Evolutionary Debate
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 16:16
VIEWED: 20170
PAGE 11 of 20
Quote:
No, you're not pointing out the double standard.
no one knows for sure the origins of life on earth, because the data is not conclusive. there is a portion of the field who leave ID open to possibility, because the evidence isnt as cut and dry as you would like to believe Citizen. that seems to me to be a double standard- if it fits your theory, its fact, its proof.. if it suggests otherwise, or casts doubt on any of your prior beliefs, you automatically form a bias against it. i dont deny that species evolve, but i havent seen the 'proof' that Man came from ape millions of years ago.. because it hasnt been proven
Quote:
You WANT it to be a double standard because that validates your position so that's what you see, but it's not there.
and you apparently dont want to consider ID a possibility, that seems to be your lens.. so i could easily say the same for you. ill admit, i want a GOd to exist, and leave that possibility open, based on what i consider to be a compelling lack of evidence for the 'Golem' concept
Quote:
Science is based on evidence, you come up with a theory then test it.
so what can you prove happened billions of years ago? that does not fit into the category of science.. that is as much philosophy as religion is
Quote:
All this BS about ID and creationism being theories is merely the desperate straw grabbing by people who aren't content with religion filling it's niche but want to shoe horn it into everyone elses too.
all we are saying is that things appear to have been intelligently designed, which if it is true, merely serves as a premise to scientific discovery, it doesnt obstruct it in anyway
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
all we are saying is that things appear to have been intelligently designed, which if it is true, merely serves as a premise to scientific discovery, it doesnt obstruct it in anyway
The problem is that ID is unfalsifiable and thus unscientific, that is the reason why scientists reject ID. ID is merely an attempt to surround theology in a cloak of scientific validity, when in reality it has no such validity.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anti -
"you apparently dont want to consider ID a possibility"
why do you keep trying to shoehorn ID into science when it is no such thing? A scientific proposal needs to be able to be tested to see if it's wrong. Since ID isn't testable, it isn't science.
So why DO you keep trying to jam it into science? Just curious.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Fredgiblet-
Once again, evolution does not cover abiogenesis,
but most people assume it as a pretext to evolution, despite the lack of varafiable, reproduceable evidence to confirm its factuality. textbooks teach it right alongside evolution, as the proof of our origins, so its still a fundemental question, and seems to be essential to the claims that species such as Man cross evolved and mutated over billions of years, beginning as amino acids and proteins
Quote:
evolution does not cover the origins of the universe, hence the reality of evolution does not invalidate belief in a supreme being.
ok.. then its the evolutionists themselves who 'just know' that GOd does not exist. i believe God exists, but i cant prove it .. so ill admit its im acting on faith(although IMO the signs of intelligent design are there). when some scientist claims to know the whole truth of the matter, from the big bang to our current state, and states immutably 'there is no God', thats a bit different i think
Quote:
Additonally there's a good chance that the evolutionist thought that the debate would be focsued on evolution, which as i just stated DOES NOT COVER THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
he didnt have an answer about the neccessary DNA changes for an ape to become a human.. which is part of evolution. we dont have an answer, because theres no scientific data that proves that this occurred, its speculation and theory, so i dont see how it can be trumpeted as established fact
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm wondering why I'm getting all the shit about not being open minded here. I've never said that Evolution wasn't real. In fact, I'm rather inclined to believe that it is true. I give pretty much everything I cannot explain about a 50/50 shot. I haven't come at all of the Dawkin supporters with an outrageously religious wrath either, just a big fuck you to anyone who will come out and try to make someone believe that there is no God because science says so. I already told you that I haven't prayed to God since I was 19 and I'm a long way from coming up with any conclusions for myself regarding these issues. In the end, whatever I decide is truth is all that matters in this decision because that's my truth. I would say the same goes for all of you. As far as I'm concerned, this debate has never been about what is the absolute truth, because not a single one of us here really knows for sure or ever will. There has never been a single shred of undeniable proof that validates one while disproving the other.
I think several posts have been twisted around on me here while I was gone and unable to defend myself. The entire point of what I've been trying to say has very little to do with trying to invalidate evolution, or to even say that there is a God. It seems like the pro-evos here think that that is exactly what I'm doing.
I have a problem with my 12 year old brother quoting unfavorable passages from the bible to everyone he knows and talking about the spagetti monster all of the time. I think this is just as scary as somebody who was always trying to convert you to their religion. What's even worse about it is that he doesn't have to go to a "church" to have it so engrained in his brain that this is true. All he has to do is go on the internet and chat with other atheists and people who follow Dawkin's word as "gospel" truth.
As far as I'm concerned, this Dawkins isn't any different than L Ron Hubbard, and his reach seems even farther because his "doctrine" is being taught in schools, without anything to balance it. I read Dianetics and I've been through an auditing process as well. It's a very believable book and it made a lot of sense to me at one point... but if I were to follow that path I would lose any sense of individuality and every decision in my life would ultimately be with the good of the collective in mind. It works for some, but it's just not my bag.
And Cit.. I happen to know a lot about evolution. When I was a kid all I wanted to do when I grew up was go on digs for Dinosaur bones. I enjoyed Biology in high school and I took two Biology courses in college. It just so happens that it is my favorite Science, although I think now I would like to know more about Physics. I never really paid much attention to Physics in high school and didn't persue it at all in College. I was an absolute rock when it came to Chemestry. I could handle the basics, but my mind simply isn't wired right to handle any of the more advanced aspects of Chemistry.
Bottom line is that the science people are on the attack. They want it all and they won't stop until they get it. I see no difference between what the science people have done to religion and what the smoke Nazis have done to smokers. I really don't know why everything has to be one way or the other, espceically considering that most of us are torn on issues and don't agree. I'm sure there is a median that we can find that would make both parties happy, but unless attitudes like the ones in here change, that will never happen.
Just for the record: Not sure what it means, but as far as what I've seen on this thread, the religious people have been the most tolerant of the opposing views hands down. This being an overall generalization. There are people on both sides who are content to live in co-existance with one another.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:Quote:
Fredgiblet-
Once again, evolution does not cover abiogenesis,
but most people assume it as a pretext to evolution, despite the lack of varafiable, reproduceable evidence to confirm its factuality. textbooks teach it right alongside evolution, as the proof of our origins, so its still a fundemental question, and seems to be essential to the claims that species such as Man cross evolved and mutated over billions of years, beginning as amino acids and proteins
No, most people assume that there is a god that created life, check your facts. Any textbook that states that evolution has THE answer to abiogenesis really should be rewritten, but in science textbooks where facts (like evolution) are taught there will always be questions raised by the lessons. Instead of simply saying that we don't know it is perfectly legitimate to present hypothesis (plural?)(as long as they are depicted as such). Additionally this arguement applies equally well to creationists who state unverified opinons as fact. Abiogenesis is not in any way critical to understanding of evolution, how life began does not change the evidence for how life proceeded to develop.
Quote:Quote:
evolution does not cover the origins of the universe, hence the reality of evolution does not invalidate belief in a supreme being.
ok.. then its the evolutionists themselves who 'just know' that GOd does not exist. i believe God exists, but i cant prove it .. so ill admit its im acting on faith(although IMO the signs of intelligent design are there). when some scientist claims to know the whole truth of the matter, from the big bang to our current state, and states immutably 'there is no God', thats a bit different i think
So the feeling that I am getting from this complaint is that you don't like it when people state that they have beliefs that don't match up with yours?
Also, any scientist who claims to know everything must notbe a particuarly good scientist, part of being a scientist is knowing that there is a lot more to learn. We have a pretty good idea of how things have progressed since the Big Bang, there are holes (such as abiogenesis) that may never be filled in, or may be filled in tomorrow. We could be completely wrong but the evidence fits.
Quote:Quote:
Additonally there's a good chance that the evolutionist thought that the debate would be focsued on evolution, which as i just stated DOES NOT COVER THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
he didnt have an answer about the neccessary DNA changes for an ape to become a human.. which is part of evolution. we dont have an answer, because theres no scientific data that proves that this occurred, its speculation and theory, so i dont see how it can be trumpeted as established fact
So one person can't answer one question that he probably didn't know was coming beforehand and that invalidates evolution? Have you tried looking up the answer to the question yourself? Could you tell me the question he was asked? (I'm not going to watch an hour-long video just to argue on the internet). Evolution as a whole is an established fact, no reputable biologist will argue against that. There are parts that are speculative, but the basic mechanism is well tested and proven.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
"all we are saying is that things appear to have been intelligently designed"
Is that what Intelligent Design is?
I agree. Everything seems to be intelligently designed. Not just biologically, but physically too.
I can never get over how well everything works. The whole universe. It's amazing.
I wonder what the rest of it could be for?
I wish I'd be able to live long enough to find out.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
So the feeling that I am getting from this complaint is that you don't like it when people state that they have beliefs that don't match up with yours?
Hahahahahaha.... show me one person in here who hasn't shown that trait..... including me.
I was beat up pretty bad in here while I was gone.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anti -
"you apparently dont want to consider ID a possibility"
Why do you keep trying to shoehorn ID into science when it is no such thing? A scientific proposal needs to be able to be tested to see if it's wrong. Since ID isn't testable, it isn't science.
So why DO you keep trying to jam it into science? Just curious.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:Quote:
"all we are saying is that things appear to have been intelligently designed"
Is that what Intelligent Design is?
I agree. Everything seems to be intelligently designed. Not just biologically, but physically too.
I can never get over how well everything works. The whole universe. It's amazing.
Ever had lower back pain? Broken your tailbone? Had your tonsils removed? Had your appendix removed? Humans alone are full of flaws that a basic engineering degree or even just a little common sense would have cleaned out, that doesn't seem too intelligent to me. On the other hand evolution predicts that there will be leftovers in our bodies of formerly useful things, as long as the leftover is not too disadvantageuos it won't be selected out, thus we have tailbones to break. I would think that just about any engineering or pre-med student would tell us that whoever designed the human body must have not really thought it through.
As for physics, if the physical world was unfit for the development of life then we wouldn't be here, the reason it seems to us that it is designed perfectly is because as far as we can tell no other set up will work. There is no reason to believe that a different combination of physical forces would not produce a stable universe that functions just as well as this one.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME