NationStates Jolt Archive

A group I'm involved in in my college is sponsoring Darwin Days, a two day event with ample discussion about evolution. Tomorrow, we're going to present the list of Steves, and the biology district head will be speaking.

I thought I'd mention it, as it seems this year we might be at the end of the era of creationism holding sway in political matters and education in the United States. I think this is a great milestone, as we are finally embracing science over superstition. Every argument I've heard against evolution I've heard deftly refuted. Creationism, Intelligent Design, "microevolution but not macroevolution", all of that bullshit, is just flat out false.

I'd like to open the thread to anyone who disagrees.

Yay! Another EvC thread! I've been suffering from withdrawal.

Welcome to the 21st Century :).

(Although I hope you realise that by hosting a 'Darwin Day' you are just as guilty of politicising science as the Creationists)

aww i thought it was going to be about a day in which to attempt an entry into the Darwin Awards...

Hell with Darwin, I'm having Lamarck Day.

aww i thought it was going to be about a day in which to attempt an entry into the Darwin Awards...

Don't you know that's every day? I swear, one day a man will get into the Darwin Awards by neutering himself so he can get in the Darwin Awards.


Welcome to the 21st Century .

(Although I hope you realise that by hosting a 'Darwin Day' you are just as guilty of politicising science as the Creationists)
Science is already politicized. If 50% of people didn't believe in Gravity, then there would be a problem. Holding discussions and speeches in the public arena about something that is, at least in the public arena and the media, controversial, is I think a better response than just sitting in your labs and studies and hoping all the ignorance goes away.

go darwin day!, its about time one of the most prominant scientist from history is celebrated. I say we all go out and buy beagles!

go darwin day!, its about time one of the most prominant scientist from history is celebrated. I say we all go out and buy beagles!

I say we throw beagles off of high cliffs until they evolve wings. Yay!!

A group I'm involved in in my college is sponsoring Darwin Days, a two day event with ample discussion about evolution. Tomorrow, we're going to present the list of Steves, and the biology district head will be speaking.

I thought I'd mention it, as it seems this year we might be at the end of the era of creationism holding sway in political matters and education in the United States. I think this is a great milestone, as we are finally embracing science over superstition. Every argument I've heard against evolution I've heard deftly refuted. Creationism, Intelligent Design, "microevolution but not macroevolution", all of that bullshit, is just flat out false.

I'd like to open the thread to anyone who disagrees.

What about Karl Popper's thoughts on theory-laden perception? Have you considered how they might apply to modern evolutionary theory?

I happen to agree with evolution, personally. I just figured I'd throw another argument out there, one that doesn't get much air time because the usual opponents of evolution are creationists, and any claim on their part of theory-laden perception by evolutionists is rank hypocrisy and tends to be dismissed out of hand (understandably).

What about Karl Popper's thoughts on theory-laden perception? Have you considered how they might apply to modern evolutionary theory?

I happen to agree with evolution, personally. I just figured I'd throw another argument out there, one that doesn't get much air time because the usual opponents of evolution are creationists, and any claim on their part of theory-laden perception by evolutionists is rank hypocrisy and tends to be dismissed out of hand (understandably).

Can you provide a definition of theory-laden perception? Google isn't throwing up anything outside of scientific papers I have to pay for.

Kind sir, could you please tell me where matter came from?

A group I'm involved in in my college is sponsoring Darwin Days, a two day event with ample discussion about evolution. Tomorrow, we're going to present the list of Steves, and the biology district head will be speaking.

I thought I'd mention it, as it seems this year we might be at the end of the era of creationism holding sway in political matters and education in the United States. I think this is a great milestone, as we are finally embracing science over superstition. Every argument I've heard against evolution I've heard deftly refuted. Creationism, Intelligent Design, "microevolution but not macroevolution", all of that bullshit, is just flat out false.

I'd like to open the thread to anyone who disagrees.

I guess you don't live in Kansas or Alabamastan, do you?

Welcome to the 21st Century :).

(Although I hope you realise that by hosting a 'Darwin Day' you are just as guilty of politicising science as the Creationists)

Hear Hear.

As to this thread, I have the popcorn for the flames that is sure to come. Anyone want some?

Kind sir, could you please tell me where matter came from?

Nowhere.

Kind sir, could you please tell me where matter came from?

I don't know. That's a question you should probably be asking a physicist rather than a biologist, since evolution is a biological theory and not a physical one. Of course, evolutionary algorithms and processes are used in other fields, but that's an application of evolutionary theory rather than a theory in itself.

Kind sir, could you please tell me where matter came from?

Why the hell does that matter?

Why the hell does that matter?

He is trying to raise Newton as an argument. But overlooked one "tiny" bit of detail as Vetalia pointed out.

Nowhere.

Oh, it came from somewhere, we just haven't nailed it down yet. There's a lot of possibilities, though, and some of them are far weirder than anything theorized in the past.

He is trying to raise Newton as an argument. But overlooked one "tiny" bit of detail as Vetalia pointed out.

That doesn't sound like it would be a very forceful argument.

Kind sir, could you please tell me where matter came from?




Why the hell does that matter?
Eloquently put, and perfectly true as far as evolution is concerned.

Matter could have always existed. It could have been created by god, or it could have risen out of unicorn piss. You don't need to understand where fuel comes from to understand combustion.

I'm not saying God didn't do it. I'm just telling you how he must have done it, if in fact he did.

Oh, it came from somewhere, we just haven't nailed it down yet. There's a lot of possibilities, though, and some of them are far weirder than anything theorized in the past.

There was no somewhere. There was nothing. Then there was something. However, the whole lack of a universe meant that there was no such thing as physics or casuality. The universe quite literally came from nothing. It might sound odd, but it's one of the best ideas around.

There was no somewhere. There was nothing. Then there was something. However, the whole lack of a universe meant that there was no such thing as physics or casuality. The universe quite literally came from nothing. It might sound odd, but it's one of the best ideas around.

There are some string theory explanations out there that go way beyond that and suggest all kinds of higher dimensional collisions and interactions that could have given birth to our universe.

Of course, they're still limited by the lack of a test for string theory, but that's going to be changing soon.

after seeing picture of both Lord Kelvin and Darwin is it some requiremtn in the mid-late Victorian age for Scientists to be bald and have long white beards

after seeing picture of both Lord Kelvin and Darwin is it some requiremtn in the mid-late Victorian age for Scientists to be bald and have long white beards

Yes.

Eloquently put, and perfectly true as far as evolution is concerned.

Matter could have always existed. It could have been created by god, or it could have risen out of unicorn piss. You don't need to understand where fuel comes from to understand combustion.

I'm not saying God didn't do it. I'm just telling you how he must have done it, if in fact he did.

It was God, actually. In the quasar, with the cosmic candlestick.

It was God, actually. In the quasar, with the cosmic candlestick.

I could have sworn it was Colonel Mustard in the time machine with the used condom...

I could have sworn it was Colonel Mustard in the time machine with the used condom...

I thought it was Rincewind in the past with the egg and prawn sandwich. No, wait, that's life.

I could have sworn it was Colonel Mustard in the time machine with the used condom...

Mustard...used condom...ewww.

Every argument I've heard against evolution I've heard deftly refuted. Creationism, Intelligent Design, "microevolution but not macroevolution", all of that bullshit, is just flat out false.

I'd like to open the thread to anyone who disagrees.

I'd like to open by saying that I do not actively disagree, but merely intend to play devil's advocate.

Creationism cannot be logically refuted, as it is not based in logic. It is a matter of faith, and any solid faith could stand against a sea of "evidence" proving that it was wrong with the simple statement that "God placed that evidence there to lead the weak of faith astray."

There was no somewhere. There was nothing. Then there was something. However, the whole lack of a universe meant that there was no such thing as physics or casuality. The universe quite literally came from nothing. It might sound odd, but it's one of the best ideas around.

Prove it.

Can you provide a definition of theory-laden perception? Google isn't throwing up anything outside of scientific papers I have to pay for.

If you can get it, try reading the article "Seeing and Seeing As" by N. Russel Hanson.

But as a shortcut, I'll offer a relevant example of theory-laden perception.

Two men, Robert and Timothy, are walking along a country road, both enjoying the beauty of nature all around them. They both spy a beautiful orchid in a flower garden near the road. Robert thinks to himself, "Ah, the amazing things that are produced by natural selection." Timothy thinks to himself, "Ah, the amazing things that are produced by God's creation."

Both Robert and Timothy are seeing the same flower, the same observational data, if you will. But their interpretations of the meaning of this data are quite different (though I won't claim that they are inherently irreconcilable).

You see, the explanatory frameworks, or theories, that we hold to tend to influence our perception of evidence that is relevant to that theory. Whether you see Robert or Timothy as the obvious example of the problem with theory-laden perception, it is indeed a problem.

Prove it.

Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.

What caused the origin of the universe can never be proven, nor can any evidence for it be found. We are limited to our own universe, and are forever barred from anything that occurred outside it. Occam's Razor, the only tool useful in circumstances such as this, would result in what I said, as it requires the least number of assumptions.

What caused the origin of the universe can never be proven, nor can any evidence for it be found. We are limited to our own universe, and are forever barred from anything that occurred outside it. Occam's Razor, the only tool useful in circumstances such as this, would result in what I said, as it requires the least number of assumptions.

For one, it requires the assumption that we can't know what happened. I do not believe that is something that can be said with any degree of confidence whatsoever.

For one, it requires the assumption that we can't know what happened. I do not believe that is something that can be said with any degree of confidence whatsoever.

So in fact you are saying that we cannot know that we cannot know what happened?

Recursional agnosticism!

If you can get it, try reading the article "Seeing and Seeing As" by N. Russel Hanson.

But as a shortcut, I'll offer a relevant example of theory-laden perception.

Two men, Robert and Timothy, are walking along a country road, both enjoying the beauty of nature all around them. They both spy a beautiful orchid in a flower garden near the road. Robert thinks to himself, "Ah, the amazing things that are produced by natural selection." Timothy thinks to himself, "Ah, the amazing things that are produced by God's creation."

Both Robert and Timothy are seeing the same flower, the same observational data, if you will. But their interpretations of the meaning of this data are quite different (though I won't claim that they are inherently irreconcilable).

You see, the explanatory frameworks, or theories, that we hold to tend to influence our perception of evidence that is relevant to that theory. Whether you see Robert or Timothy as the obvious example of the problem with theory-laden perception, it is indeed a problem.

Ah, right. That thing. Most annoying thing philosophy ever came up with. Needless to say, it ignores things such as formulation of theories and predictions, as well as discarding naturalism.

It's easily taken out by the multitude of successful predictions across all the disciplines, which mean that either theory-laden assumptions do not influence science to any meaningful extent, or that science is inherently worthless. A number of philosophers argue the latter.

For one, it requires the assumption that we can't know what happened.
Not the scenario I was talking about.

I do not believe that is something that can be said with any degree of confidence whatsoever.
Only if you discard the very foundation of science out of the window.

So in fact you are saying that we cannot know that we cannot know what happened?

Recursional agnosticism!

Pretty much. Nothing is truly impossible; it might be now, but that doesn't mean it will always be impossible.

Occam's Razor, the only tool useful in circumstances such as this, would result in what I said, as it requires the least number of assumptions.

Oh? We can explain the entirety of existence with only two assumptions. A very powerful being exists, and that being made everything that exists.

Well, that was easy. I just explained the entirety of existence in two statements. Occam's razor really is quite convenient for the Creationist, so you may want to avoid brandishing it quite so boldly.

Only if you discard the very foundation of science out of the window.

At present, we can say that. But we understand so little about the universe that I don't think we really know what we can know; it requires a monumental amount of confidence in the laws of physics as we currently understand them that I don't think is warranted. Science changes.

I think that "Darwin Days" is great, but give credit where credit is due... Alfred Russel Wallace discovered evolution at the same time, and for all we know Darwin may very well have stolen a number of his ideas.

It's odd, we know more about how evolution works than about how gravity works, but we don't hear any gravity-deniers advocating "intelligent falling". To be fair, I think the reason many people are reticent to accept evolution is because it makes them feel as if they aren't unique and special by virtue of being human. It's an understandable concern, given how anthropocentric our culture is.

Here's a real chin-scratcher: if human intelligence is such a vast evolutionary advantage, how come it has only evolved once?

Oh? We can explain the entirety of existence with only two assumptions. A very powerful being exists, and that being made everything that exists.

Well, that was easy. I just explained the entirety of existence in two statements. Occam's razor really is quite convenient for the Creationist, so you may want to avoid brandishing it quite so boldly.

The problem is that your theory doesn't predict nearly as much as modern cosmology, physics, and biology. Occam's razor also requires that a theory predict more than it's alternatives.

Here's a real chin-scratcher: if human intelligence is such a vast evolutionary advantage, how come it has only evolved once?

Perhaps because the first species to achieve it was capable of preventing any others from doing the same? Presumably, humans did wipe out or breed away the Neanderthals and other subspecies of human early in our history, so it would make sense.

And there are some very intelligent animals out there; dolphins and elephants come to mind. However, they lack the physical attributes to apply that brain power like we do.

The problem is that your theory doesn't predict nearly as much as modern cosmology, physics, and biology. Occam's razor also requires that a theory predict more than it's alternatives.

But then again, those fields say nothing about the existence of God; they're not really dealing with the same thing. Non-overlapping magisteria, as Stephen Jay Gould would have called them.

Ah, right. That thing. Most annoying thing philosophy ever came up with. Needless to say, it ignores things such as formulation of theories and predictions, as well as discarding naturalism.

Ah. Yes, well not assuming the scientific dogmas any more than the religious dogmas does tend to lead one to, you know, not assume them. That does make it difficult to adhere to them in the same way that many others do.

It's easily taken out by the multitude of successful predictions across all the disciplines, which mean that either theory-laden assumptions do not influence science to any meaningful extent, or that science is inherently worthless. A number of philosophers argue the latter.

I will propose another view for you to consider. It is that science is indeed heavily influenced by theory-ladenness, but that this simply means it is a different way of explaining the world, not a worthless or invalid one.

Oh? We can explain the entirety of existence with only two assumptions. A very powerful being exists, and that being made everything that exists.

Well, that was easy. I just explained the entirety of existence in two statements. Occam's razor really is quite convenient for the Creationist, so you may want to avoid brandishing it quite so boldly.Yet when we examine how, no god appears needed. That means you're introducing an unknown, possibly unknowable element with no explanatory value. And Occam's Razor suddenly shreds your idea.

Occam's Razor is a bit more complex than just "the simplest idea is the right one". Shit has to actually explain something to survive it. That's the basic problem with superstitions. In the end, they all boil down to a stubborn "Because. No further questioning allowed."

The perception thing seems to have a similar problem. I don't know anything about it beyond what you just posted, but it seems to operate on the completely baseless assumption that the validity of any idea is a given.

The problem is that your theory doesn't predict nearly as much as modern cosmology, physics, and biology. Occam's razor also requires that a theory predict more than it's alternatives.

Oh? I can't seem to find anything in it about prediction.

Yet when we examine how, no god appears needed. That means you're introducing an unknown, possibly unknowable element with no explanatory value. And Occam's Razor suddenly shreds your idea.

Problem is, no God appears needed.

Not that God is not needed, but rather that he appears not to be. That's a subjective interpretation of the evidence, and comes dangerously close to being a logical fallacy of the is-ought or naturalistic variety. For the purposes of science, God is not needed in the sense that methodological naturalism seeks natural explanations for phenomena. It's nontheistic. For other fields, that's not the case; methodological naturalism doesn't entail philosophical naturalism.

But then again, those fields say nothing about the existence of God; they're not really dealing with the same thing. Non-overlapping magisteria, as Stephen Jay Gould would have called them.

What I'm trying to say is that his two statements: "A very powerful being exists, and that being made everything that exists." constitute a theory. He claims that because the theory only consists of two statements, it is preferable by Occam's Razor. But the theories of modern cosmology, physics, and biology contain many many assumptions, true. But his theory only predicts two things: "A very powerful being exists." and "Things exist." whereas cosmology, physics, and biology predicts a long, long list of things that far outnumber their assumptions, including but not limited to: the expansion of the universe, the existence of planets and stars, possibly the origins of life, the development of multicellular life, and so on. Therefore the theories that constitute cosmology, physics, and biology are preferable to Mr. Autobot's theory.

Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.

Sigged.

Oh? I can't seem to find anything in it about prediction.

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. Meaning that...
This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities.
The "All things being equal" part means that the predictive powers of two theories need to be equal if they are to be compared.

At present, we can say that. But we understand so little about the universe that I don't think we really know what we can know; it requires a monumental amount of confidence in the laws of physics as we currently understand them that I don't think is warranted. Science changes.
Actually it would toss science out the window. Science makes two assumptions. 1. The universe exists. 2. The "laws" of nature work the same everywhere within said universe.

Going before the universe exists means that we violate those two key assumptions because we're in a place where our tools no longer function because there is no longer a place or time for them to function in.

-snip-

Ah, well that makes more sense. Of course, I believe that the supernatural is really a natural but at present not understood property of the physical universe, so I'm not exactly the best when it comes to arguing about transcendent beings.

I'm a materialist theist. :confused:

Problem is, no God appears needed.

Not that God is not needed, but rather that he appears not to be. That's a subjective interpretation of the evidence, and comes dangerously close to being a logical fallacy of the is-ought or naturalistic variety. For the purposes of science, God is not needed in the sense that methodological naturalism seeks natural explanations for phenomena. It's nontheistic. For other fields, that's not the case; methodological naturalism doesn't entail philosophical naturalism.And that is besides the point. As long as no god is apparent & no god is needed, Occam's Razor eliminates god as an unknown element with no explanatory value. As you may have noticed, I was responding to Hotrod's use of the razor ;)

Actually it would toss science out the window. Science makes two assumptions. 1. The universe exists. 2. The "laws" of nature work the same everywhere within said universe.

Science has been thrown out the window before...it's going to happen again at some point. If anything, advances in string theory, especially brane cosmology and things like that which deal with higher-dimensional objects, including those that existed before our universe, is likely to pose a major threat to our conventional interpretations of matter.

Going before the universe exists means that we violate those two key assumptions because we're in a place where our tools no longer function because there is no longer a place or time for them to function in.

Unless, of course, there is a higher-order series of physical laws that applies to a larger class of entities, of which our universe is only one of many or even one of an infinite number of similar universes with laws consistent to ours.

I believe that the supernatural is really a natural but at present not understood property of the physical universe,

Well that's just what the heavens use to be.

And that is besides the point. As long as no god is apparent & no god is needed, Occam's Razor eliminates god as an unknown element with no explanatory value. As you may have noticed, I was responding to Hotrod's use of the razor ;)

Oh, yeah. Generally, the Razor doesn't appear to work well in philosophy of religion or theology, so it's pointless for anyone to use it for anything.

Well that's just what the heavens use to be.

And that's why I believe that they are explainable physical properties of the universe. It's not that they don't exist; rather, they do, but they are different from what we originally envisioned them as and we can understand them. Perhaps that's the whole point of science to begin with...

If anything, science has shown us that the heavens are far more majestic and powerful than anything envisioned in religion.

Oh, yeah. Generally, the Razor doesn't appear to work well in philosophy of religion or theology, so it's pointless for anyone to use it for anything.Eh what?

Science has been thrown out the window before...it's going to happen again at some point. If anything, advances in string theory, especially brane cosmology and things like that which deal with higher-dimensional objects, including those that existed before our universe, is likely to pose a major threat to our conventional interpretations of matter.

All of which right now have no evidence beyond math. A better annalogy would be to attempting to figure out how a bubble was blown while being trapped inside the bubble. There is no way to measure it because everything we have to measure something depends upon the bubble being there. All speculation is just that, speculation.

Unless, of course, there is a higher-order series of physical laws that applies to a larger class of entities, of which our universe is only one of many or even one of an infinite number of similar universes with laws consistent to ours.
But, again, there is no way to actually measure that from within our universe as our laws apply.

Unless you've come up with some creative ways to break them.

I'd like to open by saying that I do not actively disagree, but merely intend to play devil's advocate.

Creationism cannot be logically refuted, as it is not based in logic......

That depends. If you are going to argue that God used evolution in order to accomplish his goals of creating life as he wanted to, then no, nobody can really disprove that. However if you are arguing that the world is 6000 years old just like the Bible says (as so many do) then you are flat out wrong and it is very easy to disprove that. Just because the other party is ignoring you while you talk doesn't mean that you aren't actually disproving them.


Here's a real chin-scratcher: if human intelligence is such a vast evolutionary advantage, how come it has only evolved once?Well first of all you need the body to back it up. A smart dog can fetch really well, but his capacity to use tools is rather limited no matter how smart he is. Dolphins seem pretty intelligent as well, as do parrots, but they similarly have a low ability to manipulate their environemt. Lets consider monkeys then (and what the hell, otters too, they use tools) I'm sure you could list off more intelligent animals. I would say that they are in the process of becoming intelligent, they use simple tools, monkeys have a pretty advanced social structure as well. Evolution wise they may be around as smart as us hundreds of thousands of years from now. That may seem like a lot, but out of the hundreds of millions of years (or has it been a couple billion) that life has been around on Earth we just narrowly edged them out. Unfortunately for them they will never, ever be able to catch up to our lead. Given the exponential nature of human (and I would assume any other intelligent species) progress once they hit sentience we will be building sentient robots long, long before Gorillas learn how to irrigate their crops.

I think that "Darwin Days" is great, but give credit where credit is due... Alfred Russel Wallace discovered evolution at the same time, and for all we know Darwin may very well have stolen a number of his ideas.

It's odd, we know more about how evolution works than about how gravity works, but we don't hear any gravity-deniers advocating "intelligent falling". To be fair, I think the reason many people are reticent to accept evolution is because it makes them feel as if they aren't unique and special by virtue of being human. It's an understandable concern, given how anthropocentric our culture is.

Here's a real chin-scratcher: if human intelligence is such a vast evolutionary advantage, how come it has only evolved once?

That's because the fact that gravity exists and the theories behind gravity aren't irreconcilable with a literal accounting of the Bible.

That's because the fact that gravity exists and the theories behind gravity aren't irreconcilable with a literal accounting of the Bible.

How did that one guy ascend into heaven then?

Yet when we examine how, no god appears needed. That means you're introducing an unknown, possibly unknowable element with no explanatory value. And Occam's Razor suddenly shreds your idea.

As far as having explanatory value goes, I don't see that there is much evidence for the greater explanatory value. True, most people don't understand the nature of a very powerful being that created the universe that can be posited, but I dare say most people on this planet don't understand the entities posited by modern physics either.

Now, I'll grant that plenty of people, given the appropriate education, seem to understand the entities posited by modern physics. But how is this different from the "god" you mention? There are plenty of people, when given the appropriate education, who seem to understand "god" just fine, are accepted by their peers as understanding "god" and are quite content with this explanation.

Occam's Razor is a bit more complex than just "the simplest idea is the right one".

Allow me to sum it up. The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. In practice, it is only to be used when two theories explain something equally well, all other things being equal.

So let's be forward-thinking and say that science achieves an explanation for everything, a Grand Unified Theory, if you will. It posits the existence of a wide variety of entities and the principles that explain their interactions to explain the universe.

A deist has an explanation for everything also, and it only posits (1) the existence of a very powerful being (2) that the very powerful being did everything. It only posits the existence of one entity.

Shit has to actually explain something to survive it. That's the basic problem with superstitions. In the end, they all boil down to a stubborn "Because. No further questioning allowed."

So you're going to stubbornly insist that "a very powerful being did it" is not an explanation? I could see contesting that explanation for a variety of reasons, but claiming that it is not an explanation at all seems very silly.

The perception thing seems to have a similar problem. I don't know anything about it beyond what you just posted, but it seems to operate on the completely baseless assumption that the validity of any idea is a given.

Mmmm, ironic strawman alert! It doesn't operate on any such assumption, and does not imply any such claim. It's simply an observation about human perception.

How did that one guy ascend into heaven then?

Clearly God employed a tractor beam of some sort, the science of which we still haven't worked out.

Clearly God employed a tractor beam of some sort, the science of which we still haven't worked out.

How did the sun stand still then?

How did the sun stand still then?

Tractor Beam. A REALLY big Tractor Beam.

So you're going to stubbornly insist that "a very powerful being did it" is not an explanation? I could see contesting that explanation for a variety of reasons, but claiming that it is not an explanation at all seems very silly.

It's certainly a valid explanation. However, the fact of the matter is that another, more plausible explanation can exist, and this explanation can not only provide us with more detail and insight into the issue, it can also give us predictive power in applying that explanation.

Take gravity for example. Once could easily say "things fall down because god wills it" and leave it at that. That's a perfectly plausible explanation if one wishes to believe so. However, if you take the time to think about it, come up with another explanation for it, and use the new explanation to accurately predict other things (For instance, that the rate at which things fall is independent of mass in an ideal vacuum) then you have an explanation that is more useful, and more likely because of the fact that it is an explanation that can actually be shown to work, to some extent.

Here's a real chin-scratcher: if human intelligence is such a vast evolutionary advantage, how come it has only evolved once?

lol, this just in!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17121018/

If the chimps can use hammers, whats next? Guns? Battleships? Nukes?

Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.

Science is inextricably intertwined with math. You're arguing science.

What caused the origin of the universe can never be proven, nor can any evidence for it be found. We are limited to our own universe, and are forever barred from anything that occurred outside it. Occam's Razor, the only tool useful in circumstances such as this, would result in what I said, as it requires the least number of assumptions.

Incorrect. The simplest and fewest number of assumptions would be that the universe was always there.

Here's a real chin-scratcher: if human intelligence is such a vast evolutionary advantage, how come it has only evolved once?

How do you know that it has only done so once?

Yet when we examine how, no god appears needed. That means you're introducing an unknown, possibly unknowable element with no explanatory value. And Occam's Razor suddenly shreds your idea.

Let's revert back to my previous statement about applying logic to faith. Any solid faith will look at your "proof" and claim that you are letting man's fallible science and theories cloud your sight to the infallible greatness of God.

Occam's Razor is a bit more complex than just "the simplest idea is the right one". Shit has to actually explain something to survive it. That's the basic problem with superstitions. In the end, they all boil down to a stubborn "Because. No further questioning allowed."

Creationism explains it all if your faith is strong enough.

The perception thing seems to have a similar problem. I don't know anything about it beyond what you just posted, but it seems to operate on the completely baseless assumption that the validity of any idea is a given.

Unless you can actually discount the validity of an idea, then it is a given.

What I'm trying to say is that his two statements: "A very powerful being exists, and that being made everything that exists." constitute a theory. He claims that because the theory only consists of two statements, it is preferable by Occam's Razor.

That was in rebuttal to the previous statement that the theory with the fewest basic assumptions would best fit Occam's Razor.

But the theories of modern cosmology, physics, and biology contain many many assumptions, true. But his theory only predicts two things: "A very powerful being exists." and "Things exist." whereas cosmology, physics, and biology predicts a long, long list of things that far outnumber their assumptions, including but not limited to: the expansion of the universe, the existence of planets and stars, possibly the origins of life, the development of multicellular life, and so on. Therefore the theories that constitute cosmology, physics, and biology are preferable to Mr. Autobot's theory.

Having more to it doesn't make any theory better, it just makes it more likely to have flaws.

That depends. If you are going to argue that God used evolution in order to accomplish his goals of creating life as he wanted to, then no, nobody can really disprove that.

Exactly.

However if you are arguing that the world is 6000 years old just like the Bible says (as so many do) then you are flat out wrong and it is very easy to disprove that.

That number is a result of silly people trying to apply math and science to faith.

Just because the other party is ignoring you while you talk doesn't mean that you aren't actually disproving them.

