Evolution, Science, Faith - Lightning rod

POSTED BY: leadb
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 17:27
VIEWED: 31211
PAGE 2 of 4

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

REAVERMAN

Thursday, June 7, 2007 6:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

Nothing personal, but this is just the kind of attitude toward government that I'll always fight. The "we know what's best for you" philosophy of government is diametrically opposed to tolerant, free societies, and its at the core of the excesses of government in general.

Note, I didn't say "government knows best". In fact, I too despise that attitude. What I was trying to get across was that professionals who've spent years training to teach children know best (In most cases).

[img]

[/img]

"I refuse to submit,
To the god you say is kind.
I know what's right, and it is time,
It's time to fight, and free our minds!

Our spirits were forged in snow and ice,
To bend like steel forged over fire.
We were not made to bend like reed,
Or to turn the other cheek!"

- from the song "Thousand Years of Opression" by Amon Amarth

SERGEANTX

Thursday, June 7, 2007 7:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
Note, I didn't say "government knows best". In fact, I too despise that attitude. What I was trying to get across was that professionals who've spent years training to teach children know best (In most cases).

Ok, I thought you were talking about laws and such, which is very much 'government'.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Friday, June 8, 2007 6:47 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/education/08scores.html

Academic standards vary so drastically from state to state that a fourth grader judged proficient in reading in Mississippi or Tennessee would fall far short of that mark in Massachusetts and South Carolina, the United States Department of Education said yesterday in a report that, for the first time, measured the extent of the differences.

The report http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2007482.asp provides ammunition for critics who say that one national standard is needed. “Parents and communities in too many states are being told not to worry, all is well, when their students are far behind,” said Michael J. Petrilli, a vice president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation who served in the Education Department during Mr. Bush’s first term.

SIGNYM

Friday, June 8, 2007 7:01 PM

ANTIMASON: In our story so far...

Quote:
this is why i dont discount global 'god' myths, i think they all tell a similar story. what separates the abrahamic beliefs is the acknowledgement of the Creator of everything, and a prophesied messiah sent to redeem mankind. and thats where christianity becomes relevant to me, because i do believe Jesus was the Son of God- Antimason

Wha...? That in no way answers my question. If god, or gods, or God, created everything else first, and THEN man, how did humans (I don't care where) come to know about something that happened BEFORE humanity was even on the scene? Did the gods, or god, or God tell them about it shortly afterwards? And if you believe it was the "one true God" that created everyone- heathens included- what happened to "the story" that it should have changed so much? Or do you believe that God kept yakking with the Hebrews long after He stopped yakking with the others, and kept his "chosen people" on the correct path?- Signy

So I'm wondering how you explain your contention that the Biblical "origin" myths are based in fact, when according to the Bible all other creation occurred before humans were invented?

It seems to me that one would have to believe the Bible pretty literally.... that species were created not evolved, that God spoke with humans after their creation, and that God kept a convenant with his "chosen people" which kept "the Word" pure and accurate through however many years it was since creation. In other words, alhtough you tend to present yourself as a fairly broad-minded person who encompasses ID and other religion, in fact you're a fairly strict lieralist when it comes to the Bile. Correct?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FREDGIBLET

Friday, June 8, 2007 7:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
God kept a convenant with his "chosen people" which kept "the Word" pure and accurate through however many years it was since creation.

Which begs the question of how there are so many errors in any given translation of the Bible.

Quote:
in fact you're a fairly strict lieralist when it comes to the Bile. Correct?

Typo or Freudian slip?

SIGNYM

Friday, June 8, 2007 7:12 PM

Oh my! Bible!

Well, now we know how mistranslations occur!

(I shall write Bible on my dry-erase-board 100 times!)

---------------------------------
Blessed are the cheesemakers.

RUE

Friday, June 8, 2007 9:50 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070608/lf_afp/usevolutionreligion_070608
182238; _ylt=AgQgPwsQimHCGw5pvlsV0IvMWM0F

A full 66 percent said they believed in creationism, with 39 percent of those polled saying it was definitely true and 27 percent believing it was probably true.

More recently, the question divided Republican presidential candidates who traditionally represent the Christian conservative elements of US society, with three answering in last month's debate that they do not believe in evolution.

Idiots

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 9, 2007 12:31 AM

It takes a very special person to deny the evidence of their senses.

---------------------------------
Blessed are the cheesemakers.

LEADB

Saturday, June 9, 2007 1:13 AM

Part of the problem is it is not 'their senses'; most folks are not 'interested' enough in evolution to do their own research; they tend to accept what they were taught when they were young. They have to accept -someone-'s position; should they accept their cleric's position, whom they have been told to trust, or should they trust the information the scientists they have never met, and have been told has a political agenda against them?

Personally, I have no particular reason to trust either group (though with an admitted bias to the value of 'scientific peer review') completely; however, having looked over the various materials presented, I'm inclined to go with the 'natural evolution'; with the slight caveot I will accept that there may have been an 'Initiator' who started the whole ball rolling.

RUE

Saturday, June 9, 2007 1:56 AM

It points to the problem of poorly educated parents educating their own children or voting on what their children should learn.

If US parents want to educate their children in western madrassas then they will get the same result as Pakistan. And the US will end up with a poorly educated non-competative workforce sinking even further into gobal poverty. WHOO HOOO ! Who wouldn't want that ?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, June 9, 2007 2:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Part of the problem is it is not 'their senses'; most folks are not 'interested' enough in evolution to do their own research; they tend to accept what they were taught when they were young. They have to accept -someone-'s position; should they accept their cleric's position, whom they have been told to trust, or should they trust the information the scientists they have never met, and have been told has a political agenda against them?

Personally, I have no particular reason to trust either group (though with an admitted bias to the value of 'scientific peer review') completely; however, having looked over the various materials presented, I'm inclined to go with the 'natural evolution'; with the slight caveot I will accept that there may have been an 'Initiator' who started the whole ball rolling.

People on both sides of this debate are certain they are right, despite the fact that neither side can produce real evidence to demonstrate their side. On one side you’ve got the religious argument that rests on faith, and they admit that they don’t really know what the answer is, but they believe it. On the other side, you’ve got the evolutionists, who insist that their side is factual, yet they can’t really produce evidence for it. I don’t think anyone really has a problem with natural selection. What is really the stickler is this macroevolution idea, which is a wholly improvable position. Human beings do not live long enough to witness macroevolution and the fossil record is not complete enough, and very likely may never be. Yet evolutionists talk about it as if it’s fact, but when they are asked for “proof” the best they are able to do is show a mosquito evolving into another mosquito or a fruit fly evolving into another fruit fly. Now as a scientist, I understand the nuances here, but as a scientist I also can’t claim that this comes anywhere close to demonstrating macroevolution. For people who have other more important things to worry about, which is most people really, what they see is an idiot trying to tell them that one mosquito is different from another, when in fact they’re both mosquitoes. Quite frankly, the religious side comes across much more honest, and therefore believable.

It also comes down to how the debate is framed and evolution supporters often attempt to argue evolution from the position of faith. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard people on the evolution side of this debate claim that they “believe” in evolution. No real scientist “believes” in evolution. It is a theory that is accepted or not accepted to one degree or another based on the available evidence. Some parts of it are pretty well founded; others aren’t much more then conjecture. Evolution may be good science, when it is science, but it is not good religion. And when evolution tries to go up against religion on the basis of belief, it will lose more often then not.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

LEADB

Saturday, June 9, 2007 3:39 AM

It's hard to keep the language clear, as well. I should rather say that 'Within the bounds of the observable world, I accept evolution, including macro-evolution.' That ends the bounds of science. To state I am willing to grant there may have been an 'Initiator' of the universe (ie: perhaps something triggered the big bang, a 'crafter' of the universe) muddles the issue as you are(or in this case, I am) crossing the bounds where science is currently useful to that which it is not (at least at this time). It gets tiresome to spell that all out each time; but any time you don't, someone is libel to come along and be honestly confused by the lack of differentiation.

RUE

Saturday, June 9, 2007 3:43 AM

Finn, your arguments are dishonest. I know you pretend to take the moral high ground, but really, your political agendas drive you to lying. Take a step back and try to straighten out the soul you think you have.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, June 9, 2007 3:58 AM

And then there is this mean-spirited resentment that comes from some on the evolution side, which doesn’t help either. Unfortunately, both sides have their fanatics, but I think it penalizes the evolution side more then it does the religious side.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn, your arguments are dishonest. I know you pretend to take the moral high ground, but really, your political agendas drive you to lying. Take a step back and try to straighten out the soul you think you have.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SERGEANTX

Saturday, June 9, 2007 4:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
On the other side, you’ve got the evolutionists, who insist that their side is factual, yet they can’t really produce evidence for it.

This is utterly false. There's gobs of evidence. The ID capacity for denying the evidence is stunning, but it doesn't change the reality of what's staring us all in the face.

Quote:
I don’t think anyone really has a problem with natural selection. What is really the stickler is this macroevolution idea, which is a wholly improvable position.

You're gonna have to explain this. ID folks throw this concept around as though it's not just made up bs. WHAT DOES IT EVEN MEAN? What is the difference between microevolution and macroevolution? Where does one take over and the other kick in?

This is so simplistic it seems dumb to have to argue it. How hard can it be to realize that lots of small changes make for a big overall change. You're essentially denying that 1 + 1 = 2.

Quote:
For people who have other more important things to worry about, which is most people really, what they see is an idiot trying to tell them that one mosquito is different from another, when in fact they’re both mosquitoes. Quite frankly, the religious side comes across much more honest, and therefore believable.

Right, the religious side has more 'truthiness'

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock[/i

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, June 9, 2007 4:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
This is utterly false. There's gobs of evidence. The ID capacity for denying the evidence is stunning, but it doesn't change the reality of what's staring us all in the face.

There is a lot of evidence for some parts of evolution. As I said, some parts of it are well-founded, but others are not. But too often, what I see are people on the evolution side demanded that the existence of evidence, even conclusive evidence, for some part of evolution theory requires the acceptance or the “belief” in all of the theory. But in the end, the evidence is just not their. As Leadb said, this is, to a large degree, a product of the imprecision in the language used, but it’s also, I think, a desire to create a mutually exclusive argument, where one is intimated into accepting evolution.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
You're gonna have to explain this. ID folks throw this concept around as though it's not just made up bs. WHAT DOES IT EVEN MEAN? What is the difference between microevolution and macroevolution? Where does one take over and the other kick in?

Microevolution refers to a change in an organism below the level of species, such as phenotype. Macroevolution refers to a change in an organism at or above the level of species, such as a cow changing into a whale. Strictly speaking from a scientific perspective, when one species of mosquito changes into another species of mosquito, that is actually evidence for Macroevolution. The problem is that then evolutionist run with this as “proof” that cows evolve into whales, but that one mosquito can become another mosquito is not evidence that cows can evolve into whales. While it is enticing evidence for those that understand the nuances, it is not really evidence for the larger implication of macroevolution.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
This is so simplistic it seems dumb to have to argue it. How hard can it be to realize that lots of small changes make for a big overall change. You're essentially denying that 1 + 1 = 2.

I’m not denying any such thing, but you are demanding that I accept an argument, regardless of the evidence, because you find it logical. But that’s not how science works. That’s how religion works. In science, it doesn’t matter whether the argument is logical or not, if there is no evidence for it. Frankly, you’re insinuations are insulting, and therein lies the real problem. You’re calling me stupid for not (hypothetically) accepting that cows (or some predecessor) evolved into whales on the bases of a mosquito becoming another mosquito. You don’t know it yet, but you’ve just lost the argument, because I’m less inclined to sympathize with the evolution argument. You’ve just made it look irrational. And that’s my point. That’s the mistake the evolution side makes. The religious side does this as well, but it works on the religious side because there is no evidentiary requirement for religion.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Saturday, June 9, 2007 5:12 AM

Bullshit.

We've been through this argument at least five times already for you to know that you are lying.

First of all: SCIENCE NEVER PROVES ANYTHING. Now either you can't grasp this simple concept no matter how many times it's repeated, or you love to lie. Any argument that either demands scientific proof or claims victory on the absence of proof is a flat-out manipulative lie.

Second, NOT ALL SCIENCE IS EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE. That doesn't make it any less valid. Do you dispute theories of gravity because you can't watch it or change it in the lab?

Finally, THERE ARE MANY TRANSITION FORMS BETWEEN SPECIES, BOTH FOSSIL AND EXTANT. This is so well established that to deny it puts you on par with PJenny.

Stop spreading your brand of bullshit lies. And think about why it is you are so compelled to base your ego on your oily brand of bullshit.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, June 9, 2007 5:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Microevolution refers to a change in an organism below the level of species, such as phenotype. Macroevolution refers to a change in an organism at or above the level of species, such as a cow changing into a whale.

WTF??? A cow changing into a whale? If this is your understanding of how evolution works, then I see why it seems implausible to you. But really, check it out. That's not what the theory predicts.

So, I'll ask again, what is the difference between microevolution and macroevolution? You've said they're changes at different levels, but what is a change at a higher level, if not the summation of many changes at a lower levels? It's merely a matter of magnitude. You do realize that designations such as 'species' and 'phenotype' are observed categories, not distinct boundaries, right?

Quote:
...While it is enticing evidence for those that understand the nuances, it is not really evidence for the larger implication of macroevolution.

Why not?

Quote:
You’re calling me stupid for not (hypothetically) accepting that cows (or some predecessor) evolved into whales...

I'm calling you stupid for saying that evolution entails cows 'turning into' whales. But I don't think you really are that stupid. I think that rue is right, your arguments are dishonest. They're nothing but sophistry and deliberate fallacy.

Quote:
You don’t know it yet, but you’ve just lost the argument, because I’m less inclined to sympathize with the evolution argument...

You're assuming I'm trying to convince you, or win your sympathy. That's not the case. I just get tired of all the bullshit that shoveled these days in the name of 'debate'. A lot of us have been lazy and allowed insidious demagoguery to dominate public discourse. It's high time we called you on it.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, June 9, 2007 5:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
WTF??? A cow changing into a whale? If this is your understanding of how evolution works, then I see why it seems implausible to you. But really, check it out. That's not what the theory predicts.

Yeah I have checked it out. Maybe you should take your own advice. Whales evolved from early ungulates, basically early cow-like animals (at least that's the theory). Look it up.

I’ve explained to you what microevolution and macroevolution are as they are understood by science. I think I’ve made my case extremely well (or rather you and rue have made my case for me) for why so many people tend to sympathize with creationism as opposed to evolution. I think that when the evolution side of the debate can set aside its irrational and pejorative approach to other ideas, then I think you’ll begin to see a greater appreciation for evolution theory among the larger public. Until then acceptance is going to be slow.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SERGEANTX

Saturday, June 9, 2007 6:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yeah I have checked it out. Maybe you should take your own advice. Whales evolved from early ungulates, basically early cow-like animals (at least that's the theory). Look it up.

That's what I thought. You do understand and choose to deliberately mis-characterize it. That's what I mean by dishonest.

Quote:
I think I’ve made my case extremely well ...

That depends on what your case is, which is still a bit murky. You seem to be saying that folks won't accept evolution unless we dumb it down to "cows magically turning into whales". I'm not quite that cynical about the average human's intelligence. I think they can understand it just fine if they can cut through the fog being continuously pumped into the public consciousness.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, June 9, 2007 6:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
That depends on what your case is, which is still a bit murky. You seem to be saying that folks won't accept evolution unless we dumb it down to "cows magically turning into whales".

“Magically?” That’s your word, not mine. I'm not dumbing anything down.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

REAVERMAN

Saturday, June 9, 2007 6:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yeah I have checked it out. Maybe you should take your own advice. Whales evolved from early ungulates, basically early cow-like animals (at least that's the theory). Look it up.

Yes, and do you know what that theory is based on? EVIDENCE. Fossil, and bone evidence.

You don't seem to understand the difference between evidence and proof. There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution, but we haven't been studying it long enough to see profound, obvious changes that would utterly destroy any shadow of a doubt (I'm sure though, that even if we do find such proof, there would still be a bunch of jackasses trying to convince everyone that it's not true).

Something I've been asking myself for a while now is, how is dog breeding (or selective breeding of any kind) different from evolution? The answer: It's not. It is simply a forced version of what's known as "Geographic Isolation". Geographic Isolation is when creatures can't mate because of a physical barrier between them. According to the theory, over time, the creatures on either side of the barrier begin to develope different traits because of different mating choices.

That is exactly how breeding works. You pick an animal with traits you want in the next generation, pair it up with another animal with traits you want in the next generation, then see what happens. Eventually, you end up with an entirely different breed.

Rue, you need to calm down. You're not going to convince anyone by calling them a liar and telling them how stupid they are. In fact, all it does is hurt your case in the eyes of those on the sidelines. Finn isn't one of the Pirates; he will listen to reason if you present your case well.

[img]

[/img]

"I refuse to submit,
To the god you say is kind.
I know what's right, and it is time,
It's time to fight, and free our minds!

Our spirits were forged in snow and ice,
To bend like steel forged over fire.
We were not made to bend like reed,
Or to turn the other cheek!"

- from the song "Thousand Years of Opression" by Amon Amarth

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, June 9, 2007 7:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yeah I have checked it out. Maybe you should take your own advice. Whales evolved from early ungulates, basically early cow-like animals (at least that's the theory). Look it up.

Yes, and do you know what that theory is based on? EVIDENCE. Fossil, and bone evidence.

Yes it is based on evidence. I don’t think the evidence is as strong as some do. It’s certainly strong enough to convince me and I think when presented in a rational, concise and fair-minded way many people would accept it. But I can also see how the evidence would not be compelling to some. And I think it is a mistake to personally attack these people, because all such rhetoric does is transform Evolution theory from a science into a radical dogma. I think it does more harm to the evolution side of the argument then good. In fact, I can’t see what good it does at all. And that is actually my point, not that there is no evidence for evolution.

Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
That is exactly how breeding works. You pick an animal with traits you want in the next generation, pair it up with another animal with traits you want in the next generation, then see what happens. Eventually, you end up with an entirely different breed.

That’s an example of microevolution, although as a result of artificial, instead of natural, selection.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 9, 2007 2:01 PM

Finn, you are also ignoring the gobs of biochemical evidence that indicates that some animals are closely related, and some DNA is conserved across many species. It doesn't take "magic" to go from one species type to another. All it takes is to turn on a few genes earlier- or later- to stunt to growth of one thing and enhance the growth of something else and... viola ... hair turns into feathers.

And yes, I meant specifically "evidence of their senses". Anyone who has ever picked a piece of shale out of a creekbed and found a trilobite fossil has got to realize that the fossil formed with the rock. Maybe we need more hands-on learning. Then it wouldn't be a matter of "trust".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

LEADB

Saturday, June 9, 2007 2:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
Yes, and do you know what that theory is based on? EVIDENCE. Fossil, and bone evidence.
Yes it is based on evidence. I don’t think the evidence is as strong as some do. It’s certainly strong enough to convince me and I think when presented in a rational, concise and fair-minded way many people would accept it. But I can also see how the evidence would not be compelling to some. And I think it is a mistake to personally attack these people, because all such rhetoric does is transform Evolution theory from a science into a radical dogma. I think it does more harm to the evolution side of the argument then good. In fact, I can’t see what good it does at all. And that is actually my point, not that there is no evidence for evolution.
Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
That is exactly how breeding works. You pick an animal with traits you want in the next generation, pair it up with another animal with traits you want in the next generation, then see what happens. Eventually, you end up with an entirely different breed.
That’s an example of microevolution, although as a result of artificial, instead of natural, selection.

Yes, and for all the wide divergence of dogs, to the best of my knowledge any breed can reproduce with any other and you end up with a viable, reproductive mutt.

Of interest, you can cross breed a donkey and horse; and get a mule. The mule, however, is incapable of breeding. I personally find this to be an interesting point on the evolution side... speciation, but ... not quite. Clearly, the two lines will never permanenty 'cross' to merge donkey's and horses back 'together' since the offspring cannot reproduce.

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 9, 2007 2:41 PM

BTW there is current evidence of new species forming through hybridization, most recently in butterflies.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

KANEMAN

Saturday, June 9, 2007 9:26 PM

"Finn, you are also ignoring the gobs of biochemical evidence that indicates that some animals are closely related, and some DNA is conserved across many species'

As you would expect if all life was created by one entity.........Creation theory predicts as much......

ANTIMASON

Sunday, June 10, 2007 2:23 AM

i really dont like feeding into this discussion, because no one knows for sure

Quote:
posted by fredgiblet-

1. Fossils don't form on command, fossilization is quite rare. The example I heard was of the passenger pigeon, there used to be millions if not billions of passenger pigeons just a couple centuries ago, now they are extinct, try and find a fossil passenger pigeon.

fossilization IS rare, i agree.. but what we do have, currently, doesnt suggest to me the kind of evolution we're speculating about. we have fossils of various species over allegedly millions of years.. so we should have better evidence then we do

Quote:
2. That being said there are millions of fossils, all fitting into a nested hierarchy exactly as common descent predicts.

so what form did a cat posses before now? or this whale? you cant even imagine the damned things! i think we need a much more vast collection to be sure, and all i hear are mostly anecdotel examples

Quote:
3. You want a perfect, smooth continuum of fossils, that's not what exists because it's not what should exist, the speed and direction of evolution is not uniform and hasn't been expected to be uniform for a very long time.

i do. without that i dont see how we can know for sure. i dont understand how speculation, about events millions of years ago, can be considered legitimate science. we dont possess the lifespans to witness these huge eventual changes, so what else is there besides the fossil record? if we have dinosaur fossils preserved, we should also have the various mammals. we're basing the whale evidence off a vistigial organ or something? where are any land fossils to suggest this?

Quote:
Evolution causes species to adapt to their environment, once a certain level of adaptation is achieved it becomes more expensive then it is worth to continue adapting and a sort of evolutionary stasis is achieved. When a shift in environment or a novel mutation occurs that breaks the stasis evolution will cause the species to adapt rapidly to the new environment before returning to stasis. Most fossils will be found in the stasis plateaus rather then the change periods since the vast majority of creatures will have been born and died during the stasis instead of the period of rapid change.

thats speculation though, human history hasnt observed these kinds of changes. im sure theoretically youre right, if you accept your premise that all life is evolving over billions of years... but thats just your lens

Quote:
4. The fossil record is conclusive enough for some of the most skeptical people in the world, scientists.

for an atheist scientist, its conclusive enough to conclude that there is no Creator or higher intelligence. but to anyone else, the evidence is not all that conclusive proportionate to the claims

Quote:
Your inability to accept this due to dogmatism is not a fault of lack of evidence, if we had the fossils of every creature that ever lived you would still simply say "not good enough", or pick a new complaint without admitting error.

i would recognize that it supports your claims. but so far it doesnt.

Quote:
The vast majority of it was destroyed before it had the chance to fossilize, most of what did fossilize is still buried, much of what's been dug up is sitting in drawers waiting to be looked at by paleontologists, some of what has been looked at by paleontologists is too fragmented to come to a conclusion.

'but theres probably all kinds of fossils, all over the earth that havent been uncovered'.. probably.. but is that proof? maybe, who-knows, 'if'.. sad what goes for scientific evidence these days. now if you want to call it a belief, worldview, or a religion(in which there are NO transcendent laws or morals, everything just happened), then you may, and we can be honost with eachother when we discuss 'millions of years ago'

FREDGIBLET

Sunday, June 10, 2007 2:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"Finn, you are also ignoring the gobs of biochemical evidence that indicates that some animals are closely related, and some DNA is conserved across many species'

As you would expect if all life was created by one entity.........Creation theory predicts as much......

1. One of the reasons "creation science" is not scientific is that anything can be made to fit easily. For instance you say that creationism would predict that things would be similar, but wouldn't it be just as easy for a creator to make things that are widely disparate and not having an appearance of being related? Of course, thus both models fit perfectly into creationism. Creationism accommodates everything and thus is perfectly useless from a scientific standpoint.

2. I can see a Creator making a bunch of roughly similar creatures, I can't see said Creator making a bunch of creatures that fit perfectly into a nested hierarchy. The only plausible reason (that I can see) would be to make us think that a mechanism like evolution was in effect.

And Finn, I've said it before, I've produced links before, Macroevolution has been proven, the gist of your arguments seems to be "I don't think that qualifies as macroevolution", speciation is macroevolution, speciation has been observed, macroevolution is true.

FREDGIBLET

Sunday, June 10, 2007 2:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
posted by fredgiblet-
4. The fossil record is conclusive enough for some of the most skeptical people in the world, scientists.

for an atheist scientist, its conclusive enough to conclude that there is no Creator or higher intelligence.

*sigh* Evolution is not atheistic, evolution does not prove or disprove the existence of a god. The only theological influence that evolution has is that certain specific beliefs are incorrect. By that measure you should be against geology for showing us that the Earth is ancient, astronomy for showing that the Earth revolves around the sun (contrary to popular Christian belief back in the Dark Ages), physiology for showing that men and women have the same number of ribs and on and on. The fact that reality doesn't conform to your specific religious beliefs does not mean that reality disproves god, it merely means that your interpretation is wrong.

RUE

Sunday, June 10, 2007 2:46 AM

AntiM

"so what form did a cat posses before now? or this whale?"

That answer is at ...

If you promise to actually visit the site and never bring this idiocy up again I'll find it for you. B/c this was a HUGE discussion in which you took part, and the answer WAS posted. So why do you keep bringing it up? Rather than saying something about your intellect, I'd rather assume you never went to the site.

Do you PROMISE to actually READ it?

SERGEANTX

Sunday, June 10, 2007 4:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
for an atheist scientist, its conclusive enough to conclude that there is no Creator or higher intelligence. but to anyone else, the evidence is not all that conclusive proportionate to the claims

Fredgiblet mentioned this as well, but the statement is at the heart of the ID movement and it puzzles me. It's really not scientists, for the most part, who see this as a belief issue. I'd wager most scientists who study the topic and understand how evolution works, still maintain religious belief. It's the ID people who are pushing the issue as a false dichotomy of science or religion..

I guess I just don't understand why it's so important to take the stories of the bible literally. Especially when you consider that the vocabulary for the processes of evolution didn't even exist when the bible was written. Let's take as an assumption that he bible is true and inspired by God. For the sake of discussion,let's also assume that God used evolution to facilitate His creation. How would He describe this process? If He wanted the people of the time to be able to understand it, it would be pretty pointless to go into all the detail of genetic mutation and the like. Wouldn't it be better to go with an abstract metaphor that hits all the salient points without requiring more knowledge than the readers could be expected to have?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

LEADB

Sunday, June 10, 2007 4:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
posted by fredgiblet-
4. The fossil record is conclusive enough for some of the most skeptical people in the world, scientists.

for an atheist scientist, its conclusive enough to conclude that there is no Creator or higher intelligence. but to anyone else, the evidence is not all that conclusive proportionate to the claims

What? Why are we bringing in atheist scientists? When did this become a discussion about atheists????? An atheist doesn't believe God exists, why do you care what he thinks is or isn't support for the existance of God. No matter -what- an atheist takes as supporting the lack of existance of God should not matter to you, he's an atheist. Most scientists I know will say it is rubbish to conclude that God does not exist based on this type of information. Please, please stop mixing the two.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:37 AM

Quote:
over allegedly millions of years...

Allegedly millions of years? Now what? Do you feel that rock strata and uranium decay are just more tricks by God to make us think that the earth is really really old? So now you not only question evolution, you kick geology, physics, and chemistry down the hole too? Jeez Anti, why not reject medicine and mathematics and the rest of the sciences while you're at it?

Quote:
and all i hear are mostly anecdotel examples

If you would actually read some science... or better yet, go out in the field and collect some data yourself... you might gather more information than "anecdotes". Why don't you start with the La Brea Tar Pits in LA? Very accessible. I've been there many times. You can see them pull up all kinds of bones out of the tar.

Quote:
we don't possess the lifespans to witness these huge eventual changes,

We don't posssess eyes to see electrons either, but that doesn't seem to stop you from using the computer.

Quote:
so what else is there besides the fossil record?

Um, I mentioned this already- DNA evidence in nested hierarchies. And observeable traits in nested heirarchies. Both of them match the fossil record rather well.

Quote:
if we have dinosaur fossils preserved, we should also have the various mammals.

We do. As I said, go to the La Brea Tar Pits. There are all kinds of mammals fossils.

Quote:
we're basing the whale evidence off a vistigial organ or something? where are any land fossils to suggest this?

Why would God create vestigial organs, just OOC? If an animal adapts from ocean to land or vice versa, I would not expect many transitional fossils because they would likely be deposited on beaches, and that wave action has a nasty habit of turning everything into little teeny tiny smooth round pebbbles.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:56 AM

Anti, since you're so busy trying to pick holes in evolution ... and dragging the rest of the sciences in too while you're at it, I have a question for you: HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN FOSSILS? What is the Biblical explanation for what appears to be mineralized remains of life forms - both extant and extinct- that have been incorporated in rock?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 10, 2007 2:11 PM

Keeping my question front and center for Anti.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FREDGIBLET

Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'd wager most scientists who study the topic and understand how evolution works, still maintain religious belief. It's the ID people who are pushing the issue as a false dichotomy of science or religion..

The vast majority of biologists are religious. The ID movement pushes that dichotomy partly because of their literalist interpretation of the Bible and partly because even relatively weak Christians can be roused to action if they are told their religion is under attack.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, June 11, 2007 2:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
And Finn, I've said it before, I've produced links before, Macroevolution has been proven, the gist of your arguments seems to be "I don't think that qualifies as macroevolution", speciation is macroevolution, speciation has been observed, macroevolution is true.

All you’ve shown is that a mosquito can evolve into an other mosquito or a fruit fly can evolve into another fruit fly. This is all you can show, because this is all there is, right now. It takes a real leap of faith to say this has “proven” macroevolution. It has not, and anyone can see that. If Macroevolution were “proven” there wouldn’t be any reason for the experiments to begin with, because scientists don’t study what has already been “proven.”

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FREDGIBLET

Monday, June 11, 2007 2:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
And Finn, I've said it before, I've produced links before, Macroevolution has been proven, the gist of your arguments seems to be "I don't think that qualifies as macroevolution", speciation is macroevolution, speciation has been observed, macroevolution is true.
All you’ve shown is that a mosquito can evolve into an other mosquito or a fruit fly can evolve into another fruit fly.

Right...that's macroevolution. Once again. Speciation. Is. Macroevolution. We have observed speciation, macroevolution has been observed

Quote:
If Macroevolution were “proven” there wouldn’t be any reason for the experiments to begin with, because scientists don’t study what has already been “proven.”

1. Proving that it happens and understanding how it happens are two different things. We know that speciation (read: macroevolution) happens, but our knowledge of how is incomplete, like how many changes are necessary to produce reproductive isolation? How many non-critical changes can occur before reproduction becomes more difficult? Questions like that can only be answered by more observation.

2. Speciation events are interesting in their own right, scientists don't do experiments to prove gravity because the fact that stuff falls isn't very interesting. Speciation (whether induced or simply observed in the world) is interesting, and provides us with more data and better insights into how it happens and by extension how evolution works.

SERGEANTX

Monday, June 11, 2007 3:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
All you’ve shown is that a mosquito can evolve into an other mosquito or a fruit fly can evolve into another fruit fly...

So, from this point of view, how many changes would it take for the fruit fly to no longer be a fruit fly? You seem to be acknowledging the role of evolution in producing small changes, but denying that these changes would add up, over time, to large changes. Are you suggesting there's some natural limit to variation? A sort of 'center of gravity' for a species that is adhered to?

What prevents many small changes from adding up to big changes over long periods of time?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, June 11, 2007 3:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
1. Proving that it happens and understanding how it happens are two different things. We know that speciation (read: macroevolution) happens, but our knowledge of how is incomplete, like how many changes are necessary to produce reproductive isolation? How many non-critical changes can occur before reproduction becomes more difficult? Questions like that can only be answered by more observation.

Also whether or not an organism can actually evolve into something else, which we have not demonstrated, and would seem to be fairly critical to Macroevolution. And it’s not the same thing as speciation, if it were, we would call it speciation. We don’t. We call it macroevolution.

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
2. Speciation events are interesting in their own right, scientists don't do experiments to prove gravity because the fact that stuff falls isn't very interesting. Speciation (whether induced or simply observed in the world) is interesting, and provides us with more data and better insights into how it happens and by extension how evolution works.

Scientist do experiments concerning gravity. But if we decided that because we can show an apple falling to the earth had “proven” the Theory of Gravity, then there wouldn’t be any reason for Einstein because Newton has already “proven” it.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, June 11, 2007 3:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
What prevents many small changes from adding up to big changes over long periods of time?

I don’t know. But not knowing is not “proof.”

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Monday, June 11, 2007 3:14 AM

Finn- As a scientist you SHOULD know that science "proves" nothing, and therefore demanding "proof" is unscientific. Right now we have an explanation for a rather impressive collection of evidence, it's called "evolution", and it seems to be generally supported through several approaches: geological/ paleantological, biochemical (nuclear and mitochndrial DNA), and observeable traits. To give you an example, there are a humans, chimps, and gorillas. Current features would indicate they are more closely related to each other than to- say- elephants. DNA says the same. Fossils indicate intermediate hominids. Evolution seems to explain all of this evidence rather nicely.

If you don't like the explanation of evolution, what is YOUR explanation?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, June 11, 2007 3:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- As a scientist you SHOULD know that science "proves" nothing, and therefore demanding "proof" is unscientific.

I do know that. Why don't you explain that to Fred? Who claims that macroevolution has been “proven?”

Maybe because he's telling you what you want to hear? That's a real scientific way to evaluate evidence.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SERGEANTX

Monday, June 11, 2007 4:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
But not knowing is not “proof.”

It's not about proof. It's an explanation. That's why it's called the Theory of Evolution. Like the Theory of Gravity. It's an attempt to explain observed facts. Speciation is an observed fact that is explained, plausibly and logically, by genetic evolution. If you have a problem with the theory, it would indicate you don't think it is sensible explanation.

So, what is implausible, or not sensible, about lots of small changes adding up to large ones? You seem to be evading this question, but I'm not really trying to confront you as much as understand this point of view. I honestly don't get it.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, June 11, 2007 4:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
But not knowing is not “proof.”

It's not about proof. It's an explanation. That's why it's called the Theory of Evolution. Like the Theory of Gravity. It's an attempt to explain observed facts. Speciation is an observed that is explained, plausibly and logically, but genetic evolution. If you have a problem with the theory, it would indicate you don't think it is sensible explanation.

Explain that to Fred, and all the other people on the evolution side who dogmatically demand that Evolution is “proven.”

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
So, what is implausible about lots of small changes adding up to large ones? You seem to be evading this question, but I'm not really trying to confront you as much as understand this point of view. I honestly don't get it.

I answered your question. Just because you rephrase the question, doesn’t mean you can accuse me of evading it. As far as your new question is concerned: my answer is that I don’t see anything implausible about it.

I really don’t understand why you don’t get it. I don’t really believe in personal attacks, although my frustration has gotten the better of me sometimes, so I’m not going to define my position on evolution as “Creationists are stupid.” Furthermore, I’m a scientist, so I’m not going to define my position on evolution as some undeniable dogma. I don’t think it is that hard to argue evolution as a theory as it is meant to be argued and avoid attacking people’s person who disagrees. The issue was raised earlier in this thread that some people found it alarming or unnerving that so many people claimed to sympathize with Creationism as opposed to Evolution or along with Evolution. I don’t find it that difficult to believe. My point from the very beginning of my participation in this discussion has been ‘what makes the evolution side of this debate (as it is typically portrayed) any different from the way evolutionist see Creationism?’ Nothing. So why should anyone expect that there would really be a big difference in the number of people who sympathize with Creationism as opposed to Evolution. Both sides think their right, but what most people see is two dogmatic and defensive positions that differ only in semantics.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Monday, June 11, 2007 6:08 AM

Let's look at botany, which is a less controversial field. Many decades ago botanists created a very detailed "family tree" (so to speak) of plant relationships based on their characteristics, and fossilized plants. They used the theory of evolution to describe when plants speciated from each other - at least relatively, this one earliest, that one latest. Then along came PCR and the ability to study genetic similarities in detail, and amazingly the genetic family tree was almost perfectly predicted by the fossil/morphology family tree. If the success of a theory is judged by its ability to predict, then the concept of evolution is a clear winner, at least in this instance. There really doesn't seem to be a competing theory that explains and predicts as well as evolution. To demand that you see evolution in action right in front of your eyes- a process that admittedly takes millions of years- is a little like demanding that everyone take cyanide to prove that it's a deadly poison.

Nonetheless, scientist have re-created a species of butterfly currently found in the wild by hybridization of two other species, and this potential pathway of evolution doesn't apply just to butterflies.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060616135623.htm

In addition, microbes are well-known to exchange bits of DNA, even between species. And finally, different characteristics are often developed from the SAME genetic material by simply turning genes on and off at different times. So there are a lot more pathways to species creation than just mutation, or selection from natural variation.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

LEADB

Monday, June 11, 2007 4:54 PM

I believe a significant portion of the struggle here is the specific language being used; and due to the struggles this issue has gone through over the years.

In generally, theories in science are 'strictly speaking' not 'proven'. -Several- people have used the work 'proven' above, and this seems to wrankle Finn. It is better to be precise and use the right word or phrase.

Eventually, if science works right, competing theories winnow down; normally given weights by various proponents; additional information is gathered which shifts the consensus. Hopefully, over time, theories go from being 'speculative' to 'somewhat accepted' to 'generally accepted' (I'm a bit vague on the exact language used, I tried to find a standard nomenclature for the process but failed to find one); while doing so the 'competing' theories fall to the wayside.

SignyM's post is an excellent statement of how the theory of evolution continues to well predict things which we can now determine to match; for instance the nature of the DNA relationship.

One thing -I- find irksome is the misuse by the YEC (Young Earth Creation) folk of the term 'predict' in their presentions; they have a tendency to 'rationalize' subsequent discoveries and call it 'prediction'; the problem is that they failed to make the prediction prior to the determination. As a consquence this is not a case of prediction, but rather a modification (however minor) to simply assume in the new information. They would be better off, in my book, to simply honestly say 'we believe this is consistent with our position' (or not, but the point is to avoid the use of the term 'predict' unless they really did).

I believe the theory of evolution is, in scientific circles, 'generally accepted' at this time. The gaps are rapidly being filled by our quickly expanding understanding of DNA and how it behaves. Even so, it would be better to avoid the word 'proven', and go with 'generally accepted'. I know this seems like 'hedging', but it is more techncially correct. If one likes, you can throw in that 'any "scientific" theory placing the age of the universe as less than 100,000 years old has no support what-so-ever in legitimate scientific circles'. With any luck, this will get the YEC's to identify themselves, and you can work them down with the mountains of scientific data that support billion + (generally about 13.7 ) year old universe (with a time starting from the 'big bang').

SERGEANTX

Monday, June 11, 2007 5:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
In generally, theories in science are 'strictly speaking' not 'proven'.

Agreed, but the facts supporting them can be proven. The observed facts of reproduction and genetics, of species changing over time, of adaptation and natural selection - are all well proven. Evolution is a theory that uses these facts to explain the diverse, yet related, variance among the species.

So, asking for proof of a theory doesn't really make sense. You can disprove, or weaken, a theory with facts that contradict the theory's explanations. You can also add authority to a theory by testing any predictions that can logically be made from it's premises.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FREDGIBLET

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 2:26 AM

Quote:
from sarge:
So, from this point of view, how many changes would it take for the fruit fly to no longer be a fruit fly?

Can't happen actually, evolution branches at the lowest level, meaning that if you bred fruit flies until they were identical to cows they would still fall under fruit flies. One of the oddities of the nested hierarchy structure.

Quote:
from sarge:
Are you suggesting there's some natural limit to variation? A sort of 'center of gravity' for a species that is adhered to?

What prevents many small changes from adding up to big changes over long periods of time?

This is what I was talking about earlier, creationists pretend that there's some barrier that prevents evolution from making changes above a certain level, they can't back it up but they keep on pretending.

Quote:
from finn
Also whether or not an organism can actually evolve into something else, which we have not demonstrated, and would seem to be fairly critical to Macroevolution.

Macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level. There is no need to show evolution at the kingdom level to demonstrate macroevolution as macroevolution is not defined as evolution at every level at or above species, just as evolution at or above species level.

Quote:
from finn
And it’s not the same thing as speciation, if it were, we would call it speciation. We don’t. We call it macroevolution.

Macroevolution: evolution at or above the species level
Speciation: the development of one species (either as a whole or by splitting into two or more groups) into another species. Evolution at the species level. Macroevolution.

All speciation is macroevolutionary but not all macroevolution is speciation.

As a side note, the micro vs. macro issue isn't even a real issue. Both "types" of evolution are exactly that, evolution. I was trying to think of a good analogy earlier and the one I came up was organic chemistry and inorganic chemistry, the dividing line between them is an arbitrary structure, both sides work off of the exact same principles and it is easy to cross from one to the other, there is no barrier between them outside of an imaginary line.

I don't know where the idea of a split between micro and macro evolution came from but if I had to guess I'd say it was probably just used as a convenient splitting point with no actual weight behind it.

Quote:
from finn
Scientist do experiments concerning gravity

My point was that they no longer attempt to prove that gravity exists, it's taken for granted by now, the experiments are done to refine and expand our knowledge of how it works, not to prove it's existence.

Quote:
from finn
Explain that to Fred, and all the other people on the evolution side who dogmatically demand that Evolution is “proven.”

You want to get pedantic on me? Fine.

Evolution, particularly "micro"evolution and natural selection have been proven to around the fullest extent possible in the scientific system where absolute proof is unattainable.

Better?

I'll add to that that "macro"evolution has been demonstrated, but since you want pedantry I'll refrain from using the word "proven". OK?

Quote:
from leadb
I know this seems like 'hedging', but it is more techncially correct.

Meh, I wasn't aware that this was a forum where an emphasis was placed on pedantry or I'd have been more selective with my wording. Given the absurd level of technical error that usually crops up in evolution posts it hardly seemed important to ensure that I was hedging for technical accuracy.

LEADB

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 4:41 AM

Fred, no sweat; I was hoping if we got a bit more precise with our terms we'd get to a better understanding; and I know I'm much clearer. The 'hedging' bit is that I -know- I feel like I am hedging when I say 'generally' ( I suppose I could go even stronger and say 'universally' accepted ) as opposed to imply you -were- hedging. In any case, thanks for taking the time to clarify.

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:09 AM

Quote:
posted by Fredgiblet- *sigh* Evolution is not atheistic, evolution does not prove or disprove the existence of a god.

aspects of evolution dont disprove a Creator, youre right.. but atheists have a bias towards evolution because it fits their worldview(or IS their worldview). will you deny that some evolutionists are atheists? ill admit that not all are... just as not all IDs are creationists. the current collection of data goes both ways

Quote:
The only theological influence that evolution has is that certain specific beliefs are incorrect. By that measure you should be against geology for showing us that the Earth is ancient,

yah, but just how old? millions of billions of years? how can we possibly know that for sure.. sounds more like an educated guess, based on the evolutionary 'theory'

Quote:
astronomy for showing that the Earth revolves around the sun (contrary to popular Christian belief back in the Dark Ages),

the alleged references ive seen pertaining to a geocentric model of the galaxy are too vague in their context to be taken literally, and IMO do not contradict current scientific knowledge.

for example:

"He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter, forever and ever."
- Psalm 104:5

"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth??Who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof?"
- Job 38:4-6

"The world is firmly established, it will not be moved."
- Psalm 93:1 & 1 Chronicles 16:30

the earths "foundations" could be argued as its axis, position or relation to planetary siblings(aswell as its interior nether regions. otherwise there are no direct biblical references to the earth being stationary. their are many references to the day, and the 'apparent' travel of the sun and moon, but the context is always poetically metaphorical.

contrary to what secular society has believed, the bible actually had it right before popular science did

"I shall make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken from its place."
- Isaiah 13:13

"He hangs the earth on nothing." -Job 26:7

"Thus says the LORD,
Who gives the sun for a light by day,
The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night" -Jeremiah 31:35,36

"I will bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore" -Genesis 22:17

"As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured" -Jeremiah 33:22

"There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory." -1 Corinthians 15:41

Quote:
physiology for showing that men and women have the same number of ribs and on and on

uh.. God took one of Adams ribs, not all mankinds. should i list what the bible DID have right?

"In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return." -Genesis 3:19

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" -
Genesis 2:7

biologically they were way ahead of their time

"A sound heart is life to the body" -Proverbs 14:30

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood" -Leviticus 17:11

common sense now.. but it was science that once thought draining blood would 'relieve' sickness and disease

Quote:
The fact that reality doesn't conform to your specific religious beliefs does not mean that reality disproves god, it merely means that your interpretation is wrong.

i could say the same for you, especially since you dont know what the bible actually says, your just perpetuating popular myths circulated by secular society to undermine judeo/christian beliefs. it turns out we knew things before secular science did, such as the hydrological and meteorological cycles

"

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Anti, since you're so busy trying to pick holes in evolution ... HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN FOSSILS? What is the Biblical explanation for what appears to be mineralized remains of life forms - both extant and extinct- that have been incorporated in rock?

the flood. there is evidence that some of the highest mountains were underwater at some point, its possible the fossils may have been preserved in the sediment as it settled. this would explain the inconsistency in current dating methods in regards to fossils spanning alleged eras in time, being found in the same geographic layer. now, according to this recent AP article, dinosaurs and mammals may actually have co-existed

Quote:

Dinosaurs' demise didn't spur mammalian evolution, study finds
Burst in new species happened before and after extinction.

By Malcolm Ritter
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Thursday, March 29, 2007

NEW YORK — Maybe you learned this in school: The big dinosaur die-off 65 million years ago was a liberation for mammals, and they quickly produced a bunch of new species that included ancestors of humans and other modern-day creatures.

Remember? Well, a new study says, forget it.

Scientists who constructed a massive evolutionary family tree for mammals found no sign of such a burst of new species at that time among the ancestors of present-day animals.

Only mammals with no modern-day descendants showed that effect.

"I was flabbergasted," said study co-author Ross MacPhee, curator of vertebrate zoology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

At the time of the dinosaur demise, mammals were small, about the size of shrews and cats. The longstanding idea has been that once the dinosaurs were gone, mammals were free to exploit new food sources and habitats, and as a result, they produced a burst of new species.

The new study says that happened to some extent but that the new species largely led to evolutionary dead ends. In contrast, no such explosion of species was found among the ancestors of modern-day mammals such as rodents, cats, horses, elephants and people.

Instead, researchers report in today's issue of the journal Nature, they showed an initial burst about 85 million years ago, long before the dinosaurs' extinction, with another between about 55 million and 35 million years ago.

The timing of that first period of development generally agrees with the conclusions of some previous studies of mammal DNA, which argue for a much earlier origin of some mammal lineages than the fossil record does.

The second burst had shown up in the fossil record, MacPhee said. But he said the study explains why scientists have been unable to find relatively modern-looking ancestors of the creatures known from that time: Without any evolutionary boost from the dinosaur demise, those ancestors were still relatively primitive.

Other experts praised the large scale of the new evolutionary tree, which used a "supertree" method to combine data covering the vast majority of mammal species. It challenges paleontologists to find fossils that can shed light on mammal history, said Greg Wilson, curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science.

William Murphy of Texas A&M University, who is working on a similar project, said that no previous analysis had included so many mammal species.

However, he said, "I don't think this is the final word."

The study's approach for assigning dates was relatively crude, he said, and some dates it produced for particular lineages disagree with those obtained by more updated methods.

As for its interpretation of what happened when the dinosaurs died off, Murphy said, "I'm not sure that conclusion is well-founded."

John Gittleman, a study co-author and director of the University of Georgia Institute of Ecology, said the researchers considered a range of previously reported dates for when various lineages split. They found that the overall conclusions of the study were not significantly affected by which da

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 2:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level. There is no need to show evolution at the kingdom level to demonstrate macroevolution as macroevolution is not defined as evolution at every level at or above species, just as evolution at or above species level.

You have more faith then I do. I want evidence. I’m not a fruit fly. So showing me that a fruit fly can evolve into another fruit fly does not demonstrate macroevolution. In order for the theory of Evolution to work as explanation for the diversity that exists in nature, you must be able to demonstrate how that diversity can emerge from natural selection. It’s actually rather critical. But there is no such evidence. And just because we find ourselves unable to produce that evidence or that evidence is impossible to produce doesn’t mean we can just assume the theory is proven. We don’t call the General Theory of Relativity proven, because we saw an apple fall.

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Evolution, particularly "micro"evolution and natural selection have been proven to around the fullest extent possible in the scientific system where absolute proof is unattainable.

Better?

A little. But proofs are for mathematics, not science.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 3:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The observed facts of reproduction and genetics, of species changing over time, of adaptation and natural selection - are all well proven. Evolution is a theory that uses these facts to explain the diverse, yet related, variance among the species.

The distinction here is between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution, the change in gene pools over time, is a well proven fact that have been directly observed. Macroevolution, the change in our collective gene pools over eons of time that we cannot directly observe, is still a theory, an explanation extrapolated from microevolution.

There are certain things science can prove, and the rest is just a matter of definition. If you define "God" as supernatural, then you have defined "God" as something science cannot prove. If you define "God" as any intelligent entity that willfully cause X directly observable phenomena, then that is a hypothesis that can be scientifically tested and proven or disproven.

It appears to me that a confusion between the different definitions of God, evolution, intelligent design, and what not, is the root of our semantic wars.

To have a meaningful and logical dialogue, we need to start with some common ground definitions and premises. Otherwise, we're just arguing in circles about apples and oranges.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

RUE

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 3:55 PM

Finn

Quote:
And while speciation has been said to have occurred by evolutionists, there has never been a scientific record of any speciation occurring on the level that macroevolution requires, nor do evolutionists contend that such a record could possible exist since it would require ... prohibitively long time periods.

This is pretty much a fraudulent argument and has been specifically addressed MANY times over. One example: There is a clear fossil record of land animal --> whale. There is a time frame for that fossil record. This is a dead argument and should never have been brought up by someone who claims to know about science.

Quote:
People on both sides of this debate are certain they are right, despite the fact that neither side can produce real evidence to demonstrate their side. On one side you’ve got the religious argument that rests on faith, and they admit that they don’t really know what the answer is, but they believe it. On the other side, you’ve got the evolutionists, who insist that their side is factual, yet they can’t really produce evidence for it. .

This is another fraudulent argument. In one swoop Finn eliminates the fossil record, geological theory, radioisotope decay rates, and DNA families, alteration and selection and a whole raft of supporting scientific evidence, simply by closing his eyes and saying "I don't see evidence".

Quote:
I don’t think anyone really has a problem with natural selection. What is really the stickler is this 1) macroevolution idea, ... (Human beings do not live long enough to witness macroevolution and the fossil record is not complete enough) which is a wholly 2) improvable position ... when they are asked for “proof” the best they are able to do is show a mosquito evolving into another mosquito or a fruit fly evolving into another fruit fly. Now as a scientisti

TWO serious errors in one short sentence: There is evidence for macroevolution (see above). 2) SCIENCE NEVER PROVES ANYTHING. And here comes Finn, as a scientist no less, demanding proof.

Quote:
I understand the nuances here

No, you don't.

Quote:
but as a scientist

snicker ...

Quote:
For people who have other more important things to worry about ... what they see is 1) an idiot trying to tell them that one mosquito is different from another, when in fact they’re both mosquitoes. Quite frankly, the religious side comes across much more 2) honest, and therefore believable.

Lets' see, what do we have here: 1) straw man 2) and TWO ad hominems.

Quote:
There is a lot of evidence for some parts of evolution. ... people on the evolution side demanded that the existence of evidence, even conclusive evidence, for some part of evolution theory requires the acceptance or the “belief” in all of the theory. But in the end, the evidence is just not their.

Except that - it is. Macro-evolution has a lot of evidence supporting it as a theory.

Quote:
And that is actually my point, not that there is no evidence for evolution.

HA HA HA HA ha .... can you say flip-flop ???

I'm getting tired of this.
Finn, you say you want evidence. Yet you ignore the ONE gene that keeps legs from developing in whales. (All it took was ONE genetic change to accomplish that.) You ignore the fossil record of land animal --> whale; DNA homologies, and, as SignyM pointed out - all of geology, chemistry, physics as well. Poof. All gone. AND as a scientist you demand proof.

Most impressive.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 4:11 PM

Anti - OF COURSE dinosaurs and mammals existed at the same time. BUT they were not the mammals that we know today.

Quote:
mammals were small, about the size of shrews and cats.

So you will not find human bones intermingled with dinosaurs, for example.

Quote:
in current dating methods in regards to fossils spanning alleged eras in time, being found in the same geographic layer.

Alleged? Hmmm... what do you know about carbon dating? Anything?

AFA your alleged inconsistancies purporting to show creatures from different geologic eras in the same sediment: There are none that I know of. The famous human/dino footprints were analyzed in detail and found to be dino/dino footprints. OCCASIONALLY you may find some million-year mixups, as when bones erode from several layers and are co-deposited in the same spot. That's usually pretty easy to figure our because of the nature of the sediment and the location of the deposits.

AFA sediment on top of mountains: Did you know that satellites observe mountains getting taller? That the Himalayas are growing at about an inch a year? Over a 100,000 years that makes... let's see... about 8,300 feet. Huh. Imagine that!

It's as I said- it takes a very special person to ignore the evidence of their senses. And I don't just mean not being able to observe geologic-scale evolution up close and personal. I mean ignoring some very evident geologic processes, such as earthquakes, volcanoes, erosion, and deposition. (The one that I was within 1/8 mile of the epicenter when it happened- the Whittier Narrows quake- uplifted the area by two inches in one jolt.) And ignoring the fact that certain animal types simply aren't around anymore... even aquatic animals which would presumably have survived a flood.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 4:35 PM

Quote:
in nature, you must be able to demonstrate how that diversity can emerge from natural selection

Natural selection is not the ONLY path to diversity. I posted a whole bunch of mechanisms and a link or two. I agree with Rue- you just ignore stuff you don't want to hear about.

Scientist?

Not likely!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 5:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'm getting tired of this.
Finn, you say you want evidence. Yet you ignore the ONE gene that keeps legs from developing in whales. (All it took was ONE genetic change to accomplish that.) You ignore the fossil record of land animal --> whale; DNA homologies, and, as SignyM pointed out - all of geology, chemistry, physics as well. Poof. All gone. AND as a scientist you demand proof.

I demand “proof,” because people keep telling me that evolution is “proven.” But when I ask for this “proof” that clearly must exist if evolution is “proven.” The response that I get back is ‘science can’t prove anything.’ But if science can’t prove anything, then how is evolution “proven?”

It’s not me that is ignoring evidence. It’s you that wants to elevate evolution to the level of infallibility. Thereby making it religion. Perhaps, your faith is very strong too, but mine isn’t.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 5:39 PM

Quote:
people keep telling me that evolution is “proven

I call bullshit. WHICH people, Finn? Neither Rue nor I are saying that evolution is "proven" so take your straw man and compost it; at least then it'll be useful for something. What we ARE talking about is evidence and how you ignore it. Evolution is the most comprehensive, predictive explanation that we have for changes in living organisms that appear over eons. It is supported by evidence from geology, biology, physics, and biochemistry. As we learn more about gene expression and genetic divergence, we learn more about the mechanics of HOW this process occurs- and there is more than one pathway for speciation than natural selection. And the more we learn, the more the evidence supports evolution.

In many cases, it takes a SINGLE gene to make large changes. There is a SINGLE big-head gene that differentiates our head from chimps, just as there is a SINGLE gene change that stops whales from developing legs. The fact that you have more in common with a chimp than you do with a woman of your own species should say somehting about how clsoely related we are.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FREDGIBLET

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 5:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
aspects of evolution dont disprove a Creator, youre right..

None of evolution disproves a creator, they simply show that the creator didn't act they way that certain religious beliefs hold that it acted.

Quote:
but atheists have a bias towards evolution because it fits their worldview(or IS their worldview).

Atheists are not going to be biased towards or against evolution because they are atheists, rather being atheists frees them from the religious dogma that prevents them from accepting the evidence for evolution. Additionally an atheist is much less likely to be listening to the enormous boatloads of crap regularly shoveled by the anti-evolution side, and are much more likely to check the facts (and I use the term loosely) that come out of the anti-evolution camp.

Quote:
will you deny that some evolutionists are atheists?

Sure, but at the same time there's a lot more Christians that accept evolution, so by that measurement evolution would be a Christian belief.

Quote:
ill admit that not all are...

The vast majority aren't (at least in the U.S.).

Quote:
just as not all IDs are creationists.

Really? I'm not aware of anyone who supports ID that isn't a creationist.

Quote:
the current collection of data goes both ways

Only because literally everything can be justified by ID, one of the reasons its unscientific.

Quote:
yah, but just how old? millions of billions of years? how can we possibly know that for sure.. sounds more like an educated guess, based on the evolutionary 'theory'

Uh, no. The age of the world (and the universe) are an entirely separate issue from evolution, the age of the universe was not decided because evolution needed a long time span, it was decided because that's what the evidence shows.
http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

Quote:
contrary to what secular society has believed, the bible actually had it right before popular science did

"I shall make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken from its place."
- Isaiah 13:13

"He hangs the earth on nothing." -Job 26:7

"Thus says the LORD,
Who gives the sun for a light by day,
The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night" -Jeremiah 31:35,36

"I will bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore" -Genesis 22:17

"As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured" -Jeremiah 33:22

"There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory." -1 Corinthians 15:41

Vagueness and obviousness does not scientific accuracy make.

Quote:
uh.. God took one of Adams ribs, not all mankinds. should i list what the bible DID have right?

"In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return." -Genesis 3:19

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" -
Genesis 2:7

biologically they were way ahead of their time

"A sound heart is life to the body" -Proverbs 14:30

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood" -Leviticus 17:11

common sense now.. but it was science that once thought draining blood would 'relieve' sickness and disease

Vagueness and obviousness again for the most part. As for bloodletting, calling it the fault of science is just wrong, bloodletting was practiced for at least a few millenia, long before science became an area of concerted study. The fact that we lacked the scientific knowledge to disprove the theories behind bloodletting doesn't actually mean anything.

Quote:
Quote:
The fact that reality doesn't conform to your specific religious beliefs does not mean that reality disproves god, it merely means that your interpretation is wrong

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

FREDGIBLET

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 5:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The observed facts of reproduction and genetics, of species changing over time, of adaptation and natural selection - are all well proven. Evolution is a theory that uses these facts to explain the diverse, yet related, variance among the species.
The distinction here is between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution, the change in gene pools over time, is a well proven fact that have been directly observed. Macroevolution, the change in our collective gene pools over eons of time that we cannot directly observe, is still a theory, an explanation extrapolated from microevolution.

I've covered this just a few posts ago, Macroevolution first off is simply an arbitrary imaginary line, there is no actual weight to it. Second speciation is an example of macroevolution and has been demonstrated.

RUE

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 5:47 PM

"people keep telling me that evolution is “proven.” ...It’s you that wants to elevate evolution to the level of infallibility. Thereby making it religion."

Not me. The one thing I keep saying over and over is that SCIENCE NEVER PROVES ANYTHING.

Evolution has been tested many times in many ways - from fossil evidence through geology though radioisotope tracing through DNA through biochemistry (that one gene in whales that keeps vestigal legs from developing) - and so far is supported as a theory.

But science advances on the graves of previous theories. In fact, EVERY current theory slew the previous one, or remodeled it drastically. Space ether - pppst - it's gone. Relativity, so far holds up. That's how science advances.

So no, I don't think evolution has been proven, and by the nature of science it will never be proven. What it has been is TESTED, what has been gathered is PHYSICAL EVIDENCE which SUPPORTS the theory.

And those are what religion specifically lacks. And since you continually confuse the two, I suspect your understanding of science is lacking as well.

FREDGIBLET

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 5:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I demand “proof,” because people keep telling me that evolution is “proven.” But when I ask for this “proof” that clearly must exist if evolution is “proven.” The response that I get back is ‘science can’t prove anything.’ But if science can’t prove anything, then how is evolution “proven?”

By not being pedantic and understanding that "proven" means "proven to the extent that the scientific system allows".

FREDGIBLET

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Anti, since you're so busy trying to pick holes in evolution ... HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN FOSSILS? What is the Biblical explanation for what appears to be mineralized remains of life forms - both extant and extinct- that have been incorporated in rock?

the flood.

You mean the flood?
http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

Quote:
there is evidence that some of the highest mountains were underwater at some point

Indeed there is, but they weren't mountains when they were underwater and in fact the evidence that is used is nothing like what we would expect from a Flood. Fossils of shells wouldn't have been found after being submerged for only a year as the height that the creatures with shells would have to have climbed would be far too great for the limited mobility of the type of creatures found at the peaks.

Quote:
its possible the fossils may have been preserved in the sediment as it settled.

Sediment would have settled to the valleys not on the peaks.

Quote:
this would explain the inconsistency in current dating methods in regards to fossils spanning alleged eras in time, being found in the same geographic layer.

I'll assume you meant geologic, and I'd like some evidence of this. Dating methods have been abused frequently by anti-evolutionists, one of the more popular methods is using carbon dating on samples that any competent geologist should know are far to old to carbon date.

Quote:
now, according to this recent AP article, dinosaurs and mammals may actually have co-existed

As sig said, mammals have been around for a long time, all humans are mammals (except possibly for some lawyers) but not all mammals are human.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Not me. The one thing I keep saying over and over is that SCIENCE NEVER PROVES ANYTHING.

Yet, somehow you seem intent on criticizing me. But Fred was the one who claimed it was “proven.” Why haven’t you said anything to him? If this is so important why hasn’t anyone but me and Leadb said anything about it. What it looks like to me is that, despite your claim that you believe that science can’t prove anything, you and signmy and sarg are only willing to use that against me, because you perceive me as criticizing evolution, but the one person who should have said something to, you ignored? Why? It’s actually obvious. Evolution is infallible. You can praise its infallibility by claiming that it is proven, but you can’t criticize it, because that’s a sin.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
By not being pedantic and understanding that "proven" means "proven to the extent that the scientific system allows".

I’m not sure what you meant. Although, I don’t actually think it makes sense for something to be partially proven or proven to some extent. It’s either proven or it’s not.

But I’m not trying to pick on you, Fred, you just put yourself in a bad place.

I actually would not have made such a big deal of your comment, if it hadn’t of been for how other people jumped on me because I criticize it. So don’t take it personally. What’s going on here is not that I necessarily disagree with you on Evolution, because I don’t think I do. (Although the word “proven” irks me, that’s true.) People are angry at me, for criticizing what they view, on some level, to be infallible dogma.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:27 PM

Finn, what you said was

Quote:
People on both sides of this debate are certain they are right, despite the fact that neither side can produce real evidence to demonstrate their side. On one side you’ve got the religious argument that rests on faith, and they admit that they don’t really know what the answer is, but they believe it. On the other side, you’ve got the evolutionists, who insist that their side is factual, yet they can’t really produce evidence for it.

We're criticizing you for ignoring evidence. You keep raising questions which have already been answered. As for Fred saying evolution was "proven"... he's already clarified more than twice that's not exactly what he meant.

So- Is evolution "proven"? No. Has it been disproved? NO. Is there "evidence" for creationism? No! Whatever arguments are made for creationism doesn't even fall into that category! (If this were a trial it would be called "heresay").

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, we're criticizing you for ignoring evidence. You keep raising questions which have already been answered. As for Fred saying evolution was "proven"... he's already clarified more than twice that's not exactly what he meant.

Yes he did clarify it, to his credit. But not before you criticized me with this ‘science can’t prove anything’ stuff. If you really believed that, then why didn’t you criticize Fred when you had the chance? Why me? Simple, because I appeared to be criticizing the dogma. You can say evolution is “proven,” but you can’t criticize the supposed “proof.”

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I've covered this just a few posts ago, Macroevolution first off is simply an arbitrary imaginary line, there is no actual weight to it. Second speciation is an example of macroevolution and has been demonstrated.

Maybe I should have steered clear of hot button words and said there is a difference between observed evolution and inferred evolution (paleoevolution). Certainly speciation has been observed in certain situations, but the extent of speciation required by paleoevolutionary theories ranges from conjecture to extrapolation.

Meaning, no, it is not an imaginary line that there is a difference between macroevolutionary theory and macroevolutionary observations (which would include microevolution as well).

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:44 PM

Finn: I ammended my post to QUOTE you. The part where you sweep away all kinds of evidence with a wave of your hand.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn: I ammended my post to QUOTE you. The part where you sweep away all kinds of evidence with a wave of your hand.

I didn’t wave my hand. I was typing.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:52 PM

One of the things you all seem to forget is that not all science can be reproduced in the lab. Geology. Meteorology. Cosmology. Evolution. Anything that's really big or takes a really long time, or both. But just because it can't be personally witnessed and subjected to repeated experiments doesn't mean it's meaningless or nonscientific. Those theories are judged on the basis of how well they explain all of the observations, and whether they are predictive of other phenomema.

Evolution ties together a lot of data rather nicely AND it's predictive. The more fossils we gather, the more genetics we study, the better and better the theory looks. The trend is not favorable for creationists, who will eventually have to isolate themselves from many aspects of reality.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:56 PM

Mathematical and logical proof - starting with a premise one can show a logical outcome.

Quote:
CAUSAL
So I can still coherently claim that God is beyond scientific proof or disproof

ROCKETJOCK
Proof positive of science's inferiority to faith!

SIGMANUNKI
Historically speaking, things that have been thought to be acts of God have been proven to have a natural explanation. Just because we can't prove it today, doesn't mean that this isn't true.

ANTIMASON
as far as our origins, you cant prove that we came from apes

YINYANG
although it isn't possible to scientifically prove/disprove the existence of a deity
The only reason that science would be unable to disprove an aspect of god is if that aspect were to lie completely outside of reality and to have interaction with reality. Thus, by claiming that science cannot disprove

CAUSAL
implicit claim that science is the only way to know anything isn't something that the sciences can prove!
by claiming that science cannot disprove the existence of your god

ANTIMASON
it definitely shows another side of colonial America that proves to be inseparable from our system of government

SERGEANTX
Do you 'believe' in prime numbers? They can be studied, notions about them can be hypothesized and proved or disproved.

REAVERMAN
I say that if you want to homeschool your kids, you should have to prove to a college that you can teach up to college level.

BROWNCOATSANDINISTA
To prove God would be to destroy her/him/it/them/insert personal version of supreme deity here
Science on the other hand, cannot exist without proof. It builds upon and edits itself, and relies fundamentally upon empirical, repeatable, independant confirmation of fact.
If one proves god, then they eliminate the need for faith, and if one eliminates faith,
Therefore one cannot prove religion in terms of science and science cannot be proven in terms of religion.

FINN MAC CUMHAL
Yet evolutionists talk about it as if it’s fact, but when they are asked for “proof” the best they are able to do is show a mosquito evolving into another mosquito
evolutionist run with this as “proof” that cows evolve into whales

RUE
SCIENCE NEVER PROVES ANYTHING
Any argument that either demands scientific proof or claims victory on the absence of proof

REAVERMAN
You don't seem to understand the difference between evidence and proof. There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution, but we haven't been studying it long enough to see profound, obvious changes that would utterly destroy any shadow of a doubt (I'm sure though, that even if we do find such proof, there would still be a bunch of jackasses trying to convince everyone that it's not true).

FREDGIBLET
Macroevolution has been proven, the gist of your arguments seems to be "I don't think that qualifies as macroevolution", speciation is macroevolution, speciation has been observed, macroevolution is true.

FREDGIBLET
Evolution is not atheistic, evolution does not prove or disprove the existence of a god
The fact that reality doesn't conform to your specific religious beliefs does not mean that reality disproves god

FINN MAC CUMHAL
It takes a real leap of faith to say this has “proven” macroevolution. It has not, and anyone can see that. If Macroevolution were “proven” there wouldn’t be any reason for the experiments to begin with, because scientists don’t study what has already been “proven.”

FREDGIBLET
scientists don't do experiments to prove gravity

FINN MAC CUMHAL
But if we decided that because we can show an apple falling to the earth had “proven” the Theory of Gravity, then there wouldn’t be any reason for Einstein because Newton has already “proven” it.

SIGNYM
As a scientist you SHOULD know that science "proves" nothing

FINN MAC CUMHAL
Explain that to Fred, and all the other people on the evolution side who dogmatically demand that Evolution is “proven.”

SIGNYM
demanding that everyone take cyanide to prove that it's a deadly poison

LEADB
In generally, theories in science are 'strictly speaking' not 'pr

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:09 PM

Finn has a bee in his bonnet. I don't know what it is ... it's not the Creationist/ ID bee... but it drives him to post the most ridiculous things sometimes.

Quote:
I was typing

Whatever.

---------------------------------
Bless'd are the cheesemakers.

RUE

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:21 PM

Meh -

Maybe he lacks intellectual company and so comes here to test his arguments.

Edited to add - My guess is he works with military engineer types and technicians and then goes to visit his grandmother in the evening - which is a loving thing to do. But I know engineers and military people and their work environment, and much as I loved my grandmother, I can imagine that neither party is a source of this kind of debate.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 8:16 PM

Well I take back what I said about Finn. Banging my head against the wall is not conducive to logical arguments.

Sorry Finn!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 9:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Anything that's really big or takes a really long time, or both. But just because it can't be personally witnessed and subjected to repeated experiments doesn't mean it's meaningless or nonscientific.

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying inferred evolution was meaningless or non-scientific. Though it doesn't mean scientific inferences and extrapolations hold NO weight at all, anything inferred does hold LESS scientific weight than evidence that has been directly observed and gathered through more rigorous means. It stands to reason that those theories need to be interpreted with more caution than theories with more rigorous support.

I think that is an important distinction die-hard evolutionists often forget. Not all evidence is equal. And most of paleoevolution is comprised of less rigorous science than other fields of evolution. A bit of caution, skepticism, and conservatism isn't unreasonable.

Perhaps my scientific approach is simply more cautious, skeptical, and conservative than people who speak with more certainty on this board.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

RUE

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 10:03 PM

I know when scientists try to test various theories - like gravity, the speed of light and the nature of 'space' - and they can't test it in the lab - they make predictions. Maybe if light passes by a really large source of gravity it will bend. And they look for fortuitious events - a distant star passing near in-line with a black hole for example. But no one has 'seen' a black hole - it's really just a mathematical construct. No one really knows the distance of that star - it's just infered from other measures. And for sure no one 'sees' light be bent by that gravity.

These kind of predictions and observations DO carry weight - the same as when you check something out in the lab. Since MOST of science is either too large, too small, too far away, takes too long or some combination of characteristics, that's what gets done. That's how most of science progresses.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:19 PM

Quote:
Perhaps my scientific approach is simply more cautious, skeptical, and conservative than people who speak with more certainty on this board.

ahem!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 12:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Anything that's really big or takes a really long time, or both. But just because it can't be personally witnessed and subjected to repeated experiments doesn't mean it's meaningless or nonscientific.
Just to clarify, I wasn't saying inferred evolution was meaningless or non-scientific. Though it doesn't mean scientific inferences and extrapolations hold NO weight at all, anything inferred does hold LESS scientific weight than evidence that has been directly observed and gathered through more rigorous means. It stands to reason that those theories need to be interpreted with more caution than theories with more rigorous support.

I think that is an important distinction die-hard evolutionists often forget. Not all evidence is equal. And most of paleoevolution is comprised of less rigorous science than other fields of evolution. A bit of caution, skepticism, and conservatism isn't unreasonable.

Everything you've posted here is true but at the same time all the paleoevolution evidence supports evolution, and there is a lot of it (though far from the gradual continuum that anti wants). So the way I see it combining the admittedly weaker-by-virtue-of-where(when?)-it's-from paleoevolutionary evidence with the way we know things work now it's not much of a stretch.

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 1:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
By not being pedantic and understanding that "proven" means "proven to the extent that the scientific system allows".
I’m not sure what you meant. Although, I don’t actually think it makes sense for something to be partially proven or proven to some extent. It’s either proven or it’s not.

Perhaps you can come up with a word that means proven to the extent that science allows things to be proven.

Quote:
I actually would not have made such a big deal of your comment, if it hadn’t of been for how other people jumped on me because I criticize it. So don’t take it personally. What’s going on here is not that I necessarily disagree with you on Evolution, because I don’t think I do. (Although the word “proven” irks me, that’s true.) People are angry at me, for criticizing what they view, on some level, to be infallible dogma.

I don't know how many evolution threads you've participated in but the way it usually works is when someone jumps in saying "It's not proven" it's usually followed by a bunch of repetitious crap arguments that have all been disproven long ago. Like many things evolution has become very much an "us vs. them" issue so by coming in and saying "it's not proven" you immediately place yourself in the "them" category when all you're trying to do is point out that "proof" doesn't really exist in science.

I also don't think it's an issue of "infallible dogma" as it is being frustrated that we have to keep going over the same ground over and over again with the anti-evolution camp, and when you jump in with the surface appearance of being anti-evolution it just annoys people. Most of the people I know of would be fine with admitting they were wrong about evolution if anything ever came up that actually disproved it, but there's a constant stream of people with long-dead arguments and dogmatism about how unsupported or wrong evolution is.

KANEMAN

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070608/lf_afp/usevolutionreligion_070608
182238; _ylt=AgQgPwsQimHCGw5pvlsV0IvMWM0F

A full 66 percent said they believed in creationism, with 39 percent of those polled saying it was definitely true and 27 percent believing it was probably true.

More recently, the question divided Republican presidential candidates who traditionally represent the Christian conservative elements of US society, with three answering in last month's debate that they do not believe in evolution.

Idiots

Evolution is taught in every school, the fact people don't buy into it hole-heartily does not make them 'Idiots'. Just makes them not sheep...Love American ingenuity!

KANEMAN

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:40 PM

"First of all: SCIENCE NEVER PROVES ANYTHING."

What about gravity?

LEADB

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"First of all: SCIENCE NEVER PROVES ANYTHING."

What about gravity?

Strictly speaking, it is not 'proven'. However, the gravity 'thing' is so well accepted, we could call it 'universally accepted', that it referred to as the 'Law of gravity'. This is the science equivalent of saying it is 'proven'. This is strictly semantics.

LEADB

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:58 PM

Check twice, post once....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Newton.27s_theory_of_gravitation
Apparently, Newton's law of gravity is actually superceded by General realtivity. Interestingly enough, Newtons old law of gravitation's formula is still often used in calculations because it is precise enough for most purposes. Of course, it is important to know when one is doing something where the general realtivity methods are more appropriate (eg: dealing with orbits/passes very near the sun).

KANEMAN

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:04 PM

God - "No. No. No. this isn't right at all. He is way to hairy, he crouches over, he rapes his wife, and he wants to beat everything he sees with a stick."
" Let's go back to the drawing board"

*adds a sprinkle of genetic material*

" Yeah, that's about right. He should be flying in no time"

OR

An alien mated with an ape. Think about it. Take your average hairy stupid assed ape and mix with your average bald smart alien....you get us.... I think I am on to something.......how else could we go from eating bunny shit in caves to using cell phones? Oops, I better be quiet evolution is supposed to be SLOW.........

Love always kaneman

RUE

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:14 PM

Hey Kaneman -

You seem to be all over the board today. When did they give you your computer privileges back ? So, do you think you'll have anything intelligent to contribute ? Or will it be a day of more of the usual ?

Love always,
Rue

KANEMAN

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:21 PM

I contribute plenty...just look at my last post for PROOF....or is that evidence?......Well, you asked...

Love always kaneman

*edit*
"When did they give you your computer privileges back ? "

After I took my Librium.......I see you got new batteries, you seem to have a little pep in your post... buy a 10 pack...........

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 6:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Evolution is taught in every school, the fact people don't buy into it hole-heartily does not make them 'Idiots'. Just makes them not sheep...Love American ingenuity!

Evolution is taught poorly or not at all in many cases because of religious pressure on schools and occasional teachers who don't know their own subject. Even in schools where biology is taught well most children won't be required to take it (though most will) and some will not pay much attention. Additionally, even when someone is taught evolution well they probably won't check the "facts" they are given by the religious groups and if they do check them they will probably find a large number of religious websites touting the same "facts". Accepting evolution doesn't make someone a sheep any more then accepting basic chemistry.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 6:55 PM

Fred, Kaneman is a lost cause. I don't say that about many people, but I have to recognize the ugly truth. Don't even bother replying- he's just flame-baiting.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

KANEMAN

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 8:52 PM

Fred,
"Evolution is taught poorly or not at all in many cases because of religious pressure on schools and occasional teachers who don't know their own subject."

Not in Connecticut. It is taught by science teachers in every public school........

Sigy,

"Fred, Kaneman is a lost cause. I don't say that about many people, but I have to recognize the ugly truth. Don't even bother replying- he's just flame-baiting."

And what the hell is your post? Some kind of wonderful contribution to this thread? No. it is your sad attempt to flame bait me...Siggy, you have sunk so low........what a tool....

RUE

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:01 PM

There is something amusing abut moral outrage from Kaneman.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:18 PM

Does have a point though.

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Fred,
"Evolution is taught poorly or not at all in many cases because of religious pressure on schools and occasional teachers who don't know their own subject."

Not in Connecticut. It is taught by science teachers in every public school........

You're forgetting the first part though, even when it's taught it's frequently not taught very well. When it isn't taught well there will be plenty of holes for anti-evolution arguments to take hold. For instance if a student is taught that evolution works through random mutations then the anti-evolution argument of it being statistically impossible makes sense, if the student is also taught that natural selection is not random then the hole is closed. Whenever there's a hole there's a couple dozen anti-evolution websites or books with persuasive (but wrong) arguments waiting.

RUE

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Does have a point though.

Not really. So, neither do you.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:49 PM

So sayeth Rue.

RUE

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:54 PM

Amen.

KANEMAN

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 11:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Does have a point though.
Not really. So, neither do you.

Ruse,
How can you not see the point? You are the enlightened one...Right?

LEADB

Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:03 AM

Actually, on this one Kaneman, you aren't scoring much on points. I'm with Rue, more competent teaching, especially including the 'correct' language to go along with it, would help folks see the 'hole attacks' as what they are, an effort to wedge religious teaching into public schools.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE