable proof of the Theory of Evolution. Etc, etc, etc...
.
As has been mentioned, we're talking about 'macro-evolution' here, not 'micro-evolution' as GG put it.
Regardless, the point originally made was that we can currently and empirically measure/watch the earth orbiting the sun. Chaps have gone up in spacecraft to see it happen, and orbital telescopes track their own movement and that of Earth. Whereas evolution remains a 'theory'.
This is false.
Evolution is proven and verified daily. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are empirical proof of the Theory of Evolution. Selective crops used by farmers are empirical proof of the Theory of Evolution. Even animal breeding done by humans for centuries is empirical and verifiable proof of the Theory of Evolution. Etc, etc, etc...
.
As has been mentioned, we're talking about 'macro-evolution' here, not 'micro-evolution' as GG put it.
There are no differences between macro or micro evolution, it is all the same mechanisms, the only variance is time.
Regardless, the point originally made was that we can currently and empirically measure/watch the earth orbiting the sun. Chaps have gone up in spacecraft to see it happen, and orbital telescopes track their own movement and that of Earth. Whereas evolution remains a 'theory'.
This is false.
Evolution is proven and verified daily. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are empirical proof of the Theory of Evolution. Selective crops used by farmers are empirical proof of the Theory of Evolution. Even animal breeding done by humans for centuries is empirical and verifiable proof of the Theory of Evolution. Etc, etc, etc...
Like many before me have already explained, the "theory" part in the Theory of Evolution refers to the scientific term:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.
While you are trying to say that it is still only an hypothesis... The Theory of Evolution is just as empirically verifiable as the earth orbiting the sun (and so is the Theory of Gravity btw).
I beg to differ. The 'theory of evolution' is given to explain the development of all life currently in existence on earth, and claims to be able to trace it's 'evolution' over millions of years.
What you have described is selective breeding and genetic mutations over an incredibly small period of time. Granted, these may very well be the methods by which life came to exist in its current form. But it is impossible to definitively and empirically state that this is how it previously occured over millions of years, as we have not empirically observed it over millions of years. There is also the issue that there may well be factors and influences in the development of life which we have as yet to observe which may have played a part.
In short, no. The theory of evolution is not as indisputable as the earth orbiting the sun. It still remains a ' theory'. In other words, 'a well-substantiated explanation'.
Regardless, the point originally made was that we can currently and empirically measure/watch the earth orbiting the sun. Chaps have gone up in spacecraft to see it happen, and orbital telescopes track their own movement and that of Earth. Whereas evolution remains a 'theory'.
This is false.
Evolution is proven and verified daily. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are empirical proof of the Theory of Evolution. Selective crops used by farmers are empirical proof of the Theory of Evolution. Even animal breeding done by humans for centuries is empirical and verifiable proof of the Theory of Evolution. Etc, etc, etc...
Like many before me have already explained, the "theory" part in the Theory of Evolution refers to the scientific term:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.
While you are trying to say that it is still only an hypothesis... The Theory of Evolution is just as empirically verifiable as the earth orbiting the sun (and so is the Theory of Gravity btw).
I beg to differ. The 'theory of evolution' is given to explain the development of all life currently in existence on earth, and claims to be able to trace it's 'evolution' over millions of years.
What you have described is selective breeding and genetic mutations over an incredibly small period of time. Granted, these may very well be the methods by which life came to exist in its current form. But it is impossible to definitively and empirically state that this is how it occurs over millions of years, as we have not empirically observed it over millions of years. There is also the issue that there may well be factors and influences in the development of life which we have as yet to observe which may have played a part.
In short, no. The theory of evolution is not as indisputable as the earth orbiting the sun. It still remains a ' theory'. In other words, 'a well-substantiated explanation'. It remains less substantial a fact than the fact that I just ate a bowl of cereal.
So you choose to ignore all the proof provided by things such as fossils and DNA studies and inferred from actual experiences conducted in organisms that have higher generational rates in favour of blind belief in?... Aliens?... A wizard?
Strange how you seem to not apply the same burden of empirical proof to other things in your life... How sure are you that that was really cereal in your bowl? You weren't there to watch the whole process that took it from sowing until it got to your house, were you?
So you choose to ignore all the proof provided by things such as fossils and DNA studies and inferred from actual experiences conducted in organisms that have higher generational rates in favour of blind belief in?... Aliens?... A wizard?
Strange how you seem to not apply the same burden of empirical proof to other things in your life... How sure are you that that was really cereal in your bowl? You weren't there to watch the whole process that took it from sowing until it got to your house, were you?
You seem to be going to awfully great lengths to try and prove a bad analogy correct.
1. I can walk down the pavement. Without resorting to a matrix equivalent, the fact I walked along the pavement remains a fact. It is indisputable. The method by which I am held to the surface is up for debate. The fact I am held to the surface is not.
2. The earth orbits the sun. People have watched it happen many, many times over, and are measuring it occurring as we speak. Without resorting to conspiracy/matrix ideas, it is indisputable. The astrophysics determining why the earth orbits the sun is up for debate. The fact that it currently does so is not.
3. Animals can change and mutate over time. This is a fact. Life has changed and mutated over time in the past. This is also a fact . Whether it has occurred to the extent claimed in the 'Theory of Evolution', and whether it is is responsible for all life as things stand is up for debate.
If you still genuinely cannot understand the difference in terms of empirical proof between the earth orbiting the sun and the theory of evolution, I genuinely despair at the state of mankind.
So you choose to ignore all the proof provided by things such as fossils and DNA studies and inferred from actual experiences conducted in organisms that have higher generational rates in favour of blind belief in?... Aliens?... A wizard?
Strange how you seem to not apply the same burden of empirical proof to other things in your life... How sure are you that that was really cereal in your bowl? You weren't there to watch the whole process that took it from sowing until it got to your house, were you?
You seem to be going to awfully great lengths to try and prove a bad analogy correct.
1. I can walk down the pavement. Without resorting to a matrix equivalent, the fact I walked along the pavement remains a fact. It is indisputable. The method by which I am held to the surface is up for debate. The fact I am held to the surface is not.
2. The earth orbits the sun. People have watched it happen many, many times over, and are measuring it occurring as we speak. Without resorting to conspiracy/matrix ideas, it is indisputable. The astrophysics determining why the earth orbits the sun is up for debate. The fact that it currently does so is not.
3. Animals can change and mutate over time. This is a fact. Life has changed and mutated over time in the past. This is also a fact . Whether it has occurred to the extent claimed in the 'Theory of Evolution', and whether it is is responsible for all life as things stand is up for debate.
If you still genuinely cannot understand the difference in terms of empirical proof between the earth orbiting the sun and the theory of evolution, I genuinely despair at the state of mankind.
DNA can be empirically examined and determined to not be the same from generation to generation. This is a fact. If you still genuinely cannot understand this I genuinely despair at the state of mankind.
Ketara wrote: If you still genuinely cannot understand the difference in terms of empirical proof between the earth orbiting the sun and the theory of evolution, I genuinely despair at the state of mankind.
You seem to be overvaluing direct observation, and discounting indirect observation.
There is ample evidence in the fossil record. Not to the extent you seem to want, but that's not the standard used by science.
Your evidentiary standard basically invalidates any form of history.
Regardless, the point originally made was that we can currently and empirically measure/watch the earth orbiting the sun. Chaps have gone up in spacecraft to see it happen, and orbital telescopes track their own movement and that of Earth. Whereas evolution remains a 'theory'.
This is false.
Evolution is proven and verified daily. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are empirical proof of the Theory of Evolution. Selective crops used by farmers are empirical proof of the Theory of Evolution. Even animal breeding done by humans for centuries is empirical and verifiable proof of the Theory of Evolution. Etc, etc, etc...
.
As has been mentioned, we're talking about 'macro-evolution' here, not 'micro-evolution' as GG put it.
This will be the third time I have had to post this in this thread. The only difference between these two is time. That's it. There is no difference.
People keeping making the false assumption that they are somehow different they are not.
DNA can be empirically examined and determined to not be the same from generation to generation. This is a fact. If you still genuinely cannot understand this I genuinely despair at the state of mankind.
......
3. Animals can change and mutate over time. This is a fact. Life has changed and mutated over time in the past. This is also a fact .
Right, now that we've got the strawman out of the way.
You seem to be overvaluing direct observation, and discounting indirect observation.
There is ample evidence in the fossil record. Not to the extent you seem to want, but that's not the standard used by science.
Your evidentiary standard basically invalidates any form of history.
You misunderstand Polonius. I am not saying that there is no proof for the theory of evolution. I am not saying what proof there is in its favour is invalid.
No, what I am saying is that there is not as nearly as much proof to support the theory of evolution as there is the fact that the earth orbits the sun. Which was the original analogy that I responded to.
And I think I'm right on that score. I mean, there are a multitude of different ways right here and now, that I could prove to myself that the earth orbits the sun, from mapping the stars, to getting into a spaceship to go and watching it happen. Evolution? Not quite so many.
You seem to be going to awfully great lengths to try and prove a bad analogy correct.
1. I can walk down the pavement. Without resorting to a matrix equivalent, the fact I walked along the pavement remains a fact. It is indisputable. The method by which I am held to the surface is up for debate. The fact I am held to the surface is not.
2. The earth orbits the sun. People have watched it happen many, many times over, and are measuring it occurring as we speak. Without resorting to conspiracy/matrix ideas, it is indisputable. The astrophysics determining why the earth orbits the sun is up for debate. The fact that it currently does so is not.
You seem to be relying way too much on direct observation and not nearly enough on indirect measurements. The Newtonian theory of gravitation is a perfectly well proven, verifiable and replicated fact and it is also indisputable in everything concerning both gravity on earth and the motions that go on in the planets of our solar system. There is apparently an extreme point in Mercury's orbit that isn't completely explained by the Newtonian theory of gravitation but it is by the theory of relativity so that little loophole is also closed.
3. Animals can change and mutate over time. This is a fact. Life has changed and mutated over time in the past. This is also a fact . Whether it has occurred to the extent claimed in the 'Theory of Evolution', and whether it is is responsible for all life as things stand is up for debate.
So you don't dispute the Theory of Evolution, you just doubt the Abiogenesis part?
That's perfectly fine, because that part is just an hypothesis and lots of scientists are still going around trying to prove how this whole thing really started.
Ketara wrote: 3. Animals can change and mutate over time. This is a fact. Life has changed and mutated over time in the past. This is also a fact . Whether it has occurred to the extent claimed in the 'Theory of Evolution', and whether it is is responsible for all life as things stand is up for debate.
So are we entering philosophy territory? How do you know the world existed before you were born? Especially if the only evidence we have to go on is all of history?
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I'm still failing to see where all this anger the "atheist people" are expressing.
Do you mean specifically in this thread, or in general? I'm an atheist. Don't believe in God, not overly fond of religion. But I'd never claim my side of the faith debate didn't have way more than its fair share of loud, obnoxious, angry individuals.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I'm still failing to see where all this anger the "atheist people" are expressing.
Do you mean specifically in this thread, or in general? I'm an atheist. Don't believe in God, not overly fond of religion. But I'd never claim my side of the faith debate didn't have way more than its fair share of loud, obnoxious, angry individuals.
Agreed, as an atheist I'm often times doing the "Epic Facepalm" at the ridiculous actions of other atheists.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I'm still failing to see where all this anger the "atheist people" are expressing.
