Real World Event Discussions
Evolutionary Debate
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 16:16
VIEWED: 20170
PAGE 13 of 20
Saturday, February 10, 2007 11:24 AM
Excellent posts, Citizen. I especially liked the "breaking into science's house" analogy. I think I'll use it in future "debates" on the topic. 
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:09 PM
Well Cit... I see we may finally be getting somewhere here instead of attacking each other. I think you made some very valid points here, and perhaps I am mistaken about a few things. I feel that there are some things you are mistaken about as well, but I do feel we are making progress.... allow me to respond to each quote individually.
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Science has absolutely nothing to say on the subject of God, never has and never will. The accusation that science is attacking god is entirely in the minds of the religious who think they're religion must influence all walks of life. I suppose by doing you're own thing when another group is trying to force you otherwise that other group may see that as an attack.
Okay. I'm very willing to give the benefit of the doubt here. I loved my Bilogy teacher in highschool. She was one of the coolest teachers I ever had. I would probably say that I was still pretty religious back in freshman year of High School and not once did I ever think that anything she was teaching me made me doubt in God, even when Evolution came up. Even back then I just kind of accepted this as the "how" God did it. Never once do I remember hearing her say a thing about God, which is exactly how I think it should be taught.
Perhaps the religious community is getting defensive about this issue because they've been alienated from schools recently and have been under attack and instead of trying harder to fight the Government and their cirriculum on this where they should, they've taken it out on Science because, let's face it, Science just makes sence as an enemy of the church where say... English just wouldn't make any sense (I'm speaking from the standpoint of a total layperson and not a scientist, or someone who is as obviously in love with Science as you are). This belief that Science is attacking the church is only solidified in the mind of the religious train of thought when asshats like Dawkins come out and say things that he has to say. I think you're right and maybe I don't know enough about the debate, but if Science and the media keep Dawkins (the Jesse Jackson of Science) as their poster boy, then this is a battle that will never go away.
Quote:
So how come you can't tell the very basic difference between Darwinian natural selection and a biological learning process......
Well... maybe I don't know a lot compared to you, but I have taken 3 Biology classes. I think I know a lot more about it than your average layperson and certainly more than somebody religious who views evolution as heresy. I'm not in a who's wang is bigger competition here with you Cit, because regarding Science yours is MUCH bigger, and I lose hands down. I retract the statement.
Quote:
Get what? Be left alone, because that's it. Science has never once, not ONCE attacked religion, it's all come from the other side. That's rare, in fact it's the only time I can ever think that one side is entirely responsible for the conflict.
Maybe you're right here. It just seems that the Church is under so much fire from every direction that it's easy to think that Science is attacking it here. I realize that it is Government attacking the church and maybe now I see that Science has little if nothing to do with that. I'm all about being left alone Cit. You know me.
When you put it that way, I don't really have much of an arguement anymore. Except.... this is one more reason that Dawkins has got to go, or at least there needs to be a predominant religious scientist (you've all said they're out there) giving him a run for his money. Come on Science... Do a little PR for Christ's sake.... lol
Quote:
Science IS NOT attacking religion, science is under attack, and is defending itself. It's a credit to science that it doesn't return the attack where religion lives.
Science needs to do the responsible thing then..... hmmmmmm. I think my replies are getting pretty predicable now.
Quote:
Science has d
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:45 PM
Quote:I think so, but there's still some things I'd like to address.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
That's about it man. Maybe we can see a bit more eye to eye here now.
Quote:"God does not play dice with the Universe". Einstein believed in a God like concept, even if it wasn't a personable one like that of Christianity.
Except.... this is one more reason that Dawkins has got to go, or at least there needs to be a predominant religious scientist (you've all said they're out there) giving him a run for his money. Come on Science... Do a little PR for Christ's sake.... lol
Dawkins arguments against religion are founded in Atheism, not science.
Quote:Are you saying you should have a pay rise because you smoke?
After the $1.25 per pack raise that we're going to have here in the next couple of months I view it as basically I just got fined an extra $425.00, or I took a $425.00 pay cut this year while my non-smoking coworkers didn't.
Quote:Science is concerned with the physical, and God is metaphysical, I don't think I can put it plainer than that.
Well, I'm not convinced that God does not have a place in Science yet.
Quote:It's impossible for science to prove or disprove the existence of God.
I'm not convinced that Science will not someday disprove God's existance either.
Quote:I don't think what was sent your way was as bad as you say, and I think we can take a look at Antimasons comments for similar sentiments.
Well, after I got beat down like Rodney King today, I have to stand firmly behind my original statement here. Sorry man. Didn't see any shit like that being flung Scienceside.
Quote:Exactly, because Religion is playing on Science's 'homeboy turf' and trying to use it's own rules to do so. It then calls science intolerant when that fails.
In all fairness Cit, the deck is seriously stacked in Science's favor here. You know that to be true.
Quote:Exactly, there is only two possible outcomes to this, either Science 'wins' and religion leaves science alone and goes back to what it does best, or religion 'wins' and we all lose and go back to the dark ages.
There is absolutely no way for Religion to fight Science because as you've said before, they basically exist on two very seperate plains.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, February 10, 2007 3:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
"God does not play dice with the Universe". Einstein believed in a God like concept, even if it wasn't a personable one like that of Christianity.
Dawkins arguments against religion are founded in Atheism, not science.
Well I see there is a great and famous mind that believed in a "God" concept now, but I had no idea before. I'm by no means the most well read or informed person in the world, but I do consider myself to be a bit ahead of the curve than many of my peers. I would think that the only people who knew this about Einstein would be Scientists, Science enthusiasts and Historians... and possibly your trivia/quote whizzes and maybe the three other people who lucked out and caught that on one of those history channel exclusives. Anybody can hear the very worst Dawkins has to say about religion by turning on VH1 or Comedy Central. Kinda the lowest common denominator, know what I'm sayin? I'm kind of thinking somebody more in the here and now who has a voice today. You know... somebody that South Park would make fun of (That Dawkins episode is priceless, btw)
I'm kinda thinking somebody like you who can call him out on his unprofessional Atheism. Maybe let him know that he's only making a bad situation worse for everyone on all sides. Aside from a comedian, I can't think of another profession where somebody could use their Atheism, or any religion for that matter, as a platform without getting their walking papers by the end of the week.
Quote:
Are you saying you should have a pay rise because you smoke?
Certainly not. It's not my employer's place to subsidise my habit, or a runaway government... that may be a perk CEOs get, but it definately was not part of my contract. It won't make me feel any better when they target fat people next in the next 10 or 20 years. They went after the most offensive addiction to others first. I can only see obesity as the next target because:
a) it costs just as much in health care, if not more because a larger percent of the world populace is overweight than addicted to smoking and
b) Many people find it visually offencive, though for PC reasons and plain human decency they don't vocalize their objections to it much after highschool is over.
It's a slippery slope and if the non-smokers don't start stepping up too they're going to be singled out one by one for their own vices in the future.
Do I hear $5.00 for a Twinkie? How about $10.00 and your signature saying you understand that your health insurance won't cover you when you need heart surgery if you eat it? Trust me, they'll know you're eating it when we buy everything on credit and cash is out the door.
Quote:
Science is concerned with the physical, and God is metaphysical, I don't think I can put it plainer than that.
You've stated that quite planely, and that may be the basis of Scientific theory even, but I would think that it would be in Science's nature to keep an open mind and consider possible outside influences in the future, even something as outrageous as Divine Intervention.... Rapture, maybe? Most likely we'll never see them, but the laws we know as true today might not be true tomorrow for whatever reason. Pure speculation and in the realm of Sci-Fi I know, but that's how my mind works. Or would an event such as these destroy Science?
Quote:
It's impossible for science to prove or disprove the existence of God.
Well it's obvious that I'm no scientist, and I have conceded quite a bit to you today, which I rarely do, but I can't take your word on this one either. Knowing what we know about the Universe today such a task would seem impossible, but not having a scientifically wired mind myself, I'm of the belief that anything could happen today or tomorrow or at any time in the future which would change our minds and even our Science. Don't the laws and theories change quite often as we make new discoveries? Haven't there been new discoveries made quite often th
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, February 10, 2007 4:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet: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.
Well, seems to me that the evolutionary process which appears to be shrinking tailbones and discarding appendixes is pretty intelligent, too. I mean, you did say that these things had been reduced to a scale where they were no longer a large-scale disadvantage anymore? And all in a system that changes itself over time to suit the survival needs of the day? That's super intelligent.
I suppose my computer could be built a dozen different ways and still do what it does, but that makes me marvel no less at its design.
So, if these Intelligent Design folks are just saying that everything seems Intelligently Designed, well I'm still with them.
I do wonder about something, though...
Now that we have medicine, and a bajillion ways to correct anything that goes wrong... does that mean that human beings will be at an evolutionary standstill? You know, since there's no more natural selection?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, February 10, 2007 4:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
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.
Well, seems to me that the evolutionary process which appears to be shrinking tailbones and discarding appendixes is pretty intelligent, too. I mean, you did say that these things had been reduced to a scale where they were no longer a large-scale disadvantage anymore? And all in a system that changes itself over time to suit the survival needs of the day? That's super intelligent.
They have shrunk yes, whether or not they are finished shrinking I can't say. The point is that it is a very poor design decision to include something like a tailbone in the human body, the ony purpose would be to have something else to break and hurt us, meaning either the Intelligent Designer is incompetent or an asshole. Additionally, like I said the presence of vestigal body components fits perfectly with science but not so well with ID.
Quote:
Now that we have medicine, and a bajillion ways to correct anything that goes wrong... does that mean that human beings will be at an evolutionary standstill? You know, since there's no more natural selection?
Pretty much, there are millions of people with genetic flaws who will be kept alive for their entire lives through medical science that would have had no chance even 50 years ago. Some people might see this as a good thing (we're saving lives!!!) but some might see it as a bad thing (we're letting dangerous genentic flaws propogate!!!).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, February 10, 2007 4:45 PM
Quote:Yeah, humans can't evolve anymore. The natural environment, and hence natural selection, has largely been neutralised, amongst other things because of the medical advances you've mentioned.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Now that we have medicine, and a bajillion ways to correct anything that goes wrong... does that mean that human beings will be at an evolutionary standstill? You know, since there's no more natural selection?
Also, the population is too large, so any beneficial mutations won't be able to impose themselves on the population as a whole. If it weren't for point 1, I suppose that over time beneficial mutations could conceivably become a characteristic of the populations in small, isolated communities, which are getting rarer with today's ease of transportation, and these communities wouldn't have much of an effect on the rest of the gene pool of the human population anyway.
So unless we have a global holocaust (or a rapture
) that leaves only a comparatively small number of humans fighting against the environment, humans are done evolving.The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, February 10, 2007 4:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'm kinda thinking somebody like you who can call him out on his unprofessional Atheism. Maybe let him know that he's only making a bad situation worse for everyone on all sides.
I don't disagree, but its his decision to pursue a radical atheist standpoint. IIRC he's only been doing this for the last couple years, and in reality I agree with some of the things he's been saying, namely that atheists should be able to stand up and proclaim their beliefs without fear of damaging their personal or professional lives. I think he wants to go way too far way too fast, but I don't disagree with him in principle.
Quote:
Aside from a comedian, I can't think of another profession where somebody could use their Atheism, or any religion for that matter, as a platform without getting their walking papers by the end of the week.
As for atheism, yeah you're probably right. But religion is what wins elections (probably the worst indicator of a good politician but I've given up trying to understand peoples actions). There's a few other places where religion is frequently used as a platform as well, music and talk shows come to mind.
Quote:
a) it costs just as much in health care, if not more because a larger percent of the world populace is overweight than addicted to smoking and
No. Maybe more are overweight, but there is a big difference between overweight and obese (like 20% more weight difference).
Quote:
You've stated that quite planely, and that may be the basis of Scientific theory even, but I would think that it would be in Science's nature to keep an open mind and consider possible outside influences in the future, even something as outrageous as Divine Intervention.... Rapture, maybe?
No. The moment science considers the supernatural as an answer science goes out the window. Science deals ONLY with the natural world because the supernatural world is untstable and unverifiable.
Quote:
Or would an event such as these destroy Science?
Destroy it? No. If the physical roperties of the world shifted then scientists would just have to start over again figuring things out, though if they shifted often enough scientists would probably give up.
Quote:
Well it's obvious that I'm no scientist, and I have conceded quite a bit to you today, which I rarely do, but I can't take your word on this one either. Knowing what we know about the Universe today such a task would seem impossible, but not having a scientifically wired mind myself, I'm of the belief that anything could happen today or tomorrow or at any time in the future which would change our minds and even our Science. Don't the laws and theories change quite often as we make new discoveries? Haven't there been new discoveries made quite often that would have, at one point in the past, seemed impossible with what we used to have to work with?
Supernatural phenomena are not testable or verifiable, period. Once you delve into the supernatural all the rules that the tools of science depend on are suspect and can no longer be trusted.
Quote:
Somehow I'm thinking that even if that were to happen I'd still be paying 3 times what I did for smokes when I started 9 years ago.
I hear that patches and gum are cheaper than cigarettes
just saying...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, February 10, 2007 4:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Now that we have medicine, and a bajillion ways to correct anything that goes wrong... does that mean that human beings will be at an evolutionary standstill? You know, since there's no more natural selection?
Intresting question.
as i understand it there are several forms of evolution that have been identified to date.
1)Genetic Drift.
This i understand is random mutation over time without rhyme or reason in this case there are trends which arfe followed although accumulations of these mutations eventually form into the larger scale mutations which are used in natural selection, it can be noted that this is the form of evolution which is used in genetic dating techniques. genetic drift will continue as long as we reproduce by combining DNA from two or more parents as it is mutations in te combining which cause it.
2)Natural Selection.
This is the form of evolution most widely discussed and as in the western world at least the vast majority of the population has the chance of succsefully reproducing it can be argued that we are no longer under a selective pressure and so no longer are effected by it.
3)Artificial Selection.
This covers everything from eugenics, stud farming to genetic manipulation. where cirtain characturistics are emphesized artificially by some method. it is considered by some to be the next step forward for our evolution although is a highly argued subject.
and is considered dangerouse by many.
Questions? arguments? points?
anyone please.
I dont suffer from madness, I enjoy it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, February 10, 2007 5:04 PM
Quote:This is option 1 (science wins).
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:Quote:
Exactly, there is only two possible outcomes to this, either Science 'wins' and religion leaves science alone and goes back to what it does best, or religion 'wins' and we all lose and go back to the dark ages.
Or there's the third option where nobody wins or loses and everyone leaves each other to their own business.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME