lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Evolution - and how we know it's right
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 04-12-2006, 02:00 AM   #81
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
Just because it isn't testable, doesn't mean it isn't there.
Agreed. But that which isn't testable is far from reality when the alternative explanation is replete with evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
Also, you are leaving out of this "debate" a very large majority of the world's population with that statement [...] I wasn't saying being in the majority makes me right, I was saying that if you're looking for debating opponets who don't believe in creation or evolution. Well... that's a rather small opposition.
I must say that I find both statements ambiguous and I'm not sure what your intent is. At first, I thought as TK-8252 that you were implying that science and knowledge were that which could be voted upon. Now, I've no idea what point you're making. I'm assuming at this point you're commenting on my assertion that creation mythology can be discarded and that, if there's anything to debate, it must be with some other assertion.

I agree with you, however, that there is nothing to debate. Evolution is a fact. Creation is merely a myth that is perpetuated by those that hold onto ancient superstitions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
That's because in the creation theory, the origin of species and the origin of the universe usually go hand-in-hand.
There's no such thing as a "theory" when it comes to "creation." Creation is a subject of stories from various cultures of the world. Its mythology. We don't assert that there are minotaurs or volcano gods. Quetzecoatl isn't really a feathered serpent god of war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
To me, this thread doesn't seem like a debate. It seems more like an excuse to tell each other how great the evolution theory is. Because you said that you disregarded creation because it can't be tested. And you have already stated that evolution is the only theory that is a demonstrable mechanism to explain our existence. Therefore you will disregard anyone who believes anything other than evolution. Therefore this thread is pointless.
And yet you felt the need to post here and express your view. It would seem that you find the subject debatable (it isn't, btw). Not all threads in the Senate are "debates." Serious discussion can occur without the need for disagreement. The thread topic is "Evolution - and how we know it's right" not 'evolution vs. creation.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
Point is, creation isn't really disprovable.
Nor is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Bow down to your God!

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
And you must remember that there is some basis for creation.
Which is....?

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
It's not just something people believe out of spite. And not all creationists are just delusional.
If they believe the Earth was created by a god about 10,000 years ago they are. If they believe the Earth was created 4.6 billion yrs ago but man didn't evolve from earlier primate species they're probably just ignorant, but I could still argue delusion if they've been educated and still believe the superstition.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 02:06 AM   #82
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Well, some believe it was aliens...not me personally, but I've heard it put forward before.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 02:45 AM   #83
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
Your second point- the designer doesn't exactly need to watch what the things it created are doing, nor does it have to care about them. Whether or not they get smacked by an asteroid is kind of irrelevant to whether they were designed or not.
It seems that the designer DOES watch what it created, because it KEEPS creating them, and after all the mass Extinctions it 'made' billions more. And as far as we know, only one of the mass extinctions in history was caused by an asteroid impact, a lot of them were natural changes in the environment. So why didn't the designer start designing future iterations of creatures that were resillient to those kinds of changes?

Seems to me the title should be at least changed to 'lacks common sense designer'.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 10:21 AM   #84
IG-64
Moderator
 
IG-64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston, Tx.
Posts: 5,958
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
And yet you felt the need to post here and express your view. It would seem that you find the subject debatable (it isn't, btw). Not all threads in the Senate are "debates." Serious discussion can occur without the need for disagreement. The thread topic is "Evolution - and how we know it's right" not 'evolution vs. creation.'
But that's exactly the point I was making, it isn't debatable, it's just a thread designed to pat yourself on the back about your beliefs. I posted in this thread specifically to point that out. I just had the notion that the senate chambers were reserved for topics that would spark debates. And I came in here finding that no debate was invited. If I made a thread named "Creationism - and how we know it's right" that didn't invite a debate, i'd get floods of posts about evolution from all the rest of the (liberal) senate chamber-goers. And it'd probably end up being called spam and locked down.

Look, first of all, I was not impressed with that post. I was excpecting more from you. You only showed your complete ignorance of the history and beliefs of Christianity. And that you obviously have no place in your heart for any other religion but your own.
Yes, that's right, monkey boy, your beliefs require just as much faith as mine.
You obviously have it engrained into your mind that evolution can do no wrong. But I don't care how much "evidence" your scientists can gather. Evolution is neither provable nor unprovable, just like Christianity, and many other religions.
You might have some predjudice about how much I know about evolution. But I have have seen your "evidence." And I am not impressed.
Remember, I have actually educated myself on both Christianity and evolution. I am a person and I am not delusional. I can be just as smart as you'll ever be. I have opened my mind to evolution, and I am sorely dissapointed.

I'm not going to say anything more about creation because obviously that's not wanted in this thread, and you're clearly not that educated on the matter anyways, so i'm not going to waste my time. I'm also not going to say anything about evoution because I know you'll always think it's without flaw no matter what anyone says about it. So it's rather pointless to try.

The only point to this thread is so you can do your little evolution dance and flaunt around about how you think you're so right and everyone else is so wrong. And anyone who comes in and says otherwise will be doing so against your rules. It's childish at best.
And if you ask me, that doesn't sound like a "serious discussion" or a topic "worthy of Galactic recognition."

Last edited by SkinWalker; 04-12-2006 at 12:58 PM. Reason: removed "lock" smiley -thread not locking
IG-64 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 11:42 AM   #85
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
First of all, this isn't STRICTLY debate forum. Secondly, discussion of evolution is a serious discussion. Thirdly, you should stop telling a moderator how to moderate their forum.

And finally, to say that Skinwalker is not educated in the matter is inviting a very large, lengthy post showing that Skinwalker very likely knows vastly more than you do on both subjects, which you have shown very little evidence of knowledge on in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
your beliefs require just as much faith as mine.
To say a scientific belief requires faith is pure ignorance about how science itself is structured and works. There is no inherent belief system of science. Science does not want people who simply believe in it. Science wants those who will test, and falsify, and corroborate it's theories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
Evolution is neither provable nor unprovable
There's no such thing as a 'provable' theory, but evolution is VERY disprovable. That's one of the absolute cores in creating a scientific theory, is that it MUST be somehow falsifiable.

Say that, in looking at the fossil record right after the K-T mass extinction we found that there was no gradual return to a wide variety of species. Directly above the K-T boundary there were just billions of new animals everywhere. That would be a pretty strong indication that evolution might have it wrong. The fact that this kind of evidence HASN'T been found is a source of strength for evolution, but it doesn't make it non-falsifiable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
I have opened my mind to evolution, and I am sorely dissapointed.
I'm truly curious what you aren't impressed about in evolution. Are you unimpressed by the logic? By the ever-growing mountain of evidence that continually corroborates the theory? By the fact that in all the years that it has existed nobody has managed to come up with a suitable counter-theory? I'm just wondering.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 12:22 PM   #86
IG-64
Moderator
 
IG-64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston, Tx.
Posts: 5,958
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
I simply don't want him to continue saying that a third of the world is dilusional and calling creationists nutters and crap like that, it certainly sounds very ignorant. I admit, sure, maybe he does know more about either subject than me. I don't know. But you can't claim i'm just blindly beliving something and am not educated about all sides of it. It's pretty insulting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
which you have shown very little evidence of knowledge on in this thread.
That doesn't mean I don't have the knowledge. I'm just not going to write a book on it just for this thread because that would be pointless. Not to mention unwanted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
To say a scientific belief requires faith is pure ignorance about how science itself is structured and works.
Yet you still say it's not provable. If you can't prove it and you can't know for sure, believing it still requires faith.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
I'm truly curious what you aren't impressed about in evolution. Are you unimpressed by the logic?
Pretty much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
Thirdly, you should stop telling a moderator how to moderate their forum.
Why not? I have the right to. I still believe the context of this thread is pointless. And after his shameless slandering torwards all people who don't believe in evolution, I tend to take his rationality into question.

Last edited by IG-64; 04-12-2006 at 12:32 PM.
IG-64 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 12:28 PM   #87
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
Yet you still say it's not provable. If you can't prove it and you can't know for sure, believing it still requires faith.
not true. I don't BELIEVE in any scientific doctrine. I don't have faith that evolution is the correct theory. I accept the current best theory available to explain a phenomenon. If Evolution is eventually falsified I will stop accepting it, and move on to the new theory.
NOTHING in science is provable. There is no guarantee that ANYTHING we currently accept is the full truth. And a scientist doesn't believe that they are the truth, either. THAT is why science is no religion, and not a matter of faith.

To believe that there is some truth to a theory requires no faith, it simply means they are able to look at the evidence. "Well, this gravity idea certainly seems reasonable...everytime I drop this rock it falls right down."

What science has the religion deffinately does NOT have is flexibility, and acceptance of new ideas and removal of old ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
Pretty much.
Care to elaborate just what about the logical structure of it isn't impressing you?



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 12:41 PM   #88
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
You are right about the purpose of this thread - the topic should give it away. Since every few months a creationist vs evolution thread flairs up it seems sensible to have a thread ocntaining evidence supporting the evolution side of the argument.

You are welcome to start a "Creationism - and how we know it is right" thread if you want. But it will be very short. It will bascially consist of "because thats what my parents told me" and not much more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
And you must remember that there is some basis for creation.
I've never heard anyone mention any. Did i miss it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
Ususally, it's paired up with the idea of Irreducible Complexity, which makes it harder to dismiss. Even then, many of the supposedly irreducibly complex organisms that the ID/IC supporters have chosen turn out not really to be IC. Then they move to the next 'IC' bit of life. It's clearly not going to stop them to show that they are wrong in any given situation, and it's impossible to show that they are wrong in all situations.
That is what i was trying to show with my recent post about scientists making a major fosil discovery.

- Evolution gains new evidence every day, and hasn't yet run into a single thing that even remotley disproves it.

- Creationism/ID/IC has a part of it disproved every day and keeps having to shift its battlegrounds as it retreats. Pretty soon all they will be left with is "Creationism is true because we say it is" - which is pretty much all they have ever really had anyway.

@IG-64: the fact that a large proportion of the world believes in creationism is no reason to give it credence. A large proportion of the world believes in ghosts, goblins, aliens, voodoo, witch doctors and a lot of other myths too.
The only thing that is surprising is that belief in these fairytales isn't restricted to remote tribes and undeveloped cultures - but also seems to aflict supposedly advanced cultures like the US!



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 12:44 PM   #89
Joe©
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Still playing guild wars
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
What science has the religion deffinately does NOT have is flexibility, and acceptance of new ideas and removal of old ones.
First we have people calling religious people ignorant, now its my turn. :rollseyes:

This is a generalization. You feel perfectly inclined to take a few groups of fundies and say "Look! This is what religion does to people!" I agree they are closed minded and weird. But to slap that label on all religious groups like you did only shows that you really don't care if they are fundies or not, your just generalizing. Unless you can prove to me that not ONE religion has ever changed, revised old doctrines etc. then you can't support that statement.

I have to agree this is an Evolution (as some people put it) backpating thread, so heres to me! *Pats self on back*
Joe© is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 12:56 PM   #90
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
But that's exactly the point I was making, it isn't debatable, it's just a thread designed to pat yourself on the back about your beliefs.
Actually, if you bothered to read the thread, it was a post that ShadowTemplar started in response to some comments that another member made regarding the veracity of evolution and how 'intelligent' design was as viable a theory. It would seem that the member in question decided (wisely?) not to debate the fact of evolution. So it was actually intended to be a debate of sorts. However, I took advantage of the general nature of the thread title to provide some opportunity to provide an educational thread on the information that is available that supports and demonstrates the various assertions of science with regard to evolution.

Unfortunately, I'm trying to get into grad school and have had little time to devote to the thread itself, though I had some ideas which I discussed with ShadowT -who also has some academic responsibilities that are taking up his time, I believe. Needless to say, it hasn't moved forward yet and would probably become another thread entirely now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
I posted in this thread specifically to point that out. I just had the notion that the senate chambers were reserved for topics that would spark debates. And I came in here finding that no debate was invited. If I made a thread named "Creationism - and how we know it's right" that didn't invite a debate, i'd get floods of posts about evolution from all the rest of the (liberal) senate chamber-goers. And it'd probably end up being called spam and locked down.
Tell you what: I invite the debate. If you have an alternative assertion to the fact of evolution (the provable and proved fact of evolution), state it here. I'll gladly debate it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
Look, first of all, I was not impressed with that post. I was excpecting more from you. You only showed your complete ignorance of the history and beliefs of Christianity. And that you obviously have no place in your heart for any other religion but your own.
I have no religion, sonny. Moreover, the reason I have no religion is that I'm educated in the historical , anthropological, psychological and sociological origins and causes of religion. I invite you to look at an educational work in-progress: The Scientific Study of Religion. Having said that, I challenge you to cite exactly where I have "showed" my "complete ignorance of the history and beliefs of Christianity" so that I might clarify or correct myself. Since this is a very blunt assertion, it would be unfair not to qualify it and failing to do so would reveal what I suspect is the true nature of the words: a simple derision from a frustrated believer in an out-dated superstition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
Yes, that's right, monkey boy, your beliefs require just as much faith as mine.
First, I will remind you that such comments are considered insults and against LF rules. I'm not sure if you were implying that I lack intelligence, bipedalism, have a prehensile tail, or that I favor an arboreal lifestyle. However, I'll tolerate them directed toward me and I'll promise to to respond in kind by referring to you as an ovicaprid, etc. Just don't let me see you make a similar comment to other mods or members.

