@lordsuzakuand they were half right.. one could draw a geocentric system that follows the laws of physics.. it's just a matter of perspective.. if one spins around one can say everything is spinning and him, stationary..How could everyone agree something here if they use different bases? And which base is true, seeing that each base itself has no ground underneath to support it?And what is the most important thing? Is it the meaning of life? or life itself? or something else?Does the most important thing exists?If evolution does not exist, there will be no room for improvement.. Life will not progress, for evolution is progression.. If there's no room for improvement, then everything's perfect, for improvement isn't needed..Otherwise, life will progress.. Always something came after things that is better, while they are better than those before them..Evolution can exist and not exist at the same time, depending on where one looks at..
Who the hell would believe in evolution???
Started by
Guest_MichahSimmons
, Jan 09 2006 08:34 PM
1136 replies to this topic
#727
Guest_AMHV
Guest_AMHV
-
- Guest
Posted 11 March 2008 - 03:40 PM
Life progresses not because of evolution but because the ability to gain new perspectives and seeing it from that angle. Did you know that to exhaust the brain of it's capacity, you have to learn a new thing every second for 3 million years.Can such a thing be made by chance?And the single cell is so complicated and made out of so many types of proteins the chance of it beign amde by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 4,478,296
Edited by AMHV, 12 March 2008 - 12:02 AM.
#728
Guest_lordoftheflies
Guest_lordoftheflies
-
- Guest
Posted 12 March 2008 - 06:44 AM
^ there is something wrong with the phrase "the chance to be made by chance" because there is only "the chance that it will be so" and in making a statement of probability you have to qualify the extant conditions. eg. the chance that a cell will be found in some region of the earth is not constant with respect to the time the sampling was made. and evolution is not the result of sequential random sampling of all possible structures of a cell-- there is natural selection that funnels it's course into a set of winning combinations.open a biochemistry textbook and read about Levinthal's paradox. =P
#729
Guest_avatarxprime
Guest_avatarxprime
-
- Guest
Posted 12 March 2008 - 08:07 AM
I do believe your math is wrong. The forumla for figuring out population size based on a growth rate is Pfuture = Ppresent*(1+g)t, where P is population size, g is growth rate and t is time. Using your numbers you get 8*(1+.01)4500 = 2.2*1020. That is certainly a great deal more than 6 billion people, so even with your proposed numbers (although it seems more like you are copy pasting someone else) you don't get the current world population. Don't worry though, science comes to the rescue. For much of the early stages of humanity the growth rate was very near 0 (2% is actually a huge number). Around the Industrial Revolution it began picking up and had been picking up in the developed world until around the Baby Boom. After this the population rates started to decline. It's one of the reasons that Social Security in the US is failing now. There are more old people than young people. In the bulk of third world nations the population growth rate remains near 0 and in second world nations it is beginning to pick up like first world nations used to have."World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Actual application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x to the power of 1089. "
I take it the person you copied this from is assuming it all had to happen in one go. Evolution via Natural Selection is a step-wise process. A cell did not have to blink into existence fully formed and ready to go, that's a Creationist idea. Evolution gets to happen in stages. You get some proteins here, a lipid monolayer there, the occasional bursts of RNA and DNA, and over time they will work together and develop into a system.Consider dice. If I asked you to roll 10 dice to get all 6's, you'd be at it for probably a few million years until all 10 rolled a 6 at the same time (what with the probability being 1 in 60,466,176). However, if instead I told you roll a single die, once you get it to roll a 6, switch to another die and repeat until you've got 10 dice all showing a 6 you'd probably finish in a couple of minutes (probability being 1/6 for each die roll, just keep repeating until done). Evolution gets to work in a similar way most of the time.Finally you have to take into consideration the vast time scale we are playing in here. The Earth is billions of years old. That is sufficient time for all manner of things to have happened. Even in my rather extreme dice example you could have rolled 10 6's the hard way multiple times over in a billion years."A living cell is so complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 To the power of 4,478,296"
I'm not going to refute any of this on a point by point account. I don't feel like reading the requisite passages in their entirety to know what's going on, but I will say this "magic." Plain and simple, magic. Think about the burning bush, Jesus reviving from the dead and appearing to people, Jesus walking on water or turning water into wine. It's all magic. Technology has nothing to do with it when you have God as part of the equation. God can make whatever God wants to happen happen. So please stop with this.And you wanna know something incredible? The bible knew about the circularity of the earth, Electricty(Telephones), and Televison.Proof:Job 38:35 : Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you 'here we are'?This has a literal and a symbolic meaning.Psalms 102:12 : As far as the east from the west, so far has he remove our transgressiosn from us.Obvious.Isaiah 40:22 : He sits enthroned above the CIRCLE of the earth, and its peole are liek grasshoppers.Also obviousRevelations 11: 9:For three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language, and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. How are the men going to be seen if its not TELEVISION?
The Bible doesn't need to be disproven as it is an inherently flawed book. The Gospels that are in the Bible were decided upon by a bunch of guys who lived long after Christ died. The put some stuff in and left other stuff out. They (those falliable men) made the decision of what is canon and what is not. I'll give you an infalliable God, but men are clearly not. By deeming certain things worthy and others unworthy based soley on their own judgement they invalidate the Bible.Lord suzaku, you have a symptom similiar to many people trying to disprove the bible. "What about the people BEFORE?"Does the past really matter now? Those catholics a few centuries ago have to READ the bible more. the thing is that there is proof in the bible. the catholics just didnt understand.
Wrong, progession in life is based on Evolution. Now that should not be considered to say that Evolution has some defined endpoint because it doesn't, it's merely adaptation to changing circumstances. Without Evolution we stagnate, remaining unchanged or possibly even without the ability to do so. What you bring up is philosophical growth, something that is of concern to humans due to our ability to contemplate and relative supremacy over this world so we have the time. It is not a reflection of physical growth or change, merely an arbitrary mental growth as true mental growth would occur through Evolution again, such as increased memory, faster problem solving, etc. Also you are yet again wrong about the brain capactiy issue. The brain is a marvelous device, but if you were capable of remembering every detail of everything you ever saw with total recall, you'd exhaust it's storage abilities in the time it takes you to get up, shower and walk out the door. This is because memory doesn't work like a computer. It's one of the reasons that under hypnosis you can be made to remember a false memory. Different parts of what you see or learn are sent to different parts of the brain for storage. Similar items reinforce these connections making it easier to "remember" those item types. If you have total perfect recall however you would quickly fill those areas.Life progresses not because of evolution but because the ability to gain new perspectives and seeing it from that angle. Did you know that to exhaust the brain of it's capacity, you have to learn a new thing every second for 3 million years.Can such a thing be made by chance?
#730
Guest_AMHV
Guest_AMHV
-
- Guest
Posted 12 March 2008 - 03:25 PM
Prove it? The dice thing makes sense but how does it apply to evolution?Evolution gets to work in a similar way most of the time.
Magic you say... HAVE YOU EVEN READ THE THING? You seem to miss the circle part and the as far as east to west part. And that revelation verse applies to US, not God. And it is talking about the future(from bible standpoint)I'm not going to refute any of this on a point by point account. I don't feel like reading the requisite passages in their entirety to know what's going on, but I will say this "magic." Plain and simple, magic. Think about the burning bush, Jesus reviving from the dead and appearing to people, Jesus walking on water or turning water into wine. It's all magic. Technology has nothing to do with it when you have God as part of the equation. God can make whatever God wants to happen happen. So please stop with this.
The Bible doesn't need to be disproven as it is an inherently flawed book. The Gospels that are in the Bible were decided upon by a bunch of guys who lived long after Christ died. The put some stuff in and left other stuff out. They (those falliable men) made the decision of what is canon and what is not. I'll give you an infalliable God, but men are clearly not. By deeming certain things worthy and others unworthy based soley on their own judgement they invalidate the Bible.
Ill admit it, that last part is copied with soem editing.Validity of the BibleMany spiritual seekers wonder why there is not more historical evidence to verify the birth, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. Here is something to consider. There is no need for more evidence because the Holy Bible itself is historical evidence. he Old Testament has over 60 prophecies about Jesus that were fulfilled. The Bible has the Four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) that document Jesus' life. The balance of the New Testament has references to Jesus. There are 66 books of the Bible. Almost every single book of the Bible has either a prophecy about Jesus or verses that point to the Gospel message. There are over 24,600 manuscripts of the New Testament and over 24,000 original manuscripts of portions of the New Testament.Some would argue that the Bible can't be trusted because we do not know if the copies we have of the Bible are accurate, or if the original manuscripts are accurate.To determine the accuracy of the manuscripts, we can compare the Bible manuscripts to manuscripts of other literature. If we are going to be fair, we should not require more of the Bible than we do other literature, but the Bible will hold up to even more scrutiny.The chart below lists some documents, how many known original manuscripts, and the time span from the first known manuscript and when the document was authored.Author No. of Copies Time SpanCaesar 10 1.000 yearsPlato (Tetralogies) 7 1,200 yearsTacitus (Annals) 20 1,000 yearsPliny the Younger (History) 7 750 yearsSuetonius (De Vita Caesarum) 8 800 yearsHomer (Iliad) 643 500 yearsNew Testament Over 24,000 25 yearsAfter looking at the chart above, which document do you believe is the most trustworthy in being accurate regarding being closest to the original? Homer's Iliad does not even come close to the New Testament. Time span is critical when determining if the manuscript is close to the original. The longer the time span, the more of a chance of error. The first New Testament manuscript has only a 25 year span compared to 500 years for Iliad. Yet many of our readers would read Iliad as the gospel before the Bible.
ill reply with this. It is also copied with soem editing.Finally you have to take into consideration the vast time scale we are playing in here. The Earth is billions of years old. That is sufficient time for all manner of things to have happened. Even in my rather extreme dice example you could have rolled 10 6's the hard way multiple times over in a billion years.
.Until the fourth day of creation, God did not create what we know as a "day". This could mean that the days before it could mean billions of years. finally, ill say this. The christians goal is to tell everyone in the world this: "God loved you so much that Jesus died for you, and your sins have been forgiven by this."Than it's a matter of choice whether that person accepts it or not. But it's really hard for us to see people just reject it. But i can already see these arguments wont go anywhere.Astronomical estimates of the distance to various galaxies gives conflicting data. The Biblical Record refers to the expansion of space by the Creator. Astrophysicist Russell Humphries demonstrates that such space expansion would dilate time in distant space. This could explain a recent creation with great distances to the stars
Edited by AMHV, 12 March 2008 - 03:38 PM.
#731
Guest_kevingobells
Guest_kevingobells
-
- Guest
Posted 14 March 2008 - 04:41 AM
okay, first off, i haven't read anybody elses' responses, so if im repeating, whatever. but the fossil record does have TONS of evidence for the theory of evolution. you can find ton's of debates about it all over youtube. many creationists just say that it's not possible and have some one excuse that doesn't really make sense yet somehow 'destroys' the whole theory of evolution. it's just like how some diseases, like aids works: someone gets the virus, takes medication to try to fight it, the weak ones die, and the stronger ones live and grow in numbers, and another medicine is taken to try to kill those, and the ones that survive keep growing and growing till there's no medicine that can kill em anymore. if you look around, everybody looks different. some poeple are skinny, some are fat, some are strong, some are weak, some can run well, while others can jump well. in a species of animals, there are differences between all animals, yet some groups of those animals might have similar qualities, and if the ones without a certain quality, suddenly are at whatever disadvantage and die, the ones with the quality live on and pass that quality on to their offspring. things like that happen repeatedly, over and over again, and eventually, after such gigantic periods of time such as millions of years, that species could turn into another. some people argue that that's natural selection and it's totally different from evolution, but it's not. the small, random, evolutionary changes made in the DNA of that particular group are what causes that certain quality or characteristic that allows it to survive, where others would die. there is just such a huge amount of evidence for evolution that it is rediculous to ignore.
#732
Guest_weirenye
Guest_weirenye
-
- Guest
Posted 14 March 2008 - 03:27 PM
People like me will believe in Evolution. I think alot of things we think are impossible are possible like magic and monsters.
#733
Guest_Cursed_Light
Guest_Cursed_Light
-
- Guest
Posted 15 March 2008 - 06:33 PM
if humans really is an ape's evolution, so why are humans still not evolving [what is our evolutions? alien? humanoid? don't make me laugh] and if elephant is really a mammoth's evolution, then how did they go out through countries on that really cold ice age with only furs that was not very warming [or sumthin'] and how did those new-born elephant survive with their grannies on the ice ageand for dino, yes they are exist, but what the heck how did they evolved into a bird, and who did survive from that "Doom Day" without any self defense [who is it ? nessie? monster? godzilla? or something].and talking about human, what is the proof that we are the evolutions of apes. hand palm? skull? or something. why can't we climbing fastly, even evolution with degenerating is almost nothing.to be continued due to my activity
#734
Guest_avatarxprime
Guest_avatarxprime
-
- Guest
Posted 16 March 2008 - 09:23 AM
It applies to evolution by showing that nothing need evolve fully formed. Evolution just doesn't work that way, things change gradually over time. Look at the evolution of the eye. Unicellular organisms have "eyespots" that can detect relative brightness, more complex (but still relatively simple) organisms like nematodes have more advanced versions of these "eyespots" that lie in pits which let them now tell direction and brightness. Still more complex organisms like the nautilus have "pin hole" eyes that them add the ability to resolve that light to generate an image. You can follow such a line of evolution in eyes to get up to us. We have evidence in the fossil record as well for this development. Gradual change over time led the development of something that approaches what we consider an eye today and all were useful for the organism that possessed it (no half an eye or anything like that) and continue to be for those that still have them.Prove it? The dice thing makes sense but how does it apply to evolution?
I already said in my reply that I had no interest in reading the requisite passages you mentioned to know more than what you wrote. I simply responded by showing that the Bible has a widely known history of having magical things happen. Look at Moses, he was a prophet of God and had some rather impressive things happen around him. The 10 plagues come to mind as do the parting of the Red Sea. All things that happened to/around a mere mortal, but God was still there making things happen. So why can't I claim divine intervention of some form? Isn't the entirety of this Creationism argument "God did it"?Magic you say... HAVE YOU EVEN READ THE THING? You seem to miss the circle part and the as far as east to west part. And that revelation verse applies to US, not God. And it is talking about the future(from bible standpoint)
That's all well and good, but you don't actually respond to my point. I'll post it again.*snip thing on validity of the Bible*
The Bible doesn't need to be disproven as it is an inherently flawed book. The Gospels that are in the Bible were decided upon by a bunch of guys who lived long after Christ died. The put some stuff in and left other stuff out. They (those falliable men) made the decision of what is canon and what is not. I'll give you an infalliable God, but men are clearly not. By deeming certain things worthy and others unworthy based soley on their own judgement they invalidate the Bible.
I think I will also reply with a quote.ill reply with this. It is also copied with soem editing.
Astronomical estimates of the distance to various galaxies gives conflicting data. The Biblical Record refers to the expansion of space by the Creator. Astrophysicist Russell Humphries demonstrates that such space expansion would dilate time in distant space. This could explain a recent creation with great distances to the stars
I found this while trying to track down Mr. "Humphries" as you spelled it to find and read his theory. I believe this answers any issues regarding it more than well enough. I would like to add that I found no evidence of the "conflicting data" mentioned in your quoted text, at least nothing recent. There certainly was some earlier when astronomers didn't realize the scope of the Universe and thought what are actually satellite galaxies of the Milky Way were simply nebula and such, but those days are long since gone.The short answer is that Humphreys (note spelling) claims no such thing. He adds a kind of white hole spacetime distortion to give a massive time dilation, effectively with the Earth being in the center of the disturbance, so that six thousand years pass in Earth while billions of years pass in deep space.That is, he attempts a different model; but he does not claim space expansion would distort time, as if his time effects were a consequence of existing models.His model is ludicrous, and does not fit the evidence. Humphreys does not make any serious attempt to test the model with some obvious predictions (that would falsify it immediately). Instead, he proposes hand waving "explanations" for some lines of evidence (redshift, for example) with no proper quntified development.Initial versions of the model were also wrong mathematically; Humphreys relativity was not up to the task. He claims to have fixed the problems; and as far as I can see the people who know relativity are simply rolling around laughing, or ignoring it.The one line of evidence he offers for placing Earth at the center is Tifft's quantized redshift ideas; which have recently been pretty much disproved by detailed redshift surveys.The only real reason for this absurd model is an attempt to retain the strict fundamentalist literal-history model of Genesis with a 6000 year old Earth with the obvious great age of the universe.
That's fine, I can give your theory this.Until the fourth day of creation, God did not create what we know as a "day". This could mean that the days before it could mean billions of years.
Indeed they will not. It is perfectly alright for you to feel this way, but the point of this debate is to discuss Evolution and any competing theory/explanation for the way the world is based on their own logical and evidential merits, not on the basis of Faith.finally, ill say this. The christians goal is to tell everyone in the world this: "God loved you so much that Jesus died for you, and your sins have been forgiven by this."Than it's a matter of choice whether that person accepts it or not. But it's really hard for us to see people just reject it. But i can already see these arguments wont go anywhere.
#735
···
-
- Dragon's Elite
-
- 928 posts
·
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 16 March 2008 - 07:47 PM
Humans are evolving. You can't expect humans to become aliens in a few million years.if humans really is an ape's evolution, so why are humans still not evolving
If what I understand you are trying to say is correct, the answer is natural selection. The mammoths with the thickest fur, the most warming, lived, and those with the least fur died.And the new-born elephants survived by their "grannies'" warmth and subsequently their own.and if elephant is really a mammoth's evolution, then how did they go out through countries on that really cold ice age with only furs that was not very warming [or sumthin'] and how did those new-born elephant survive with their grannies on the ice age
Archaeopteryx was a winged, feathered dinosaur, and there have been nonavian (non-flying) dinosaurs with feathers, also. It just takes two organisms of the same species to survive and reproduce.and for dino, yes they are exist, but what the heck how did they evolved into a bird, and who did survive from that "Doom Day" without any self defense [who is it ? nessie? monster? godzilla? or something].
Oh, I don't know. Try comparative embryology, comparative anatomy, and comparative biochemistry.Are you really trying to justify the idea that humans have no connection with apes by saying we can't climb rapidly? We can climb rapidly. We simply don't because most people don't need to. The people that do climb, however, such as to obtain fruit from tall trees, climb very fast because they have learned how.and talking about human, what is the proof that we are the evolutions of apes. hand palm? skull? or something. why can't we climbing fastly, even evolution with degenerating is almost nothing.
Someone, make something better.
#736
Guest_avatarxprime
Guest_avatarxprime
-
- Guest
Posted 17 March 2008 - 12:37 AM
Legion already did a fine job responding to Cursed_Light but I would like to add a bit more detail.
First off, humans are still evolving. National averages continue to change, people continue to look different, etc.. Even in a homogenized world where there was no "race" we would still be evolving as Evolution is the gradual change and modification of living organisms. Thanks to modern science however, our physical evolution (the most blatant kind) is seemingly stalled as we can compensate for most shortcomings. We are the dominate form of life on this planet and use technology to adapt to changing circumstances for us. This alleviates much of Natural Selection as even the most beneficial genotype and phenotype is not sufficiently dominate to prove a clear winner. However, mutations still occur in our DNA and they continue to build up over time and do/will lead to change.For the mammoth, there is a reason they were wooly. That fur did in fact keep them warm, there's a reason that modern elephants don't have any. They are mostly bare skin with a sparse amount of hair since they live in warm climates now. The ancestor of the wooly mammoth was selected for having fur when the Ice Age struck because without that insulating layer they would have died, leaving only the "hairy" ones to reproduce. This characteristic built up over time to create the Wooly Mammoth. When the Ice Age began to reverse that extra hair became a problem as the animals would overheat and so it was selected against. Those "hairy" elephants that had less hair overall actually became superior to their hairier relations and became more abundant, giving us the modern elephant. I'm not sure what else to say on the topic as your grammar makes it hard to know just what you are saying.if humans really is an ape's evolution, so why are humans still not evolving [what is our evolutions? alien? humanoid? don't make me laugh] and if elephant is really a mammoth's evolution, then how did they go out through countries on that really cold ice age with only furs that was not very warming [or sumthin'] and how did those new-born elephant survive with their grannies on the ice age
Dinosaurs evolved into birds and other reptiles, keep this in mind. Not all dinos evolved into birds, mostly just those that were land-based predators and of couse those that could already fly. The rest evolved into current reptiles. Moving on, they evolved into birds based on their physiology. Predatory dinosaurs like the Raptor were built to be light, fast and have efficient circulatory systems. Guess what, birds are the same way. We even have fossil evidence to show that some dinosaurs (such as the Raptor) did in fact have feathers on their body. You can even show how scales could evolve into feathers. Onto "Doom Day" as you put it. Big things died. The catastrophe made it that any large organism (most dinosaurs) would die from lack or food, lack of water, etc. Smaller organisms (smaller dinosaurs, mammals, etc) survived because they needed less of those things than the big boys. There really is no "self-defense" against a meteor striking the planet. The only thing to do is be small and not need a whole lot of resources to keep you going so hopefully you can ride it out.and for dino, yes they are exist, but what the heck how did they evolved into a bird, and who did survive from that "Doom Day" without any self defense [who is it ? nessie? monster? godzilla? or something].
Let's see, first off we did not evolve from apes. Humans are simply big, relatively hairless, tail-less apes ourselves. We evolved from the same common ancestor that modern apes evolved from. We have fossils, we have anatomical evidence (bone structure, organ structure, etc) and genetic evidence to show that we are closely related with the other Primates. Finally, the reason we can't climb fast or swing from tree to tree or anything like that is because of trade-offs. Look at the feet of a Primate, see how they look like hands? Look at your feet, see how they don't. Your feet look that way because they are good for walking instead of climbing. Look at your arms versus that of another Primate. They might be long, but they are nothing (proportionally) compared to those of other Primates. That's also because most of them don't walk on 2 feet like we do, they walk on their knuckles so their arms are longer compared to their bodies' then ours are. A chimp has 3 times the strength of a human and much less fat, but because of this they can't really swim. They are too heavy to remain buoyant, we can swim as a result of not having nearly as dense musculature, but have a corresponding decrease in strength. I'm gonna stop with those comparisons for now. I could go on but hopefully you get the point.and talking about human, what is the proof that we are the evolutions of apes. hand palm? skull? or something. why can't we climbing fastly, even evolution with degenerating is almost nothing.
#737
Guest_Wootiful
Guest_Wootiful
-
- Guest
Posted 19 March 2008 - 04:33 PM
To the person who started this extremely biased topic, I ask but one question. Are you a Christian? This is exactly the type of question to be asked by someone like you, now mind you, I don't believe all Christians are like this, but the kids today, they are just not true. I was a Christian for 12 years and I experienced people like that, the believe that they can go around dissing other people's beliefs like this. I'm Atheist, and I believe in evolution, and I am somewhat offended by this question, it's like me going up to you and asking, "Who the h**l would believe in God???" It's just not the right way to go about asking things. And in answer to your question, Me. ^^
#738
Guest_lordoftheflies
Guest_lordoftheflies
-
- Guest
Posted 19 March 2008 - 05:14 PM
There is no evidence for evolution as far as the layman is concerned. For him, it's just a matter of which sources to trust and place his faith on. Because in the end all that you have--it is all secondary source. Evolution to the layman is as much a story as Genesis. If you be a non-scientist, ask yourself the question: how many experiments have I performed to confirm evolution? Have I seen and touched a fossil in person? Have I ever looked through a microscope and identified chromosomes?So is it not justifiable to assert that the layman's trust in science is just as faith-based as the creationist's trust in the Bible?
Edited by lordoftheflies, 19 March 2008 - 05:15 PM.
#739
Guest_CSJ
Guest_CSJ
-
- Guest
Posted 19 March 2008 - 08:21 PM
I'm terribly inclined to disagree. The science is based on empirical evidence, not faith. I don't know about you but, I looked through a microscope and saw chromosomes in grade 10 science class, at a Catholic school no doubt. So please, do not try to equate it to being the same as a matter of faith for the layman, it's intellectually dishonest at best.There is no evidence for evolution as far as the layman is concerned. For him, it's just a matter of which sources to trust and place his faith on. Because in the end all that you have--it is all secondary source. Evolution to the layman is as much a story as Genesis. If you be a non-scientist, ask yourself the question: how many experiments have I performed to confirm evolution? Have I seen and touched a fossil in person? Have I ever looked through a microscope and identified chromosomes?So is it not justifiable to assert that the layman's trust in science is just as faith-based as the creationist's trust in the Bible?
