Baldrick Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 But Anouleth, if the universe came from nothing, then why is there still nothingness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwall Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 The problem with evolution is that anytime a hole has been pointed out they just change what they believe to cover the holes. The Theory of Evolution has drastically changed throughout the last 100 or so years since Darwin 1st thought it up. There have been many hoaxes over the years that have been defuted and the explanation has always been that they just made a mistake. Yes, in many ways Darwin was wrong. That doesn't mean that what he said didn't get us thinking; modern evolutionary biologists and scientists in non-related disciplines generally agree that evolution takes place via random mutation and (somewhat more deterministic) natural selection. (In some sense all scientific theories are "wrong," since we don't really have an ab initio, exact explanation for everything. Richard Feynman said in his namesake lectures, "Each piece, or part, of the whole nature is always an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected...The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific 'truth'" That doesn't mean said scientific theories can't do an adequate job of explaining observable data; George Box is known for saying that "all models are wrong, but some are useful".) I dont know enough about current evolutionary beliefs so im not going to continue discussing it. If anyone has anything to say about creationism, I will be able to join the discussion on that. I was told there would be holes. But OK, let's try to view creationism as science. For anything to be considered science, it *must* be falsifiable in principle. Evolution can be falsified in any number of ways, such as discovering a fossil of a mammal (or some more advanced life form) in the same stratum as a that of a trilobite. Whereas with intelligent design, we can only really falsify it if we prove God doesn't exist, which is impossible (and no, that doesn't prove God exists). In an attempt to dress up ID as falsifiable, Michael Behe has generated the concept of irreducible complexity. Claiming something to be "irreducibly complex" still isn't scientific since it's simply an appeal to ignorance rather than the result of rigorous testing (a somewhat weaker supporting argument is the fact that people have proposed evolutionary mechanisms for Behe's alleged examples of irreducibly complex systems...actually I guess this does highlight the fact that declaring something IC is indeed an argument from ignorance). And really, I assure you that people even in the applied sciences (and not just strictly the fundamental sciences) have verified evolution for themselves; in the emerging field of synthetic biology, Frances Arnold, a member of the NAS and NAE, uses directed evolution to get the products she desires. The fact that her products have become patented (http://cheme.che.caltech.edu/groups/fha/Patents.htm) ought to convince you that, yes, evolution has survived the test of industry. And no, I doubt very much that she, or most of her other colleagues at Caltech, is defrauding us; Caltech takes its Honor Code very seriously. A somewhat more fundamental approach to understanding evolution is practiced in the Lenski lab (http://myxo.css.msu.edu/). A recent paper in PNAS demonstrated that they were able to take a sample of E. coli (which doesn't metabolize citrate) to metabolize citrate; you can read about it on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 (edited) @ Doga Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man are 2 known hoaxes. How are people corrupting science to further their reputation a sign that the entire theory is false? Are you saying that because these situations happened the entire fossil record is to be ignored? For me to believe in evolution, I would need some huge concrete evidence. There just is none. There is plenty. You are simply massively ignorant. There are literally mountains of evidence that even a child learning at the most basic level could understand. If we progress deeper into the ground we find that the remains of life progress gradually from more to less complex, for example. Educate yourself before you attempt to discredit a field of science you know nothing about. Edited January 26, 2013 by Esau of Isaac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 First, to TC: Don't worry about it. Stuff like these topics make Serious Discussion interesting. Second: Thank you everyone for keeping it civil, as well as not bashing religion. This makes me very happy. Third. . .right, topic. Scientific theories attempt to explain why things happen/don't happen. As new information comes in, theories are modified/discarded. Thus, it is natural for the theories behind evolution to change when new information comes in. This doesn't invalidate it at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defeatist Elitist Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 For me to believe in evolution, I would need some huge concrete evidence. There just is none. You're wrong. If you've looked into this, you would know there is more than enough evidence to support evolution. The overwhelming majority of scientists, and pretty much all biologists accept it. You might think there isn't any evidence, but almost everybody who's literal job it is to figure things out and interpret evidence say there is enough evidence. Your ignorance on this topic is not as good as their knowledge. If you want evidence, there is evidence in the fossil record, their is evidence in the morphology of a number of extant species, and there is a ton of genetic evidence, just to name a bit of stuff. I wasn't kidding when I said nothing in modern biology makes sense without evolution. Denying evolution is tantamount to saying that all of biology since it's acceptance is either a) wrong, or b) right completely by accident. It's also pretty similar to saying all science is wrong. If you're worried that this fucks with your religion, that should be flexible enough to contain it, and the important part of religion is supposed to be the personal and faith aspects of it right? Oh, and to eclipse on her second point, fuck Zoroastrianism, that shit is dumbdumbdumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruity Insanity Posted January 26, 2013 Author Share Posted January 26, 2013 I was gone for one day... and there's already two pages of discussion. :P (Me and my internet problems...) I'm going to respond to this is full in a bit, but I read the first response you put, and I am really curious. What textbook are you using? I assume you're taking the AP Biology exam at some point. Some of it derives questions based on evolution. Does this text teach evolution and dismiss it, or not teach it at all? Based on your previous responses, you seem to know as much about evolution as one should for the exam, but I am curious. Also, thanks for the topic change. Was a good decision. As said before, will edit in a full response later. I'm going to respond to this is full in a bit, but I read the first response you put, and I am really curious. What textbook are you using? I assume you're taking the AP Biology exam at some point. Some of it derives questions based on evolution. Does this text teach evolution and dismiss it, or not teach it at all? Based on your previous responses, you seem to know as much about evolution as one should for the exam, but I am curious. Also, thanks for the topic change. Was a good decision. As said before, will edit in a full response later. Yeah, I'll be taking the exam next year. The textbook... it teaches evolution... by dismissing it... sort of... not really... depends? (I really don't like how biased the book sounds.) Most of what I know about evolution comes from what I read by myself, not from the textbook, as crazy as that may sound... I read a lot~ (since, like I said before, I adore science.) As for the book... It's called "Exploring Creation with Biology (2nd Edition)." (I know, I know... The title says everything. :P) It's by Dr. Jay L. Wile and Marilyn F. Durnell. (Obviously some Christian scientists...) It's supposedly a good book for AP Bio... especially for homeschoolers like me. But really, I'd much prefer "normal" textbooks... ones with evolution in them. :P What don't you trust about the half-life methodology? It's accurate within satisfactory degrees, and even if off doesn't add credibility to your argument. That a fossil might be a percent or two off doesn't land it within reasonable bounds of young earth creationism by any stretch of the imagination? What is the King James bible? Right, the mountains of evidence that show the theory of evolution to be most effective are pointless, because some of science which was shaky at best at the time was shown to be false. I guess we can throw germ theory and atomic theory now. I guarantee at some point someone is going to ask you to substantiate your views and you're going to link to some nutcase site like answersingenesis. Calling it now. I read that carbon dating is (or can be) inaccurate... I don't know how credible these sources are, but... here are two links. Link 1. Link 2. If there's something you disagree with, say something... I'd like to hear what you have to say. Like I said, scientists seem highly subjective to what is or is not "evidence." They pick out what they want to believe, and neglect the rest. If they find information that conflicts with what they do... they ignore/get rid of it. What do you mean by "What is the King James Bible?" I really can't read it. The English is too... old. And... why the atomic theory? I believe in the atomic theory. I do. And a'wha? If someone asks me to substantiate my views... and I can't, then - oh well - I can't. I'll have lost a debate (sort of). I won't change my views... but I won't be able to change any else's either. By the way, this is actually the best part of science. Science constantly updates itself based on new discoveries and is always as correct as it can be at any given time. The Bible is never updated based on new information and thus is worth as much as a textbook old enough to claim that abiogenesis happens. You got a point there... and I understand why people don't believe in the Bible... It all comes down to faith, mostly. And America's supposed to be a "Christian" country. *HEH* Yeah, right... Too many non-believers to call it a Christian country now... What happened to pious colonial America? :( Or the reawakening period? *sigh* People pushing religion in general is an annoyance I'd like to see lessened, at least in the susceptible minds of children. At least we agree on this, to some degree. Hey, you're lucky you live in America... Religion is often pushed *more* in countries where there are a lot of missionaries and etc... sort of... Actually, I'm not really sure. :P But anyway, me? I... Hm... How should I say this... I consider myself a Christian by default, but... I don't think I have met Christ one-on-one yet... As in, I don't feel that I have an intimate relationship with the Lord... also, forcing a religion into a child... uh... I don't think it helps. In fact, that may prevent a child from wanting to be a Christian in the future... but not teaching a child His Word also seems un-Christian-like... I don't know. It's beyond me, IMO. My mom used it as a punishment, but I did not grow any resentment to the Bible. I actually enjoyed what I was reading (Genesis), and it only upset me to find out that I was reading the wrong part. As a scientist, it actually can be interesting to see what religions have to say on the creation of the world. Sure, you may not agree with those ideas, but it can be interesting, nevertheless... Well, in my opinion, at least. Interestingly enough, when I was a kid, I was in CCD, which was some kind of after-school Catholic-Christian thing. At some point they explained how the universe was made and I asked about evolution. They gave a pretty good answer. Went something like: "Who's to say that seven of God's days were as long as hours? They could represent the millions of years it took for the universe to be formed." Could we say that evolution is a mechanism of God? An interesting perspective, but so long as we're not covering our ears and shouting at the sight of scientific evidence... Yes, God's days may not have been hours. But evolution is not a work of God, I can say that. Why? God made men in his image. If He made some sort of ape first... then those apes became human, that's changing their image. God's image changes? Also, according the apes we supposedly evolved from were intellectually less capable the species Homo Sapiens today, right? Well, Adam and Eve, the first humans, were as capable mentally as humans today. They could distinguish right from wrong (after eating off of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil), they could feel emotions, and they could do etc. and etc. God called men the ruler of all animals for a reason. (I don't think he'd give that title to a bunch of hairy, humanoid animals...) I might not have been clear--Scorpion-men is a reference to the Epic of Gilgamesh. If we are to rely on old texts as fact, then could we not say what happened to Gilgamesh was true, too? Faith is faith, no matter what it is invested in. *nods* And my faith... You know where my faith is. I did not as much as some of my fellow students, but a lot of my friends looked at the Old Testament in their English class. I myself, looked at the Adam and Eve story and its parallels to the story of Prometheus in relation to Frankenstein. It's a fine piece of literature, and it's one of the most famous books of all time. No need to hate on the thing. It's more than a fine piece of literature. It's the truth. It's life. It's the key to Heaven. Whatever you say~ I will always stand by my beliefs. I might read the thing one day. Maybe if the text were a bit bigger. Haha... XD I don't see that happening... ever. No credible scientist would ever dare say what they do is 100% right without knowing it first. I don't know if you know much about scientific writing, but if you were to look at any scientific journal, you will note that they spend a lot of time covering their experimental procedure. This is because experiment results are only to be taken seriously if the experiment itself can be reliably recreated and re-performed. If data is twisted, then fraud is afoot. You can cover a lot of experimental procedures while twisting data. Just saying that it's possible~ Remember the scientist who fudged some data to say that the flu shot caused autism in children? Yeah, he's lost all credibility and is probably in some kind of facility. Maybe it is. I knew a family (this is a true story, by the way... It was... Let's see... back when I was 8.) who had three autistic children... According to their mother, they were completely normal... until they had some shot (I'm not sure what kind). THEN they became autistic. Don't know if that's crazy or what. Maybe just sheer chance? Dunno. Seems a bit too far'fetched for my taste. I'm no master chemist, so I cannot tell you how the half-life methodology works, but I have no reason to say it is untrustworthy. It is a generally accepted method of measuring date, and considering so many scientists use it, it has to be mostly truthful. Your superstition about carbon dating is like being sketchy about a scale telling the proper weight. The amount of Carbon-14 has fluctuated (greatly) over the period of millions of years. (Really, it wouldn't make sense if it stayed exactly the same for millions of years, now would it?) That can throw the carbon dating off track. Who's to say that part of Revelations wasn't added right after some guy added in a few parts or changed a bit? This is where it becomes muddy, but if you've ever taken a proper history class, you'd know that everything has bias. Historical documents, articles, etc. all have some sort of bias to them. I don't think John would corrupt the Word when he himself knew Jesus personally... He was one of the twelve disciples. And let me tell you - they were all faithful to Jesus. (Well, except for Judas Iscariot...) Does the Bible have bias? I don't know, but for something as old as it is, it would be insane to think that it did not have a few things changed about over the centuries. Oral tradition and all that. I am unfamiliar with who wrote the first Bible (John?), but I'm sure that even if he tried his best to record the word of God, it got corrupted (if only a bit) at some point. We will never know if the Bible in its current state is what it was intended to be. I don't think the Bible has scientific bias. Spiritual bias, maybe... but not scientific bias. I'm not sure who put the Bible together. But as for the individual books... They were written by many different authors. The Pentateuch (first five book of the Bible) was written by Moses. Psalms was written by King David... Many of the New Testament books were written by apostle Paul. But you're right, we don't know if the Bible is what it was in it's original form. But for the most part, it is. I will still stubbornly believe it, though. I think you'd find this interesting... The premise and basis are more likely than not the same, but you never know what was taken out and what wasn't, if at all. I'll admit, I'm no physics buff or astronomy buff, so I suppose it is all up to belief there (at least at my level of understanding). I'll get back to you when I get that PhD in astrophysics I had been meaning to obtain. I don't know if I'll ever get a Ph.D. It seems like so much work. Well, my Dad got a Ph.D. And getting a Ph.D. would make me a more prestigious doctor. ^^ Not. Too many people have Ph.D.'s for it too be "special." Still... maybe I will get one... eventually. You want proof for evolution, and now you call it overrated? Stick to your story, buddy. I was being sarcastic... :( I believe in proof. It's just very subjective... Yes, on both sides (Creationism and Theory of Evolution.) Plus, I'm an irrational teenager. Don't expect me to be up to your college standards. I am, don't worry. ^^ (I think...) The beauty of science is that it is constantly changing. It is ever expanding and ever-improving. While it is true that many of the things we accept today to be fact may not be true, it does not mean that they do not have basis in fact. People think of reasons to explain the natural world-- as technology expands, so does our understanding. Yes. Science is beautiful because of that. I am pro-science (just not pro-Theory of Evolution... as you already know). And yeah, our understanding is expanding. And one day, people will understand that we Christians were right all along. It's up to the individuals to choose that... 100 years in the future, we'll have too much to learn. :( Ugh... School. XD The original postulates in atomic theory were wrong... But they did have some kind of right idea. Over time, atomic theory was improved and better-defined. Even today, atomic theory is simply a theory. Molecular orbital theory is a theory. All of it, theory, but it is credible. Will our understanding of certain cellular processes and 'junk' DNA be disproved in the future? Time will tell, and more likely than not, a few things will be changed as time goes on. Junk DNA... I think it has a purpose. We just don't know yet, which is perfectly natural. Humans don't know everything. We'll learn as we go along. :) But one concept, that of evolution, is only going to become more and more clear. Perhaps some ideas we have will be wrong, but I feel the central idea will remain the same, or very similar. That's because scientist will kill off any other ideas. No really. Mainstream scientists don't allow the existence of any other theory as to how humans were created. They stomp out all and any competition. Other theories aren't even given a chance. You know that. :( What mechanics cause adaptive radiation? The answers to these questions, to give you your proof, are what scientists are working on to this very day. *sigh* Science, while very important, isn't the answer to everything, even though I think that way. Science is the answer to almost everything. :P Carbon dating has nothing to do with evolution. Carbon dating is only usable for remains within 60,000 years: if you go back further, it becomes extremely inaccurate. So I don't know why you brought it up. Fluctuations of carbon in the air, duh. Did I bring it up...? I don't remember. XD Evaluating the age of a fossil is actually more art than science, more based on an educated guess of when exactly the fossil was laid down based on where it was dug up, what condition it was in, and what other things can be found near it. It's more geology than chemistry. For example, one key way of dating fossils is by their proximity to index fossils in the same layer. If we know when trilobites existed, and we find a fossil in the same geologic layer as a trilobite fossil, we can extrapolate that they existed in the same era. I hardly understood what you said. I can't wait to go to college and further my education. As of now, I'm an indolent high schooler... And even though I may know quite a bit (maybe?), I'm still not at college-level. YOU'RE ALL TALKING TO A HIGH SCHOOLER, HERE, PEOPLE! CUT SOME SLACK! Or if you don't want to, don't. (Not gonna bother quoting stuff from the original post) Yeah. I wrote a lot. :P Dude, spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are not the same. Abiogenesis has not yet been falsified, and many (real, current) scientists still do relevant work on it : http://en.wikipedia....iki/Abiogenesis I know. Spontaneous generation has roughly a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of happening. Abiogenesis has a 0% chance. (I hardly see a difference.) And what? Abiogenesis has not yet been falsified? I never knew that. Cool. I wonder if they'll find something... probably not... And I don't understand what you mean when you say you "don't trust the half-life methodology." The differential equation is pretty simple: dc/dt = -kc, and this holds for nuclear decay processes in general, not just carbon-14. There are factors to nuclear decay, too, you know. I just can't provide proof. (I really can't... TBH, I know a lot more about astronomy than biology... mostly because I find astronomy more interesting. If I had read as much about biology as I did about astronomy, then maybe...) There is no "proof" in science the way there is in mathematics; whereas we "invented" mathematics and can therefore prove things rigorously, we didn't invent the laws of nature. Either some god figure did it or nature did it; either way, it means that scientists cannot prove scientific claims. On the other hand, we can certainly *disprove* scientific claims, and that is what distinguishes scientific theories: they must be falsifiable in principle. Nature... The chances just seem too slim. That, and it all seems too complex. It's mind-boggling to think of all those sciences out there. Chemistry and its subdivisions. Biology and its subdivisions. Astronomy and its subdivision. Physics and its subdivision. There's just so much. #_# For this reason, the Big Bang is considered science (since it is, in principle, falsifiable), whereas religious claims, whether or not they are true, cannot be falsified short of dying and meeting our makers, and hence cannot be considered science. The reason the BBT is the prevailing explanation for the start of the universe is that it has not yet been disproven by anything we've thrown at it. Yes, God made the universe. That disproves the BBT. Scientifically, yes. I still want to know whether there's enough mass in the universe to start the Big Crunch. XD Hm... Dat dark matter. Or, the universe could keep on expanding, reducing entropy, and rendering the universe uninhabitable. Red shifts... blue shifts... I love astronomy. <3 The Theory of Evolution is a joke. There are so many holes in it. But it's biggest hole is right at the start. Instead of believing in an omnipotent God who created all of the matter in the universe from nothing; Evolutionists believe in a "Big Bang" that created all of the matter in the universe out of nothing. Seriously? Thats somehow more believable than God? How does nothing spontaneously explode anyway? Are you being sarcastic? Why did this world have to become so scientific? Now people know too much and don't believe in God. Really, how does nothing become something (besides from being created by some divine being)? Then again, how does something become nothing? That's how black holes work. Stupid singularity. :P The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the singularity of space and time, or even the origination of life. Why is it seemingly every single person that is so adamant about evolution's lack of credibility is just so utterly ignorant of basic science? *AHEM* I know my science, mister. D:< Even though I got a 2 for AP Chem. OK, so share with us some of those holes (real holes that falsify evolution, not wrinkles that are merely left unexplained by our knowledge of evolution being too coarse). BTW the majority of Christians in the US don't even believe in intelligent design. Neither the Big Bang theory nor the theory of evolution precludes the existence of the Abrahamic God, so I always get confused when I see folks so convinced that scientists are co-conspirators in some sinister plot. Francis Collins, the director of the NIH, is a Catholic. Really? I never knew that. Makes sense, though, since schools don't teach anything, BUT evolution. The "Big Bang," IIRC, was actually a name for that the author of the theory came up with to ridicule the idea of the universe coming into existence through an explosion, because that doesn't actually describe how the theory goes and he thought that to suggest it sounded ridiculous, but people latched onto that name a lot more than "everything we see today began as an incredibly tiny, hot, and dense collection of matter and radiation, and expansion and cooling of this unimaginably intense mixture of particles and photons could have led to the present universe of of stars and galaxies, which explains several aspects of today's universe with impressive accuracy." (got out my astronomy textbook The Cosmological Perspective for that) Science does not claim to know the extreme conditions that must have existed in the first 10^-43 second of the history of the universe, called the Planck era (yes, this microscopic period of time was so important we have it its own God Damn Era to itself how badass is that), but what science has done is that it has at least been able extrapolate what followed, in a way that makes more sense than anything else that we've been able to test at that rigorous a level. Haha. XD Cool, I never knew that. This is why I like reading science debates. So much new information. New info~ <3 Leading us back to religion, I don't really care (that much) about picking at it, but that's IMO because when it's used correctly, religion seeks to describe why life is as it is, while science seeks to describe how life is as it is (see When Science meets Religion, by Ian Barbour, physics and theology professor). Science does not claim to know why that speck of matter was put there, but it does claim it can give the best possible explanation of how that speck of matter became the universe we know today, at least the best as far as the sum of all the testing and theorizing that has led us to our current consolidated theories, and I'll be damned if I let somebody who hasn't at least failed a summer astronomy class like me tell me otherwise. Religion.. okay dude I'm sorry, really, but religion was written by some dude, or some dudes who might've had divine insight a couple thousand years ago and had their message survive based on its strength, or they might have been high as fuck and been able to convince the most people that they had what sounded like the best idea at the time. The problem is that simply looking at their words, we have no proof whatsoever, and in fact as our observations of the universe continue to pile up and grow increasingly complex we actually have less and less proof that it's possible to treat, say, the Bible, as "Shit that Actually Happened," as opposed to "Stories that might change how you approach and think about life." Science is religion in a sense. People "think it's the best idea at the time," according to you. Maybe science will be "**** that Actually Happened," too someday. Maybe. Probably not. It rather makes sense, if you think about it, when you consider how much more "nothing" there is than "everything". The ratio of "nothing" to "everything", even on our own planet, is extremely skewed in favour of "nothing", even before you consider the vast emptiness of solar space, even before you consider the vaster emptiness of interstellar space, even before you consider the even vasterer emptiness of intergalactic space. ...Huh? Nothing... Everything...? I'm not following you. (I'm just thinking of matter and antimatter.) The Theory of Evolution is entirely separate from any theory about the origin of the universe. In fact, people who are creationists can still believe in evolution, and those who believe in evolution can disbelieve in the Big Bang. Try again. Yeah. True. So? The problem with evolution is that anytime a hole has been pointed out they just change what they believe to cover the holes. The Theory of Evolution has drastically changed throughout the last 100 or so years since Darwin 1st thought it up. There have been many hoaxes over the years that have been defuted and the explanation has always been that they just made a mistake. I dont know enough about current evolutionary beliefs, so im not going to continue discussing it. If anyone has anything to say about creationism, I will be able to join the discussion on that. So you weren't being sarcastic. (You're a Christian, too, I suppos. ^^) Well... I think I know enough about evolutionary beliefs... I think. Can you give example of such hoaxes? Are you saying that once an idea comes to fruition, it cannot change, and otherwise things are being made up? It is common knowledge that the theory Darwin thought up was wrong in some regard. He had no knowledge of genetics and their effects on the population. He had little idea on how these heritable traits to increase fitness worked. As we discovered more aspects of biology, they could be further applied to evolution. Evolution is the string that connects all fields of biology together. http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml Here is an insightful article, written, as you may notice decades ago, about how evolution ties so many things in biology. If you discredit the author, I suggest you do some research on who Dobzhanksy is, and what he has done. Should be credence enough. It's not always possible to bring up examples. *sigh* This feels like one of those times when my brother says that I *always* do something, and when I say, "Like when, huh?" he can't provide an example. Not because it's not there, but because he can't remember. :P Sorry for the messy format... I'm just being lazy. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 One long double post taken care of. Looks like it wasn't intentional, so don't sweat it~! Science is religion in a sense.People "think it's the best idea at the time," according to you. Maybe science will be "**** that Actually Happened," too someday. Maybe. Probably not. Science is NOT a religion. Science does not require faith to run; it's a way of proving things based off of what's in front of us. If there's no clear-cut methodology to (dis)prove something, then it falls outside of science's realm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peener weener Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 (edited) I'm I'm speechless I'm not gonna quote your post, cause it's fuckhuge. But it is fuckhuge, and it is completely devoid of content. First off: you keep trying to say that since God did this or that, then it is impossible that science is right. And that's all you say. This isn't how disproving something works. You need to have actual evidence. Which, as you've said... you don't. e.g.: "Yes, God made the universe. That disproves the BBT." "Yes, God's days may not have been hours. But evolution is not a work of God, I can say that. Why? God made men in his image. If He made some sort of ape first... then those apes became human, that's changing their image. God's image changes? Also, according the apes we supposedly evolved from were intellectually less capable the species Homo Sapiens today, right? Well, Adam and Eve, the first humans, were as capable mentally as humans today. They could distinguish right from wrong (after eating off of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil), they could feel emotions, and they could do etc. and etc. God called men the ruler of all animals for a reason. (I don't think he'd give that title to a bunch of hairy, humanoid animals...)" "It's more than a fine piece of literature. It's the truth. It's life. It's the key to Heaven. Whatever you say~ I will always stand by my beliefs." Speaking about evidence: you don't seem to understand how science works. I have no idea how you would ever describe science as a religion. It's constantly changing because we realize we were wrong about things, and disproving accepted models is actually encouraged. However, creationism isn't science. The main difference between science and creationism is that science is willing to change its views, while the whole point of creationism is being stubborn as fuck that your book is right, based almost entirely on faith. Also the fact that it isn't falsifiable. And then... most of your post was just. Going "Really? Ok then. But I'm a high school student." Somewhat unrelated: something that caught my attention were your comments on abiogenesis and black holes. You said spontaneous generation is a possibility. And that black holes are nothingness. You clearly don't know what either of these things are. You should try to stop going "You're wrong, you know. Well, I can't say why. You just are." Also, your passive aggressiveness can be a little aggravating at times. Tone it down. if you lived anywhere but america you'd probably be forced to keep your ass-backwards views hidden for the good of society Edited January 26, 2013 by Stolypin Necktie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doga Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Fire Emblem Fan, woah, bro, man. Learn to scientific notation. No need to stretch the screen, man. Seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwall Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 (edited) To be a competent scientist, you have to be willing to change your mind about what you think you know about science. God's existence or non-existence doesn't pose a challenge to the Big Bang theory. If, for example, the night sky were completely lit up in accordance with Olbers' paradox, that would be one of many possible things that would falsify the Big Bang. You haven't convinced anyone here that the Abrahamic God would be incapable of creating a gravitational singularity resulting in a Big Bang event. it's telling you didn't cite a single primary source. At least I linked to Francis Arnold's list of patents (which ought to convince free-market apologists of the veracity of her work, since people in industry are going to be using it in their products--I think Arnold's even got a couple of startups going) and a Wikipedia summary of a rather well-known and freely accessible PNAS article (it should be the first reference on the Wiki article). But now it's clear to me that you won't read any of it, at least not in an objective manner. And uh, did you even read the NYT article you cited? The Lamont-Doherty group indicated in that article that, yes, samples can be contaminated, and errors are going to result. Their results didn't suggest that radiometric dating as a whole is completely unreliable; even now in 2013, they continue to use it a lot in their work (just check out their website). Alan Zindler's worst-case scenario presented in that article is an error of 3,500 years for a sample estimated to be about 20,000 years old by both uranium-thorium and carbon-14 techniques; this isn't a sufficiently large error (it's about 16%) to overturn the whole of radiometric dating. You claim to be highly skeptical of scientists, yet the article you cited is based on research of people who accept the scientific consensus that radiometric dating is an imperfect but generally reliable technique. Conflating science with religious faith is highly disingenous. When performing science, we seek to understand and quantify regularities in the universe that can be studied in a reproducible way. People can and will reuse others' experimental procedures in their own experiments, making it all the more important to ensure that their findings are not statistical flukes. The only faith-like component involved is ensuring that are senses are reliable and, for example, that our instruments aren't playing tricks on us. Yet the former obviously requires decidedly less faith than being theistic; this is obvious when you consider than even devout believers have occasional moments of doubt. The latter is not a problem if you're careful. Religious faith, on the other hand, is highly personal and highly subjective; you need only look at the fact that there are so many branches of Christianity to determine that sincere believers can view their respective faiths in completely different ways; for example, since I'm sure you're Protestant, you must be familiar with the Arminianism vs. Calvinism debate. Your cutesy passive-aggressiveness just tells me you're too scared of losing your faith to really engage in a discussion based on reproducible evidence and the scientific method. The only claim against evolution you've presented is that it contradicts your interpretation of Genesis. And since I'm sure you'll say something like "well I'm not going to change your mind anyway xP" I just have to ask: why did you start this thread at all if you're not actually interested in science-based discussion? You're the one who mentioned near the beginning of the thread that "science and religion shouldn't mix." If evolution is false, then you ought to be able to falsify it with reproducible evidence on scientific rather than Scriptural grounds (Scriptural interpretations don't count as reproducible evidence since, for example, Arminians and Calvinists take the Bible as axiom and yet reach wildly different conclusions). But so far you have yet to cite any scientific sources, primary or otherwise, relating specifically to evolution, while others on this thread including myself have. Edited January 26, 2013 by Redwall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) I did not read the thread in its entirety, but it looks like no one is getting anywhere so I will start from ground zero. I apologize for any redundancy or tautology. I also apologize for any leaps I make without spelling them out; this will be long enough as it is and I may use intellectual shorthand. Redwall's post covers what I did not and is more specific, so refer to it if you already address science as a valid method. Otherwise, I think the groundwork of science and logical proof need to be addressed explicitly. Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion. Begging the question is one of the classic informal fallacies in Aristotle's Prior Analytics. Some modern authors consider begging the question to be a species of circulus in probando (Latin, "circle in proving") or circular reasoning. Were it not begging the question, the missing premise would render the argument viciously circular, and while never persuasive, arguments of the form "A therefore A" are logically valid. Thus, one could "fix" the fallacy by essentially taking the conclusion as given in the premises, but that would be uncharitable insofar as it ruins any rhetorical value in the original performance of an informal argument.The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof," in order to charitably entertain the argument, it must be taken as given "in some form of the very proposition to be proved, as a premise from which to deduce it". One must take it upon oneself that the goal, taken as given, is essentially the means to that end. The point of this thread is to discuss the rationality of evolutionary theory, isn't it? If so, then nothing can be assumed to be true because assumption is irrational. Every premise must be proven and explicitly stated before a debate can be started. If you find yourself assuming something, you are being irrational by definition. The rational method to discern truth from one's environment is to disregard everything that is not a logical axiom and make deductions from there based purely on what is directly observed. Every acceptable theory starts with basic observations such as, "I see a thing, I touch the thing, I smell the thing, and I hear the thing, therefore for it is practical to assume it exists." The next logical step is to run an experiment on the thing to discern the thing's other properties. For example: How does it taste? Once many experiments have been run on the thing such that the one analysing it gets the same results every time, they can assume for all intents and purposes that it both exists and has the properties that it appears to have. After this one thing has been analysed, they can move on to the next thing they observe. Once they have analysed several things, they can compare the individual properties of each and create a reference table of properties that apply to all things collectively. Each time that they analyse something new, they must compare the properties it has with the rest of the things they have. If its properties do not match the reference model based on the properties of the rest of the things analysed, then the previous reference model becomes expanded to include those properties. This reference model is a model of the universe as a whole. It is the collection of properties that have been observed to apply to all things. Evolutionary theory came about by analysing a wide variety of things and creating a very broad reference model that included things such as the speed at which entities move through space, how fast the universe itself is expanding to make room for it, how matter changes over time within that space, how particles can interact with each to create complex results, how such complex phenomena can interact to create organisms, and eventually how organisms interact with each other to create hierarchies of fertility. Finally, a theory is built based on how such interactions would develop throughout the time span estimated based on the universe's rate of expansion. The current model is incomplete because knowledge is inherently limited by the time it takes to perceive it and the quantum physics problem, but that does not mean that evolution is an irrational conclusion—like any widely accepted theory, it is the best rational explanation of the observed outcome we see today. Gravity is another theory that we accept similarly to evolution. We currently do not know everything about gravity, as we do not know everything about any specific thing—but we can observe it and find out how it works through experimentation all the same. Science is not a collection of ideas that the scientifically minded believe in absolutely. Science is not a collection of ideas at all. Science is this practice of seeing what happens when you do something and using the results to analyse the observed world. It is all fine and well to claim that the current model accepted by the scientific community could be false—that is not something that any scientist will deny if they actually believe in the scientific method. It is not fine to claim that the scientific method itself requires faith. Science is the very definition of rational thought applied to observed phenomena. People within the scientific community disagree with each other all of the time about unifying theories, but they are not foolish enough to deny the results of each others' experiments straight out unless they get different ones from the same experiment (meaning one of them did something wrong). On to the opposite side. Some of the creationists in this thread are assuming that a god created the universe as a basis for the claim that evolutionary theory is invalid. This assumption seems irrational to me and the vast majority of the scientific community for the same reason that we use consistency to analyse properties: unlike a basic rational analysis that starts with "I see a thing, feel the thing, and taste the thing", the thing called a deity is not observed. The first hypothesis that a rational person must test for any given entity is, "Does it exist consistently?" Theists nearly always make the mistake of forgoing experimentation to prove this claim with rational thought and simply assume it straight out. When the theist is pressed to experiment to prove their hypothesis, they are faced with a problem: how do you experiment on something that you cannot interact with? The rationalisation I have encountered is to take something and say that it happened that way because of a god. But they contradict themselves directly afterwards. When something happens contrary to their example, they claim that a god did that as well, or at least allowed it. Because the claim is the same no matter what result you get, the result does not help to prove the hypothesis at all. A claim is accepted as valid when you can predict the result every time, not when you have the same explanation for every result after the fact. Some theists argue that you can interact with certain deities through prayer, but this claim falls prey to the same faulty reasoning. When a prayer gets answered, this theist claims that the answer proves god exists. When the same prayer does not get answered for someone with equal or greater need, this theist claims that god still exists, but that he works in mysterious ways, or resorts to some other rationalisation. If you cannot get consistent results but insist in resorting to the claim that every result proves the existence of god, you end up denying that results prove anything at all, which devalues the idea that they prove god exists in the first place. Logically: True result = God False result = God God (true) = God (false) True = False The problem should be obvious. It mocks reason on a fundamental level. In a binary if-then statement, the opposite claim must also be true for it to be proven logic. Example: "If an animal has a tail, it's mother was a dog." The opposite: "If an animal does not have a tail, it's mother was not a dog." The first statement and the second statement do not contradict each other, and if the first statement is true, the second must be as well. This claim is proven true. The theists' claim: "If you return true in the experiment, then God exists." The opposite: "If you return false in the experiment, then God does not exist." This logic is proven true, but the theist will invariably deny that the opposite is true despite the fact that a logical proof demands it. If the theist can come up with an experiment for which the claim and its opposite are both true and they consistently get a specific result, then they would be making a rational observation. (e.g. When you pray for X thing under Y conditions, you get Z result every time.) However, no existing model of a deity gives consistent results when tested. Thus it is irrational to assume that one exists. There are other models that give more consistent results, and that makes them better by default because they can be used with predictive consistency while the assumption of a deity cannot. On to evolution and creation coexistence, and my summary. The results of the experiments that led to evolutionary theory would remain unchanged even if you assumed that a god existed. It is foolish to deny consistent results no matter what premise you want to believe. It is also a cold hard fact that the results we have gotten from applying the scientific method to observed reality do not line up with religious texts. However, it is possible that a deity set the universe we have observed in motion. That idea does not defy reason because it respects pragmatism and deduction. The only problem with that assumption is that there is still no way to prove that a god exists in such a case, so the point becomes moot anyway. It is a useless assumption at best since the universe is just as pragmatic without it. Edited January 27, 2013 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) Stop comparing science to religion. Science is based on evidence (things that can be observed in the real world). Religions require faith. You can't come to science expecting things to be based of of your god, because guess what there is no evidence for your god. If you want to believe it thats fine, but don't go thinking that science has to cradle your beliefs. If you actually belief that evolution is wrong, that's fine, but you can't bring creationism as a way to substitute it, or as an argument because creationism is based on faith. What you would need to do is make your own theory accounting for all of the data acquired. It must also be falsifiable (i.e. it must have things that can be tested and must have predictions on the outcome of these tests). Also, just an fyi, an ever expanding universe increases entropy. Like I said, scientists seem highly subjective to what is or is not "evidence." They pick out what they want to believe, and neglect the rest. If they find information that conflicts with what they do... they ignore/get rid of it. Then that is not scientific and therefore, those people you speak of are not scientists. A good scientist never ignores data that conflicts his theory. In fact a good scientist improves his theory to accommodate for the data that is in conflict. How do you think we went from the greeks to the Copernican model of the solar system to what we have today? You think that if people had ignored data, Kepler would have been able to derive his laws? No, had he done what you said he would have simply ignored the discrepancies in the data acquired by Tycho Brahe. Why do we have Uranus as a planet now as opposed to just ignoring it because it didn't fit in with the model of the solar system before it was discovered? There are many theories that have gone through this process. What are you smoking? Edited January 27, 2013 by SlayerX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I read that carbon dating is (or can be) inaccurate... While incorrect, it's irrelevant. Carbon dating has nothing to do with dating fossils, as it has a maximum effective "range" of about 50,000 years. Like I said, scientists seem highly subjective to what is or is not "evidence."They pick out what they want to believe, and neglect the rest. If they find information that conflicts with what they do... they ignore/get rid of it. When a scientist puts forth claims, they are held to the scrutiny of the entire community. The theory of evolution did not arrive to its credible state by a few people picking and choosing what they believe. It's foundational to our modern understanding of biology. What do you mean by "What is the King James Bible?" Do you think the King James Bible has had no words changed relative to the original Greek and Aramaic texts? And a'wha? If someone asks me to substantiate my views... and I can't, then - oh well - I can't. I'll have lost a debate (sort of).I won't change my views... but I won't be able to change any else's either. You will likely change your views when you finally take note of the falsity of your worldview. Unless you are extremely thick-headed, you will probably modify your current philosophy because you are simply unaware of what you are discussing. And America's supposed to be a "Christian" country. *HEH* Yeah, right... Too many non-believers to call it a Christian country now... America is not supposed to be a Christian country, but more than three-quarters of the entire United States identifies as some form of Christian. The country itself is secular, but most of its people are religious. Yes, God's days may not have been hours. But evolution is not a work of God, I can say that. Why? God made men in his image. If He made some sort of ape first... then those apes became human, that's changing their image. God's image changes? Also, according the apes we supposedly evolved from were intellectually less capable the species Homo Sapiens today, right? Well, Adam and Eve, the first humans, were as capable mentally as humans today. They could distinguish right from wrong (after eating off of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil), they could feel emotions, and they could do etc. and etc. So you are interpreting all language you read in the Bible as literal? You realize the problem with this, since the majority of what is written is translated to fit modern Christianity's worldview right? One example being that the original text does not mention time spans of days, but the equivalent of ages. Essentially then you are dismissing valid scientific evidence that shows how the world actually works because you are interpreting an improper translation in a literal fashion. Which is insanely silly. God called men the ruler of all animals for a reason. (I don't think he'd give that title to a bunch of hairy, humanoid animals...) Given that humans are hairy, humanoid animals... It's more than a fine piece of literature. It's the truth. It's life. It's the key to Heaven. Which is the key to Heaven? All books? Even those not included in Biblical canon? Example: How many wives did Adam have? The amount of Carbon-14 has fluctuated (greatly) over the period of millions of years. (Really, it wouldn't make sense if it stayed exactly the same for millions of years, now would it?) That can throw the carbon dating off track. That it's fluctuated greatly over millions of years doesn't matter, since carbon dating is used over thousands of years. And the fact that yes, there were different amounts back then, doesn't change that there are corrections which are made by scientists every day to ensure accuracy in dating. Once again, please learn what you are talking about before you argue against it. It makes you look less astoundingly ignorant. I don't think John would corrupt the Word when he himself knew Jesus personally... He was one of the twelve disciples. And let me tell you - they were all faithful to Jesus. (Well, except for Judas Iscariot...) You literally just argued against your point with an established character that would throw it into doubt. That's because scientist will kill off any other ideas. No really. Mainstream scientists don't allow the existence of any other theory as to how humans were created. They stomp out all and any competition. Other theories aren't even given a chance. You know that. :( They're given the same chance as any other worldview, they're merely not up to the rigors of science because they tend to be babble spoken by religious kooks. The possibility of evolution being thrown out is minute because of the fact that it has such an established base of evidence. Think of it like Einstein's theory of relativity and Sir Isaac Newton's. The latter's wasn't thrown out but adapted to more accurately represent reality. It was improved upon rather than discarded because it was clearly already a proper model, just not as perfect as it could be. The same is true of evolution. Barring some enormous revelation that forces us to have to redraw the maps of biology, we're simply not going to be discarding the theory of evolution. It would behoove you to begin learning evolutionary biology at your earliest convenience, because it's here to stay. *AHEM*I know my science, mister. D:< Even though I got a 2 for AP Chem. No. You simply do not. You have expressed your lack of knowledge in the specific subject you are arguing is invalid, in fact. I am not being antagonistic when I say you do not know what you are talking about. You have admitted you have no evidence to back yourself yet take a position. You are willfully ignorant, and as a functioning, intelligent person you should be ashamed of that. But you aren't. Yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruity Insanity Posted January 27, 2013 Author Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) Fire Emblem Fan, woah, bro, man. Learn to scientific notation. No need to stretch the screen, man. Seriously. I know how to use the scientific notation. I just didn't to emphasize how small that number is. :) (1x10150 doesn't have the same... feel to it.) To be a competent scientist, you have to be willing to change your mind about what you think you know about science. I don't want to be a scientist. I want to be a doctor. And you know, what you said works both ways. Why is it that the theory of evolution is the correct answer? Are you willing to accept changes? ... I didn't think so. God's existence or non-existence doesn't pose a challenge to the Big Bang theory. If, for example, the night sky were completely lit up in accordance with Olbers' paradox, that would be one of many possible things that would falsify the Big Bang. You haven't convinced anyone here that the Abrahamic God would be incapable of creating a gravitational singularity resulting in a Big Bang event. ... it's telling you didn't cite a single primary source. At least I linked to Francis Arnold's list of patents (which ought to convince free-market apologists of the veracity of her work, since people in industry are going to be using it in their products--I think Arnold's even got a couple of startups going) and a Wikipedia summary of a rather well-known and freely accessible PNAS article (it should be the first reference on the Wiki article). But now it's clear to me that you won't read any of it, at least not in an objective manner. Yup. ^^ I have other things to read. :( Like my super thick AP US History book... And uh, did you even read the NYT article you cited? The Lamont-Doherty group indicated in that article that, yes, samples can be contaminated, and errors are going to result. Their results didn't suggest that radiometric dating as a whole is completely unreliable; even now in 2013, they continue to use it a lot in their work (just check out their website). Alan Zindler's worst-case scenario presented in that article is an error of 3,500 years for a sample estimated to be about 20,000 years old by both uranium-thorium and carbon-14 techniques; this isn't a sufficiently large error (it's about 16%) to overturn the whole of radiometric dating. You claim to be highly skeptical of scientists, yet the article you cited is based on research of people who accept the scientific consensus that radiometric dating is an imperfect but generally reliable technique. Not really. XD I was just throwing things out there. No credibility whatsoever, I know. Then again, it's not like you care about what I say anyway... :( Conflating science with religious faith is highly disingenous. When performing science, we seek to understand and quantify regularities in the universe that can be studied in a reproducible way. People can and will reuse others' experimental procedures in their own experiments, making it all the more important to ensure that their findings are not statistical flukes. The only faith-like component involved is ensuring that are senses are reliable and, for example, that our instruments aren't playing tricks on us. Yet the former obviously requires decidedly less faith than being theistic; this is obvious when you consider than even devout believers have occasional moments of doubt. The latter is not a problem if you're careful. Okay. Religious faith, on the other hand, is highly personal and highly subjective; you need only look at the fact that there are so many branches of Christianity to determine that sincere believers can view their respective faiths in completely different ways; for example, since I'm sure you're Protestant, you must be familiar with the Arminianism vs. Calvinism debate. I've already agreed to this many times. Yes, religious faith is highly personal. I say nothing against that. ... And no, I'm not familiar with that debate. I really don't do much research on religion, you know. I'm a Christian, not a professor. Never mind. Your cutesy passive-aggressiveness just tells me you're too scared of losing your faith to really engage in a discussion based on reproducible evidence and the scientific method. The only claim against evolution you've presented is that it contradicts your interpretation of Genesis. And since I'm sure you'll say something like "well I'm not going to change your mind anyway xP" I just have to ask: why did you start this thread at all if you're not actually interested in science-based discussion? You're the one who mentioned near the beginning of the thread that "science and religion shouldn't mix." If evolution is false, then you ought to be able to falsify it with reproducible evidence on scientific rather than Scriptural grounds (Scriptural interpretations don't count as reproducible evidence since, for example, Arminians and Calvinists take the Bible as axiom and yet reach wildly different conclusions). But so far you have yet to cite any scientific sources, primary or otherwise, relating specifically to evolution, while others on this thread including myself have. ^^ Passive aggressiveness? I never knew aggression could be passive... but if it can, then yes, that's how I am, TBH. And no, I don't want to lose faith. I don't want to not believe. I don't want to doubt. You can mock me. You can provide proof, but I don't want to stray. I hope you can respect that. Oh, and I already said "I'm not going to change your mind anyway." I really said that... somewhere in one of my long posts... I said, "Really, why are we doing this? I'm not going to change your views; nor you, mine. I don't know why I started this. XD I just... did. :P And hey, I don't have anything to cite. Plus, citing isn't everything... *sigh* I don't know... I did not read the thread in its entirety, but it looks like no one is getting anywhere so I will start from ground zero. I apologize for any redundancy or tautology. I also apologize for any leaps I make without spelling them out; this will be long enough as it is and I may use intellectual shorthand. Redwall's post covers what I did not and is more specific, so refer to it if you already address science as a valid method. Otherwise, I think the groundwork of science and logical proof need to be addressed explicitly. The point of this thread is to discuss the rationality of evolutionary theory, isn't it? If so, then nothing can be assumed to be true because assumption is irrational. Every premise must be proven and explicitly stated before a debate can be started. If you find yourself assuming something, you are being irrational by definition. All religions are irrational, by your definition. Plus, who doesn't assume things? Every one of you does at times. We're all irrational. Scientists are often irrational, though this has been diminishing lately. The rational method to discern truth from one's environment is to disregard everything that is not a logical axiom and make deductions from there based purely on what is directly observed. Every acceptable theory starts with basic observations such as, "I see a thing, I touch the thing, I smell the thing, and I hear the thing, therefore for it is practical to assume it exists." The next logical step is to run an experiment on the thing to discern the thing's other properties. For example: How does it taste? Once many experiments have been run on the thing such that the one analysing it gets the same results every time, they can assume for all intents and purposes that it both exists and has the properties that it appears to have. After this one thing has been analysed, they can move on to the next thing they observe. Once they have analysed several things, they can compare the individual properties of each and create a reference table of properties that apply to all things collectively. Each time that they analyse something new, they must compare the properties it has with the rest of the things they have. If its properties do not match the reference model based on the properties of the rest of the things analysed, then the previous reference model becomes expanded to include those properties. This reference model is a model of the universe as a whole. It is the collection of properties that have been observed to apply to all things. Evolutionary theory came about by analysing a wide variety of things and creating a very broad reference model that included things such as the speed at which entities move through space, how fast the universe itself is expanding to make room for it, how matter changes over time within that space, how particles can interact with each to create complex results, how such complex phenomena can interact to create organisms, and eventually how organisms interact with each other to create hierarchies of fertility. Finally, a theory is built based on how such interactions would develop throughout the time span estimated based on the universe's rate of expansion. The current model is incomplete because knowledge is inherently limited by the time it takes to perceive it and the quantum physics problem, but that does not mean that evolution is an irrational conclusion—like any widely accepted theory, it is the best rational explanation of the observed outcome we see today. Gravity is another theory that we accept similarly to evolution. We currently do not know everything about gravity, as we do not know everything about any specific thing—but we can observe it and find out how it works through experimentation all the same. Science is not a collection of ideas that the scientifically minded believe in absolutely. Science is not a collection of ideas at all. Science is this practice of seeing what happens when you do something and using the results to analyse the observed world. *ahem* Science isn't a collection of ideas? For some reason, I disagree with that... It is all fine and well to claim that the current model accepted by the scientific community could be false—that is not something that any scientist will deny if they actually believe in the scientific method. It is not fine to claim that the scientific method itself requires faith. Science is the very definition of rational thought applied to observed phenomena. People within the scientific community disagree with each other all of the time about unifying theories, but they are not foolish enough to deny the results of each others' experiments straight out unless they get different ones from the same experiment (meaning one of them did something wrong). On to the opposite side. Some of the creationists in this thread are assuming that a god created the universe as a basis for the claim that evolutionary theory is invalid. This assumption seems irrational to me and the vast majority of the scientific community for the same reason that we use consistency to analyse properties: unlike a basic rational analysis that starts with "I see a thing, feel the thing, and taste the thing", the thing called a deity is not observed. The first hypothesis that a rational person must test for any given entity is, "Does it exist consistently?" Theists nearly always make the mistake of forgoing experimentation to prove this claim with rational thought and simply assume it straight out. What's wrong with people today...? For ages, people believed in things they didn't see/touch/hear/whatever. I don't see why people today require so much solid proof. You know, Jesus actually criticized humanity because of this, asking why they needed to see to believe. Faith may be stupid to some, but to others, it's very important. You shouldn't dismiss people, calling them irrational, just because of faith - an assumption. That's calling more than half of the human population irrational, which is entirely not true. When the theist is pressed to experiment to prove their hypothesis, they are faced with a problem: how do you experiment on something that you cannot interact with? The rationalisation I have encountered is to take something and say that it happened that way because of a god. But they contradict themselves directly afterwards. When something happens contrary to their example, they claim that a god did that as well, or at least allowed it. Because the claim is the same no matter what result you get, the result does not help to prove the hypothesis at all. A claim is accepted as valid when you can predict the result every time, not when you have the same explanation for every result after the fact. Some theists argue that you can interact with certain deities through prayer, but this claim falls prey to the same faulty reasoning. When a prayer gets answered, this theist claims that the answer proves god exists. When the same prayer does not get answered for someone with equal or greater need, this theist claims that god still exists, but that he works in mysterious ways, or resorts to some other rationalisation. The reason may be faulty, but... I don't know. I really don't have much knowledge on any of this. If you cannot get consistent results but insist in resorting to the claim that every result proves the existence of god, you end up denying that results prove anything at all, which devalues the idea that they prove god exists in the first place. Logically: True result = God False result = God God (true) = God (false) True = False The problem should be obvious. It mocks reason on a fundamental level. In a binary if-then statement, the opposite claim must also be true for it to be proven logic. Example: "If an animal has a tail, it's mother was a dog." The opposite: "If an animal does not have a tail, it's mother was not a dog." The first statement and the second statement do not contradict each other, and if the first statement is true, the second must be as well. This claim is proven true. The theists' claim: "If you return true in the experiment, then God exists." The opposite: "If you return false in the experiment, then God does not exist." This logic is proven true, but the theist will invariably deny that the opposite is true despite the fact that a logical proof demands it. If the theist can come up with an experiment for which the claim and its opposite are both true and they consistently get a specific result, then they would be making a rational observation. (e.g. When you pray for X thing under Y conditions, you get Z result every time.) However, no existing model of a deity gives consistent results when tested. Thus it is irrational to assume that one exists. There are other models that give more consistent results, and that makes them better by default because they can be used with predictive consistency while the assumption of a deity cannot. On to evolution and creation coexistence, and my summary. The results of the experiments that led to evolutionary theory would remain unchanged even if you assumed that a god existed. It is foolish to deny consistent results no matter what premise you want to believe. It is also a cold hard fact that the results we have gotten from applying the scientific method to observed reality do not line up with religious texts. However, it is possible that a deity set the universe we have observed in motion. That idea does not defy reason because it respects pragmatism and deduction. The only problem with that assumption is that there is still no way to prove that a god exists in such a case, so the point becomes moot anyway. It is a useless assumption at best since the universe is just as pragmatic without it. o_O You people scare me. No really. You do. God exists. To me, that is. Whether he does to you or not, is up to you... :( Stop comparing science to religion. Science is based on evidence (things that can be observed in the real world). Religions require faith. You can't come to science expecting things to be based of of your god, because guess what there is no evidence for your god. If you want to believe it thats fine, but don't go thinking that science has to cradle your beliefs. If you actually belief that evolution is wrong, that's fine, but you can't bring creationism as a way to substitute it, or as an argument because creationism is based on faith. What you would need to do is make your own theory accounting for all of the data acquired. It must also be falsifiable (i.e. it must have things that can be tested and must have predictions on the outcome of these tests). Fine, science used to be like religion. Happy now? Also, just an fyi, an ever expanding universe increases entropy. Oh, I must've forgotten. XD Then that is not scientific and therefore, those people you speak of are not scientists. A good scientist never ignores data that conflicts his theory. In fact a good scientist improves his theory to accommodate for the data that is in conflict. How do you think we went from the greeks to the Copernican model of the solar system to what we have today? You think that if people had ignored data, Kepler would have been able to derive his laws? No, had he done what you said he would have simply ignored the discrepancies in the data acquired by Tycho Brahe. Why do we have Uranus as a planet now as opposed to just ignoring it because it didn't fit in with the model of the solar system before it was discovered? There are many theories that have gone through this process. What are you smoking? I'm not smoking anything... While incorrect, it's irrelevant. Carbon dating has nothing to do with dating fossils, as it has a maximum effective "range" of about 50,000 years. Okay, whatever. No point in arguing... When a scientist puts forth claims, they are held to the scrutiny of the entire community. The theory of evolution did not arrive to its credible state by a few people picking and choosing what they believe. It's foundational to our modern understanding of biology. Or so they say... Do you think the King James Bible has had no words changed relative to the original Greek and Aramaic texts? Words, yes. Context, no. The Bible has remained surprisingly unchanged for thousands of years. Many people copied word for word. In fact, they even counted the number of consonants in what they copied, making sure that they numbers were equal. Yes, they want that far. Also, when comparing the Bible from 1800 years ago, it's still the same as the Bible now. The Bible is as, no, more, credible than works by Plato, Aristotle, or Socrates. You can't disagree with that. There are tens of thousands of manuscripts pertaining to the Bible. While there are a lot for those ancient philosophers, the number isn't as high as that^ one... You will likely change your views when you finally take note of the falsity of your worldview. Unless you are extremely thick-headed, you will probably modify your current philosophy because you are simply unaware of what you are discussing. I'n extremely thick-headed. Whether or not my worldview is false is subjective. To you, it isn't. To me, it is. Go ahead. Mock me. America is not supposed to be a Christian country, but more than three-quarters of the entire United States identifies as some form of Christian. The country itself is secular, but most of its people are religious. Religious? If someone believes in evolution, then by default, he/she is not Christian, I can say that much. So you are interpreting all language you read in the Bible as literal? Maybe not Genesis, but the rest: yes. You realize the problem with this, since the majority of what is written is translated to fit modern Christianity's worldview right? One example being that the original text does not mention time spans of days, but the equivalent of ages. Okay...? So...? Essentially then you are dismissing valid scientific evidence that shows how the world actually works because you are interpreting an improper translation in a literal fashion. Which is insanely silly. Call me crazy. Given that humans are hairy, humanoid animals... That's not what I meant... :P Which is the key to Heaven? All books? Even those not included in Biblical canon? Example: How many wives did Adam have? "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me." Jesus is the key. The Bible is the key to understanding Jesus. That it's fluctuated greatly over millions of years doesn't matter, since carbon dating is used over thousands of years. And the fact that yes, there were different amounts back then, doesn't change that there are corrections which are made by scientists every day to ensure accuracy in dating. Once again, please learn what you are talking about before you argue against it. It makes you look less astoundingly ignorant. I'm astoundingly ignorant. And yes, I don't know much about what I'm talking about. :P Again, no use of arguing with that. You literally just argued against your point with an established character that would throw it into doubt. Okay. ^^ I'm... not up to your level, so that makes sense. They're given the same chance as any other worldview, they're merely not up to the rigors of science because they tend to be babble spoken by religious kooks. The possibility of evolution being thrown out is minute because of the fact that it has such an established base of evidence. Think of it like Einstein's theory of relativity and Sir Isaac Newton's. The latter's wasn't thrown out but adapted to more accurately represent reality. It was improved upon rather than discarded because it was clearly already a proper model, just not as perfect as it could be. No. They aren't. They aren't. Like what you're doing. You scoff me for my beliefs. The same is true of evolution. Barring some enormous revelation that forces us to have to redraw the maps of biology, we're simply not going to be discarding the theory of evolution. It would behoove you to begin learning evolutionary biology at your earliest convenience, because it's here to stay. You're not going to discard the theory of evolution... So, then, are you suggesting that we humans will eventually be, say, alien-like? According to the theory of evolution, we aren't going to stay the same unless our environment stays that same... which isn't true. Our environment is constantly changing. No. You simply do not. You have expressed your lack of knowledge in the specific subject you are arguing is invalid, in fact. Okay. I don't. I'll admit that. Gee, you people are so discouraging. I am not being antagonistic when I say you do not know what you are talking about. You have admitted you have no evidence to back yourself yet take a position. You are willfully ignorant, and as a functioning, intelligent person you should be ashamed of that. In my eyes, you're being antagonistic. Besides, aren't all humans ignorant? Like you said, you won't be discarding the theory of evolution anytime soon. Why? Because, since you have "solid" facts, you believe that it's true. If someone came along and disapproved the theory, you wouldn't accept it. At least not in the beginning... You, too, would be ignorant. The new ideas were always pushed aside. The idea that the world was round - who believed that when people first suggested it? Not many people. They were ignorant The idea that the earth revolves around the sun - who believed it? People are naturally ignorant. I'm stubborn; you're stubborn; we're all stubborn. Right? But you aren't. Yet. The only time I'll feel bad is... never. I will hold strong to my beliefs. You just make things harder. :( I don't think I'll comment any more here... As you all pointed out, I'm an ignorant teenager who knows and contributes little to this discussion. Thanks for all the new info, by the way. I learned quite a few things. ^^ (Mostly that I'll never ever be able to convince people that the theory of evolution is wrong...) I'll just continue to believe what I believe, while you believe what you believe. We'll (or at least, I'll) leave it at that. Continue the discussion if you'd like to... I just won't be commenting. (Maybe I'll read, though. You know, to see what you "right" people have to say... *sigh* Edit: One long double post taken care of. Looks like it wasn't intentional, so don't sweat it~! Thanks, eclipse. :) Edit 2: Don't even bother reading my post. It's "worthless, devoid-of-anything, crappy" opinions anyway. :( I clearly don't know what I'm talking about - if that's what you all think, then that's how you all think. I can't change that. Edited January 27, 2013 by fireemblemfan4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constable Reggie Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) Religious? If someone believes in evolution, then by default, he/she is not Christian, I can say that much. You don't seriously believe this, do you? Faith may be stupid to some, but to others, it's very important. Er.. You shouldn't dismiss people, calling them irrational, just because of faith - an assumption. That's calling more than half of the human population irrational, which is entirely not true. Um.. Like what you're doing. You scoff me for my beliefs. You're missing the point in all this. No one's scoffing at you because of your beliefs, they're scoffing at the ignorance itself. You're disregarding everything everyone is saying, and you're even acknowledging that you're doing it. What would you think if someone, confronted by your argument of creationism, simply said, "psh, fuck all those lies, none of that christianity stuff is true because according to my argument, that I believe in hinduism, it doesn't exist. I refuse to acknowledge your argument"? Also, the criteria for being religious is not "you must believe in creationism", that's ridiculous. Religion offers the one important thing that science can't answer, and that's the answer to the question of "why?". Faith gives them satisfaction in life that science can't give. That's why people are religious, not because they believe in creationism. I have to admit, it's pretty disheartening to see someone trying to paint religion as harshly as you are. Maybe not Genesis, but the rest: yes. Malachi 2:3, should I be afraid that if I don't honor God's name, he will shit on my face? Edited January 27, 2013 by Constable Reggie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) All religions are irrational, by your definition.Plus, who doesn't assume things? Every one of you does at times. We're all irrational. Scientists are often irrational, though this has been diminishing lately. The fact that some people assume things has nothing to do with the independent verification of data that the scientific method involves. Some scientists can and do in fact falsify data, whether knowingly or otherwise. That is why there are techniques used to more accurately experiment and verify data, such as double-blinding. *ahem*Science isn't a collection of ideas? For some reason, I disagree with that... Science is the method by which we are able to understand the nature of our world. Linguistically the word often refers to the collective body of knowledge we've formed through its use, but technically it's just the means we employ to explain phenomena we have yet to understand. What's wrong with people today...?For ages, people believed in things they didn't see/touch/hear/whatever. I don't see why people today require so much solid proof. For ages people did not bathe more than a few times their lives. For ages people lived in holes dug in the ground. For ages people killed others for simply not being of the same tribe of people. I can go on and on. The fact that people ask for evidence of the existence of something that is suspect, especially something so all-important as a deity, is completely understandable from any sane point of view. You know, Jesus actually criticized humanity because of this, asking why they needed to see to believe. That's right. Jesus said that faith can literally move mountains. Which has never happened. So there's that. You shouldn't dismiss people, calling them irrational, just because of faith - an assumption.That's calling more than half of the human population irrational, which is entirely not true. It's absolutely true. People are very irrational sometimes. Having faith isn't always a bad thing, but when you're actively refusing to accept clear truth because of an ingrained view of yours, you're only hurting yourself. Okay, whatever. No point in arguing... There is no point in arguing because you are unarguably wrong. Don't back away from this and put your fingers in your ears when I just showed you why the argument you put forth doesn't even attack the idea you're attempting to discredit. Carbon dating is to date material that was once living, and only to 50,000 years, whereas the fossil record is composed of findings that go back millions and billions of years. Or so they say... Or so the entire field of biology says. That is correct. Just like most of the world says that dirt is not nutritious. Words, yes. Context, no. Words have everything to do with context. I can say "I" (myself) in several different ways in Japanese and receive a range of reactions from giggling to shocked offense. The Bible has remained surprisingly unchanged for thousands of years. You seriously do not even understand your own religion and it is honestly starting to get to me. Many people copied word for word.In fact, they even counted the number of consonants in what they copied, making sure that they numbers were equal. There is no way you can copy complex meanings of an entire dozens-book tome word for word. Languages don't dovetail like that. Also, when comparing the Bible from 1800 years ago, it's still the same as the Bible now. Which Bible? There are dozens of translations in use today, and any number of them say radically different things in many different passages. The Bible is as, no, more, credible than works by Plato, Aristotle, or Socrates.You can't disagree with that. I absolutely can, but it's not relevant to the objective accuracy of the Bible. I'n extremely thick-headed.Whether or not my worldview is false is subjective. To you, it isn't. To me, it is. Go ahead. Mock me. Whether you are wrong or not is absolute. One of the two of us is definitely incorrect. The fact that you acknowledge your thick-headedness doesn't improve your odds. Religious? If someone believes in evolution, then by default, he/she is not Christian, I can say that much. You can say that much but you'd be an extreme minority ignored by most others, such as the Catholic church. They acknowledge Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. They are all of them absolutely Christian. Maybe not Genesis, but the rest: yes. Can God be seen? Okay...? So...? So, and this will blow you away, but it just so happens that the word "day" is radically different in interpretation from the word "age." This is to help illustrate to you how many of today's modern translations of the original texts are inaccurate because of a lack of equivalency between the two languages. I'm astoundingly ignorant.And yes, I don't know much about what I'm talking about. :P Again, no use of arguing with that. So admit that you have no clue what you're talking about and walk away. Don't act as though you have any inkling as to what you're saying and hold up an argument you can't possibly defend. You don't know that evolution is false, because you don't even know what evolution is. No. They aren't.They aren't. They are, so long as they are presented in a fashion that is falsifiable. If it's not something that science can test it won't be tested, obviously. Like what you're doing. You scoff me for my beliefs. I absolutely am scoffing at you. You're ignorant, willfully so, and probably because you are young. I was young and (more) stupid, quite a devout Christian myself. I grew out of it, and you'll probably at least soften your outrageously stupid beliefs as you grow and actually learn what you're talking about. You're not going to discard the theory of evolution...So, then, are you suggesting that we humans will eventually be, say, alien-like? No, I am not suggesting that, and I have no idea how such a question would congeal in your mind. According to the theory of evolution, we aren't going to stay the same unless our environment stays that same... which isn't true.Our environment is constantly changing. That's correct. Given that our environment is constantly changing, so are we. Of course the pressures are changed given how we interact with nature, but natural selection won't stop simply because we became very adaptable to our surroundings. In my eyes, you're being antagonistic.Besides, aren't all humans ignorant? Yes. You are simply more ignorant, specifically in this subject. If someone came along and disapproved the theory, you wouldn't accept it. At least not in the beginning...You, too, would be ignorant. This is correct. I would be in utter disbelief were someone to disprove part of the base of our understanding of biology. But I'd eventually accept it if it were found to be true. The idea that the world was round - who believed that when people first suggested it? Not many people. They were ignorant Most people believed that. The notion that the Earth is round is an ancient one, which has been widely believed for thousands of years. The idea that the earth revolves around the sun - who believed it? People are naturally ignorant. Ironically, the ones who refused to adopt heliocentrism were religious zealots that could not accept the violation of their sacred view of the world. You are the modern version of these people. I will hold strong to my beliefs. This is what everyone who has ever argued seriously believes. No one enters into a debate on the merits of their personal beliefs thinking they are wrong. If they did they wouldn't hold the beliefs they do. People change. You will change. You might keep a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible or you might end up an antitheist. But you'll change in some way. I clearly don't know what I'm talking about - if that's what you all think, then that's how you all think. I can't change that. You can easily change that, by learning what you are talking about. But you won't, because you don't want to have to understand and interpret data that casts the core of your religious worldview into doubt. Which kind of sucks for you I guess. Edited January 27, 2013 by Esau of Isaac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruity Insanity Posted January 27, 2013 Author Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) Okay... I'm... back? I wasn't sure if I should write again or not, but... here I go. Science is a gathering of facts - cold, hard facts. You guys said this, right? Those facts, proof, are something we can see, hear, taste, feel, or smell, right? Well... according to you people, life just suddenly formed from a random chemical reaction that joined proteins and created RNA/whatever. That life form evolved forming what we are today. That's what it is, right? Well, you make connections by experiments. Carbon-dating, fossils, and such. You can see a single-cell organism in one place... a complex organism in the next. You make the connection... "Hm, they seem related... This must've become that." Here, you make an assumption. You assume that the single-celled organism became a complex one. But have you seen this process go through? You saw the beginning... you saw the end... you assumed that they were related. Now, one of you mentioned earlier that making assumptions is irrational. The theory of evolution is an assumption. Yet, you all claim that it's right. Why? I have no clue. You scientists, ones who need cold hard facts as proof, fail to provide COLD HARD facts for the theory. Quite un-scientist-like, if you ask me. So, in a way, the theory requires faith. Faith that the links do, indeed, connect each other. I'm not using this to say that creationism is right, by the way. Let's assume that creationism is wrong (like you already do). You can speculate as much as you like, but it all comes down to this: the theory of evolution is an assumption. (I'm not addressing whether it's right or wrong.) ... I just wanted to hear you all criticize me more what you have to say. EDIT: Oh, and the Bible really did remain unchanged for thousands of years. My dad, who studied the topic of theology for about 20 years, says so. He's read the original text... he's read manuscripts about it... he's done the research. How else could he have gotten his Ph.D.? EDIT 2: Of course, you could go on and be ignorant, too, by saying that you know better than a Ph.D., which is like me saying I know better than you about science. Clearly not true. EDIT 3: And couldn't people watch their language...? You don't have to say... F-you, you know. That's not... polite. But who am I to say anything? Edited January 27, 2013 by fireemblemfan4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewjeo Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) The Bible may have been unchanged now for a long time, but as a text that has been censored and translated several times, never mind the part where much of it would have been passed down orally long before being written, even assuming that the general ideas it expresses are the same as the original always is dangerous. Firstly, out of curiosity, do you object to the idea that species change over time due to their environment, or just that the current species evolved from other ones? Evolution is a theory. A theory, unlike a law, is not set in stone. In the case of evolution, though, there is no evidence contradicting it and a mountains supporting it. There is no alternative to it supported by evidence and there seems to be nothing imperfect about the theory. In fact, humans have witnessed it through our history, although chiefly through our own doing rather than nature's. We have seen animals in areas thrive or disappear due to the changes we make in the environment, we have willfully changed domesticated animals for millenia, and now we are changing the nature of microbes with how we treat diseases. While we cannot for sure know that evolution happened, the only other explanation is that the universe was intelligently designed (edit: or just spontaneously came into existence) with all of this evidence planted to convince us of it, and there is no evidence to support that. It is simply possible that it happened that way. Edited January 27, 2013 by Rewjeo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruity Insanity Posted January 27, 2013 Author Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) The Bible may have been unchanged now for a long time, but as a text that has been censored and translated several times, never mind the part where much of it would have been passed down orally long before being written, even assuming that the general ideas it expresses are the same as the original always is dangerous. Firstly, out of curiosity, do you object to the idea that species change over time due to their environment, or just that the current species evolved from other ones? Evolution is a theory. A theory, unlike a law, is not set in stone. In the case of evolution, though, there is no evidence contradicting it and a mountains supporting it. There is no alternative to it supported by evidence and there seems to be nothing imperfect about the theory. In fact, humans have witnessed it through our history, although chiefly through our own doing rather than nature's. We have seen animals in areas thrive or disappear due to the changes we make in the environment, we have willfully changed domesticated animals for millenia, and now we are changing the nature of microbes with how we treat diseases. While we cannot for sure know that evolution happened, the only other explanation is that the universe was intelligently designed (edit: or just spontaneously came into existence) with all of this evidence planted to convince us of it, and there is no evidence to support that. It is simply possible that it happened that way. I believe in microevolution. So yes, I believe that environment can trigger change. But... reptiles becoming birds? Single-celled organisms becoming what we are today? No. *cough cough* This theory is one that many scientists so adamantly think is correct. (Very, very adamantly...) And as for "we have seen it"... What we've witnessed is microevolution. The same may (or may not) apply to macroevolution. We can't say for sure whether the latter is true or not, though, since we have no data. You have evidence, you say. Okay, maybe that's true. But it all boils down to an assumption. Things just "happened that way." Assuming that you're right, it's possible for life to "simply form." But... it's just so... mind-boggling. A single cell is so small, yet so complex. We humans still don't know all there is to know about cells. Who knows how much more there is...? Something as complex