Do you mean specifically in this thread, or in general? I'm an atheist. Don't believe in God, not overly fond of religion. But I'd never claim my side of the faith debate didn't have way more than its fair share of loud, obnoxious, angry individuals.
Agreed, as an atheist I'm often times doing the "Epic Facepalm" at the ridiculous actions of other atheists.
You seem to be relying way too much on direct observation and not nearly enough on indirect measurements.
Not quite. I used empirical observation as the most obvious method of pointing out a bad analogy, as I thought it would make the point sufficiently well as regards to proving how the earth can more or less indisputably be rotating around the sun. There are other less obvious techniques by which one can do so.
The Newtonian theory of gravitation is a perfectly well proven, verifiable and replicated fact and it is also indisputable in everything concerning both gravity on earth and the motions that go on in the planets of our solar system.
The problem with 'gravity' is that is intangible. All we are aware of is that as things stand, certain types of object move towards other types of objects in certain ways. We can detect things like electromagnetic fields, but 'gravity' is only indirectly detectable (by the effect it has on things). There was actually another theory devised a while back about how things keep getting closer to each other, because everything in the Universe doubles in size every possible unit of time. It got dropped IIRC, not because it was necessarily wrong, or even because it was ultimately any less theoretically valid than the theory of gravity as things stand. Both explain the effect of gravity as we perceive it, but there's ultimately no way of proving which one is correct, and that one sounds sillier.
In a similar vein, we can accept that evolution had animals grow step by step for the last millions of year. But alternatively, a race of super-advanced aliens may well have their cloaked space station emitting a beam that causes mutations in organic life. Now I'm not saying that is likely, or plausible or even believable. But at the same time, it is not as logically discountable a concept as the earth secretly being flat and the sun being a giant scarab beetle pushing it across the sky. Because I can prove the latter untrue through a variety of methods, but not the former.(discounting the matrix naturally)
Hence evolution is an excellent idea, and currently looking like the most likely. But it is not as established and evidentially supported as the earth revolving around the sun. Thus, the initial analogy saying the two were roughly on the same level in the evidence/proof scale was bad.
You seem to be overvaluing direct observation, and discounting indirect observation.
There is ample evidence in the fossil record. Not to the extent you seem to want, but that's not the standard used by science.
Your evidentiary standard basically invalidates any form of history.
You misunderstand Polonius. I am not saying that there is no proof for the theory of evolution. I am not saying what proof there is in its favour is invalid.
No, what I am saying is that there is not as nearly as much proof to support the theory of evolution as there is the fact that the earth orbits the sun. Which was the original analogy that I responded to.
And I think I'm right on that score. I mean, there are a multitude of different ways right here and now, that I could prove to myself that the earth orbits the sun, from mapping the stars, to getting into a spaceship to go and watching it happen. Evolution? Not quite so many.
Then your point is... what, exactly? That some things are more complicated to show then others?
You seem to be overvaluing direct observation, and discounting indirect observation.
There is ample evidence in the fossil record. Not to the extent you seem to want, but that's not the standard used by science.
Your evidentiary standard basically invalidates any form of history.
You misunderstand Polonius. I am not saying that there is no proof for the theory of evolution. I am not saying what proof there is in its favour is invalid.
No, what I am saying is that there is not as nearly as much proof to support the theory of evolution as there is the fact that the earth orbits the sun. Which was the original analogy that I responded to.
And I think I'm right on that score. I mean, there are a multitude of different ways right here and now, that I could prove to myself that the earth orbits the sun, from mapping the stars, to getting into a spaceship to go and watching it happen. Evolution? Not quite so many.
Then your point is... what, exactly? That some things are more complicated to show then others?
To requote:-
No, what I am saying is that there is not as nearly as much proof to support the theory of evolution as there is the fact that the earth orbits the sun. Which was the original analogy that I responded to.
So all of that was because there is a discrepancy in the amount of evidence for the two theories, not because you have any disagreement with either of them?
No, what I am saying is that there is not as nearly as much proof to support the theory of evolution as there is the fact that the earth orbits the sun. Which was the original analogy that I responded to.
I guess it depends how you count evidence, but the amount of evidence for a theory doesn't matter nearly as much as the evidence in opposition. Which for both is just about zero.
Corpsesarefun wrote: So all of that was because there is a discrepancy in the amount of evidence for the two theories, not because you have any disagreement with either of them?
Well. I'm not sure the earth orbiting the sun is a theory so much as a fact, but as I've said several times throughout, I was just responding to a bad analogy. So more or less.
I'm not entirely sure why people keep trying to tell me I'm religious, or telling me what I really mean is that evolution is incorrect.
Corpsesarefun wrote: So all of that was because there is a discrepancy in the amount of evidence for the two theories, not because you have any disagreement with either of them?
Well. I'm not sure the earth orbiting the sun is a theory so much as a fact, but as I've said several times throughout, I was just responding to a bad analogy. So more or less.
I'm not entirely sure why people keep trying to tell me I'm religious, or telling me what I really mean is that evolution is incorrect.
It did look like you were arguing against evolution in a few places.
I'm not sure the earth orbiting the sun is a theory so much as a fact
Everything in science is always a theory. The theory of gravity is still a theory, it's not the fact of gravity.
It's very likely that the theory that the earth orbits the sun is correct, almost certain even, but there's always a chance that we've misunderstood orbital mechanics.
It's the same way with evolution. There's a small chance that science has it wrong, but it's not at all likely that evolution isn't a real thing that happens.
.
Not quite. There is a certain logic to the whole, 'God created everything' aspect, it simply requires acceptance of the fact that we do not completely understand the laws of space and time as currently exist. The fact of which is more or less supported by current scientific observation of sub-atomic particles.
Yet by saying that we are making the huge assumption that we some how know there is some kind of deity that created everything.
I never said that we had to assume he existed. Rather that saying 'God does not exist' is not the safe logical assertion that Peregrine claimed it was.
As things stand, we watch matter do all sorts of crazy things. We cannot physically detect gravity. There are many physics puzzles yet to be solved. The only current assertion that is logically feasible is, 'Under our current understanding of physics, God does not exist'. But knowing that our current understanding of physics is far from complete, that becomes something of a pointless statement.
I'm going to preface this block of text by saying what follows isn't necessarily a response, but a comment spawned by reading the above.
the problem here is that god needs to be a self-aware being that transcends time and space. We've reached the point of understanding where in order for such a thing to be true, the laws of physics could not be as we have discovered them. Once the universe was set in motion, everything else that spawned from it was the product of chance and consequence. If, say, we don't understand something, and we blame the mechanism that makes it work on God, that's not an answer--that's hubris. If in a moment of ignorance you invoke God to make your solution work, you are proposing a solution, a solution that implies nobody look further because what ever it is that's there cannot be further understood. Such a conclusion has been made time and again throughout history by the religious, including Isaac Newton.
He couldn't work out why the orbit of the planets was so stable because his solutions revealed a decay that resulted in stellar chaos, and instead of admitting that he was missing something, he chose to blame God for the stability of the and setting everything right again. We have since discovered that the orbit of the planets is fare more stable than Newton imagined. Had he admitted to a lack of understanding, it might have taken less than the approximate 200 years for the understanding of the motions of the bodies in our solar system to have developed further.
Biology is applied chemistry. Chemistry is applied Physics. It's not that god can or can't be proven, it's that he simply isn't a part of the system, and god can be reduced to a social construct for controlling people. If god were to have been such a certainty, why would he have undertaking to reveal himself in two--or three--different ways (ala christianity, judaism and islam)?. Why then too is it that the aboriginese in australia and the micronesians, don't have the same appreciation for the bible or some permutation of it that can be recognized as being of the same source? Why is there no narrative from any part of america that resembles the old testament? (I recall encountering a christian leaflet, insidiously and subversively disguised in native north american prose and folk-lore, and I remember being incredibly infuriated: these people have suffered enough without adding to the cultural trauma by insidiously corroding their cultural history, but, that's an aside, and because I apparently like the sound of my own voice can't bring myself to omit) Why is it that pagan european systems of belief fail to share that same similarity? If there really is a god, and the being actively chose to reveal itself in such a way as to cause humanity to tear into itself, then that's not the sign of any benevolent creator, but a malign and warped entity seeking cruel amusement. This interpretation however is also inconsistent, because of a lack of consistent behaviour. This being the case, we are back to where I started, asserting that if god exists, then that existence is as a schizophrenic, or a construct propagated throughout social history.
We can explain how we arrived at today fairly accurately. There are many many gaps, but the gaps are shrinking and we are becoming more certain of the solutions we have proposed for filling the gaps. Science is a graveyard of old and abandoned ideas? Yes, so what? Metaphysics and religion aren't? I wonder how many primordial creators were forgotten by virtue of the fact that the civilization or faith that conceived of it was wiped off of the earth before the idea could be passed to the next generation. True, we don't know what originated the universe, but blaming it on God is not an answer. Whether or not the existence of God is supported by physics, chemistry or biology is irrelevant. Sentience/self-awareness is dependent on bio-chemisty (so far.... we have not as yet discovered any robot overlords, and while I grant it would be possible to create a sentient and self-aware machine, attempts to do so have been met with failure). God doesn't fit into that picture of sentience, though he fits very nicely into metaphysical discussion. Any position that metaphysics bears relevance on the study of the natural world is absurd. The day I see another species on this planet engaging in a metaphysical discussion, having a faith resembling the Judeochristian basis and having arrived there independently, then I'm willing to consider the existence of such a being as advocated by western religion.
well... ... .... ...and that's my lunch break. Back to work.
I'm not sure how you can accept microevolution and not accept macroevolution.
Leave something evolving a small amount enough generations and then compare it with the thing it started out as and you will have two very different things...
Corpsesarefun wrote: So all of that was because there is a discrepancy in the amount of evidence for the two theories, not because you have any disagreement with either of them?
Well. I'm not sure the earth orbiting the sun is a theory so much as a fact, but as I've said several times throughout, I was just responding to a bad analogy. So more or less.
I'm not entirely sure why people keep trying to tell me I'm religious, or telling me what I really mean is that evolution is incorrect.
It isn't a bad analogy and nothing you have said supports your claim. You have ignored the massive amounts of evidence supporting evolution and what evidence you haven't ignored you have diminished by claiming "it's not good enough." Using terrible evidence to prove the heliocentric theory (man has seen the earth orbit the sun when they went into space?) while dismissing evolution is just a "theory" does nothing but prove your lack of understanding science.
Incorrect. The theory of evolution would not be adapted. It would be the theory of evolution being disproved, and replaced with another theory, namely that of an alien space station causing mutations instead of it randomly and naturally occurring (The Theory of Alien mutation?).
Regardless, the point originally made was that we can currently and empirically measure/watch the earth orbiting the sun. Chaps have gone up in spacecraft to see it happen, and orbital telescopes track their own movement and that of Earth. Whereas evolution remains a 'theory'.
Removing large chunks of my post doesn't mean they never existed, I pointed out that your assertion was flawed by using the exact same example, the alien construct in orbit of Venus. Our observations of stellar movements are no more reliable than any other scientific observations in the context you put forward; an external entity manipulating the process being observed. And again, I explained why the Theory of Evolution would not necessarily be disproved by the revelation you proposed; it would depend on what observations currently explained by Evolution or other Theories were being manipulated.