Second, which "beliefs" do I have that require "faith?" I have none. The only "beliefs" I might have are balanced by the weight of evidence. Faith is belief without evidence. I challenge you to clarify this as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
You obviously have it engrained into your mind that evolution can do no wrong.
Then you obviously don't understand my "beliefs" nor do you seem willing. I hold that science, which explains evolution, must be potentially wrong! Indeed, this is a strength of science: that it can recognize when there is an assertion that is wrong and allow for revision. Religious superstitions, while they *do* change, are far more resistant to revision, often violently so. Evolution isn't a discipline of science, it is an explanation for how the fantastic diversity of life on this planet came to be in a gradual nature over a long period of time. Biology, chemistry, astronomy, anthropology, geology, physics, etc are all disciplines that contribute to the explanation that life evolved on this planet. In most cases, the mountains of data that these disciplines have uncovered regarding evolution were arrived at independently and yet they are completely cooberative!

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
But I don't care how much "evidence" your scientists can gather. Evolution is neither provable nor unprovable, just like Christianity, and many other religions.
I have no scientists. None work for me any more than they do yourself. But your pejorative use of "your scientists" serves only to distance yourself from the mainstream of society and cement yourself in a superstitious sect of a given religious cult without regard to the facts that exist. Clearly, you have an anti-science worldview that is becoming popular among believers in the paranormal from religious superstitions to ESP and alien abductions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
You might have some predjudice about how much I know about evolution. But I have have seen your "evidence." And I am not impressed.
I'm not convinced you've "seen" the evidence or, if you have, you were obviously incapable or unwilling to comprehend it. Perhaps you bit off more than you can chew or perhaps you had little interest to begin with, most likely deterred by the indoctrination of a religious dogma that specifically targets science as an evil, atheist institution bent on bringing down the institution of religion. In other words, you most likely looked at the evidence (though I still question how much) with an pre-set expectation that it was false, and did not bother to appropriately question the validity. If I'm wrong, I challenge you to cite what "evidence" you've been exposed to and why you found it unconvincing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
Remember, I have actually educated myself on both Christianity and evolution. I am a person and I am not delusional. I can be just as smart as you'll ever be. I have opened my mind to evolution, and I am sorely dissapointed.
I've no interest in questioning your intellect. I genuinely hope you are smarter than I -indeed, I'm really not that smart at all in my own opinion. But I have been educated in many disciplines of science as well as many religious beliefs. I've certainly *not* limited myself to just christianity and evolution. But what has dissapointed you about science, specifically? What revelations of scientific study have you found to be less than genuine?

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
I'm not going to say anything more about creation because obviously that's not wanted in this thread, and you're clearly not that educated on the matter anyways, so i'm not going to waste my time. I'm also not going to say anything about evoution because I know you'll always think it's without flaw no matter what anyone says about it. So it's rather pointless to try.
I think you're incapable of speaking about either subject. This isn't a bad thing, really, and I don't fault you for it. Some simply haven't the ability to defend their beliefs -perhaps they are content to simply believe without allowing for critical thought. Certainly this is far easier and simpler and I respect that choice. I do, however, fault your willingness to make derisive and pejorative comments without supporting them. Derision has it place but needs qualification and clarification.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 01:26 PM   #91
IG-64
Moderator
 
IG-64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston, Tx.
Posts: 5,958
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
Care to elaborate just what about the logical structure of it isn't impressing you?
You've probably heard all my arguments before from other Christians. If I use my imagination, I can think of how stuff might possibly get more advanced through natural selection within a species. I don't, however, get how multiple species help each other out in a chain somehow. What is this natural law that tells a species to help another species in a certain way?
Also, I don't believe the earth can be that old. I just don't. I don't believe you can accurately date anything that old. I don't like the reasoning behind the dating system. In order to date something billions of years old, you have to assume the universe is billions of years old in the first place. And there would be so many changes in the world in that amount of time, it just seems unfathomable that you could accurately predict how any of it happend.
I also have yet to see the stockpiles of transitional fossils. It seems like over millions of years of generations of all the species, there would be massive piles of these fossils everywhere.
And I have seen some of the diffrent transitional fossils. You can't really be sure in any way those diffrent species actually evolved into each other. I know the evolution of the horse is used alot as an example but it seems like it could be trasitional species, or it could just be similar species found from all over the world and put together in a hypothetical phase of the evolution of a horse.
The transitional species of humans are pretty unimpressive as well. It seems like the entire logic of it is based simply on the fact that humans and apes look alike. It seems like all the species found are either apes that kind of look like humans (and in some cases are dramatized in "recreations" to looks more like humans than they actually do) or vice verca, a human that looks kind of like an ape. I also heard the other day that human-apes and humans supposedly lived together now?
More uncertainty can be found in the evolution of the dinosaur to modern birds. It seems like at first dinosaurs evolved into birds... Now they're saying birds evolved into dinosaurs?
And then theres the geologic column. Theres no where on earth you can actually see a whole geologic column. So isn't that just hypothetical as well? And all the stuff that goes on with the rock layers. You can't really prove it happend over billions of years. For all you know, it could've happend all at once. Or in short bursts. Who knows.
A very large reason I don't believe in evolution is that I beleive everything has a purpose. We have to be here for a reason. It can't just all be pointless.

Those are a few of the reasons. I have more but I gotta do school now.

[EDIT] Lol, i'm not even gonna try to respond to all that, skinwalker. I didn't mean to insult you. (though you technically called me a "nutter" which is what I was bouncing back on when I called you monkey boy. :P)
I'm just trying to get the message across that you can believe in creationism and not be an idiot. There are alot of smart people in the world and in history who believe in creationism.
As you can tell, i'm not very experienced at debates, and sometimes I have trouble getting my message across. I also tend to get worked up very easily.

Last edited by IG-64; 04-12-2006 at 01:45 PM.
IG-64 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 01:30 PM   #92
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
(the provable and proved fact of evolution)
Karl Popper frowns on you


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe©
Unless you can prove to me that not ONE religion has ever changed, revised old doctrines etc. then you can't support that statement.
The important difference is in frequency and timing. Science has, is, and will always be undergoing change. It is designed to do so. Religion is most deffinately NOT. There may be times when some of the Dogma is changed or re-interpreted, but it is infrequent, and not planned for. It is also generally met with extreme resistance.




Last edited by ET Warrior; 04-12-2006 at 03:17 PM.
ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 01:50 PM   #93
IG-64
Moderator
 
IG-64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston, Tx.
Posts: 5,958
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
I think you're incapable of speaking about either subject. This isn't a bad thing, really, and I don't fault you for it. Some simply haven't the ability to defend their beliefs -perhaps they are content to simply believe without allowing for critical thought. Certainly this is far easier and simpler and I respect that choice.
I kind of do a little bit of both. I'm open to critical thought, but i'm also pretty hard set on what I believe. Creationism just seems more logical to me than anything else. At any rate, I rarely let it bother me very much.

However, I see you devote much of your life to it.

Obviously I shouldn't get so worked up over what you say because we have a very, very diffrent way of thinking.
IG-64 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 02:31 PM   #94
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
I think it's interesting to note that Creationism and science are not opposing forces. They can, and do, coexist quite peacefully for some - even the account of Creation in Genesis is remarkably similar to the Big Bang theory; so similar, in fact, that it might well be taken as an account of the Big Bang from an ignorant observer. You might try checking out Evolutionary Creationism as well.

Science cares very little about God; it has no reason to. Religion should care very much about science; you can only know God through his word and works, right? If science isn't something we were meant to use in that endeavor then I must be seriously mistaken.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 02:36 PM   #95
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
IG, having been active in the Senate, I can tell you that this place can become quite a commitment. Usually I'd expect rccar to be debating on your side, but he appears to be AWOL.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 03:15 PM   #96
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
Karl Popper frowns on your
But Dawkins would rub my head and say, "good show."

I'm not referring to the "proof" that you can get in mathematics: 12 into 24 = 2, which you can prove by multplying 12 by 2 which equals 24.

I'm talking about the proof that comes from confirmations of predictions that science gets when it examines evolutionary details like the fossil record for a given species. In hominid evolution, for instance, we expected to see certain transitional features in new hominid finds which were located by the Leakey's in Africa. Features that were morphologically between modern humans and earlier primates like Aegyptopithicus. These features were found in Australopithicus.

I'm also talking about the proofs that come in the form of confirmations between disciplines. Geologists verify the predictions of biologists; astronomers verify the predictions of geologists; chemists verfiy the predictions of astronomers; etc. The explanation of evolution is replete with examples of complimentary deductions, conclusions and discoveries which cooberate the data obtained by each of the disciplines of science involved.

We can prove gravity exists, though Popper would argue the degree to which that proof could go. We can prove the Sun is vital to photosynthesis, yet I'm sure Popper would argue that it isn't actually a proof since we cannot test the negative hypothesis of removing the Sun.

Evolution is as provable as gravity and photosynthesis. It really happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
You've probably heard all my arguments before from other Christians.
Would you likewise concede that these arguments have been debunked? If not, perhaps it would be useful to specify the ones that haven't. If so, why then would you want to continue with a debunked belief? See my last paragraph for clarification of this, as it isn't just a simple derision of Christianity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
I don't, however, get how multiple species help each other out in a chain somehow. What is this natural law that tells a species to help another species in a certain way?
I'm not sure I understand the question. If, by chain of species, you mean the phylogeny, there isn't a "natural law" other than fitness. Speciation typically occurs when populations of a given species become separated and gene flow is limited. This allows the two (or more) populations to begin taking advantage of different environments. The orangutans in Borneo and Sumatra are good examples of speciation in the make. The species were once able to interact but became separated with the rise of sea levels with the end of the last glacial age. The two populations already exhibit very different physical characters and are distinct even to lay-persons. If the two populations survive for the next million years or so, the differences that genetic drift and natural selection pressure their DNA with could create populations that are unable to mate and create viable offspring.

In the Galapagos Islands, there exist turtles that have been separated long enough that their populations have diverged to the point of speciation (they cannot produce viable offspring). Their DNA is very, very similar but each population adapted for the different environs of the different islands.

In primates, there is a clear morphological progression in features that range from fused mandibular syntheses to cranial structure to hip structures. When these specimens are laid out in order of what strata they were found for a given locality (i.e. Africa, S. America), the morphological progression is gradual and obvious in all features from phalanges to limbs to hips to vertebrae to cranial features that include manibular and maxillary characteristics as well as overall cranial form. And that just with a given line of primates. This can be done with all mammals, angiosperms, amphibians, conifers, etc. The results are always the same and not one species has exhibited features that were out of place. If that isn't evolution, then there is a god that wanted us to think there is. Ironically, the religious ignore this god's work.


Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
Also, I don't believe the earth can be that old. I just don't.
I must say, "I just don't" is not exactly a logical reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
I don't believe you can accurately date anything that old. I don't like the reasoning behind the dating system.
It can be difficult to accept or understand if you haven't spent the time or effort to learn how it is that science manages to use the very wide variety of dating methods that, by the way, each cooberate each other very efficiently. I would hesitate to go into the details of dating since there are so many methods that range from K-Ar isotope analysis to dendrochronolgy to paleomagnetics to C14 analysis among many others. Suffice it to say, the same science that has given us the very computers we are communicating on is used to analyse isotopes and determine their ages. Electrons and atomic theory are essential to development of modern electronics, particularly computers.

Do you believe your computer works?

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
I also have yet to see the stockpiles of transitional fossils. It seems like over millions of years of generations of all the species, there would be massive piles of these fossils everywhere.
I was just visiting a museum storeroom last year. I saw the stockpiles of transistional fossils. There are thousands upon thousands and this was in one single museum. Again, when laid out in chronological order derived from the stratigraphy, they are gradually changing and representative of a transistion from one form to another to another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
And I have seen some of the diffrent transitional fossils. You can't really be sure in any way those diffrent species actually evolved into each other.
Which ones, specifically? Perhaps we could discuss the transitional nature of these?

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
The transitional species of humans are pretty unimpressive as well. It seems like the entire logic of it is based simply on the fact that humans and apes look alike.
If that's what you think, then its very clear that you haven't studied the subject at all. The transistional nature of Homo sapiens back through early primate species like Aegyptopithicus is astounding! The gradual change in form is tremendously obvious when the time is actually taken to examine the various species in the manner I describe above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
And then theres the geologic column. Theres no where on earth you can actually see a whole geologic column. So isn't that just hypothetical as well?
Nope. Its factual. The amazing thing is that the geologic column is one of the most predictable features of the planet. That there are those that continue to dispute it is the real story. The stratigraphy of South Texas can be matched up in Great Britain. They have different names for the stratigraphic members than we do here, but the chemistry and composition as well as the order are identical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
And all the stuff that goes on with the rock layers. You can't really prove it happend over billions of years. For all you know, it could've happend all at once. Or in short bursts. Who knows.
Paleomagnetic dating is but one demonstrative method. The sea-floor spreads at a measurable rate. The alignment of magnetic molecules in rock can thus be matched to the pattern on the sea-floor spreading out from a mid-oceanic ridge. This is the process in a nutshell and is but one process. The radioactive decay of certain isotopes is also a mathematically derived figure and atomic theory is well established and demonstrated. Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) analysis can reveal the age of a rock by noting the amount of decay the isotopes have experienced. Again, the process in a nutshell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
A very large reason I don't believe in evolution is that I beleive everything has a purpose. We have to be here for a reason. It can't just all be pointless.
I can't speak to that. I don't see purpose in life, only the opportunity to live it as best you can. I don't see evidence of any other life after this one and therefore do not intend to live this one as if I have another chance somewhere else. That would waste the one opportunity that I have, and I'll go on appreciating your life and the lives of all I meet as well as the planet I live on. I'm in continuous amazement at the little bubble of existence we have in a universe that is otherwise inhospitiable.

Finally

One of the things that upsets most believers in creation the most is that the person that invariably argues the validity of evolution is an atheist or at least agnostic about the existence of a god. It is a common misconception that to be a Christian, one must reject evolution -a misconception that certain religious leaders are all too eager to promote. I assert that this is because its easier to maintain a membership in a given culture if you can rally the members to a common cause, which is most easily done with an other (a.k.a. a bogeyman).

Another misconception is that all proponents of evolution as an explanation for life on the planet is automatically an atheist. While this is true in my case, I know many who are religious (most of these are christian) who fully accept evolution. One of them recently remarked to me that it is blasphemous, in his opinion, for creationists to continually assert that the Earth cannot be as old as science has discovered or that God cannot set into motion, over 13 billion years ago, the process that produced the evolutionary mechanism that science has discovered. "How dare they," my friend exclaims quite loudly, "pretend to know what God's limitations are and attempt to limit His ability to create!"

My friend knows I don't believe this, but nor do I discount it out of hand. We simply don't have sufficient evidence to know what happened 13 billion years ago and how. We do, however, have sufficient evidence of what occurred on this planet in the last 4.6 Gy.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 03:24 PM   #97
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
One of the things that upsets most believers in creation the most is that the person that invariably argues the validity of evolution is an atheist or at least agnostic about the existence of a god. It is a common misconception that to be a Christian, one must reject evolution -a misconception that certain religious leaders are all too eager to promote.
Indeed, the official position of the Pope is that evolution does not conflict with Christian beliefs. Maybe because the Catholics say evolution is okay is why other Christian leaders like Pat Robertson want to say it's wrong?
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 06:24 PM   #98
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
I'm not referring to the "proof" that you can get in mathematics: 12 into 24 = 2, which you can prove by multplying 12 by 2 which equals 24.
I rather understand your meanings, I just don't like the term 'proven' in relation to science. I'm certainly no Popperian, but I do prefer 'not falsified' and 'strongly coroborated' as terms.

Proven just strikes me as too concrete a term.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
In order to date something billions of years old, you have to assume the universe is billions of years old in the first place.
No, in order to date something to that age you simply need to know the rate of decay in certain radioactive elements. Uranium-235, for example, decays into Lead-207. Uranium-235 has a half-life of 704 million years, so any rock that contains an even distribution of those two elements is likely to be approximately 704 million years old. There are several different elements used in this form of dating, and as Skinwalker has said, there are other observational methods (Seafloor spreading, etc.).

Edit - Just saw this article on CNN. It seemed pertinant.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 09:05 PM   #99
edlib
Close to the Edge
 
edlib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, MA., USA
Posts: 9,560
Current Game: DiRT 3; Forza 4
Hot Topic Starter 10 year veteran! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Indeed, the official position of the Pope is that evolution does not conflict with Christian beliefs. Maybe because the Catholics say evolution is okay is why other Christian leaders like Pat Robertson want to say it's wrong?
Evangelicals take a very literalistic view of the books of the Bible... and for some even the actual date of creation plays a very important part in the plan of salvation. Either way, their view is that since every word of the bible was inspired by God, and God cannot lie... then the creation story, as it is set down in Genesis, HAS to be the literal truth.

Catholics just don't seem to have the same hang ups about that... or perhaps they've just outgrown it. (I must confess that I don't know enough about Catholicism to know why it's different... )


Native XWA.Netter (Nutter?)
edlib is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2006, 11:43 PM   #100
Joe©
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Still playing guild wars
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
The important difference is in frequency and timing. Science has, is, and will always be undergoing change. It is designed to do so. Religion is most deffinately NOT. There may be times when some of the Dogma is changed or re-interpreted, but it is infrequent, and not planned for. It is also generally met with extreme resistance.
Nice job ignoring the question. You just cling to that argument if it makes you feel better.

And just as a call out, Great thread! I actully got thinking about evolution more (science is not really my cup of tea) and learned some stuff, I really enjoyed it.

And special thanks to Krugan for his post about the books of the bible, that was really cool and I enjoyed reading it.
(I'm saying this cause I fear the thread is going to decay rapidly while I am away over Easter, and it was such a good one too )
Joe© is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-13-2006, 12:06 AM   #101
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by edlib
Catholics just don't seem to have the same hang ups about that... or perhaps they've just outgrown it. (I must confess that I don't know enough about Catholicism to know why it's different... )
I found a short writeup on that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catholic.com

As from the first, God speaks to his Church through the Bible and through sacred Tradition. To make sure we understand him, he guides the Church’s teaching authority—the magisterium—so it always interprets the Bible and Tradition accurately. This is the gift of infallibility.

Like the three legs on a stool, the Bible, Tradition, and the magisterium are all necessary for the stability of the Church and to guarantee sound doctrine.

Sacred Tradition (CCC 75–83)
Sacred Tradition should not be confused with mere traditions of men, which are more commonly called customs or disciplines. Jesus sometimes condemned customs or disciplines, but only if they were contrary to God’s commands (Mark 7:8). He never condemned sacred Tradition, and he didn’t even condemn all human tradition.

Sacred Tradition and the Bible are not different or competing revelations. They are two ways that the Church hands on the gospel. Apostolic teachings such as the Trinity, infant baptism, the inerrancy of the Bible, purgatory, and Mary’s perpetual virginity have been most clearly taught through Tradition, although they are also implicitly present in (and not contrary to) the Bible. The Bible itself tells us to hold fast to Tradition, whether it comes to us in written or oral form (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2).

Sacred Tradition should not be confused with customs and disciplines, such as the rosary, priestly celibacy, and not eating meat on Fridays in Lent. These are good and helpful things, but they are not doctrines. Sacred Tradition preserves doctrines first taught by Jesus to the apostles and later passed down to us through the apostles’ successors, the bishops.

Scripture (CCC 101–141)
Scripture, by which we mean the Old and New Testaments, was inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). The Holy Spirit guided the biblical authors to write what he wanted them to write. Since God is the principal author of the Bible, and since God is truth itself (John 14:6) and cannot teach anything untrue, the Bible is free from all error in everything it asserts to be true.

Some Christians claim, "The Bible is all I need," but this notion is not taught in the Bible itself. In fact, the Bible teaches the contrary idea (2 Pet. 1:20–21, 3:15–16). The "Bible alone" theory was not believed by anyone in the early Church.

It is new, having arisen only in the 1500s during the Protestant Reformation. The theory is a "tradition of men" that nullifies the Word of God, distorts the true role of the Bible, and undermines the authority of the Church Jesus established (Mark 7:1–8).

Although popular with many "Bible Christian" churches, the "Bible alone" theory simply does not work in practice. Historical experience disproves it. Each year we see additional splintering among "Bible-believing" religions.

Today there are tens of thousands of competing denominations, each insisting its interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. The resulting divisions have caused untold confusion among millions of sincere but misled Christians.

Just open up the Yellow Pages of your telephone book and see how many different denominations are listed, each claiming to go by the "Bible alone," but no two of them agreeing on exactly what the Bible means.

We know this for sure: The Holy Spirit cannot be the author of this confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). God cannot lead people to contradictory beliefs because his truth is one. The conclusion? The "Bible alone" theory must be false.

The Magisterium (CCC 85–87, 888–892)
Together the pope and the bishops form the teaching authority of the Church, which is called the magisterium (from the Latin for "teacher"). The magisterium, guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit, gives us certainty in matters of doctrine. The Church is the custodian of the Bible and faithfully and accurately proclaims its message, a task which God has empowered it to do.

Keep in mind that the Church came before the New Testament, not the New Testament before the Church. Divinely-inspired members of the Church wrote the books of the New Testament, just as divinely-inspired writers had written the Old Testament, and the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to guard and interpret the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments.

Such an official interpreter is absolutely necessary if we are to understand the Bible properly. (We all know what the Constitution says, but we still need a Supreme Court to interpret what it means.)

The magisterium is infallible when it teaches officially because Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles and their successors "into all truth" (John 16:12–13).


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-13-2006, 12:41 AM   #102
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe©
Nice job ignoring the question. You just cling to that argument if it makes you feel better.
I retract my earlier statement. Religion is flexible like a sheet of rock. Sure, eventually some change happens, but it takes a really long time, lots of pressure, and sometimes extreme heat.

I challenge you to show me a religion that is designed to accept, and even PROMOTES constant change.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-13-2006, 12:38 PM   #103
Joe©
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Still playing guild wars
Posts: 306
I would prefer if you answered my "challange" (whatever) first. But since I don't think you are planning on answering it anyway I will move on...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
I retract my earlier statement. Religion is flexible like a sheet of rock. Sure, eventually some change happens, but it takes a really long time, lots of pressure, and sometimes extreme heat.

I challenge you to show me a religion that is designed to accept, and even PROMOTES constant change.
Take The Episcopal Church? They have recently changed their stance on (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) people in their clergy. Many Protestant churches have also changed their stance on birth control (not abortion) The catholic church (as stated above) has changed their view to evolution.

What kind of change are you looking for? I don't think any church would ever change its view on some issues (murder theft ect.) And BTW, all these the changes are rather recent, within the last 30-40 years.

::EDIT:: This topic is fun, it needs its own thread
Joe© is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-13-2006, 12:45 PM   #104
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
No, in order to date something to that age you simply need to know the rate of decay in certain radioactive elements. Uranium-235, for example, decays into Lead-207. Uranium-235 has a half-life of 704 million years, so any rock that contains an even distribution of those two elements is likely to be approximately 704 million years old.
Which is similar to many early methods of telling time: like the water clocks. All you need to know is the rate at which the water flows out of the jar and you can estimate reliably and repeatably how long it will take for a certain amount of water to flow out. Infact its similar to almost every measuring method we have that makes our world possible.

-

So, the catholic pope doesn't thin evolution is incompatible with god. 9/10 coe/protestant clegry believe in evolution. Is it only the evangelical fringe that is left saying "i just don't believe it - no matter what proof you show me"?

-

One thing that struck me reading a few recent posts about religion is that Christianity has "evolved" in a almost identical way to life!

Originally there was just one christian faith, but over time it has split and split again. At each split the new "species" resembled their ancestor, but modified their beliefs slightly based on their environment and how it affected them. Certain "species" prospered and gained more followers, others became too specialised and became extinct. Some "species" competed with each other over resources (followers) and killed each other off.

Now, rather than one simple christian religion we have 100s of different "species" off christianity - many of which have diverged so much that they are totally incompatible with each other's beliefs - and you would hardly imagine that they could have come from the same common ancestor.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-13-2006, 03:16 PM   #105
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
Which is similar to many early methods of telling time: like the water clocks. All you need to know is the rate at which the water flows out of the jar and you can estimate reliably and repeatably how long it will take for a certain amount of water to flow out. Infact its similar to almost every measuring method we have that makes our world possible.
The only inacurracy that these have, actually, is that it's hard to know for sure if the element was made at the same time the rock formed; you'd have to know how much element was present in the rock at the beginning to really accurately measure the age. Something that is perhaps better for showing that such ages are possible is starlight and background radiation of the universe that the WMAP satellite measures. It's pretty clear that either things actually are that far away (and thus we can figure their minimum age by how far away they are), or someone's playing a rather big joke on us. There's no way we can know 'for sure,' so it's better to assume that it really is the truth - to do otherwise would be to deny science. Yeah, you can do it, but it doesn't get you very far.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-13-2006, 05:39 PM   #106
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
If you can find Zircon crystals then it's a very straightforward process of determining their age, because Zircon crystals from with absolutely no lead, only Uranium. There are some matters that can complicate it, but it is known if they happened.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-14-2006, 01:49 PM   #107
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
If you can find Zircon crystals then it's a very straightforward process of determining their age, because Zircon crystals from with absolutely no lead, only Uranium. There are some matters that can complicate it, but it is known if they happened.
That's cool; does it work by having a melting point lower than the surrounding rock?


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-03-2006, 01:18 PM   #108
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
So I just finished reading a book called "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller.

I strongly recommend this book to anyone, but in particular to those who feel that evolution is incompatible with their religion. The first half of the book is devoted to showing exactly why and how evolution happened, and then debunks the myths of creationism and intelligent design. The second half of the book is devoted to explaining why it is that Western religions should be excited about evolution. (Kenneth Miller is a devout Christian).

It is extremely well written, and amazingly informative.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-03-2006, 02:10 PM   #109
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
I for one have never thought that evolution and christianity (or any religion) are incompatible... and i don't think darwin or the catholic church or the churchof england thinks so either.

Its only the fundamentalist branches of various religions that claim they are incompatible.

A god who created the wonderous system that is evolution is much more impressive than a childish god who created te world in seven days in his playpen.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-03-2006, 06:42 PM   #110
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
A god who created the wonderous system that is evolution is much more impressive than a childish god who created te world in seven days in his playpen.
I don't think doing it either way makes God 'more impressive' as both ways are equally easy to infinite power. I think the question that should be asked the proponents of ID is this: do you trust God to tell you the truth? Faking the evidence is exactly what God is accused of by those who hold to ID/Young Earth creationism/etc, and I don't understand how they can truly have faith without the absolute trust that comes from knowing that he will not lie to you. My opinion is that God does not lie. If he did, what reason would you have to believe him on anything else? You'd be stuck with Pascal's Wager, and that has severe problems with an omniscient god.

@ET: I'll have to see about that book.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-04-2006, 11:25 AM   #111
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
ET, I thought at first the book title you were recommending was one that I also had read, but then I looked closer and realized it was Miller's book. The one I read moved me to write a review and post it on my blog: Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life.

Quote:
Its only the fundamentalist branches of various religions that claim they are incompatible.
Actually, there are a number of prominent atheists that say the same thing. I happen to agree with them for the moment. Dawkins is quoted by McGrath (in the book review I linked to above) as holding the contention that the universe is either Darwinian, Lamarckian, or the result of God. Since the last two fail as explanations, the answer must be Darwinian or something we haven't thought of yet. Dawkins asserts on more than one occasion (The Blind Watchmaker, The Root of All Evil?, etc) that religion and science are not compatible. The main reason is, much in science directly discredits much in religion (Noachian flood myth, doctrine of miracles, etc.)

As a Catholic, Kenneth Miller, is a dissenting voice in science on this subject, so it will be interesting to read his book and see if it can change my mind from the arguments of Dawkins, Gould, Sagan, Daniel Dennet, and Sam Harris.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-04-2006, 09:33 PM   #112
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by IG-64
Just because it isn't testable, doesn't mean it isn't there.
Straw man. Nobody said that. What we did say is that if it's not testable, it's not science - and never will be. Your private metaphysical speculations are your own to have - they are none of my business, and frankly I don't really give a damn about them.

That's not to say that we could not have a theological debate in some other thread, but I would think that Kurgan would be a better bet for a debate partner.

Quote:
Also, you are leaving out of this "debate" a very large majority of the world's population with that statement.
You have misunderstood the purpose of this thread. None of the participants from the reality-based community are interested in a 'debate,' since there are no real points to debate (that's not to say that there aren't interesting debates over the details and mechanisms of evolution. Such debates - controversies even - certainly exist, but they are rather beyond the scope of a forum thread).

Quote:
That's because in the creation theory,
There is no 'creation theory'. Not a single one. Nada. Zip. In point of fact, there's not even a hypotesis.

Of course, if you do know a 'creation hypothesis,' I'd be happy to hear it. I hereby submit a concise explaination of the scientific method written by Lenny Flank.

If you (or anyone else for that matter) can come up with a model or description that could pass muster in all the five steps Flank outlines, I'll buy you a bottle of whiskey. It'd be a first.

Quote:
To me, this thread doesn't seem like a debate.
That's because it's not.

Quote:
It seems more like an excuse to tell each other how great the evolution theory is.
Not quite true. It was intended as a place where people of intellectual integrity and with a genuine curiosity could ask questions and recieve answers or pointers vis-a-vis the ToE without having to wear an asbestos suit.


Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Alright, but, it must be fair to say then that even though you can't test that the sun is made of cheese, doesn't mean it's not made of cheese.
That's different. Because that's disprovable. There just... aren't enough cows.
One could imagine the sun having always been, and hence needing no cows - after all, there is very little decomposition in an anoxic environment. And we will likely never know 'for sure' in the creationist sense of the term, since it is massively unlikely that any probe will ever survive to within touching distance of the surface of the sun.

Besides, since the sun doesn't really have a rigid surface, one could always imagine that the probe just didn't go deep enough, and if one were to use standard creationist 'reasoning', one could speculate that if it had just gone a mite deeper into the very dense 'atmosphere', it would have hit a solid surface of cheese.

And this is what's fundamentally wrong with the kind of 'reasoning' that creationists routinely employ: There is - in principle - no way to prove a negative. I cannot prove that I didn't kill somebody. That's why it's up to the prosecution to prove that I did, if they want to put me behind bars (at least in civilised countries).

Quote:
Point is, creation isn't really disprovable.
And that is the fundamental weakness. The lack of possible falsification renders creation utterly useless as a model of anything.

Many people have a hard time of seeing how that's the case, but it's really astonishingly simple:

Take two statments (A and B)

A IMPLIES B
IF AND ONLY IF
~B IMPLIES ~A

Thus, if there is not even in principle any observation B that is required for A to be true, then A implies absolutely nothing. No inferences can then be drawn from A, and A is a superflous statement, to be cut out in keeping with the principle of parsimony.

Quote:
And you must remember that there is some basis for creation. It's not just something people believe out of spite.
But as you have kindly just pointed out yourself, there can be no possible evidence for creation, since - by your own words - creation implies nothing.

Quote:
Quote:
If there's anything we've learned throughout history, it's that being in the majority doesn't make you right.
That might be true in some cases, but not always. Besides, that wasn't really my point. I wasn't saying being in the majority makes me right, I was saying that if you're looking for debating opponets who don't believe in creation or evolution. Well... that's a rather small opposition.
We're not looking for 'debate opponents'. We're looking for people with genuine intellectual integrity and curiosity, that we may answer their questions about the ToE or tell them where to find people who can answer their questions.


Last edited by ShadowTemplar; 05-05-2006 at 02:07 PM.
ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-05-2006, 01:45 AM   #113
Mike Windu
Je suis l'agent du chaos.
 
Mike Windu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Stars Hollow
Posts: 3,562
Holy Jesus. Shadow for diety. That was an amusing post.

On a more related topic... doesn't cheese melt...? Or is this a new form of cheese that has heat resistant properties? In the former case, would the sun's rays be melted cheese flying at us?




That's the last time I buy anything just because it's furry!

Mike Windu is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-05-2006, 01:50 AM   #114
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Windu
On a more related topic... doesn't cheese melt...? Or is this a new form of cheese that has heat resistant properties? In the former case, would the sun's rays be melted cheese flying at us?
Don't question God's cheese-creating abilities. If God wants to create non-melting cheese, He can.

JUST DON'T QUESTION!


see, it works
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-05-2006, 02:54 AM   #115
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Don't question God's cheese-creating abilities. If God wants to create non-melting cheese, He can.

JUST DON'T QUESTION!


see, it works
MY GOD (pun unintentional) IT DOES!





"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein

Last edited by Samuel Dravis; 05-05-2006 at 03:10 AM.
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-05-2006, 02:09 PM   #116
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Windu
Holy Jesus. Shadow for diety. That was an amusing post.
You mean like I actually made sense? Man, I need to cut back on the creationist-bashing when I can make sensible posts on the subject at 3 in the morning...

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Hey, who is this so-called "intelligent designer" anyway?

I've seen supporters of the "theory" asked that many times, and yet they can't exactly answer that question...
Depends on what religion. If it's Chritianity it's simply the God of the bible. What more do you need? Or are you really just asking where he came from? Becuase he's always been. I think in any theory of existance you have to have something that's always been there.
As Lenny so often says: Give a fundie enough rope, and he'll inevitably hang himself on the First Amendment.

Quote:
Quote:
In order to be considered, "ID" needs to be able to come up with some evidence that there is an intelligent designer.
Ususally, it's paired up with the idea of Irreducible Complexity, which makes it harder to dismiss. Even then, many of the supposedly irreducibly complex organisms that the ID/IC supporters have chosen turn out not really to be IC. Then they move to the next 'IC' bit of life. It's clearly not going to stop them to show that they are wrong in any given situation, and it's impossible to show that they are wrong in all situations.
Woah, woah, woah, wait a sec. The reality-based people here don't need to prove the non-existence of IC. It's the fundies who need to prove the existence of IC.

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-05-2006, 06:35 PM   #117
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowTemplar
Woah, woah, woah, wait a sec. The reality-based people here don't need to prove the non-existence of IC. It's the fundies who need to prove the existence of IC.
Oh, I agree with you about that. I was just pointing out that nothing we can do can convince someone who really believes IC/ID, because they can literally take anything and say it was created, regardless of whether that worldview makes any scientific sense. It may make religious sense, but that doesn't mean it should be taken as a model for a science class to use when one with more predictive power (and one that happens to be falsifiable) is available.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-05-2006, 08:52 PM   #118
Sigundr
Forumite
 
Sigundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 577
Current Game: JKA
i haven't read all the thread, it will take to long, but please, tell me why you think that evolution is the right thought action. i would like to know.


"They are minor criminals! Marginal outlaws! You are inept!" ~ Darth Vader
Sigundr is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-05-2006, 09:32 PM   #119
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Guardian
i haven't read all the thread, it will take to long, but please, tell me why you think that evolution is the right thought action. i would like to know.
Sorry, but you're gonna have to read the thread. That's like, rule number one with good debating...
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-05-2006, 10:51 PM   #120
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Sorry, but you're gonna have to read the thread. That's like, rule number one with good debating...
You can cut a newbie some slack once in a while.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Guardian
i haven't read all the thread, it will take to long, but please, tell me why you think that evolution is the right thought action. i would like to know.
Basically we came up with these (I'm assuming you are some type of Christian; most of the people that have issues with or question evolution are):

* It doesn't conflict with religion in the sense that it denies it; some of the things it has shown true have forced the reevaluation of doctrine or scripture, but it has never been used as a proof for the nonexistence of God by a rational scientist (that proof cannot exist). It simply ignores god, whether he's there or not. It doesn't matter to evolutionary theory because god is a random being - there is no ability to predict his actions and thus he cannot be taken into account. There is no reason for religion and evolution to be exclusive. This has been shown by several major religions (CoE, Catholicism) accepting that evolution can be true. Christianity's god did not give people rational minds for no reason, nor did he restrict their use in the intellectual persuits. It stands to reason (heh) that he meant for people to use that which he had given them. Aquinas argued that you could see god in all things, and indeed you can - the more you know, the greater the impressiveness, you might say. Good stewardship of the cognitive prowess and all that.

* It's a good model. It is scientifically valid and it has predictive powers that have been shown to be correct in all cases in which it can be applied meaningfully. It's been used in evolutionary programs to create better bot AI for players to fight in games (I think that Quake III did this, not sure though) and it worked. It's as valid as any other science, and you don't go about picking and choosing what sections of biology, physics, chemistry etc you want to believe - it doesn't matter whether you think it's true or not. It's there, and it has a lot of evidence to support it.

* And the last thing I already posted here about why ID fails religiously (it denies that god is completely good in defining him as a being capable of lying - an act fundamentally against his nature. This is also taken care of by Aquinas, if you're interested in that type of thing):

Quote:
I think the question that should be asked the proponents of ID is this: do you trust God to tell you the truth? Faking the evidence is exactly what God is accused of by those who hold to ID/Young Earth creationism/etc, and I don't understand how they can truly have faith without the absolute trust that comes from knowing that he will not lie to you. My opinion is that God does not lie. If he did, what reason would you have to believe him on anything else? You'd be stuck with Pascal's Wager, and that has severe problems with an omniscient god.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Evolution - and how we know it's right

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:01 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.