True. I revert back to my first argument, though. Faith is not a matter of proof, and won't be swayed by it.

Well first of all you need the body to back it up. A smart dog can fetch really well, but his capacity to use tools is rather limited no matter how smart he is. Dolphins seem pretty intelligent as well, as do parrots, but they similarly have a low ability to manipulate their environemt.

The capacity to use tools is hardly any measure of intellect. Steven Hawking comes to mind. If not for the implements designed by others to fit his needs and built by others, he'd be a useless lump, and yet he is arguably one of the most intelligent people of our time.

Lets consider monkeys then (and what the hell, otters too, they use tools) I'm sure you could list off more intelligent animals. I would say that they are in the process of becoming intelligent, they use simple tools, monkeys have a pretty advanced social structure as well.

I don't know that I would use social structure as a measure either, but it's better than tools.

Evolution wise they may be around as smart as us hundreds of thousands of years from now.

Without human interference, the monkeys would live relatively peaceful lives in the homes they build for themselves, perfectly capable of hunting and gathering food for themselves and caring for their own family groups, without worrying about war, famine, jobs, money, the receding environment, global warming, etc etc etc......That seems pretty bright to me.

That may seem like a lot, but out of the hundreds of millions of years (or has it been a couple billion) that life has been around on Earth we just narrowly edged them out. Unfortunately for them they will never, ever be able to catch up to our lead.

Never say never. We just haven't gotten around to nuking ourselves with out "Higher Intellectual Skills".

Given the exponential nature of human (and I would assume any other intelligent species) progress once they hit sentience we will be building sentient robots long, long before Gorillas learn how to irrigate their crops.

Thing is, they don't need to irrigate their crops. They don't need to build robots. Without us around to screw the world up with our lofty notions of reshaping the world and "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" attitudes, they self-moderate their own populations and territories so that they have all they need in the trees. They have reached a point of development that leaves no biological imperative to progress. They live. They communicate with each other. Barring human involvement or ecological disaster, they thrive. Where should they go from there? Into our world of war, poverty, starving children, rape, murder, corporate greed, political corruption, and what all else? We have music, art, poetry, and many beautiful things, but they have their own versions of these things already.

It's certainly a valid explanation. However, the fact of the matter is that another, more plausible explanation can exist, and this explanation can not only provide us with more detail and insight into the issue, it can also give us predictive power in applying that explanation.

Take gravity for example. Once could easily say "things fall down because god wills it" and leave it at that. That's a perfectly plausible explanation if one wishes to believe so. However, if you take the time to think about it, come up with another explanation for it, and use the new explanation to accurately predict other things (For instance, that the rate at which things fall is independent of mass in an ideal vacuum) then you have an explanation that is more useful, and more likely because of the fact that it is an explanation that can actually be shown to work, to some extent.

And you could continue to say that all of these different factors work and interrelate the way they do because God wills it. Throwing extra fact and science at faith won't shake the faith.

If the chimps can use hammers, whats next? Guns? Battleships? Nukes?

I think a preemptive strike is in order.

As far as having explanatory value goes, I don't see that there is much evidence for the greater explanatory value.We're using two different yardsticks, it seems. You're talking about subjective emotional appeal, I'm talking about objective explanatory value.Allow me to sum it up. Kind of you. Now it should be self evident why concepts like logic & objective validity are wholly irrelevant using your yardstick. Conversely, it should also be self evident why 'explanations' like that - barring exceptional flukes - have no objective value. And if it isn't, we can always use the flat Earth as an example. That utter nonsense notion made perfect sense to a lot of people, despite being based on no evidence & contradicting all evidence. It took, if memory serves, about 1500 years of humanity having conclusive evidence that the Earth couldn't possibly be flat, before it became socially acceptable to speculate that it wasn't.
Naturally the Earth itself never gave a flying fuck about what we thought, nor did it at any point change shape to conform with popular superstition, thus those superstitions had no objective value. But I'm sure a lot of people felt superstition sufficed.So let's be forward-thinking and say that science achieves an explanation for everything, a Grand Unified Theory, if you will. It posits the existence of a wide variety of entities and the principles that explain their interactions to explain the universe. Emphasis mine. Again there's the objective explanatory value.A deist has an explanation for everything also, and it only posits (1) the existence of a very powerful being (2) that the very powerful being did everything. It only posits the existence of one entity.And here it's missing. A deist doesn't have an explanation. The deist has an assertion it chooses to believe in, for purely subjective reasons. Objectively it's as valid & explains exactly as much as fecalist proclaiming he shat out the universe yestoday - which is nothing. As I've already said, the sum total of the 'explanations' you're talking about, is "because". That's not explaining, it's asserting.So you're going to stubbornly insist that "a very powerful being did it" is not an explanation? I could see contesting that explanation for a variety of reasons, but claiming that it is not an explanation at all seems very silly.There's nothing stubborn about it. There is no objective reason to insist otherwise. Feel free to call me silly, but maintaining that superstition has any objective explanatory value is.. Well.. Silly ;) Mmmm, ironic strawman alert! It doesn't operate on any such assumption, and does not imply any such claim. It's simply an observation about human perception.In my defence, I explicitly stated I didn't know what you were talking about. I think I do now, but you previously gave me the impression that you could use that theory to discern the validity of various ideas. It wasn't an intentional strawman.Let's revert back to my previous statement about applying logic to faith. Any solid faith will look at your "proof" and claim that you are letting man's fallible science and theories cloud your sight to the infallible greatness of God.I can only agree. And again, this just reinforces why superstitions have no objective application. It's a personal thing based on feeling, not facts or logic. Creationism explains it all if your faith is strong enough.No it doesn't. If it did, every rational sentient would be a Creationist. To some people, Creationism is more appealing than an explanation. Creationism itself doesn't explain anything beyond what's found in the imaginations of a few deluded individuals. It's just a "Because. No further questions allowed." In a several thousand year old wrapping.Unless you can actually discount the validity of an idea, then it is a given.Not at all. It's only a given if something actually supports it. Superstitions are all mercifully free from objective support. Hence the name. No amount of personal bias makes something a given. Either way, the bit you quoted there was just a byproduct of my ignorance. Please ignore it, but feel free to snicker.

The capacity to use tools is hardly any measure of intellect. Steven Hawking comes to mind. If not for the implements designed by others to fit his needs and built by others, he'd be a useless lump, and yet he is arguably one of the most intelligent people of our time.True, I should have been more specific here. Without the body to back it up, mental prowess is not as useful, therefore evolution does not single it out as much. A genius of a monkey can use a sharp stick hunt/forage/defend itself and pass on its genes better. A genius of a dolphin.... I don't really see how it has any particular advantage. Incidentally your example illustrates my point perfectly. Stephen Hawking, the most brilliant mind of our time, would be a crippled nobody, dying young, if he was born 300 years ago. His body would not allow his brilliant mind to be any sort of an advantage whatsoever.

Thing is, they don't need to irrigate their crops. They don't need to build robots. Without us around to screw the world up with our lofty notions of reshaping the world and "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" attitudes, they self-moderate their own populations and territories so that they have all they need in the trees. They have reached a point of development that leaves no biological imperative to progress. They live. They communicate with each other. Barring human involvement or ecological disaster, they thrive. Where should they go from there? Animals don't self-moderate their populations. None of them do, you know the expression "breed like rabbits?" Every single animal makes as many babies as it possibly can. If you think that the enormously high mortality rate animals has which balances this out equates with more enlightened living you can go right ahead and try it out. Some animals, like gorillas for example, may not be able to kick out babies as fast as mice do, but that's not because they are self-moderating or holding back, that's because they aren't physically capable of making babies faster than they already do.

Into our world of war, poverty, starving children, rape, murder, corporate greed, political corruption, and what all else? We have music, art, poetry, and many beautiful things, but they have their own versions of these things already. War: Animals fight all the time, animals eat each other, animals that don't eat each other fight for space, they fight for the food they both eat. I was watching this documentary about Meercats one time and they travelled in little family tribes, if one tribe came across the others nest they would dig it up and kill the young, then run off again, just to keep the other tribe weak so they couldn't move into their territory as much. Nature is full of those horror stories. Lions moving into a new pride and killing off all the previous males cubs is another example.
Poverty: Oh yes, the animals have cunningly avoided poverty by not having any possessions whatsoever.
Starving Children: Baby animals starve and die all the time, that's why animals make so many of them.
Rape: You are probably right about this one, but if you looked hard enough you may find exceptions.
Murder: I think that we have covered animals killing animals enough.
Corporate greed: Animals haven't started corporations yet, but many types of animals hoard a supply of food (squirrels) and they all try to protect sources of food from other animals. What is territorialism if not greed?
Political Corruption: The alpha male of most species steals all the women for himself. Depending on the species some also kill/drive off the offspring of other males, not to mention the males that they fought with to become the alpha male. Another example could be the male lion making all the females hunt for him (although it is true that he makes his own contribution to the pride).

Edit: It may seem cheap to claim that animals are both poverty stricken and greedy, but it's true. They are greedy because their evolution (as, most likely, does ours) necisitates it. If they don't fight for resources as much as they can most of them would die, leaving the way for the animals which had fought more. But all of this work is just for survival. None of them ever get above the poverty line.

People should beware of confusing theories with hypotheses. A theory is something that has stood up to rigorous testing and that is agreed to be the best existing explanation for natural phenomena. A hypothesis is an idea that has yet to receive this degree of support. Many hypotheses will never see the light of scientific consensus, and even established theories will be replaced as better ones come along. Newtonian mechanics, for example, was an excellent explanation for the laws of physics, but quantum mechanics and Einsteinian principles were better explanations. On a macroscopic, realistic scale, Newtonian mechanics still holds true enough to be useful. "Intelligent falling" on the other hand, never was a particularly good explanation, as it does not attempt to make a manageable, predictable set of laws to describe natural phenomena. The purpose of science is to develop effective models for explaining, and thereby making it possible to predict and utilize, natural phenomena. It is, in its pure form, a perfect system for strengthening imperfect ideas. Ironically, science has its most difficulties when it falls into the same traps of dogma and close-mindedness that typically plague religion, as with uniformitarianism in geology for much of the 20th Century refusing to accept plate tectonics or astral impact events.

What the hell are you on, Apes? they don't exsist....

and if they do they'll be extinct soon anyways.

I can only agree. And again, this just reinforces why superstitions have no objective application. It's a personal thing based on feeling, not facts or logic.

Which is what I was saying.

No it doesn't. If it did, every rational sentient would be a Creationist.

No. As you already pointed out, faith is not a matter of rationality.

To some people, Creationism is more appealing than an explanation.

Of course. You can explain everything using faith without having to learn a bunch of flawed human science.

Creationism itself doesn't explain anything beyond what's found in the imaginations of a few deluded individuals.

Claims that the foundations of one's faith are deluded are not going to get them to take you seriously at all. It will only further serve to show them that you are unable to deal with what you cannot explain rationally, failing in your own endeavors.

It's just a "Because. No further questions allowed."

Questions are allowed. People ask questions of their religions all the time. That is how they become strong in their faith. The same as people become more knowledgeable in science.

Not at all. It's only a given if something actually supports it. Superstitions are all mercifully free from objective support. Hence the name.

There are a great many superstitions that are rooted in objective, supportable reality. Opening an unbrella inside is bad luck: Of course it is, it's a great big thing that suddenly pops open and is rather likely to knock something over or poke someone in the eye. Same for walking under ladders: there's usually someone at the top of a ladder doing something who might accidentally drop something on you or could fall if you bump the ladder. These are pretty objective reasons to not do these things.

No amount of personal bias makes something a given.

Nor will it invalidate any of the offered ideas.

Allow me to rephrase my original stance about darwin vs God: Neither one of them can really disprove the other. Science is fact. Evidence. Solid tangible reality. Faith is belief. Spirituality. You can throw the stones of science at the intangible wisps of faith for an eternity without making a dent. That same statement works in reverse, as well. Lashing the stones of science with the wisps of faith will generally get you nowhere.

And you could continue to say that all of these different factors work and interrelate the way they do because God wills it. Throwing extra fact and science at faith won't shake the faith.

I'm not trying to, and I didn't make my point clear in what I said it seems. My point was that if we have a better explanation for what we currently take on faith, and that explanation works, and not only that but works in a way we can use it effectively for other things, than we have a more reasonable explanation than, "God did it."

It's not so much an attack on faith, so much as it's a "we don't really need faith anymore."

I'm not trying to, and I didn't make my point clear in what I said it seems. My point was that if we have a better explanation for what we currently take on faith, and that explanation works, and not only that but works in a way we can use it effectively for other things, than we have a more reasonable explanation than, "God did it."

It's not so much an attack on faith, so much as it's a "we don't really need faith anymore."

Saying that something is obsolete isn't an attack on its purpose? Interesting.

Still remains that that the "More reasonable" explanation will appeal to the rational, while faith is not a matter of rationality.

Your problem is you're assuming faith and science are mutually exclusive.
I am a science nut and I beleive in ID. I believe evidince supports ID.
Really most of the "evidence" displayed by both sides can just go either way. Science is not objective and evidence will be used to support whatever you're trying to prove whether is really does or not. Keep in mind that science "proved" that maggots are made of rotting meat, radiation water is good for you, and "global warming" would raise the water levels (You probably disagree with me about that, but let's discuss it on another thread).

Which is what I was saying.I was just stroking your ego ;)No. As you already pointed out, faith is not a matter of rationality.Eh? It has no real world application. It explains nothing.Of course. You can explain everything using faith without having to learn a bunch of flawed human science.No. You can imagine whatever you will, but if your phantasmagoria can be said to have any explanatory value at all, it is purely in the context of your imagination. It doesn't actually explain something, you just assert that "It is so".Claims that the foundations of one's faith are deluded are not going to get them to take you seriously at all.People too caught up in their own imagination to recognise it's lack of real world application aren't gonna listen to be regardless of what I say. And unlike some of them, I'm not out to rescue anyone. As long as people aren't suffering harm because of their vivid imagination, it's none of my business. I do, however, reserve the right to call a spade a spade.It will only further serve to show them that you are unable to deal with what you cannot explain rationally, failing in your own endeavors.Again, if you're too fucked up to know the difference between what's real & what's just in your head, whatever I say makes no difference. I freely admit I can't deal with it. It's too far gone & I'm not a psychiatrist. I'd love to be able to eradicate willfull ignorance, but it's not gonna happen. Don't get e wrong, I know & get along with a small horde of religious people. My partner's one of them. But I neither know, nor desire to know any religious people who allow their personal bias to override real world explanations. I have neither the education or inclination to deal with schizophrenics. Fortunately others do.Questions are allowed. People ask questions of their religions all the time. That is how they become strong in their faith. The same as people become more knowledgeable in science.I guess I should have specified questions with the aim of illuminating the connection, if any, between reality & the asserted fiction.There are a great many superstitions that are rooted in objective, supportable reality.And then take it to bizzarro land & gives it a spin. Umbrellas & latters, my ass. There's nothing unlucky about either of those things. There's just common lack of thinking. It's superstition used to absolve people from their own stupid mistakes by placing the blame on something other than their own inattention & lack of thought.

There's no objective universal reasons not to open umbrellas indoors or walk under latters. There's situations where it's asking for an accident & there's situations where it's utterly inconsequential. You can determine which is which by observing cause-effect relationships, not by blaiming evil spirits.Nor will it invalidate any of the offered ideas.True enough.Allow me to rephrase my original stance about darwin vs God:Yes, it boild down to the absence of evidence not being evidence of absence, and the impossibility of proving a negative. The absurdities of the human imagination will forever remain safely armoured by those two.

But again, an idea cannot be assumed valid on the basis of personal bias alone. That I can imagine something I'd like to be true, doesn't mean that it is. Untill there's evidence one way or another - not proof, just evidence - the validity is indeterminable. In the case of superstitions, where adequate mundane explanations exists, those explanations are evidence against the superstitions, and the superstitions must therefore be assumed false until further evidence is found. Then the superstitions can be reevaluated.

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. Meaning that...

The "All things being equal" part means that the predictive powers of two theories need to be equal if they are to be compared.

Scientific theories, at least modern (post-Popper post-positivist) theories, require falsifiable predictions. Non-scientific theories are not required to make falsifiable predictions.

So what if you suggest, as many do, that because the "very powerful being" theory is not a scientific theory, it can't be compared to a scientific theory? I'm perfectly fine with that, because I think the benefits of such comparison are minimal.

But if you suggest that they can be compared in some objective sense, then you'll need to accept that "comparing" the two solely in light of the standards of the other is nonsensical, and evaluate the two either without standards or with a third standard to help you compare their value.

There was no somewhere. There was nothing. Then there was something. However, the whole lack of a universe meant that there was no such thing as physics or casuality. The universe quite literally came from nothing. It might sound odd, but it's one of the best ideas around. Poof, There It Is (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Poof%2C_There_It_Is_Theory)

Kind sir, could you please tell me where matter came from?

What's that got to do with evolution?

We're using two different yardsticks, it seems. You're talking about subjective emotional appeal, I'm talking about objective explanatory value.

Mmmm, another strawman. No, what you're actually talking about is a particular kind of explanatory value, one that you happen to favor.

I don't even have a yardstick in this discussion. I'm just enjoying playing Devil's Advocate with some dogmatists.

Kind of you. Now it should be self evident why concepts like logic & objective validity are wholly irrelevant using your yardstick. Conversely, it should also be self evident why 'explanations' like that - barring exceptional flukes - have no objective value. And if it isn't, we can always use the flat Earth as an example. That utter nonsense notion made perfect sense to a lot of people, despite being based on no evidence & contradicting all evidence. It took, if memory serves, about 1500 years of humanity having conclusive evidence that the Earth couldn't possibly be flat, before it became socially acceptable to speculate that it wasn't.
Naturally the Earth itself never gave a flying fuck about what we thought, nor did it at any point change shape to conform with popular superstition, thus those superstitions had no objective value. But I'm sure a lot of people felt superstition sufficed.Emphasis mine. Again there's the objective explanatory value.

Extension of strawman. Not worth much.

And here it's missing. A deist doesn't have an explanation. The deist has an assertion it chooses to believe in, for purely subjective reasons. Objectively it's as valid & explains exactly as much as fecalist proclaiming he shat out the universe yestoday - which is nothing. As I've already said, the sum total of the 'explanations' you're talking about, is "because". That's not explaining, it's asserting.

Oh, it's most definitely an explanation. It just doesn't fit the standards for exaplanation that you favor any more than Einsteinian physics would fit the explanatory standards that a good fundamentalist Qur'an-loving Muslim would favor.

There's nothing stubborn about it. There is no objective reason to insist otherwise. Feel free to call me silly, but maintaining that superstition has any objective explanatory value is.. Well.. Silly ;)

I will call you silly, then, but primarily because you're confusing your preferred methodology with genuine objectivity.

In my defence, I explicitly stated I didn't know what you were talking about. I think I do now, but you previously gave me the impression that you could use that theory to discern the validity of various ideas. It wasn't an intentional strawman.

Fair enough. Do some reading, mate. You're certainly intelligent to enough to make a much more interesting debate than this has been so far for me. Perhaps we can do better in a later thread.

The capacity to use tools is hardly any measure of intellect. Steven Hawking comes to mind. If not for the implements designed by others to fit his needs and built by others, he'd be a useless lump, and yet he is arguably one of the most intelligent people of our time.

And he's able to use his intellect because he's capable of using the tools designed for him by other people.

Thing is, they don't need to irrigate their crops. They don't need to build robots. Without us around to screw the world up with our lofty notions of reshaping the world and "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" attitudes, they self-moderate their own populations and territories so that they have all they need in the trees. They have reached a point of development that leaves no biological imperative to progress. They live. They communicate with each other. Barring human involvement or ecological disaster, they thrive. Where should they go from there? Into our world of war, poverty, starving children, rape, murder, corporate greed, political corruption, and what all else? We have music, art, poetry, and many beautiful things, but they have their own versions of these things already.

"Self-moderate their own populations": Let the weak, disabled, and elderly starve and die, kill excess young and steal from other groups that are weaker than you. It's nothing different than the most brutal of human society, but thankfully we have the technology and the means to end hunger and free ourselves from

There's plenty of rape, murder, and greed in nature...it's the law of the jungle, and there is nothing out there more brutal than the world outside of what humans have created. You spend your life struggling to survive, and hope that you're not claimed by disease or starvation or preyed upon by predators. If you're unlucky enough to be born disabled, you'll either be killed or abandoned after birth or have the pleasure of living a short life of fear and suffering.

Humans have been waging a war against nature since we developed agriculture, and thankfully we're getting closer and closer to total domination over natural forces. In a short while we will finally be free from the cruel, hideous tyranny of nature and we will be capable of determining ourselves and shaping everything to our own will. This planet will be totally reshaped in our image, and we will be able to expand and consume anything and everything we desire.

And he's able to use his intellect because he's capable of using the tools designed for him by other people.


That still doesn't make it a good measure of intellect. His intellect would still exist without those tools that others have granted him.

"Self-moderate their own populations": Let the weak, disabled, and elderly starve and die, kill excess young and steal from other groups that are weaker than you. It's nothing different than the most brutal of human society, but thankfully we have the technology and the means to end hunger and free ourselves from

More like breed less when food is scarce. Things like that. I am willing to concede the majority of the points regarding animals, however.

Humans have been waging a war against nature since we developed agriculture, and thankfully we're getting closer and closer to total domination over natural forces. In a short while we will finally be free from the cruel, hideous tyranny of nature and we will be capable of determining ourselves and shaping everything to our own will. This planet will be totally reshaped in our image, and we will be able to expand and consume anything and everything we desire.

God, I hope that is intended to be ironic in some fashion.

That still doesn't make it a good measure of intellect. His intellect would still exist without those tools that others have granted him.

Well, yeah, but those tools enable him to apply it.

More like breed less when food is scarce. Things like that. I am willing to concede the majority of the points regarding animals, however.

But those already born starve. And humans do that to, except we don't need food shortages to lower our birthrates...better living standards do that without the suffering of hunger or disease.

God, I hope that is intended to be ironic in some fashion.

No, it's not. Mankind has a duty to conquer, consume, and fill the universe with ourselves and our technology. The sooner we have this rock totally chained to our will, the better.

Mankind has a duty to conquer, consume, and fill the universe with ourselves and our technology. The sooner we have this rock totally chained to our will, the better.

Where do you derive this mandate from?

Humans have been waging a war against nature since we developed agriculture, and thankfully we're getting closer and closer to total domination over natural forces. In a short while we will finally be free from the cruel, hideous tyranny of nature and we will be capable of determining ourselves and shaping everything to our own will. This planet will be totally reshaped in our image, and we will be able to expand and consume anything and everything we desire.

You're like a villain from a Final Fantasy game.

Mmmm, another strawman. No, what you're actually talking about is a particular kind of explanatory value, one that you happen to favor.Not really, no. I distinguish betweeen objective value & the lack of it. Sure it was a semi-scarecrow, but again not intentionally so & only partially.I don't even have a yardstick in this discussion. I'm just enjoying playing Devil's Advocate with some dogmatists.You're not playing devil's advocate, you're shying away from defining the concepts you're debating. Playing the Devil's advocate is rather different from trying to render debating impossible. You'll notice that while I make no attempt to hide which yardstick I personally value, I assign no objective value to either, beyond saying one has real world application & the other's purely subjective - and that's not a personal opinion, it's simply the fact of the matter.Oh, it's most definitely an explanation. It just doesn't fit the standards for exaplanation that you favor any more than Einsteinian physics would fit the explanatory standards that a good fundamentalist Qur'an-loving Muslim would favor.Disconnected from personal bias, what does it explain? The answer is that it doesn't. Thus no objective explanatory value. Talking about subjective explanatory value is moot, as anything you subjectively decides explains something, automatically does. I'm sure somewhere out there, someone's convinced the result 2 can be arrived at by adding 6 to itself.

It's almost like you don't actually want clear definitions, and while I've no problem with that in most circumstances, it makes this debate pretty futile, as it revolves around them.I will call you silly, then, but primarily because you're confusing your preferred methodology with genuine objectivity.On the contrary. You're making the mistake of asserting that ideas are objectively valid per definition. It might be the case subjectively, but any given idea doesn't by definition have real world application, nor does it necessarily have any value when disconnected from its proponent.

You can't have it both ways with the perspective theory. Either it holds mutually exclusive ideas as equally valid on the objective level, and thus debunks itself, or it holds that mutually exclusive ideas are equally valid subjectively, which I strongly doubt anyone but the thought police would argue against.

Then again, perhaps I simply don't understand what you mean by objective. If that's the case, just ignore non applicable ranting on my part & give me your definition.Fair enough. Do some reading, mate. You're certainly intelligent to enough to make a much more interesting debate than this has been so far for me. Perhaps we can do better in a later thread.I'll prowl the wiki now. And thanks for baring with me, I'm an ignorant sort. It's one of the many benefits of having dropped out of public school. Unfortunately I've since specialised to the degree that it's rather unlikely I'll ever get to fill the gaping holes in my basic education. Just further evidence that strong, well-rounded primary & secondary education is paramount in today's world. Miss it & you'll be forever mystified by a great many things.

Not really, no. I distinguish betweeen objective value & the lack of it. Sure it was a semi-scarecrow, but again not intentionally so & only partially. <snipped for brevity> ...you're shying away from defining the concepts you're debating.

That is only to your benefit. If you want to define scientific explanation and show how it's objective, have at it. It'll only take me about ten minutes to punch it with holes, even if you use a relatively solid and well-established approach.

You'll notice that while I make no attempt to hide which yardstick I personally value, I assign no objective value to either, beyond saying one has real world application & the other's purely subjective - and that's not a personal opinion, it's simply the fact of the matter.

The "real world application" definition has problems itself. Other, non-scientific systems have real world applications as well. Some of them are religions, which I doubt you would want to include in the class of "objective" any more than I would.

Disconnected from personal bias, what does it explain? The answer is that it doesn't. Thus no objective explanatory value. Talking about subjective explanatory value is moot, as anything you subjectively decides explains something, automatically does. I'm sure somewhere out there, someone's convinced the result 2 can be arrived at by adding 6 to itself.

Depending on the number system they're using, it's quite possible that they're correct.

It's almost like you don't actually want clear definitions, and while I've no problem with that in most circumstances, it makes this debate pretty futile, as it revolves around them.

I'm fine with clear definitions. Define "objective" and "scientific explanation" and I'll happily debate the definition.

On the contrary. You're making the mistake of asserting that ideas are objectively valid per definition. It might be the case subjectively, but any given idea doesn't by definition have real world application, nor does it necessarily have any value when disconnected from its proponent.

You can't have it both ways with the perspective theory. Either it holds mutually exclusive ideas as equally valid on the objective level, and thus debunks itself, or it holds that mutually exclusive ideas are equally valid subjectively, which I strongly doubt anyone but the thought police would argue against.

Not at all. What I might suggest, however, is that ideas can be valid within a system, or several systems, but that in a very different system or outside of a system they don't have the quality of validity, either because the other system doesn't have the concept or defines it differently.

I'm agnostic on which system is actually objective.

Then again, perhaps I simply don't understand what you mean by objective. If that's the case, just ignore non applicable ranting on my part & give me your definition.I'll prowl the wiki now. And thanks for baring with me, I'm an ignorant sort. It's one of the many benefits of having dropped out of public school. Unfortunately I've since specialised to the degree that it's rather unlikely I'll ever get to fill the gaping holes in my basic education. Just further evidence that strong, well-rounded primary & secondary education is paramount in today's world. Miss it & you'll be forever mystified by a great many things.

Don't worry much about it. Philosophy of science has become a sort of specialty for me as well. You would have probably missed most of this stuff anyway unless you got a university-level course in it like I have.

My education is much more likely the problem here than yours.

I've tried & apparently failed to offer up some definitions, so instead of me wondering what we're talking about, I think you should supply your definitions. It's a just a guess, but I think it'd make this topic more comprehensible. To me, anyway.

Thing is, I can't shake the suspicion that your various objections are based in you being agnostic about the state of reality, to the point you refuse to be pinned down on a state. It'd at least make the "I'm agnostic on which system is actually objective." position make sense to me.

If that's the case, then I'm left wondering what we're really talking about here, because as far as I can reason out, nothing can be achieved in this debate if we don't collectively settle on one objective state of reality. I'm in no way ruling out that we're the last moment escapist fantasy of atmonic squirrels trapped in a blender, but on less we settle on something, I don't see how we can begin to discuss the merits of any other definitions, nor the validity & explanatory value of any ideas.

If I sound confused, it's because I am. You suck at getting your points across, no offence :p

I've tried & apparently failed to offer up some definitions, so instead of me wondering what we're talking about, I think you should supply your definitions. It's a just a guess, but I think it'd make this topic more comprehensible. To me, anyway.

You are the one who's supporting the value of scientific explanation as objective. Shouldn't you, the believer, be the one supplying the definitions since it's your belief? Shouldn't you, the believer, be familiar with the bases of your system?

Unless you simply take it on faith that science is objective without examining it fully, in which case just carry on and don't mind me.

Thing is, I can't shake the suspicion that your various objections are based in you being agnostic about the state of reality, to the point you refuse to be pinned down on a state. It'd at least make the "I'm agnostic on which system is actually objective." position make sense to me.

As I mentioned before, I'm playing Devil's Advocate. It is not my goal in this thread to advance my own unusual metaphysical views, nor is it on-topic for me to do so since the topic is a major scientific theorist who is widely believed to have advanced science significantly, not "HotRodia's metaphysics". I am offering objections to your points because it serves to both refine your pro-science views and enhance my debating ability.

If that's the case, then I'm left wondering what we're really talking about here, because as far as I can reason out, nothing can be achieved in this debate if we don't collectively settle on one objective state of reality. I'm in no way ruling out that we're the last moment escapist fantasy of atmonic squirrels trapped in a blender, but on less we settle on something, I don't see how we can begin to discuss the merits of any other definitions, nor the validity & explanatory value of any ideas.

Then you really have gotten the point already, and you just don't know it yet. You do understand that unless we have a common system, discussion and comparison become problematic at best, useless at worst. Perhaps you could consider that this is why evaluating a religion in light of science or science in light of a religion is nonsensical.

If I sound confused, it's because I am. You suck at getting your points across, no offence :p

You got the point just fine, so I doubt that's the case. Your lack of full acceptance of the point is a slightly different matter.

As I mentioned before, I'm playing Devil's Advocate..There's no reason to limit yourself to not supplying a competing argument, nor does it need to be one you personally agree with.Then you really have gotten the point already, and you just don't know it yet.If you'd simply come right out & said it, there'd have been no confusion on my part. A simple "what if the basic assumption about a consistent reality is wrong" would've sufficed. Damn mate, you've had me feeling dense for something like 2 or 3 pages just 'cos you were being vague :p Your lack of full acceptance of the point is a slightly different matter.Yes & no. I'm agnostic like you, but I can't function without settling on an assumption. Moreover, I don't see what there is to talk about unless some sort of assumption is made. Doesn't matter what the assumption is, but unless we settle on a common one, trying to debate the merits of ideas within the framework of the assumption, is an excercise in futility - as I'm sure you'll agree.

The only reason you can have for thinking I don't accept that any such assumption indeed is an assuption, is because you've had me thinking we were debating the validity of ideas within the framework of a particular assumption.

Now the communication failure's hopefully sorted, I'm curious. What's your personal take? I know this is supposedly about the merits of the ToE, buut since it seems to be just you & I talking, and that debate's pretty much dead in the face of absurdism, come take a wee off-topic stroll with me, eh?

There's no reason to limit yourself to not supplying a competing argument, nor does it need to be one you personally agree with.

I can't because I want to be remotely on-topic, and there's no "competing argument" at my previous level of discussion.

If you'd simply come right out & said it, there'd have been no confusion on my part. A simple "what if the basic assumption about a consistent reality is wrong" would've sufficed. Damn mate, you've had me feeling dense for something like 2 or 3 pages just 'cos you were being vague :p

Heh. Fair enough. But there's a bit more to it than that. It's not just that the basic assumption could be wrong. It's that many features of scientific methodology are problematic.

Yes & no. I'm agnostic like you, but I can't function without settling on an assumption. Moreover, I don't see what there is to talk about unless some sort of assumption is made. Doesn't matter what the assumption is, but unless we settle on a common one, trying to debate the merits of ideas within the framework of the assumption, is an excercise in futility - as I'm sure you'll agree.

The only reason you can have for thinking I don't accept that any such assumption indeed is an assuption, is because you've had me thinking we were debating the validity of ideas within the framework of a particular assumption.

We can if you want. We can assume the general correctness of science and debate the merits of its constituent parts.

Now the communication failure's hopefully sorted, I'm curious. What's your personal take? I know this is supposedly about the merits of the ToE, buut since it seems to be just you & I talking, and that debate's pretty much dead in the face of absurdism, come take a wee off-topic stroll with me, eh?

My personal take on the relevant issue is that science is a new kind of religion, and that it has features that make it much stronger than other religions, if you must know. My metaphysics will have to wait for another thread.

Your problem is you're assuming faith and science are mutually exclusive.
I am a science nut and I beleive in ID. I believe evidince supports ID.


Ok. Let's see it.

Really most of the "evidence" displayed by both sides can just go either way.

Actually no. Disprove Evolution and only a few will continue to champion it.


Science is not objective and evidence will be used to support whatever you're trying to prove whether is really does or not.

Science does not set out to prove. It attempts to explain.

Never mind the fact you set out to disprove a claim rather then prove it.


Keep in mind that science "proved" that maggots are made of rotting meat, radiation water is good for you, and "global warming" would raise the water levels (You probably disagree with me about that, but let's discuss it on another thread).

Ah huh. okaaaa.

Keep in mind that science "proved" that maggots are made of rotting meat,
Science demonstrated that they were not.

radiation water is good for you,
That doesn't even mean anything.

and "global warming" would raise the water levels
It does. It has. It's simple physics. Seriously, kindergarteners understand that. You apparently don't. Science nut my ass.

Science demonstrated that they were not.


That doesn't even mean anything.


It does. It has. It's simple physics. Seriously, kindergarteners understand that. You apparently don't. Science nut my ass.

I don't know if I did this right (I am new at this), so forgive me if I screwed up the quote thing.

When I mentioned the maggots and radiation water, I didn't mean to say that science was always wrong. I meant that science is as inherently flawed as the people who pracitce it (which is a lot). The accuracy of science is limited to our limited knowlage. If science "proves" evolution, it could just mean that we havn't found the evidence required to disprove it. I admit this logic works in either direction.

But as for proof that evolution didn't happen, it isn't so much proof (It impossible to prove a negative) but pointing out some logical flaws. For example, if everything evolved by random mutation, it follows that we would see a bunch of failed species whose mutations didn't help them. You don't see any.
I admit their are new strains and breeds appearing, but that doesn't prove evolution of species. But even if evolution did happen, it means that God created evolution. The reason people champion evolution is because no better theory has yet arrived that leaves God out. It's not about science, it's about the elimination of God.

I await your response.

P.S. I suppose I was looking to pick a fight with the "global warming" comment, but this isn't the thread to discuss it in. I don't know how to start my own yet, some someone else will get that honor.

I admit their are new strains and breeds appearing, but that doesn't prove evolution of species.

Nylon Bug. I win.

Heh. Fair enough. But there's a bit more to it than that. It's not just that the basic assumption could be wrong. It's that many features of scientific methodology are problematic.

We can if you want. We can assume the general correctness of science and debate the merits of its constituent parts.I want!
I hear pretty much exactly what you just said on at least a weekly basis, but unfortunately I'm either too busy or too drunk to understand it, or people lack the patience to explain what they mean. I'm sure my girl would appreciate it if you enabled me to understand a couple of her mystery rants, and if not, at least I would.. I think.. :p My personal take on the relevant issue is that science is a new kind of religion, and that it has features that make it much stronger than other religions, if you must know.Do you believe this is inherent to science, or do you (as I do) think it's simply a consequence of the unfortunate combination of a very damn complex world that nobody has time to understand, and how effective a tool science is?

If you believe the former, I don't follow. I don't see anything approaching an ideology/philosophy in the general methodology. Then again, as already mentioned, my knowledge is patchy at best.I don't know if I did this right (I am new at this), so forgive me if I screwed up the quote thing.Never! You shall bow before the mighty quote tag or forever burn in the degenerate datastreams of Stormfront!
... Or something.When I mentioned the maggots and radiation water, I didn't mean to say that science was always wrong. I meant that science is as inherently flawed as the people who pracitce it (which is a lot).Yes & no. The methodology is meant to eliminate personal bias, but that has, of course, never stopped anyone from ignoring it.The accuracy of science is limited to our limited knowlage. If science "proves" evolution, it could just mean that we havn't found the evidence required to disprove it. I admit this logic works in either direction.Science proves nothing. It's an elaborate method of elimination. As you noticed, that doesn't mean ideas that don't get eliminated are correct, just that they are functional.But as for proof that evolution didn't happen, it isn't so much proof (It impossible to prove a negative) but pointing out some logical flaws. For example, if everything evolved by random mutation, it follows that we would see a bunch of failed species whose mutations didn't help them. You don't see any.Shit has to be logically consistent in science, unfortunately your flaw is based on faulty information. Mutations don't occur in an entire species at the same time, nor do a staggering amount of them explode into being in random individual critters. The process is too slow to have the effect you claim should be there.I admit their are new strains and breeds appearing, but that doesn't prove evolution of species.Yet that's actually been observed, so like it or not, it is happening.But even if evolution did happen, it means that God created evolution.Why? Notice I'm not saying you're wrong, but what makes you leap to that conclusion?The reason people champion evolution is because no better theory has yet arrived that leaves God out. It's not about science, it's about the elimination of God.That's complete bollox. If you check the (granted, limited) statistics, you'll see that the majority of people actively working within the field in some capacity, are religious & believe in divinity (more than 2/3rds, if memory serves). That's the people 'championing' the theory.I await your response.I'm gonna delay this 'til I've made coffee, just to irk you.P.S. I suppose I was looking to pick a fight with the "global warming" comment, but this isn't the thread to discuss it in. I don't know how to start my own yet, some someone else will get that honor.On the front page of the General Discussion forum, click the http://images6.theimagehosting.com/newthread.023.th.gif button located to the left above & below the thread index. It couldn't be much simpler ;)
I humbly suggest you prepare some damn good arguments, because global warming denial is.. Inane. No offence, but it's right up there with refusing to acknowledge the existence of gravity.

I don't know if I did this right (I am new at this), so forgive me if I screwed up the quote thing.

When I mentioned the maggots and radiation water, I didn't mean to say that science was always wrong. I meant that science is as inherently flawed as the people who pracitce it (which is a lot). The accuracy of science is limited to our limited knowlage. If science "proves" evolution, it could just mean that we havn't found the evidence required to disprove it. I admit this logic works in either direction.


Actually your logic is backwards for one thing.

You don't try to prove a hypothesis. You try to disprove it. If it survives the testing, then it moves up and the process starts all over again.


But as for proof that evolution didn't happen, it isn't so much proof (It impossible to prove a negative) but pointing out some logical flaws. For example, if everything evolved by random mutation, it follows that we would see a bunch of failed species whose mutations didn't help them. You don't see any.

*coughsNaturalSelectioncougs*


I admit their are new strains and breeds appearing, but that doesn't prove evolution of species.


Ok. Then what does it mean?

Why do we only see Prosimians in certain places? What would happen if Monkeys were introduced to their environments?


But even if evolution did happen, it means that God created evolution. The reason people champion evolution is because no better theory has yet arrived that leaves God out. It's not about science, it's about the elimination of God.


Ok give me the test to show God(s) involvement.
Ok what about disproving the involvement?

The very fact you can't produce a test to prove or disprove God(s) involvement is why God(s) are left out.

Evolution is a good theory simply because it has survived assault.

You can't scientificly prove God's involvement in the scense you are thinking. Frankly, I look outside and I wonder how anyone can be atheist in the midst of a world shouting, "HEY, YOU! GOD MADE ME!" The more and more closely you examine things, you see how they work together too well for random chance.

The very fact you can't produce a test to prove or disprove God(s) involvement is why God(s) are left out.

Evolution is a good theory simply because it has survived assault.

Evolution never withstood any "assult" of evidence. It has never been reproduced, naturally or artificially. Any evidence towards it has been shown to be fraudulent or irrelevant.

*coughsNaturalSelectioncougs*

That's exactly my point! If an organism mutates something that is beneficial at first, but kills it later, it will die according to natural selection. So there will be fossils of that failed species. You just don't see any.

By the way, how come some bacteria evolved to human stage, but other's didn't make it past amoeba? Doesn't it seem like an evolutionary advantage to not be a microorganism?

By the way, how come some bacteria evolved to human stage, but other's didn't make it past amoeba? Doesn't it seem like an evolutionary advantage to not be a microorganism?

Micro-organisms are actually quite successful in their niche

Evolution never withstood any "assult" of evidence. It has never been reproduced, naturally or artificially. Any evidence towards it has been shown to be fraudulent or irrelevant.

Drosophila. Nylon Bug. HeLa. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria, which you can duplicate in the lab. All of those are instances of evolution.


So there will be fossils of that failed species. You just don't see any.

Yeah, we do. It's called pretty much every fossil on Earth.

You can't scientificly prove God's involvement in the scense you are thinking. Frankly, I look outside and I wonder how anyone can be atheist in the midst of a world shouting, "HEY, YOU! GOD MADE ME!" The more and more closely you examine things, you see how they work together too well for random chance.


And that's why God is left out as an option. You can't prove or disprove the involvement.

Things working together is still not valid proof for God's involvement.


Evolution never withstood any "assult" of evidence. It has never been reproduced, naturally or artificially. Any evidence towards it has been shown to be fraudulent or irrelevant.

Sure it has. It's been and continuously been challenged. No "silver bullet" has ever been produced.

CthulhuFhtagn has mentioned the nylon bug. There have been more then a few tests to show that microevolution can happen.

If you are talking Macro, the problem of time comes into play. But the fossil record gives an interesting idea to the progress.

You asked for a failed species? There was once a Giant Lemur. What about the recent find of the species they call hobbits?




*coughsNaturalSelectioncougs*

That's exactly my point! If an organism mutates something that is beneficial at first, but kills it later, it will die according to natural selection. So there will be fossils of that failed species. You just don't see any.

By the way, how come some bacteria evolved to human stage, but other's didn't make it past amoeba? Doesn't it seem like an evolutionary advantage to not be a microorganism?

Politeia utopia answered that one and I am sure can offer examples if you don't want to believe it.

If you are talking Macro, the problem of time comes into play. But the fossil record gives an interesting idea to the progress.

For the record, macroevolution refers to changes at the level of species or above. So, any occurance of speciation would be macroevolution. Drosophila has undergone speciation in the laboratory, and I think that the nylon bug is a new species as well. HeLa is possibly a new genus at the very least, but there's debate as to this, since it has an extremely abnormal genesis.

You can't scientificly prove God's involvement in the scense you are thinking. Frankly, I look outside and I wonder how anyone can be atheist in the midst of a world shouting, "HEY, YOU! GOD MADE ME!" The more and more closely you examine things, you see how they work together too well for random chance.

1. Evolution is not random chance.
2. You haven't looked very deeply then. Evolution predicts that we mainly see "C" designs, just good enough. An omnipotent designer should come out with A+ designs, perfect. We don't see perfect designs. We see just good enough. Would an omnipotent entity give humans a spine that is as stable as a stack of quarters? Would an omnipotent entity give mammals an eye that was wired backwards, creating a blind spot? Would an omnipotent entity give humans an organ that no longer serves any purpose aside from getting infected and exploding? For the record, the appendix does not serve as a location for immune cells. The higher chance of infection for people with appendectomies is accounted for by the higher chance of infection from open abdominal surgery. Would an omnipotent entity give the cuttlefish an eye that was excellent is all respects aside from the lack of a lens? No. Evolution would result in such stuff, however.

Quote:

Sure it has. It's been and continuously been challenged. No "silver bullet" has ever been produced.
CthulhuFhtagn has mentioned the nylon bug. There have been more then a few tests to show that microevolution can happen.
If you are talking Macro, the problem of time comes into play. But the fossil record gives an interesting idea to the progress.
You don't need a silver bullet to bring a werewolf down, no metter what the ledgend says. A few clips of lead bullets will do the trick (If you get the analogy.). Just because there isn't one really good anti-evolution argument doesn't mean all the little ones arn't effective.


You asked for a failed species? There was once a Giant Lemur. What about the recent find of the species they call hobbits?
You just proved my point better that I could have! You know they were failed species because of the fossils. If animals were constantly evolving and mutating, there would be hundreds (millions!) of failed species, all with fossls. Squirrels who mutated bigger ears, fish with smaller fins, larger spiders, all of which would leave fossils! But you don't! You only see a few species that survived for a few millenia and then went extinct.

Quote:

Politeia utopia answered that one and I am sure can offer examples if you don't want to believe it.
I'm not sure who Politeia Utopia is, but I'll look into that.


You haven't looked very deeply then. Evolution predicts that we mainly see "C" designs, just good enough. An omnipotent designer should come out with A+ designs, perfect. We don't see perfect designs. We see just good enough. Would an omnipotent entity give humans a spine that is as stable as a stack of quarters? Would an omnipotent entity give mammals an eye that was wired backwards, creating a blind spot? Would an omnipotent entity give humans an organ that no longer serves any purpose aside from getting infected and exploding? For the record, the appendix does not serve as a location for immune cells. The higher chance of infection for people with appendectomies is accounted for by the higher chance of infection from open abdominal surgery. Would an omnipotent entity give the cuttlefish an eye that was excellent is all respects aside from the lack of a lens? No. Evolution would result in such stuff, however.
I didn't want to go into to much theology, but now I have to.
He didn't. Humans have sinned, and as a result, fallen away from God's perfect plan, and they break down. If anything, devolution is occurring as mutation causes chunks of an organism's DNA, and they lose thing like eye lenses and function of organs.
By the way, if an appendix did nothing but kill you, why did himans evolve them, hmm??
(Sorry about the slidebars. I'm not sure how they got there)

You just proved my point better that I could have! You know they were failed species because of the fossils. If animals were constantly evolving and mutating, there would be hundreds (millions!) of failed species, all with fossls. Squirrels who mutated bigger ears, fish with smaller fins, larger spiders, all of which would leave fossils! But you don't! You only see a few species that survived for a few millenia and then went extinct.


Fossilization isn't something that happens to every individual. It's bloodly rare. If something isn't fit enough to breed more than a few generations, it's not going to show up in the fossil record.

Oh, and to the larger spider bit? Tarantulas. Basic anatomy prevents them from getting much larger than that. If their exoskeleton was thick enough to support their weight, it'd be too thick to breathe. If it was thin enough to allow them to breathe, it'd be too thin to support their weight.

By the way, if an appendix did nothing but kill you, why did himans evolve them, hmm??
Humans didn't. Humans inherited the appendix from their ancestors, which had a use for it. After it stopped being useful, a smaller appendix was more advantageous, since it was less likely to get infected and kill the organism. Thus, the average size of the appendix has fallen. Since the development of the appendectomy, people can survive inflamed appendices, and thus the average size of the appendix is remaining relatively constant. It's still shrinking ever so slightly, due to the lower calorie intake needed to support a body with a smaller appendix, but since places with appendectomies tend to have easily available food, that is barely a selective pressure at all.

Fossilization isn't something that happens to every individual. It's bloodly rare. If something isn't fit enough to breed more than a few generations, it's not going to show up in the fossil record.
I know it's rare, but there a hundreds of billions of visible animals on the planet at a time. Even if it was one-in-a-million, that's still 100,000 fossils, and though chances of not hitting a failed species are virtually astronomical!


Oh, and to the larger spider bit? Tarantulas. Basic anatomy prevents them from getting much larger than that. If their exoskeleton was thick enough to support their weight, it'd be too thick to breathe. If it was thin enough to allow them to breathe, it'd be too thin to support their weight.

The bigger spider thing was just an example, albeit a bad one. That wasn't my point anyway.


Humans didn't. Humans inherited the appendix from their ancestors, which had a use for it. After it stopped being useful, a smaller appendix was more advantageous, since it was less likely to get infected and kill the organism. Thus, the average size of the appendix has fallen. Since the development of the appendectomy, people can survive inflamed appendices, and thus the average size of the appendix is remaining relatively constant. It's still shrinking ever so slightly, due to the lower calorie intake needed to support a body with a smaller appendix, but since places with appendectomies tend to have easily available food, that is barely a selective pressure at all.

This is the point I made a few posts ago. The appendix, from my perspective, is evidence that evolution couldn't have happened and proves my argument. From your perspective, it show that ID couldn't have happened and proves your argument. The alledged mountains of evidence that evolutionists claim for their favor can mostly go either way, depending what angle your looking at it from. That is why "science" can't reliably prove anything, because evolutionists see everything as proof of their position. IDs are guilty of the same thing. Objective science is impossible, even if the bias is on a subconcious level.

Oh, yeah, if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Evolution and all of that bullshit, is just flat out false.


Altered for accuracy.

Oh, yeah, if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

If your parents gave birth to you why are they still around?

Plus, we didn't evolve from monkeys.

Altered for accuracy.

And your opinion trumps that of millions of scientists who have worked their entire lives on this how?

I know it's rare, but there a hundreds of billions of visible animals on the planet at a time. Even if it was one-in-a-million, that's still 100,000 fossils, and though chances of not hitting a failed species are virtually astronomical!


It fucking has. They're extinct. They failed. How fucking hard is that to understand?

And your opinion trumps that of millions of scientists who have worked their entire lives on this how?

Millions, really?

I was merely pointing out the absurdity of making an contentious and ultimately unverifiable assertion as that proposed in the OP.

It fucking has. They're extinct. They failed. How fucking hard is that to understand?

Big words there tiger. Might want to tone it down a notch, makes you sound that much more intelligent. Perhaps.

Millions, really?


Yes.

Yes.

Nope, don't think so. Don't think there have been a quarter of that amount that have "devoted their entire lives [to studying evolution]." Sorry, I'm throwing the bullshit flag on that one.

If your parents gave birth to you why are they still around?

False analogy, but point taken.

Plus, we didn't evolve from monkeys.

Yes, it has been hypothesized that we evolved from a similar/the same ancestor as monkeys.

Nope, don't think so. Don't think there have been a quarter of that amount that have "devoted their entire lives [to studying evolution]." Sorry, I'm throwing the bullshit flag on that one.

Well, you're wrong there. There's easily a million. Hell, there's probably half a million in the U.S. alone.

Well, you're wrong there. There's easily a million. Hell, there's probably half a million in the U.S. alone.

I'm incredibly skeptical. Show me the numbers, and I might be convinced. That isn't to say I'm dead set in my opinion; in the face of a lack of evidence, I'm going to have to assume that it is simply not true until shown otherwise.

It f****** has. They're extinct. They failed. How f****** hard is that to understand?

I'm not referring to the extinct animals we see in the fossil record. I'm saying that eventually an animal would mutate something that would help it at first, but in a few generations become a hinderence. That would definately happen in random mutation.

If your parents gave birth to you why are they still around?
Plus, we didn't evolve from monkeys.

When I said monkeys, I ment whatever chimpanzee relative we alledgedly evolved from.
If it's a genetic advantage to walk upright and be intelligent enough to wear clothes, why didn't more primates follow that path?

It's odd, we know more about how evolution works than about how gravity works, but we don't hear any gravity-deniers advocating "intelligent falling". To be fair, I think the reason many people are reticent to accept evolution is because it makes them feel as if they aren't unique and special by virtue of being human. It's an understandable concern, given how anthropocentric our culture is.

To the gravity bit: well, that's because we can observe gravity (and we don't even need a lab to do so! :p ). Evolution, however, has yet to show us a single example of one species changing into a distinctly new one. Even Darwin's finches, who should have evolved even more by now, are completely unchanged from 170 years ago, when Darwin first observed them.

To your second point: maybe the reason so many people are still skeptical about evolution is that the proponents have been caught telling big lies?
I mean, if evolution is true, why do their proponents need to keep lying to the public about it?

Here's a real chin-scratcher: if human intelligence is such a vast evolutionary advantage, how come it has only evolved once?

This is one of creationists' biggest arguments against evolution.

Evolution, however, has yet to show us a single example of one species changing into a distinctly new one.
Drosophila. Nylon Bug. HeLa. I've called you on this so many times it isn't even funny.

Even Darwin's finches, who should have evolved even more by now, are completely unchanged from 170 years ago, when Darwin first observed them.
170 years is about 170 generations. That's not enough.

To your second point: maybe the reason so many people are still skeptical about evolution is that the proponents have been caught telling big lies?
I mean, if evolution is true, why do their proponents need to keep lying to the public about it?
Name one lie.



This is one of creationists' biggest arguments against evolution.
1. It isn't such a major advantage.
2. Dolphins have intelligence comparable to ours, and chimpanzees approach it.

I'm not referring to the extinct animals we see in the fossil record. I'm saying that eventually an animal would mutate something that would help it at first, but in a few generations become a hinderence. That would definately happen in random mutation.
It does. Those are the animals we see in the fossil record. How hard is it to understand.


When I said monkeys, I ment whatever chimpanzee relative we alledgedly evolved from.
Monkeys =/= chimps. If you can't grasp something that simple, no wonder you can't understand the ToE.


If it's a genetic advantage to walk upright and be intelligent enough to wear clothes, why didn't more primates follow that path?
Because humans did it first, thus outcompeting any that came close. Plus, they filled different niches.

It does. Those are the animals we see in the fossil record. How hard is it to understand.

Apparently I can't explain my point well enough for you to understand, so let's drop it.


Monkeys =/= chimps. If you can't grasp something that simple, no wonder you can't understand the ToE.

I understand that monkeys =/= chimps. You the one who said humans didn't evolve from monkeys, so what do you want me to call them? Early primates? "Monkeys" is a lot easier to type.


Because humans did it first, thus outcompeting any that came close. Plus, they filled different niches.
If humans outcompeted "monkeys," they would be extinct. If you can't grasp something that simple, no wonder you're an evolutionist.

Drosophila. Nylon Bug. HeLa. I've called you on this so many times it isn't even funny.

Okay, tell me about this Nylon bug. So far all you've said is "Nylon bug. I win."
[/QUOTE]


170 years is about 170 generations. That's not enough.

Even after only 170 generations, there would be at least a little discrepancy. So far, we haven't seen a single example of any sustained genetic change in the finch. If there is no change after 170 years, there won't be any after 1,700,000.

Drosophila
Name one lie.

Gladly.
1. The peppered moths in england. It was paraded as proof, but then someone noticed that all the pictured were of dead moths glued to trees. There was no natural selection or genetic change at all.
2. There have been no fewer than three half man/half ape fossils found (Piltdown Man, Java Man, Nebraska Man), all of wich were hoaxes.
3. A german evolutionist (Ernst Haeckel) made a seried of woodcuts showing that at a certain stage of developement, the fetus's of many mammals are all the same. That was also proven as a hoax.
4. Microbial Aibiogenisis was was called proof until Louis Pastuer proved it was bunk.
5. In 1953, Microorganisms were alledgedly created in an atmosphere that simulated primitive earth. Well, you should know that no organisms were created, just amino acids. And it wasn't a primitive earth atmosphere, it was a primitive Jupiter atmosphere.
6. Darwinism says that life on earth originated from a single root, subsequently splitting off into branches, like a tree. Yet the fossil record shows that there was no "tree of life" and that the basic groups of living things emerged suddenly and at the same time. Almost all the known phyla (basic groups of living things) emerged in the "Cambrian period."
7. The dolphin's fin, the bat's wing and the human hand all contain a five-fingered bone structure. This similarity has for a long time been called evidence they all evolved from a common ancestor. Genetic research, however, has shown that these organs are actually controlled by very different genes.
Want more? Just ask.

Drosophila
1. It isn't such a major advantage.
2. Dolphins have intelligence comparable to ours, and chimpanzees approach it.
You think intelligence isn't an advantage? Take this example:

A man was cutting branches off a tree with a chainsaw. He cut off the branch he was standing on, and he died.

This man was obviously stupid and died before he reproduced (Thank God!). If you will live to reproduce longer because of higher intelligence, then it's an evolutionary advantage.

If humans outcompeted "monkeys," they would be extinct.

There's a difference between 'filling a different niche' and 'outcompeting'. Hence the invention of TV did not make radios die out.

1. A crackpot tried to claim the moths had been glued to trees.
2. The Piltdown Man being exposed as a fake came as a great relief to biologists. Neither Nebraska Man nor the Java Man have been exposed as hoaxes.
3. Creationists try to claim Ernst Haeckel was a fraud because they are under the misconception that Darwin used Haeckel's drawings. He did not.
4. Pasteur proved that life will not spontaneously arise... if you have deliberately created conditions to stop life spontaneously arising. Hardly a shocking result.
5. Dr Urey did not claim to have created micro-organisms.
6. Darwinism does not say that; the fossil record does not show that; living things did not emerge 'suddenly'.
7. Five fingered bone structure is widespread in mammals. Does this genetic research disprove all of those potential links?

Your hypothetical story illustrates why intelligence (to make tools like a chainsaw) is not necessarily a survival feature.

2. The Piltdown Man being exposed as a fake came as a great relief to biologists. Neither Nebraska Man nor the Java Man have been exposed as hoaxes.

For the record, Nebraska Man was a pig tooth. Pig teeth look a lot like human teeth. However, no scientist ever called the tooth human. It was a journalist.

As to the peppered moths, they were glued to trees. So what? Almost all wildlife photos are staged. The principle was the same.


Oh, and the limbs of bats, humans, and dolphins are not controlled by different genes. I've never seen a study that claimed so. Sho-Re's lying there.

Okay, tell me about this Nylon bug. So far all you've said is "Nylon bug. I win."


The nylon bug is a bacterium that evolved the ability to digest the synthetic compound nylon. It's a perfect example of speciation, and thus macroevolution.

The nylon bug is a bacterium that evolved the ability to digest the synthetic compound nylon. It's a perfect example of speciation, and thus macroevolution.

Bacterium are examples of macro-evolution?

If that's the case, there is a huge unresolved discrepancy between complex and unicellular organisms.

Unless you're referring to speciation as evidence of macro-evolution; in which case, would a different strain of bacteria be considered on the same scale as, say, the evolution of the modern horse?

Bacterium are examples of macro-evolution?
Those that speciate are.

If that's the case, there is a huge unresolved discrepancy between complex and unicellular organisms.
No, not even remotely, assuming that by "complex" you mean "multicellular". Unicellular to multicellular is the easy as hell. Tip, don't use complex. It makes you sound ignorant.

Unless you're referring to speciation as evidence of macro-evolution; in which case, would a different strain of bacteria be considered on the same scale as, say, the evolution of the modern horse?
Depends on the level of change, obviously. Speciation would be less, while the emergence of several new genera would be roughly the same. Amazingly enough, bacteria are actually not all carbon copies. Who could have thunk it?!

I live in the city named after Darwin. :p
You have be tough to live here too or insane.

1. It isn't such a major advantage.

Isn't it more correct to say that it isn't an objectively major advantage? Not every species would benefit from it, but we would be completely and utterly screwed without it.

I mean, for a species like us it enables us to literally dominate the planet while for dolphins or chimpanzees it isn't quite the same because their environment and physiology isn't really suited to applying that intelligence like we can. They also have more developed instincts that provide different advantages more suited to their environment.

For the record, Nebraska Man was a pig tooth. Pig teeth look a lot like human teeth. However, no scientist ever called the tooth human. It was a journalist.

As to the peppered moths, they were glued to trees. So what? Almost all wildlife photos are staged. The principle was the same.


Oh, and the limbs of bats, humans, and dolphins are not controlled by different genes. I've never seen a study that claimed so. Sho-Re's lying there.

I would also like to say that Java man isn't the only specimen of Homo Erectus we have, there are other specimens from Asia that are a bit more robust, but are of the same Species.

But meh, whatever. Selective viewing, I suppose.

A group I'm involved in in my college is sponsoring Darwin Days, a two day event with ample discussion about evolution. Tomorrow, we're going to present the list of Steves, and the biology district head will be speaking.

I thought I'd mention it, as it seems this year we might be at the end of the era of creationism holding sway in political matters and education in the United States. I think this is a great milestone, as we are finally embracing science over superstition. Every argument I've heard against evolution I've heard deftly refuted. Creationism, Intelligent Design, "microevolution but not macroevolution", all of that bullshit, is just flat out false.

I'd like to open the thread to anyone who disagrees.

And how many Steves are there?

For the record, Nebraska Man was a pig tooth. Pig teeth look a lot like human teeth. However, no scientist ever called the tooth human. It was a journalist.


Yeah I couldn't be bothered to mention that - let him do his own research. I imagine he'd have to look further afield than 21.reasons.why.evil.lution.is.a.myth!!!!1111!!.com, so he might actually learn something.

god i wish this "debate" and "controvesy" would STFU and america could join the rest of us in the 21st century in this respect (catching up to the 20th would be a good start...)

Reading threads backwards always brings up nasty surprises. On this occasion, I see that people have been trying to have a rational debate with someone who comes up with gems like this:

I know it's rare, but there a hundreds of billions of visible animals on the planet at a time. Even if it was one-in-a-million, that's still 100,000 fossils, and though chances of not hitting a failed species are virtually astronomical!
[...]
The appendix, from my perspective, is evidence that evolution couldn't have happened and proves my argument. From your perspective, it show that ID couldn't have happened and proves your argument. The alledged mountains of evidence that evolutionists claim for their favor can mostly go either way, depending what angle your looking at it from.
[...]
Oh, yeah, if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

It's understandable that people that ignorant exist, but why do they feel the need to waste bandwidth by parading their ignorance?

god i wish this "debate" and "controvesy" would STFU and america could join the rest of us in the 21st century in this respect (catching up to the 20th would be a good start...)
How do you think we Americans who understand the theory and accept it feel? It was very embarrassing to have to admit to my English club that, yes, many Americans DON'T understand or accept evolution, even though it is the basis of modern biology and medicine.

god i wish this "debate" and "controvesy" would STFU and america could join the rest of us in the 21st century in this respect (catching up to the 20th would be a good start...)

Most Americans are...honestly, these nuts are a minority at best, even within groups that support creation over evolution. The nutty creationists that try to create a "controversy" forget that even if schools teach evolution, neither they nor their children are under any obligation to believe that it's valid...they just don't have the right to force that bullshit on anyone else.

I mean, it's not like we really have creationists working in the sciences or anything...most of them are in occupations far enough away from science for their opinions on the matter to be meaningless.

How do you think we Americans who understand the theory and accept it feel? It was very embarrassing to have to admit to my English club that, yes, many Americans DON'T understand or accept evolution, even though it is the basis of modern biology and medicine.

Most Americans are...honestly, these nuts are a minority at best, even within groups that support creation over evolution. The nutty creationists that try to create a "controversy" forget that even if schools teach evolution, neither they nor their children are under any obligation to believe that it's valid...they just don't have the right to force that bullshit on anyone else.

I mean, it's not like we really have creationists working in the sciences or anything...most of them are in occupations far enough away from science for their opinions on the matter to be meaningless.

yeah... fair dues. i should have been clearer because its not fair to paint y'all with the same brush. but still the fact this is an issue in your country - that this 'debate' is going on at all - has gotta be embarrassing. moreso when its such high-profile and pervasive as it is.

i guess the shame of it is, like the OP said, you can't just ignore the nutjobs/creationists and hope the 'issue' goes away :(

yeah... fair dues. i should have been clearer because its not fair to paint y'all with the same brush. but still the fact this is an issue in your country - that this 'debate' is going on at all - has gotta be embarrassing. moreso when its such high-profile and pervasive as it is.

True...it's embarassing, especially considering how many major research universities and medical institutes this country has; we have some of the brightest scientists serving a population of whom a significant portion reject the mechanism behind the lifesaving and life-enhancing work those men and women dedicate their lives to. Even worse, some of them view these people with contempt; anti-intellectual sentiments are strong in the creationist camp, and unfortunately some of this leaks away from the fanatics to other groups.

Contrary to what the creationists think, evolution is one of the most influential and important theories of our time that affects virtually everything, from the software in our computers to the medicines we use to combat diseases.

i guess the shame of it is, like the OP said, you can't just ignore the nutjobs/creationists and hope the 'issue' goes away :(

That's the problem when you're dealing with people who aren't thinking rationally...no matter what, they're not going to go away.

I mean, it's not like we really have creationists working in the sciences or anything...most of them are in occupations far enough away from science for their opinions on the matter to be meaningless.

I don't think you need to be a professional scientist to take part in this so-called debate. The ability to distinguish truth from lies is quite enough.

I don't think you need to be a professional scientist to take part in this so-called debate. The ability to distinguish truth from lies is quite enough.

What I mean is that their opinions, however idiotic they are, don't pose a real threat to science.

And how many Steves are there?

791.

Sorry I was gone for so long. I was having "network issues"
(Edited for brevity)

1. A crackpot tried to claim the moths had been glued to trees.
3. Creationists try to claim Ernst Haeckel was a fraud because they are under the misconception that Darwin used Haeckel's drawings. He did not.
4. Pasteur proved that life will not spontaneously arise... if you have deliberately created conditions to stop life spontaneously arising. Hardly a shocking result.
5. Dr Urey did not claim to have created micro-organisms.
6. Darwinism does not say that; the fossil record does not show that; living things did not emerge 'suddenly'.
7. Five fingered bone structure is widespread in mammals. Does this genetic research disprove all of those potential links?

1. The issue wasn't wether they were glued or not. The moths come out at night, when their predators are asleep or can't see them. They prefer sitting under leaves, where the birds can't see them. Their color doesn't have a profound effect on their vulnerability.
3. I've never heard anyone say Darwin used Haeckel's drawings. I know he didn't, but the point is Haekel was an evolutionist and he lied to get his point. across. That was the point of the who thing.
4. Pasteur wasn't trying to stop life from developing. He was preventing life from getting into the solutions.
5. Urey didn't claim microorganisms, but he did claim amino acids, therefore proving evolution (Which was illogical).
6. Apparently you've never seen an evolutionary timeline. There were almost no organisms until the "Cambrian Period," when every single phylum we know today showed up without explanation. This is a definate fact.
7. Different genes control the hand shape. In order to evolve like that, they would lose their hands and then regain them. That pretty much destroys the point of your argument.

The nylon bug is a bacterium that evolved the ability to digest the synthetic compound nylon. It's a perfect example of speciation, and thus macroevolution.
God knew we needed microorganisms to survive, so he gave them the ability to conjugate, tansduct, and tranform. If a spiecies of bacteria were to die out, some animals could die out as well. So God gave them some toold to prevent that.
You'd have to be really intelligent to design them that way.


True...it's embarassing, especially considering how many major research universities and medical institutes this country has; we have some of the brightest scientists serving a population of whom a significant portion reject the mechanism behind the lifesaving and life-enhancing work those men and women dedicate their lives to. Even worse, some of them view these people with contempt; anti-intellectual sentiments are strong in the creationist camp, and unfortunately some of this leaks away from the fanatics to other groups.

Contrary to what the creationists think, evolution is one of the most influential and important theories of our time that affects virtually everything, from the software in our computers to the medicines we use to combat diseases.

You’re mighty brave in cyberspace, flame-boy.
I am perfectly rational in my thinking, and a good portion of the biologists in the world are creationist. The dinosaur media never tells you about them because it would mess up their agenda. The majority of the biology teachers and neo-Darwinists don’t even have a degree, and don’t know what they’re talking about!
I can’t speak for those “fanatics” you talk about, but I have the deepest respect for science. But when science talks about an UNCONFIRMED HYPOTHESIS as if it were fact, it makes them look pretty stupid. I’ve studied the scientific method, and that’s what evolution is: an unconfirmed hypothesis. It never passed the proverbial hurdle to theory.

That's the problem when you're dealing with people who aren't thinking rationally...no matter what, they're not going to go away.

I guess you’re proof of that.

I'm not even going to bother saying anything besides that every single thing you said in that quote is utterly false. You are nothing more than a liar.

1. According to you, the issue was that they were glued.
2. Thanks for editing this one out when you quoted me - I take it as a backhanded compliment, rather than an attempt to make it look as if I don't know which number comes between 1 and 3.
3. Haekel was not lying. He made a mistake, acknowledged it, then corrected it. That's what responsible scientists (or honest people of any kind) do. Are you seriously saying you aren't aware that anyone has ever claimed Darwin used Haeckel's drawings?
4. Pasteur tried to create a sterile environment, which turned out to be sterile. Which liar was exposed by that shocking discovery?
5. Are you saying that Urey (actually Miller, testing Urey's ideas) was lying about having created amino acids?
6. Evidence which challenges Darwin's ideas is not evidence that Darwin was lying. It is evidence of scientists at work.
7. That doesn't even address my argument, let alone destroy it. Where's the evidence of a lie told by scientists in order to promote evolution?

But when science talks about an UNCONFIRMED HYPOTHESIS as if it were fact, it makes them look pretty stupid. I’ve studied the scientific method, and that’s what evolution is: an unconfirmed hypothesis. It never passed the proverbial hurdle to theory.


Then why do cetaceans have feet?

1. According to you, the issue was that they were glued.
2. Thanks for editing this one out when you quoted me - I take it as a backhanded compliment, rather than an attempt to make it look as if I don't know which number comes between 1 and 3.
3. Haekel was not lying. He made a mistake, acknowledged it, then corrected it. That's what responsible scientists (or honest people of any kind) do. Are you seriously saying you aren't aware that anyone has ever claimed Darwin used Haeckel's drawings?
4. Pasteur tried to create a sterile environment, which turned out to be sterile. Which liar was exposed by that shocking discovery?
5. Are you saying that Urey (actually Miller, testing Urey's ideas) was lying about having created amino acids?
6. Evidence which challenges Darwin's ideas is not evidence that Darwin was lying. It is evidence of scientists at work.
7. That doesn't even address my argument, let alone destroy it. Where's the evidence of a lie told by scientists in order to promote evolution?
Then why do cetaceans have feet?

1. Either I misstated or you misunderstood. Possibly the former, probably the latter.
2. Take it however you wish. I'll concede that I screwed up in that argument.
3. Then how come his drawings are still used in US public school text-books?it. This isn't an attack on Haeckel himself as much as it is on evolutionists who use his materials.
4. His predecessors claimed that Aibiogenisis could happen. He proved them wrong. Pasteur disproved what was at the time evolutions biggest argument.
5. I'm saying Dr. Miller lied about proving evolution by way of producing amino acids. The chances of Amino acids bonding to become even the most basic of life requirements are the same as a poker player drawing a royal flush 19 times in a row without exchanging cards (1 in 1X10^152). The idea that he could prodice Amino acids and therefore life is compleatly absurd!
6. "Scientists" claim that single celled organisms slowly evolved into multi-celled critters. If that were true, You'd see a slowly increacing diversity aming the fossils, but you don't.
7. They say it proves their point. It doesn't. That's the lie.

I'm not even going to bother saying anything besides that every single thing you said in that quote is utterly false. You are nothing more than a liar.
You're just mad I killed your nylon bug.

Look, I can't always find the time to type up a response to everything. Can one of you pick two or three of the 1-7 (Other than two) that we can discuss?
Or would you rather just go back to name calling?

I say we throw beagles off of high cliffs until they evolve wings. Yay!!

should i point out that evolution is the gradual change over time of a spices due to the survival of individual traits that allow it to survive and there for reproduce? what you are saying would imply something more along the lines of the dead theory of lamark.

3. Then how come his drawings are still used in US public school text-books?it. This isn't an attack on Haeckel himself as much as it is on evolutionists who use his materials.
Name one textbook that does. Oh right, you can't, because there aren't any.

4. His predecessors claimed that Aibiogenisis could happen. He proved them wrong. Pasteur disproved what was at the time evolutions biggest argument.
Wrong. He disproved spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis. The two are not even remotely the same. Spontaneous generation involves the generation of animals. Abiogenesis involves the generation of self-replicating molecules.

5. I'm saying Dr. Miller lied about proving evolution by way of producing amino acids. The chances of Amino acids bonding to become even the most basic of life requirements are the same as a poker player drawing a royal flush 19 times in a row without exchanging cards (1 in 1X10^152). The idea that he could prodice Amino acids and therefore life is compleatly absurd!
Show the math. Oh right, you can't, because you pulled those numbers out of your ass.

6. "Scientists" claim that single celled organisms slowly evolved into multi-celled critters. If that were true, You'd see a slowly increacing diversity aming the fossils, but you don't.
HAY GUYZ I DONT UNDERSTAND FOSSILIZATION AND HOW HARD-BODIED CREATURES FOSSILIZE FAR MORE EASILY THAN SOFT-BODIED CREATURES! For the record, we do see that. Your information is around 100 years out of date.

You're just mad I killed your nylon bug.
Goddidit does not actually kill it. You claimed that macroevolution does not happen. I demonstrated how it did. Shifting the goalposts, I believe is the fallacy you committed.

I
Here's a real chin-scratcher: if human intelligence is such a vast evolutionary advantage, how come it has only evolved once?

Simple answer, wrong premise. Human intelligence is not that big an advantage, in fact, the mass of all ants outweighs us humans. And they tend to weigh slightly less than we do on a per-body basis. They are also more likely, as a species, to survive some natural (or human-generated), world-wide disaster. However, it IS a vast advantage given the species in question has about the same body as we do (other monkeys/apes are dying out).


And there are some very intelligent animals out there; dolphins and elephants come to mind. However, they lack the physical attributes to apply that brain power like we do.

As far as I know, those stories about dolphins being more intelligent than other creatures stem from stories of dolphins rescuing humans and the like. That's more a reflex though which has them rescue bodies that are about their size. They've been spotted to first fight a shark, but then rescuing him.

1. You said it was 'paraded as proof, but then someone noticed that all the picture[s] were of dead moths glued to trees.' I don't believe I misunderstood that.
2. [Dealt with, good.]
3. I'm not familiar with US school textbooks, but I'd expect the versions of Haeckel's drawings that are still in print to be the corrected ones. If not, someone needs to have a word with the publishers so they, like Haeckel, can correct the mistake. Either way, you are wrong to suggest that this is evidence of scientists lying in order to promote evolution.
4. You seem to be confusing Aristotle's concept of abiogenesis with the much more modern hypothesis about what is commonly known as 'primordial soup'. Neither version has ever been evolution's biggest argument, or indeed involved in evolution at all.
5. Miller did not claim to have proved evolution, therefore he did not lie.
6. The fossil record is sporadic and incomplete. Anyone who has made any attempt to study it knows this, and knows the reasons why.
7. I can't find this genetic research you refer to. Do you have a link for it?

You haven't answered my question: Why do cetaceans have feet?

Name one textbook that does. Oh right, you can't, because there aren't any.

I'll get you that information when I can find it. I know it exhists, I just forgot where it was.


Wrong. He disproved spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis. The two are not even remotely the same. Spontaneous generation involves the generation of animals. Abiogenesis involves the generation of self-replicating molecules..
Fine. SG, not abio. My mistake. I'm not an expert in this field.


Show the math. Oh right, you can't, because you pulled those numbers out of your ass.
All right, I lied. The acutal number is:
17^126 = 1.08783767 × 10^155
or
1,087,837,670,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
There are at least 20 different amino acids. The most somple protien of life (ribonucleas) contains 17 different amino acids, a total of 126.
So 1.08783767 × 10^155/1 is the chance of the simplest protien developing. The chances of an average protein forming would be more like 20^10,000.

P.S. The etymology of analysis is anal + ysis (greek-to draw nimbers from):D

HAY GUYZ I DONT UNDERSTAND FOSSILIZATION AND HOW HARD-BODIED CREATURES FOSSILIZE FAR MORE EASILY THAN SOFT-BODIED CREATURES! For the record, we do see that. Your information is around 100 years out of date.
So you’re saying that all creatures were soft-bodied until the Cambrian, when most phyla grew hard bodies within a few generations.


Goddidit does not actually kill it. You claimed that macroevolution does not happen. I demonstrated how it did. Shifting the goalposts, I believe is the fallacy you committed.
I didn’t just say Goddidit. I pointed out that transformation, transduction and conjugation (Which the Nylon Bug demonstrated) are not the same as evolution and speciation. Any biologist could tell you that.

1. You said it was 'paraded as proof, but then someone noticed that all the picture[s] were of dead moths glued to trees.' I don't believe I misunderstood that.
2. [Dealt with, good.]
3. I'm not familiar with US school textbooks, but I'd expect the versions of Haeckel's drawings that are still in print to be the corrected ones. If not, someone needs to have a word with the publishers so they, like Haeckel, can correct the mistake. Either way, you are wrong to suggest that this is evidence of scientists lying in order to promote evolution.
4. You seem to be confusing Aristotle's concept of abiogenesis with the much more modern hypothesis about what is commonly known as 'primordial soup'. Neither version has ever been evolution's biggest argument, or indeed involved in evolution at all.
5. Miller did not claim to have proved evolution, therefore he did not lie.
6. The fossil record is sporadic and incomplete. Anyone who has made any attempt to study it knows this, and knows the reasons why.
7. I can't find this genetic research you refer to. Do you have a link for it?

You haven't answered my question: Why do cetaceans have feet?


Look, I can't always find the time to type up a response to everything. Can one of you pick two or three of the 1-7 (Other than two) that we can discuss?
Or would you rather just go back to name calling?


I’ll address those when you tell me which ones you wish to discuss.

I’ll address those when you tell me which ones you wish to discuss.

Any one(s) you like.

Plus, of course, I'd still like to know why cetaceans have feet.

Any one(s) you like.
All right then. I didn't want to suggest them on my own, but okay. I'll just choose one because I don't want to keep leaving incredibly long posts.


1. You said it was 'paraded as proof, but then someone noticed that all the picture[s] were of dead moths glued to trees.' I don't believe I misunderstood that.
All right, I screwed up. What I had intended to say (But didn't) was that evolution said it proved them correct. The journals Sientific American, New Scientist, New Yorker, New York Times, etc. declared the Peppered Moth their flagship proof. The whole photo thing is a side issue (sorry again for the misunderstanding), the fact is that te color of the tree is irrelevant. The moths only fly at night when the predatory birds are asleep, and they perch under leaves and branches where they can't be seen. It doen't matter whether they're black, white, or purple polka-dot.
Besides, the ultimate point of evolution is speciation, which did not occur. Black or white, they're still peppered moths. That is the main problem with "CthulhuFhtagn's" Nylon Bug. If a bacteria gains the ability to eat nylon, it is still the same organism, just with improved DNA. That's the way God made it, able to adapt to it's enviroment. More on this after your responce.

Plus, of course, I'd still like to know why cetaceans have feet.

I do not profess to be an expert, and can therefore not answer your question. However, I personally know a Creation Biologist who has written books on this and will ask her about it.
(P.S. I know what a Cetacean is, but for simplicity, can we just say whale? 'Tis easier to type.)

NOT THIS THREAD AGAIN...


Aaaaaaaaanyways. the Bible never stated how God made life. But being a perfect being he surely chose an elegant way. How can proponents of ID assume that God was so... unelegant to code every being from scratch?

Are you saying that moths don't use camouflage?
That their tree bark-type colouring is just coincidental?
As far as I can see, for people to take the moth example and say: "Ah well, that's only micro-evolution, it doesn't prove macro-evolution," is just desperation.


If a bacteria gains the ability to eat nylon, it is still the same organism, just with improved DNA.

Improved DNA? In other words, it has evolved.

Seriously, I don't see why you have an issue with this. If you believe God created a world with a (very obviously) changing environment, surely it makes sense for him to have created life with the ability to adapt?

Cetacean/whale, whatever. I just didn't want the dolphins, porpoises and narwhals to feel left out.

The journals Sientific American, New Scientist, New Yorker, New York Times, etc. declared the Peppered Moth their flagship proof.

I'm not aware of any scientific journals hailing the peppered moth as a "flagship proof". It isn't really very important at all; even if it was disproved (which is hasn't been) that wouldn't disprove evolution. The only reason why it's so popular is that it's simple enough for school children to understand and it's a neat way to demonstrate natural selection.

Are you saying that moths don't use camouflage?
That their tree bark-type colouring is just coincidental?
As far as I can see, for people to take the moth example and say: "Ah well, that's only micro-evolution, it doesn't prove macro-evolution," is just desperation.
Evolution implies speciation. None occured, therefore, there was no evolution.


Improved DNA? In other words, it has evolved.
When I say evolution, I mean Darwinism. See above.


Seriously, I don't see why you have an issue with this. If you believe God created a world with a (very obviously) changing environment, surely it makes sense for him to have created life with the ability to adapt?
Yes. There's an obvious natural selection going on, but unless your a bactrium, natural selection produces nothing you would really need. Even them, single-celled orgaism are far too complex to have evolved from nothing.


Cetacean/whale, whatever. I just didn't want the dolphins, porpoises and narwhals to feel left out.
I'm sure they apprciate that.;)

A group I'm involved in in my college is sponsoring Darwin Days, a two day event with ample discussion about evolution. Tomorrow, we're going to present the list of Steves, and the biology district head will be speaking.

I thought I'd mention it, as it seems this year we might be at the end of the era of creationism holding sway in political matters and education in the United States. I think this is a great milestone, as we are finally embracing science over superstition. Every argument I've heard against evolution I've heard deftly refuted. Creationism, Intelligent Design, "microevolution but not macroevolution", all of that bullshit, is just flat out false.

I'd like to open the thread to anyone who disagrees.

I completely agree, man.

Evolution implies speciation. None occured, therefore, there was no evolution.


Only macroevolution implies speciation. And I've given you multiple examples of observed speciation, all of which you have ignored, except the Nylon Bug, which you claimed didn't count because it was a bacterium. Address the speciation of Drosophila in the laboratory. Address HeLa.

When I say evolution, I mean Darwinism. See above.


Darwinism refers to the process by which evolution occurs. You have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, do you?

Evolution implies speciation. None occured, therefore, there was no evolution.


There was evolution. Demonstrably. The only problem is that you are relying on this artificial distinction between macro- and micro-evolution.


When I say evolution, I mean Darwinism. See above.


'Improved DNA' is evolution. You typed it; you can't un-type it.


Yes. There's an obvious natural selection going on, but unless your a bactrium, natural selection produces nothing you would really need.


How about camouflage?

As for the cetacean/whale thing - I've seen killer whales in the wild. I wouldn't want to take a chance on one of them getting cross with me. :)