It's the difference between the theory of gravity, and me walking along the pavement on a daily basis without falling off the world. On the first count, there is the possibility of another theory supplanting the theory of gravity. Discounting matrix style explanations, me walking along the pavement will continue to be me walking along the pavement, regardless of updates in scientific theory. Likewise, the earth will continue orbiting the sun regardless of changes in theories of astrophysics.
In other words, I was pointing out a bad analogy. Evolution is not 'as much of a fact as the earth orbiting the sun'.
It is, because the difference you claim exists doesn't. We can observe Evolution directly, with our own eyes, and have done on countless occasions. We can observe it in the short term in mammalian species including ourselves, and other macro organisms; and we can observe it in the long term using rodents and micro organisms like bacteria and viruses. Those processes we have observed will continue happening in exactly the same way the Earth revolves around the sun, and the Theory of Evolution, while like all scientific Theories in that it is not "truth" per se, has had every bit as much effort and rigor devoted to its creation and refinement as the other "big name" Theories. We're talking about the work of tens of thousands of scientists over the course of more than a century, all of them contributing to a Theory which has not merely survived but been vindicated and reinforced by subsequent discoveries in multiple fields, from Genetics to Paleontology. Evolution underpins vast swathes of modern Medicine, it informs work in every aspect of Biological research.
I don't understand why people have such a problem with Evolution in this regard; Newtonian Physics was amended and then supplanted by first Special and then General Relativity, and then again by Quantum Mechanics, and may be once again by String Theory or Brane Theory or M-Theory, yet there are no serious organised calls for "Biblical Physics" to be taught in schools, there's no widespread questioning of the integrity of Physicists, nobody refuses to accept analogies which compare the Standard Model to other equally well-established scientific concepts.
Polonius: I'll concede that it was probably an unhelpful remark, but I assure you I have a solid grasp of the concept, and it is applicable; the religious scientist knows that observed reality often challenges and even outright refutes his religious beliefs, the various "faith needs no evidence", "God was just a guiding hand, the process itself is valid and correct", are the mental gymnastics they require to alleviate the discomfort of the dissonance.
Your personal brand of religion sounds very accommodating and inoffensive, it's not something I feel any need to argue against or challenge, but that we presently live in a secular context which allows for individuals to select their beliefs a la carte doesn't undermine my point that, until very recently, core aspects of the world's major religions revolved around mystical and mythical explanations of phenomena which are now explained via the scientific method, and this has led to the religions and their deities becoming narrower in scope, at least outwith their literalist and fanatical elements. You may not consider God's infinite micromanagement of every aspect of reality, or everyday phenomena being manifestations of God's will or emotional state as being core aspects of God or of faith, but those religions did.
I still say that if I were a supreme being, and began the cycle of life on a planet of my creation, the capability to evolve and adapt would be among the very first things I would instill in my creations.
AegisGrimm wrote: I still say that if I were a supreme being, and began the cycle of life on a planet of my creation, the capability to evolve and adapt would be among the very first things I would instill in my creations.
Life has been adapting and evolving since the beginning. Bacteria in a petri dish will adapt and evolve, eventually mutating into entire new species.
It is also debateable whether or not evolution actually existed before it was discovered. And when it was discovered, iirc it was rather uncontroveraial until its implications on humanity's origina were sensationalised in public.
This then begs the question, why was the idea of one type of turtle evolving into another type of turtle accepted, when the thought of our own species having evolved from a form of ape was regarded with such revultion? I think within that question lies the answer to the idea of god... And whether or not you think that humanity is nothing more than its genetic code.
xruslanx wrote: well, does something really exist if it has not been observed to exist? Don't we define existance as being that which we can perceive?
That is heading toward solopsism more then any practical definition of reality. There are all sorts of things we can't perceive that we know exist, such as gravity, atoms, bacteria, and Ryan Seacrest.
xruslanx wrote: It is also debateable whether or not evolution actually existed before it was discovered.
Huh?
And when it was discovered, iirc it was rather uncontroveraial until its implications on humanity's origina were sensationalised in public.
The idea of descent with modification has roots in antiquity: Greek, Roman, Chinese, and medieval Islamic scholars all proposed that animals could descend from other animals.
This then begs the question, why was the idea of one type of turtle evolving into another type of turtle accepted, when the thought of our own species having evolved from a form of ape was regarded with such revultion? I think within that question lies the answer to the idea of god... And whether or not you think that humanity is nothing more than its genetic code.
Because traditional Christian teachings place man in a unique position in relation to animals because we were created in God's own image, unlike animals who created for man to have dominion over (Genesis 1:26-27). Counter that with the idea that man is just the product of billions or years of evolution and it is easy to why people are revolted by it; they were taught that God made them "special."
EDIT: Actually, one looks like a bull terrier and the newer pick is a boxer...
Actually the first one looks more like an American Staffordshire Terrier.A.K.A Pit bull.
A bull terrier is the Spuds Mcenzy dog
And what was pointed out...even if they were the same breed of dog, that would only be an indication of microevolution.
And also before the chorus of "All it takes is time" crowd starts up again..I know that this is partly the difference, but there is also the issue that microevolution is observable/indisputable, while macro is not observable. Also you have to accept old earth..I.E. millions of years to accept macro. not everyone does accept this.
xruslanx wrote: It is also debateable whether or not evolution actually existed before it was discovered.
Huh?
And when it was discovered, iirc it was rather uncontroveraial until its implications on humanity's origina were sensationalised in public.
The idea of descent with modification has roots in antiquity: Greek, Roman, Chinese, and medieval Islamic scholars all proposed that animals could descend from other animals.
This then begs the question, why was the idea of one type of turtle evolving into another type of turtle accepted, when the thought of our own species having evolved from a form of ape was regarded with such revultion? I think within that question lies the answer to the idea of god... And whether or not you think that humanity is nothing more than its genetic code.
Because traditional Christian teachings place man in a unique position in relation to animals because we were created in God's own image, unlike animals who created for man to have dominion over (Genesis 1:26-27). Counter that with the idea that man is just the product of billions or years of evolution and it is easy to why people are revolted by it; they were taught that God made them "special."
So you think that humanity is no different than other animals? You don't think our capacity to learn and understand and debate places us above the rest of creation?
I think that a view of humanity as being different from and superior to animals is fairly widespread. Certainly many islamic schools in the uk teach creationism, far more than christian schools do, and a belief in evolution is very low in many religious countries. It is very obliously not a freak medieval christian accident.
Only because creationists define "observable" as "happening in a lab under controlled conditions" and dismiss all of the other evidence that existing species diverged from a common ancestor, and then dismiss any proposed lab examples as "just microevolution". In reality the division between micro and macro is completely arbitrary, the mechanics are exactly the same. You can't accept one without accepting the other.
Also you have to accept old earth..I.E. millions of years to accept macro. not everyone does accept this.
That's like saying you have to accept that 1+1=2. The earth is indisputably billions of years old, end of discussion. Objecting to that age is in the same category as the crazy guy on the corner screaming about black helicopters and mind control in the chemtrails.
Peregrine wrote: Objecting to that age is in the same category as the crazy guy on the corner screaming about black helicopters and mind control in the chemtrails.
Well then why do I keep hearing rotor noises at night and voting for Clive Palmer?
And for the record I agree that the whole not-accepting-old-earth thing is pretty nuts, even by the standards of a lot of the current world.
EDIT: Actually, one looks like a bull terrier and the newer pick is a boxer...
Actually the first one looks more like an American Staffordshire Terrier.A.K.A Pit bull.
A bull terrier is the Spuds Mcenzy dog
And what was pointed out...even if they were the same breed of dog, that would only be an indication of microevolution.
And also before the chorus of "All it takes is time" crowd starts up again..I know that this is partly the difference, but there is also the issue that microevolution is observable/indisputable, while macro is not observable. Also you have to accept old earth..I.E. millions of years to accept macro. not everyone does accept this.
GG
You are aware that dormant genes from previous evolutionary forms have been found in animal dna, right? Macro evolution is an undesputable fact now.
So you think that humanity is no different than other animals? You don't think our capacity to learn and understand and debate places us above the rest of creation?
Perhaps from the sentimentality of placing higher value upon our own kind, and from the novelty of the fact that we're the only species on Earth to have reached such a level (although this could be a necessity of competition for our specific niche, we did, after all, end up killing the gak out of the neanderthals), but outside from that, not really.
Our evolution into what we are today arose more from circumstance than anything else. Our unique adaptations over eons of evolution served to turn us into the dominant species, but that doesn't make them inherently special.
I think that a view of humanity as being different from and superior to animals is fairly widespread. Certainly many islamic schools in the uk teach creationism, far more than christian schools do, and a belief in evolution is very low in many religious countries. It is very obliously not a freak medieval christian accident.
xruslanx wrote: So you think that humanity is no different than other animals? You don't think our capacity to learn and understand and debate places us above the rest of creation?
I think that a view of humanity as being different from and superior to animals is fairly widespread. Certainly many islamic schools in the uk teach creationism, far more than christian schools do, and a belief in evolution is very low in many religious countries. It is very obliously not a freak medieval christian accident.
Of course we are different from other animals, but not superior. The genetic difference between chimpanzees/bonobos and humans is about 1.2%. Aside from bipedal locomotion, the predominate thing that sets us apart from other primates is our highly developed neocortex, prefrontal cortex, and temporal lobes (the things that allow us abstract reasoning, language, and learning). Again, these things make us different from animals, not better.
I used Christian teachings as an example because is it not only the worlds largest religion, but it also has the most influence on Western thought.
EDIT: Actually, one looks like a bull terrier and the newer pick is a boxer...
Actually the first one looks more like an American Staffordshire Terrier.A.K.A Pit bull.
A bull terrier is the Spuds Mcenzy dog
And what was pointed out...even if they were the same breed of dog, that would only be an indication of microevolution.
And also before the chorus of "All it takes is time" crowd starts up again..I know that this is partly the difference, but there is also the issue that microevolution is observable/indisputable, while macro is not observable. Also you have to accept old earth..I.E. millions of years to accept macro. not everyone does accept this.
GG
You are aware that dormant genes from previous evolutionary forms have been found in animal dna, right? Macro evolution is an undesputable fact now.
chickenosaurus. I want mine. Now: (Skip to 8:40, the preamble isn't entirely relevant to my chickenosaurus)
I'm still trying to understand how macro evolution is not able to be proven.
Simple fact: Finding fossil evidence on small islands of tiny cousins of large land animals that normally existed on the mainland. That is evolution to fit a niche, not evidence of God suddenly making large animals small overnight by scaling them in Photoshop. Any belief otherwise is evidence of the short-sightedness of mankind.
Once again, I urge someone to show me where the theory of evolution actually says a God working behind the scenes cannot exist. That is a pure fallacy cooked up by religious groups that want to come off as being victimized by some shadowy group of scientists .
AegisGrimm wrote: Once again, I urge someone to show me where the theory of evolution actually says a God working behind the scenes cannot exist. That is a pure fallacy cooked up by religious groups that want to come off as being victimized by some shadowy group of scientists .
Well, then again, there's also certain very vocal 'leading' scientists who see no issue with using terms like 'sociopathic' to define religious behaviour.
Personnal bet : if your stance on complex social phenomena is that reductive, it's probably wrong.
EDIT: Actually, one looks like a bull terrier and the newer pick is a boxer...
Actually the first one looks more like an American Staffordshire Terrier.A.K.A Pit bull.
A bull terrier is the Spuds Mcenzy dog
And what was pointed out...even if they were the same breed of dog, that would only be an indication of microevolution.
And also before the chorus of "All it takes is time" crowd starts up again..I know that this is partly the difference, but there is also the issue that microevolution is observable/indisputable, while macro is not observable. Also you have to accept old earth..I.E. millions of years to accept macro. not everyone does accept this.
GG
Time number 4
THEY ARE THE EXACT SAME THING, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS TIME!!!!!!!
Now if you refuse to accept that the earth is very old you could make the argument that there hasn't been enough time for macroevolutiion to occur.
Of course if you are putting together random ages of people in the bible to work out the age of the earth then its quite clear you dont value scientific evidence much at all.
Some people believe the earth is 6000 years old which is pretty ridiculous considering we have found human artificacts older than that.
AegisGrimm wrote: Once again, I urge someone to show me where the theory of evolution actually says a God working behind the scenes cannot exist. That is a pure fallacy cooked up by religious groups that want to come off as being victimized by some shadowy group of scientists .
Then again show me exactly where there is anything we have discovered which means there has to be a god(s) working away behind the scenes. I am also yet to hear where this immensely complex being came from (other than from the pages of a best selling novel of course).
AegisGrimm wrote: Once again, I urge someone to show me where the theory of evolution actually says a God working behind the scenes cannot exist.
Of course that's not true. But evolution, combined with basic rules of belief, tell us that belief in "god behind the scenes" is about as reasonable as belief in mind control messages in the chemtrails. It's a simple principle, that holds for everything but god, that you don't believe in something without a good reason to do so. And by explaining the existence of life sufficiently well that no "god behind the scenes" is necessary evolution completely eliminates that reason. The only reason to even consider the possibility of there being divine involvement is if you're stubbornly determined to believe in a god no matter how lacking the evidence is and just need a place to put one. It makes about as much sense as insisting that the theory of evolution doesn't prove that I, Peregrine, didn't work behind the scenes to create life as we know it and therefore you can't criticize my belief.
Kilkrazy wrote: Something that is not required to exist, is not required not to exist.
Then I've got a teapot in space I would like to talk to you about...
Besides which, I've heard the argument of "well the universe couldn't just come from nowhere!" Or "well, people were clearly made as macroevolution is heresy and clearly not a real thing.. oh hi microevolition - you are cool as we can see you in action and to deny you would make us lool like utter fools"... arguments which not only apply to god but which apply to an entity which apparently is more complex than the universe and everything in it...
Some people believe the earth is 6000 years old which is pretty ridiculous considering we have found human artificacts older than that.
They also believe that 4000 years ago there was a world-wide flood that covered all the mountains, and we know that various civilisations existed at that time and were not drowned.
They also believe that within 200 years of the worldwide flood (that only left the family of Noah alive), there were lots of people again, and a huge city of people called Babel raised the tallest tower ever. Putting aside all the other evidence of reality, the simple mechanics of human reproduction preclude that being possible.
Young Earth Creationists will deny all logic in order to cleave to their magic book, basically.
Some people believe the earth is 6000 years old which is pretty ridiculous considering we have found human artificacts older than that.
They also believe that 4000 years ago there was a world-wide flood that covered all the mountains, and we know that various civilisations existed at that time and were not drowned.
They also believe that within 200 years of the worldwide flood (that only left the family of Noah alive), there were lots of people again, and a huge city of people called Babel raised the tallest tower ever. Putting aside all the other evidence of reality, the simple mechanics of human reproduction preclude that being possible.
Young Earth Creationists will deny all logic in order to cleave to their magic book, basically.
If you ever want to be fully terrified by a complete lack of logic and reasoning, look no further than Answers In Genesis.
Some people believe the earth is 6000 years old which is pretty ridiculous considering we have found human artificacts older than that.
They also believe that 4000 years ago there was a world-wide flood that covered all the mountains, and we know that various civilisations existed at that time and were not drowned.
They also believe that within 200 years of the worldwide flood (that only left the family of Noah alive), there were lots of people again, and a huge city of people called Babel raised the tallest tower ever. Putting aside all the other evidence of reality, the simple mechanics of human reproduction preclude that being possible.
Young Earth Creationists will deny all logic in order to cleave to their magic book, basically.
My favourite bit about the flood is to ask where the water went. Is the a plug in the sea we haven't found yet?
AegisGrimm wrote: Once again, I urge someone to show me where the theory of evolution actually says a God working behind the scenes cannot exist.
Of course that's not true. But evolution, combined with basic rules of belief, tell us that belief in "god behind the scenes" is about as reasonable as belief in mind control messages in the chemtrails. It's a simple principle, that holds for everything but god, that you don't believe in something without a good reason to do so. And by explaining the existence of life sufficiently well that no "god behind the scenes" is necessary evolution completely eliminates that reason. The only reason to even consider the possibility of there being divine involvement is if you're stubbornly determined to believe in a god no matter how lacking the evidence is and just need a place to put one. It makes about as much sense as insisting that the theory of evolution doesn't prove that I, Peregrine, didn't work behind the scenes to create life as we know it and therefore you can't criticize my belief.
The theory of evolution isn't about the origin of life in the first place though, so it doesn't actually say anything about whether God creating life is reasonable or not.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The theory of evolution isn't about the origin of life in the first place though, so it doesn't actually say anything about whether God creating life is reasonable or not.
The conventional "god behind the scenes" argument almost always either claims that god created life mostly as it is now, or was involved throughout the entire process of evolution.
AegisGrimm wrote: Once again, I urge someone to show me where the theory of evolution actually says a God working behind the scenes cannot exist.
