Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Wales: Where the Men are Men and the sheep are Scared.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/02 13:27:43
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.
WAAAGH! Gutsnagga Mo-ork- 5000pts Kult of speed + goffs
red space marines, (almost angry enough!) 2000 points
Here's my P&M blog - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/551978.page And here's a thread of my completed miniatures -
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/551971.page 'You have that the wrong way around. Space Hulk teaches the inmates how large numbers of fast moving vicious hand to hand combatants can over come a small number of gun armed adversaries, in a sequence of narrow corridors.' -Orlanth
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.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
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.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2014/01/02 15:11:11
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/02 15:07:57
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).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/02 15:37:09
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.
WAAAGH! Gutsnagga Mo-ork- 5000pts Kult of speed + goffs
red space marines, (almost angry enough!) 2000 points
Here's my P&M blog - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/551978.page And here's a thread of my completed miniatures -
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/551971.page 'You have that the wrong way around. Space Hulk teaches the inmates how large numbers of fast moving vicious hand to hand combatants can over come a small number of gun armed adversaries, in a sequence of narrow corridors.' -Orlanth
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'.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/01/02 15:51:07
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.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/01/02 16:15:23
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.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/02 17:11:04
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?
"So, do please come along when we're promoting something new and need photos for the facebook page or to send to our regional manager, do please engage in our gaming when we're pushing something specific hard and need to get the little kiddies drifting past to want to come in an see what all the fuss is about. But otherwise, stay the feth out, you smelly, antisocial bastards, because we're scared you are going to say something that goes against our mantra of absolute devotion to the corporate motherland and we actually perceive any of you who've been gaming more than a year to be a hostile entity as you've been exposed to the internet and 'dangerous ideas'. " - MeanGreenStompa
"Then someone mentions Infinity and everyone ignores it because no one really plays it." - nkelsch
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.
As an atheist, I support this position.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/02 17:18:28
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
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.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/01/02 17:29:13
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?
WAAAGH! Gutsnagga Mo-ork- 5000pts Kult of speed + goffs
red space marines, (almost angry enough!) 2000 points