as humans to be created by chance...? I just can't find myself to believe that. Also, with this science-y view... If evolution were true, we're all just chances. Every single one of us. We just came about by a random encounter between a sperm and an egg... We have no purpose in life. We live. We die. We're part of a natural cycle. It just seems so... purposeless. Is life no more than that? EDIT: The Bible was written from the beginning of time since it was given to Moses by God. There was no need to pass it down orally. (That'd be impossible, given the size of that book.) And even though it's been translated (Not really censored...), the content is still the same. Edited January 27, 2013 by fireemblemfan4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aere Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I don't typically mind religion/science arguments, and I don't mind people arguing for their religion with at least proper etiquette and some semblance of support, but this guy has got me beat. If you're trolling, and I don't think you are, you've won. How can you simply "disagree" with something? It's been proven, through the Miller-Urey Experiment, that amino acids can be created through conditions that would have been present on the early earth. Organic compounds CAN be created from nonorganic ones. Even if you only examine that singular fact, and you agree with microevolution, the rest should at least be more than unacceptable? Theories, such as the Big Bang and evolution, are not random guesses that should be believed or ignored without a second thought. Lots of work has been put in to proving the validity of these theories, and as they are realistically unchallenged in terms of accuracy, they are currently accepted. If, somehow, God appeared in Times Square tomorrow and proved his dominance and superiority, I'm sure views would change. The problem with religion is that there IS no accepted grey area. The BIble is somehow the literal word of God, mistranslated and miscopied over thousands of years, and it's still completely true? Anybody accepting that has a lot less behind them than any scientist or their supporters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruity Insanity Posted January 27, 2013 Author Share Posted January 27, 2013 I don't typically mind religion/science arguments, and I don't mind people arguing for their religion with at least proper etiquette and some semblance of support, but this guy has got me beat. If you're trolling, and I don't think you are, you've won. How can you simply "disagree" with something? It's been proven, through the Miller-Urey Experiment, that amino acids can be created through conditions that would have been present on the early earth. Organic compounds CAN be created from nonorganic ones. Even if you only examine that singular fact, and you agree with microevolution, the rest should at least be more than unacceptable? Theories, such as the Big Bang and evolution, are not random guesses that should be believed or ignored without a second thought. Lots of work has been put in to proving the validity of these theories, and as they are realistically unchallenged in terms of accuracy, they are currently accepted. If, somehow, God appeared in Times Square tomorrow and proved his dominance and superiority, I'm sure views would change. The problem with religion is that there IS no accepted grey area. The BIble is somehow the literal word of God, mistranslated and miscopied over thousands of years, and it's still completely true? Anybody accepting that has a lot less behind them than any scientist or their supporters. No, I'm not trolling. And fine, maybe I don't have support... but I have proper etiquette, I can assure you. (You don't see me being rude, do you? ^^) How can I simply disagree with something? C'mon, there's not a single person who wouldn't find something he "simply disagrees on." You don't disagree on something unless you have proper evidence? For every single thing? The theory of evolution just happens to be one of those things... for me. And about that experiment... It tried to replicate the process of creating amino acids, right? Well, how do you replicate something you don't know about? (Not the amino acids... the environment.) You said it gave conditions of that of our early earth. What conditions are those? You can't say for sure. It, again, is an assumption. They assumed the environment to be so and so. So, the experiment could be inaccurate. And, uh... Yes, there was lots of effort put into the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution. Little effort is put into other theories. Makes sense if you say the one with more evidence (and more research) is the "correct" one. (People hardly try...) Because the Bible has so many translations, it's not hard to derive a more common one and figure out what the original text was like. If a majority of text say one thing... and a minority says another... which one is probably right? The majority one. And as for miscopying... No. It was copied too many times for that to affect much. Unless you're suggesting that every single copied Bible written was miscopied. Or most of them, at least. I have little support for what I say, but do you? (About the Bible?) I'm curious. ^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 But... it's just so... mind-boggling. A single cell is so small, yet so complex. We humans still don't know all there is to know about cells. Who knows how much more there is...? Something as complex as humans to be created by chance...? I just can't find myself to believe that. Also, with this science-y view... If evolution were true, we're all just chances. Every single one of us. We just came about by a random encounter between a sperm and an egg... We have no purpose in life. We live. We die. We're part of a natural cycle. It just seems so... purposeless. Is life no more than that? I don't think life has any purpose other than what you give it. Life is extremely dull in the view of religious people though, live a life of "tests" by god and then be granted eternal life where you will live for ever. For ever... Thats a very long long time. It would be very boring after the first few centuries maybe the first few millennia. Thats from an atheist perspective and not an evolution perspective though. Accepting evolution however, doesn't mean you have to belief that we are just chance. The two don't have to be related. If you wanted you could believe that god caused evolution to happen (however don't argue for it because you have nothing to support your claim that god caused it). Life is only purposeless if you want it to be like that. You don't need anyone to tell you your purpose in life, you can make your own. The mortality of humans is what makes life so worth living. Its the only one you have, and whatever may come after death, whether its unconciousness or eternal life, doesn't matter. What matters is that you are here now, and you have a life to experience and live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruity Insanity Posted January 27, 2013 Author Share Posted January 27, 2013 I don't think life has any purpose other than what you give it. Life is extremely dull in the view of religious people though, live a life of "tests" by god and then be granted eternal life where you will live for ever. For ever... Thats a very long long time. It would be very boring after the first few centuries maybe the first few millennia. Thats from an atheist perspective and not an evolution perspective though. Accepting evolution however, doesn't mean you have to belief that we are just chance. The two don't have to be related. If you wanted you could believe that god caused evolution to happen (however don't argue for it because you have nothing to support your claim that god caused it). Life is only purposeless if you want it to be like that. You don't need anyone to tell you your purpose in life, you can make your own. The mortality of humans is what makes life so worth living. Its the only one you have, and whatever may come after death, whether its unconciousness or eternal life, doesn't matter. What matters is that you are here now, and you have a life to experience and live. I may not have scientific evidence, but... Adam and Eve were the first humans (according to the Bible). God took soil and breathed life into it, creating Adam. Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs. The Bible shows that they were capable of thought... and emotions. Their offspring (Cain, Abel, Seth, etc.) were also shown to think and feel. Cain killed Abel when God accepted Abel's offering, but not his. According to evolutionists, we humans are an advanced form of some primate, right? This is where there's conflict. Unless these primates were capable of thinking... reasoning... feeling hatred, joy, love... they're not the Adam and Eve God describes in Genesis. So, believing in evolution... and that God made man doesn't.... fit. In turn, believing that we're "chance" and that God made us doesn't make sense. ... You don't think life has a purpose besides what you give it. I beg to differ. Our lives is our test. If you pass, you get in. If you don't, you don't. You spend your childhood preparing for adulthood. Likewise, you spend your life on earth to prepare for life in heaven. Although I have yet to experience this, God is supposed to grant joy... love... support. Whether your up... or down... he's there for you. He loves you because you're special. He forgives you even when your wrong. He's compassionate... and full of grace. Life in heaven is supposed to be full of joy in praising God. Sure, that sounds boring (to me, too, I must admit), but... I believe that it's true. And what if (just what if), there is life after death? Would it hurt to live your life for God? If it really is true, then it's totally worth it. But~ That's up to every individual. Whether or not he takes that chance is up to him/her. Every person must choose for himself whether he will seek God or not. It's a complicated thing... Personally, my faith (as of yet) is a blind one... I haven't truly met the Lord (IMO). But I do hope to sometime in the future... I guess I have to take initiative. After all, you don't find what you don't look for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewjeo Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) But... it's just so... mind-boggling. A single cell is so small, yet so complex. We humans still don't know all there is to know about cells. Who knows how much more there is...? Something as complex as humans to be created by chance...? I just can't find myself to believe that. Also, with this science-y view... If evolution were true, we're all just chances. Every single one of us. We just came about by a random encounter between a sperm and an egg... We have no purpose in life. We live. We die. We're part of a natural cycle. It just seems so... purposeless. Is life no more than that? You said you took AP Chemistry, right? Well, think about quantum theory. Mind boggling stuff. No sane person would believe that except that it has been demonstrated over and over again to work. Evolution is much the same way- we believe it happened because it works, and nothing else does while also explaining the evidence for evolution. And, given how incredibly vast the universe is, it's really not that unlikely that life like humans would appear somewhere. Us having this discussion is dependent on that happening. I personally find that a very freeing view, myself. You can be nihilistic or look at it as "I get to be my own person." The way I see it, what I think matters is what matters. I don't have to live my life according to some predetermined course. Of course, as SlayerX said, that has to do with atheism and not evolutionism. Evolution does mean that there is no god, it just means that one is not necessary. Edit: This really isn't a topic I should open in a new tab and come back to later w/out refreshing :/ Anyways, animals are a whole lot smarter than what most people give them credit for. Just keep that in mind. Creationism and evolutionism are contradictory, yes, but that doesn't mean that evolution and God are mutually exclusive. As far as "could it hurt to worship God"- perhaps it could. We don't know anything about an afterlife, so who can say what will or won't hurt you? But that description you gave of God gave me my own little realization- that is exactly how I think of my dogs. Other than how silly that may sound on the surface, that is rather interesting... Edited January 27, 2013 by Rewjeo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constable Reggie Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) God is supposed to grant joy... love... support. Whether your up... or down... he's there for you. He loves you because you're special. He forgives you even when your wrong. He's compassionate... and full of grace. Life in heaven is supposed to be full of joy in praising God. Sure, that sounds boring (to me, too, I must admit), but... I believe that it's true. And what if (just what if), there is life after death? Would it hurt to live your life for God? If it really is true, then it's totally worth it. But~ That's up to every individual. Whether or not he takes that chance is up to him/her. Every person must choose for himself whether he will seek God or not. It's a complicated thing... Personally, my faith (as of yet) is a blind one... I haven't truly met the Lord (IMO). But I do hope to sometime in the future... I guess I have to take initiative. After all, you don't find what you don't look for. None of this contradicts also accepting evolution. You should seriously look up the percentage of Christians who accept evolution. It's quite the majority if you include worldwide members. Edited January 27, 2013 by Constable Reggie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.