Of course that's not true. But evolution, combined with basic rules of belief, tell us that belief in "god behind the scenes" is about as reasonable as belief in mind control messages in the chemtrails. It's a simple principle, that holds for everything but god, that you don't believe in something without a good reason to do so. And by explaining the existence of life sufficiently well that no "god behind the scenes" is necessary evolution completely eliminates that reason. The only reason to even consider the possibility of there being divine involvement is if you're stubbornly determined to believe in a god no matter how lacking the evidence is and just need a place to put one. It makes about as much sense as insisting that the theory of evolution doesn't prove that I, Peregrine, didn't work behind the scenes to create life as we know it and therefore you can't criticize my belief.
The theory of evolution isn't about the origin of life in the first place though, so it doesn't actually say anything about whether God creating life is reasonable or not.
Very true.
However the theory of abiogenesis does give us scenarios in which life could arise from inanimate matter without needing to presuppose the existence of a God or Gods.
This is conjecture, but... Doesn't it make sense that God would grant all of his creations the ability to improve themselves through evolution? It seems like it would take more effort to deny them that.
I don't think religion and Evolution conflict with each other at all, unless you are insistent that God is the proprietary engineer of existence, and that he would not set laws in place that let things play out in their own way. I'm not religious though, so perhaps my sketched ideas about God are incorrect.
While we're on the subject of "scary" science, how do most people feel about particle physics and other subatomic theory? I've always been fascinated by it, because my grandfather, who has his Doctorate in Physics, has always fostered my interest in it, but I could see how people would be quick to dismiss it as totally irrelevant.
Captain Fantastic wrote: This is conjecture, but... Doesn't it make sense that God would grant all of his creations the ability to improve themselves through evolution? It seems like it would take more effort to deny them that.
The problem comes with God being all knowing and all powerful. As such, all of God's creations would have to be perfect in their construction, and there'd be no reason for them to have to change to fit some purpose, since they'd be perfect in their creation as it is.
However the theory of abiogenesis does give us scenarios in which life could arise from inanimate matter without needing to presuppose the existence of a God or Gods.
Abiogenesis isn't a theory because it hasn't be proven yet, it is still an hypothesis.
Captain Fantastic wrote: This is conjecture, but... Doesn't it make sense that God would grant all of his creations the ability to improve themselves through evolution? It seems like it would take more effort to deny them that.
The problem comes with God being all knowing and all powerful. As such, all of God's creations would have to be perfect in their construction, and there'd be no reason for them to have to change to fit some purpose, since they'd be perfect in their creation as it is.
Hey God's a smart fellow (the Bible told me so!). COnsidering the whole fall of man* thing, he was probably just planning ahead
Perhaps the next time a family member of a "Young Earth" believer is raped or murdered the police only reply on "good old fashioned detector'ing methods" to solve the case. I mean it would be a bit two faced to rely on science in this situation, but dismiss it when it doesn't fit in with your religious beliefs on how the earth was created.
Wolfstan wrote: Perhaps the next time a family member of a "Young Earth" believer is raped or murdered the police only reply on "good old fashioned detector'ing methods" to solve the case. I mean it would be a bit two faced to rely on science in this situation, but dismiss it when it doesn't fit in with your religious beliefs on how the earth was created.
Or they could just say that the lord works in mysterious ways.
Wolfstan wrote: Perhaps the next time a family member of a "Young Earth" believer is raped or murdered the police only reply on "good old fashioned detector'ing methods" to solve the case. I mean it would be a bit two faced to rely on science in this situation, but dismiss it when it doesn't fit in with your religious beliefs on how the earth was created.
Or they could just say that the lord works in mysterious ways.
nkelsch wrote: Um... how come it is not 100% of college graduates acknowledge humans have evolved over time.
Simple. Lots of universities in the states are backed by fundamentalist religion. Even in the very liberal northeast there's tons and tons of christian colleges that are private, do not allow the teaching of evolution, but mandate for graduation credit hours in theology regardless of major.
I'd assume in more religious areas of the country it's even worse.
Personally i don't understand how anyone, at all, in any shape form or fashion, can deny evolution, and maintain a shred of credibility.
Captain Fantastic wrote: This is conjecture, but... Doesn't it make sense that God would grant all of his creations the ability to improve themselves through evolution? It seems like it would take more effort to deny them that.
The problem comes with God being all knowing and all powerful. As such, all of God's creations would have to be perfect in their construction, and there'd be no reason for them to have to change to fit some purpose, since they'd be perfect in their creation as it is.
This doesn't really make sense. A being without limits is limited to doing things one particular way?
Captain Fantastic wrote: This is conjecture, but... Doesn't it make sense that God would grant all of his creations the ability to improve themselves through evolution? It seems like it would take more effort to deny them that.
The problem comes with God being all knowing and all powerful. As such, all of God's creations would have to be perfect in their construction, and there'd be no reason for them to have to change to fit some purpose, since they'd be perfect in their creation as it is.
There is another option. Which is the most likely if God actually exists. Could just be that God is a bit of an donkey-cave.
I know what you mean in this context. Why bother making beings that adapt if you are all knowing and can do anything why not just fix that gak from the beginning. Instead of ending up with stuff like Giraffes with a Recurrent Laryngeal nerve which starts at the neck. Goes all the way down to the heart then comes back up taking a detor of around 15ft. It's in people too but how poor a design it would be for a perfect creator is most apparent in Giraffes. The theory is that this nerve and its length is a hold over in evolving from fish to mammals.
The extreme detour of this nerve (about 15 feet in the case of giraffes[15]) is cited as evidence of evolution. The nerve's route would have been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed.[16]
Captain Fantastic wrote: This is conjecture, but... Doesn't it make sense that God would grant all of his creations the ability to improve themselves through evolution? It seems like it would take more effort to deny them that.
The problem comes with God being all knowing and all powerful. As such, all of God's creations would have to be perfect in their construction, and there'd be no reason for them to have to change to fit some purpose, since they'd be perfect in their creation as it is.
This doesn't really make sense. A being without limits is limited to doing things one particular way?
Well, no. But then he's kind of a [deleted by Moderator].