#740
Guest_lordoftheflies
Guest_lordoftheflies
-
- Guest
Posted 19 March 2008 - 08:54 PM
Well at issue is the nature of this evidence and the layman's capacity to judge this evidence. It is in the nature of layman that he must rely absolutely on expert opinion--the scientist's opinion of all evidence. And how can he distinguish expert scientific opinion when he is himself not an expert scientist?Consider how the man who has faith in science would, for example, be more inclined to believe an account that is said to represent "scientific consensus"Or maybe even to judge an article to be credible if it just sounded "scientific" enough. What's intellectually dishonest is to have this tremendous confidence in possessing the better truth in evolution based only on what you've been told in grade 10 science class, a few articles on the internet, television?
#741
Guest_CSJ
Guest_CSJ
-
- Guest
Posted 19 March 2008 - 09:06 PM
The difference for the layman between religious and science-based answers is that, again, science is based on empirical evidence. In other words, he can witness and experience the evidence for himself. You experience proof of evolution every year when you get a flu shot.Please note, I am not trying to say evolution is the be-all-end-all, it just happens to be our best answer at the moment for how life developed and is the corner stone of modern biology, as far as I know. If a better scientific theory comes along, it will come along. Creationism and creationism in different clothing (note I do not call it Intelligent Design) are not scientific theories, thus aren't really suitable alternatives. This is especially important when people try to espouse Intelligent Design as a scientific alternative to evolution, as it...just isn't scientific.Well at issue is the nature of this evidence and the layman's capacity to judge this evidence. It is in the nature of layman that he must rely absolutely on expert opinion--the scientist's opinion of all evidence. And how can he distinguish expert scientific opinion when he is himself not an expert scientist?Consider how the man who has faith in science would, for example, be more inclined to believe an account that is said to represent "scientific consensus"Or maybe even to judge an article to be credible if it just sounded "scientific" enough. What's intellectually dishonest is to have this tremendous confidence in possessing the better truth in evolution based only on what you've been told in grade 10 science class, a few articles on the internet, television?
Edited by CSJ, 19 March 2008 - 09:09 PM.
#742
Guest_lordoftheflies
Guest_lordoftheflies
-
- Guest
Posted 20 March 2008 - 03:39 PM
^ While it is true that the layman could "potentially" experience this empirical evidence, wouldn't he after then become non-layman by virtue of experiencing the evidence and understanding it in a scientific context? And you cite flushots as a proof of evolution. Though I haven't heard this used as an example, but even if it were, wouldn't this piece of evidence be obscure if not entirely invisible to the layman? It's just like claiming that being able to stand on the earth's surface without falling through is evidence of electrostatic repulsion.The layman is faithful to the scientist which he judged to be expert--and he is like a cultist in these terms as he believes fervently about the veracity of all these claims without "experiencing" a shred of evidence. He hasn't seen a fossil, he hasn't seen the Galapagos finches, he hasn't matched a single DNA, he hasn't seen mammal fetuses...
#743
Guest_avatarxprime
Guest_avatarxprime
-
- Guest
Posted 21 March 2008 - 05:04 AM
"Experiencing" evidence does not all of a sudden make you less of a layman. A layman is by definition "A man who is a nonprofessional." So long as you have not received proper education/training or recognition by some overseeing body for a given discipline you remain a layman. For example, if you go to a museum of art and read several books on the subject does that make you a professional art critique? NO! You are simply better informed about art. You can handle science the same way. If you took a class on biology in high school you are not a biologist. You are still a layman as far as biology is concerned, but you are better informed about it than someone who has not taken biology. However, all of this is a red-herring that you have thrown together because none of that matters. Science is about logical reasoning. So long as you are capable of logical reasoning you can discuss things. Evolution came about because Darwin witnessed several things on his voyage aboard the Beagle and reasoned that the diversity of life can be accounted for by the theory he came up with, Evolution. Now, he was a biologist so I'm sure that helped, but the Captain of the Beagle was not. Now you might ask why I bring this up, it's because Darwin continually talked the Captain during the voyage about his theory as he came up with it (mostly because everyone else thought Darwin was a jerk and didn't want to associate with him), but the Captain came to understand Darwin's theory based on his evidence and logical line of reasoning. This did not make the Captain suddenly a biologist himself and expert on Evolutionary Theory, but it did allow a "layman" to come to understand a logical outlook based on the evidence available.^ While it is true that the layman could "potentially" experience this empirical evidence, wouldn't he after then become non-layman by virtue of experiencing the evidence and understanding it in a scientific context? And you cite flushots as a proof of evolution. Though I haven't heard this used as an example, but even if it were, wouldn't this piece of evidence be obscure if not entirely invisible to the layman? It's just like claiming that being able to stand on the earth's surface without falling through is evidence of electrostatic repulsion.The layman is faithful to the scientist which he judged to be expert--and he is like a cultist in these terms as he believes fervently about the veracity of all these claims without "experiencing" a shred of evidence. He hasn't seen a fossil, he hasn't seen the Galapagos finches, he hasn't matched a single DNA, he hasn't seen mammal fetuses...
#744
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 21 March 2008 - 03:50 PM
Evolution has holes. Creationism has around ninety thousand times those. Believing in God is fine, but personally I think you should learn how to think for yourself in combination. The Bible was written thousands of years ago, it is not an accurate record of events. The Old Testament was passed down from mouth to mouth for generations upon generations. In my country, 80% of the population is considered "Christian". Most of these 80% are non-creationists, because we also study science. The belief in God and the belief in the Bible are two different things. A book is always open to interpretation - nothing is set in stone.I personally believe in evolution because it seems to make sense, and like Casandra said, carbondating may be inaccurate - but accurate enough to prove that the Bible is not "proof". Keep in mind that this book was written before science was something most people knew of, and how things were back then. People didn't exactly live to be seventy, and had no time for studying the world. Oh, and last time I checked, these people also thought that the world was flat, and I'm fairly sure this is a debunked theory.Sorry for going a bit off-topic, but it seemed necessary to substantiate my opinions.
#745
Guest_MelloPanda
Guest_MelloPanda
-
- Guest
Posted 21 March 2008 - 08:32 PM
We have evidence that we have evolved through different means. If evolution wasn't real then a lot of species wouldn't be able to adapt to there change of envorment and die out.
#746
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 23 March 2008 - 03:22 PM
The creationists think we were just "put here" - that's what we're arguing about.
#747
Guest_lordoftheflies
Guest_lordoftheflies
-
- Guest
Posted 26 March 2008 - 01:08 PM
that's it! you just admitted my point: that the non-expert, exemplified by the captain of the Beagle, was convinced by an expert over the course of a conversation! Perhaps by "logical reasoning" but not by empirical evidence.And you lie when you say that Science is about logical reasoning. Logicians, mathematicians and philosophers don't make scientists after all. Aristotle was a most logical person but he produced what we now find to be absurd physical theories. Logic is just a tool to science. The first principle in science is rigorous testing of any hypothesis and empirical evidence. The logic of science is the logic of error and doubt.Evolutionist cultists are equally justified/unjustified in their beliefs as their creationists nemesis. It's just like a cult. It's so easy to make a claim to using reason--the creationist thesis is just as "reasonable" as evolution.
#748
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 26 March 2008 - 03:37 PM
No, creationism is based on an absurd belief. I might as well say a magical teapot made us (for his zombie masters) as say that God made us. The theory of evolution is based on scientific findings, not concepts of belief. Logic has nothing to do with believing in God, because if we used logic, no one would believe in anything except that which we could prove (and so no one would believe there is a god, nor that there is not a god).Evolution is based on likely sets of events according to science. It involves genetics and natural selection. If you could say creationism is based on things like those, I would say it was equally probable, but you can't, because creationism is based on a book written by people who had no idea what soap was between four and five hundred years ago. At this time, no one knew what anything was, and had no explanation for them. Therefore they made a solution based on their level of knowledge (one that was very, very low) that also involved a set of ethics compatible with standards at the time. It caught on, because people wanted to know their origins, and how things worked.Today, we can use carbon-dating (granted, not the most accurate procedure, but still more accurate than a 4000 year old book written by people who considered stoning and removing limbs as suitable punishment to crimes) to find out how old things are (to some extent), and from there see how creatures progressed over the centuries.I find it more likely that we have evolved to the state we have reached than that we have magically popped up this way. There's a reason we look like monkeys, and that our DNA is around 97% identical to theirs. It's not because God decided to make monkeys similar to himself as well. The Bible, last time I checked, states that the Earth is a few thousand years old - something that we today know to be wrong. Saying evolution is nonsense is like saying all science is nonsense, because science doesn't prove things - science disproves things. What we're left with are probable options and solutions.Now, I'm not saying there isn't a magical teapot that put us on the planet, but I'm saying I find it a lot less likely than a series of logical events occurring according to the laws of nature.As for your "science isn't based on logic": Aristotle was living at a time where no one knew anything. He could only try to confirm or unconfirm his findings. At that time, we had reached a far, far lower level of technology and knowledge, and we knew little if anything about the world and how it worked.Logic is a tool to science? Naturally? Isn't logic a tool of man?The difference is that science tries not to bend the logic in its favour - but rather often against, to see if its theories are correct or not. This is contrary to the way creationists and Christians in general use it in my experience.Uh, I apologize if I seem angry or insulting. It was not my intention - I am merely speaking my mind.
#749
Guest_HellFireWink
Guest_HellFireWink
-
- Guest
Posted 26 March 2008 - 09:35 PM
Evolution is a just scientific teory of how the people began to exist,and off all animals we evoluationed from mokeys,but from what does the monkey come from,and thats the fact they cant even imagine of discovering.Listen to the church the GOD exists,if he wasnt how could everything been made and who made it
#750
Guest_avatarxprime
Guest_avatarxprime
-
- Guest
Posted 27 March 2008 - 05:25 AM
Yes, a conversation that lasted the entirety of the Beagle's (several months) voyage. It's not like they sat down to dinner one day and bam! The Captain become a Darwinist. Also, there was evidence, it's what the logical reasoning was based on. Darwin took samples from the organisms he witnessed on his voyage and also took detailed drawings.Also, your "point" was that a layman becomes an expert by viewing the evidence and thus only an expert can understand and a layman must just "believe." I used this real life and rather topical example to show how that is in no way the case.that's it! you just admitted my point: that the non-expert, exemplified by the captain of the Beagle, was convinced by an expert over the course of a conversation! Perhaps by "logical reasoning" but not by empirical evidence.
Umm, every one of the examples you gave are scientists. Mathematicians are just as much scientists as theoretical physicists. Logicians as you put it are also scientists, but in the social science half rather than natural science half. Philosophers can be considered scientists depending on the definition currently in use. Philosophy is notoriously difficult to actually define such that philosophers are satisfied.Aristotle was a scientist. He made contributions to biology, physics and cosmology among others. He belief in applying logic to understanding the world is a cornerstone of modern science. Now, he might have had absurd theories, but only too us. We know better because we have a better understanding of the world. We have tools that he lacked and as such have developed understanding beyond what he could ever have been expected to have. So stop trying to use red herrings, strawman defenses and cherry picking to defend your arguments. Science is based on logical reasoning. That reasoning is tested through trial and error whenever possible to ensure that only what is accurate remains, however without the reasoning as a starting point there is nothing to test. Understand that or don't bother trying to discuss the nature of science. This is basic "Scientific Method" kinda stuff.Here's an example: To a child, a stork bringing a child is a perfectly reasonable explanation for where a child comes from until they are provided evidence that shows this is not accurate. That doesn't mean the child is stupid for thinking this often claimed notion is false than they should be considered stupid for thinking Santa Claus exists. However, when these false (even though they seem reasonable/logical) beliefs, theories, etc are challenged by geniune fact the child will normally toss them aside and try to create new logically reasoned answers based on what they now know. Science works the same way. You see things, try to figure out why that might be, test that as best as you can to see if it is accurate, and then re-evaluate based on the results. Rinse. Repeat. But you always start with logic.And you lie when you say that Science is about logical reasoning. Logicians, mathematicians and philosophers don't make scientists after all. Aristotle was a most logical person but he produced what we now find to be absurd physical theories. Logic is just a tool to science. The first principle in science is rigorous testing of any hypothesis and empirical evidence. The logic of science is the logic of error and doubt.
No they are not the same. Evolutionists are not cultists first off. Second, their opinions are based on facts that have been routinely tested to ensure authenticity. When's the last time someone showed off a proof of God that actually was considered valid? Let's go with never because than there would be no debate, everyone would know that God existed and this is clearly not the case. Also, Evolutionists didn't start this, Creationists did. Although Evolutionists don't believe in Creationism, any decent scientists will say "if you have the proof show me and I'll evaluate it myself." The thing is Creationists can never offer any evidence, but love to claim that they are right regardless and Evolutionists are wrong. Evolutionists base their opinions on facts that are out there to be tested and submitted to scrutiny. We use logical reasoning that fits the evidence as best as we can. We don't just randomly say something is one way and not another and claim we are absolutely right even though we have no evidence or proof. I do believe that is practically the definition of being unreasonable or at the very least highly illogical.Evolutionist cultists are equally justified/unjustified in their beliefs as their creationists nemesis. It's just like a cult. It's so easy to make a claim to using reason--the creationist thesis is just as "reasonable" as evolution.
First off, STOP SAYING IT'S JUST A THEORY. It's been posted repeatedly in this thread that scientists use the word "theory" in a different context that a lay-person. Claiming something is a theory in science means it is as close to a fact as science will allow. Next, we didn't evolve from monkeys. Both monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Similarly, based on Evolution Theory, the monkey came from something that existed before. I'd provide a name but I don't feel like looking it up. Everything flows back that way to some universal common ancestor. Now from there you might ask "Well how did life start in the first place?" Guess what, no one really knows. That's right, science is unsure of how life started, but abiogenesis is not something that Evolution is supposed to explain in the first place so it doesn't matter. That's not a chink in the armor since it's not even supposed to be covered in the first place. Following that analogy, it's like asking "why doesn't a helmet protect my knee?"Evolution is a just scientific teory of how the people began to exist,and off all animals we evoluationed from mokeys,but from what does the monkey come from,and thats the fact they cant even imagine of discovering.Listen to the church the GOD exists,if he wasnt how could everything been made and who made it
