Doesn't it bother you that people deny both the Big Bang theory, and the theory of evolution?

c00lsciecnenerd
c00lsciecnenerd's picture
Posts: 2
Joined: 2008-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Doesn't it bother you that people deny both the Big Bang theory, and the theory of evolution?

Even though there is an OVERWHELMING amount of evidence supporting the two?

I contribute to Yahoo answers (I'm top contributor in Astronomy and space) and I'm constantly seeing questions like "how can you morons believe in the big bang when there is no evidence?! the bible says god created us all!"

 

Does this bug you as much as it does me?

"Creationists are one of the key pieces of evidence to support the theory of evolution... it shows than some are obviously more evolved than others." -Me


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
c00lsciecnenerd wrote:Does

c00lsciecnenerd wrote:
Does this bug you as much as it does me?
Yep.

Religion/faith is an emotional issue. It's not about being rational or even reasonable, it's about a comfortable world-view and feeling safe. And in wanting to feel safe, there is the aspect of morality. The religious have a law-giver and they think that removing the law-giver removes the law, and in "believing" in the big bang and evolution by natural selection we'll just spiral into a chaotic anarchy where no-one is safe.

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
The most frustrating thing

The most frustrating thing to me is that most of the time what they're calling the big bang theory or evolution, actually has nothing to do with either.

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Does this bug you as

Quote:

Does this bug you as much as it does me?

Yes, it's a tragic disorder unfortunately affecting millions called "the desire to run one's mouth off regarding topics they know nothing about". Just read my quote.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, Understand the enemy,

Yeah, Understand the enemy, the deniers, the lost idol worshipers ....


A thought to chew on (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
A simple thought

I believe an unstudied life is one of the greatest dangers to humanity. So one has a belief--how much does one really know about it? Better yet, how does it affect one's daily life, and how far has it truly permeated the way one lives to the point of dictating patterns of actions over the other? I believe what "Thingy" said was quite true--regardless of what one believes, one must study it intensively. For obvious reasons, my beliefs are anonymous--I like to join discussions of science bashing both creationists and evolutionists. Categorizing a certain sect of people based on what they believe is both close-minded and unsafe, for humankind is always subconsciously making assumptions without further analysis--even going to the point of saying a person of opposite beliefs is wrong only because it is not what he or she believes.

On that note, I think it is fair to make it clear that creationists and evolutionists both base their beliefs on faith. Faith that their belief is the right one over the other. I believe if one studies both theories (notice I said THEORY--evolution and creation cannot be proven by the scientific process, as a well-studied scientist must conclude at the risk of defying this rule and losing his or her job), one will find that both theories have substantial historical and scientific evidence for each. The determinant for what one believes then must be governed by faith in the facts that support either belief. Saying one is right and the other is wrong is therefore close-minded indeed, for either belief could be right or wrong. What then must one do?? If anyone has the answer, please reply--I appreciate repliesSmiling


Merehuman
Posts: 6
Joined: 2008-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Not only should one be well

Not only should one be well studied in the beliefs of others, but...

 

"Make it thy business to know thyself, which is the most difficult lesson in the world."

--Cervantes

Know what you believe, and why. It is the first step to knowing who you really are. This may not sound like it ties in to general science, but in many ways scientists are run by conviction and yes, I daresay, bias. Don't challenge other beliefs and lifestyles until you know yours first, and then have carefully studied theirs. In discussions like this one, an approach such as this is valuable. Just throwing that out there...

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
MerehumanHowdy, thanks for

Merehuman

Howdy, thanks for showing up. Yeah , confront the demons within, to better know thy self, as to then better know all others. And the story of that Jesus and Buddha did their "40 days" alone with their devil and demons !  They got so caught up in that, they nearly starved from lack of food ! ... Jesus cursing a fig tree, and the starving Buddha, saved by the caring kids, said shit , don't get so radical as that last path I took, "Keep the Middle", stay centered in reality .....  

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:(notice I said

Quote:

(notice I said THEORY--

Congratulations. You have just demonstrated having no knowledge of basic scientific terminology or methodology, thus rendering your opinion worthless.

The statement "Evolution is only a theory" is what we would call a partial enthymeme. An enthymeme is an incomplete syllogism, it is missing one of the premises (usually the conditional). This one is a partial enthymeme because it is has both an unstated implicit co-premise and an unstated conclusion. The true syllogism would look like this:

P1: Evolution is only a theory (minor, stated)

P2: If Evolution is only a theory, there is no reason to think it is true (major, implied)

C: Therefore, there is no reason to think evolution is true

The two uses of theory are emboldened because the fallacy of equivocation is contained therein. The former is a scientific term used to describe a model which explains observations. The latter is a layman's term meaning a hunch or guess. Evolution falls under the former category insofar as it is a fact (that all life on the planet has a common ancestor and that descent with modification under natural selection is the process by which phenotypic diversity in lineages results, is uncontested) and a theory (as a model of how the process just mentioned occurs). Creationism, which makes claims which are flatly contradicted by virtually every discipline in modern science, does not fall under this category. You are making an appeal to moderation fallacy. It is clear that one is right, and the other not, since they are contradictory! I am starting to think you don't even know what "evolution" and "creationism" are. But just in case, I shall give you a test.

After all, you claim to have studied this topic, so I do not see it as unreasonable to give you a test. Do you know, for example, what the five theories congregating under the general label of neo-Darwinian synthesis are? Do you know what a clade is, or the rate-function for determining a molecular clock? Can you construct an artificial HW equilibrium? Do you know what homology is, and what specific classes of homology there are? Do you know how to identify homoplasious characteristics?

If the answer to these questions is no, you can show yourself the door (unless you want to be ridiculed, which is fine too).

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Wise caring DG, who was that

Wise caring DG, who was that last post directed at ?

"(notice I said THEORY--"  ???

   I will just add the language, the chosen words to communicate science verbally are often part of the communication problem  .... ie  BIG bang, how about little bang ? 

 


Merehuman
Posts: 6
Joined: 2008-08-19
User is offlineOffline
First of all, I must

First of all, I must apologize for posting this rather late--my comment got erased--yikes! Anyway, you answered my comment with high intelligence of scientific terminology, and your knowledge of your belief is obviously extensive, so I must assert that you are an intelligent man. I am glad! You are gifted in debate.

 

I do, however, have some problems. First of all, I have not stated my beliefs, nor have I said that evolution OR creationism were true or false, so assuming that I have when I have not would not be fair, now would it? What I have stated is only that creationism and evolution cannot be PROVEN altogether using the scientific process, so both by definition are in fact, theories. Both do have substantial evidence for each theory, but how can one re-create the big bang, evolution, or creation out of nothing by a higher being?? The answer is, it cannot be proven. As for the next part of your comment...

 

I have also not claimed to have studied the subject of origins extensively, but thank you for flattering meSmiling Forgive me if I am misguided in a few of my answers. Here are your answers:

 

1. 5 theories: Darwinism, systematics, paleontology, population genetics, mendelian genetics.

2. Clade: a group (usually made in the form of a chart) composed of a single common ancestor and a list of its descendants--by the way, this common ancestor has yet to be found.

3. Mol. clock: I confess I do not know this as much as I would want to, but the rate-function is a way of measuring the "ticking" of genes or proteins in DNA strands to measure the rate of change an organism has gone through in a certain amount of time, to put it VERY simply (forgive me). It has, also, been proven to be errotic...

4. HW equilibrium: are you kidding--I am not good with this commenting format already (haha)! I have had minimal eqperience in this area, and can only give examples of ones already constructed from my studies.

5. Homology: I was wandering when this one would come up. It is similarity between different species supposedly due to a common ancestor. Its classes are (if I understood you right) gametology, orthology, parology, ohnology, and xenology.

6. Homoplasius characteristics: yes, I do know how to identify, and scientists are still questioning how many characteristics should there be, so to list all of them may be inaccurate in number.

 

I fear though, that we have left out the category of creationism/intelligent design. To be fair to those believers, does anybody want to speak up and give any proofs supporting this other theory? I want this to be an in-depth discussion of both sides, and not just one bashing the other mercilessly.


Merehuman
Posts: 6
Joined: 2008-08-19
User is offlineOffline
By the way, just so

By the way, just so everybody is clear on the steps for the scientific method, here they are in simple form:

  • Ask a Question
  • Do Background Research
  • Construct a Hypothesis
  • Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
  • Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
  • Communicate Your Results
     
  • I got my link from here: http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml

     

    Creationism nor evolution have passed this process--does this mean that they are both false, or is the method faulty?


    deludedgod
    Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
    deludedgod's picture
    Posts: 3221
    Joined: 2007-01-28
    User is offlineOffline
    Quote:. 5 theories:

    Quote:

    . 5 theories: Darwinism, systematics, paleontology, population genetics, mendelian genetics.

    No. "Darwinism" is not a theory. It is not even a word used in scientific circles. Everything else you mentioned is a discipline of science, not a theory. You clearly do not know about this subject.

    It should look like this:

    Evolution: Over time, the characteristics of a lineage change.

    Common Descent: All organisms have diverged from a common ancestor

    Gradualism: Every organism, however different and distant from each other, is  related, some distantly. Radical changes in phenotype and genotype have occured by incremental processes by which lineages diverge from a common ancestor

    Gene Frequency: The method by which evolution (the change in lineages) occurs is by changes in gene frequencies of populations. It is the change in proportion of individuals which have certain characteristics that determines the characteristic divergence of a lineage.

    Natural Selection: The process by which gene frequencies are latered is characterized by the variations of organisms in a population, and how those variations determine the ability of the organism to survive and reproduce. The selection of alleles over others in a population will accordingly alter the frequency of genetic particles and hence the phenotype of a lineage.

    With respect to the centerpiece of the five, natural selection, it can be subdivided into three concepts:

    1. Heredity: All organisms pass genetic information from parent to progeny

    2. Variation: Within a population of organisms, mutations and sexual recombinations will ensure that there is phenotypic and genotypic variation among the organisms

    3. Selection: Those variations and the selection pressure exerted by the environment will determine the most proliferative alleles in the struggle for resources such that the frequency of alleles will change over time

    And can be combined to look like this:

    According to the Theory of Evolution, all life is descendant from a common ancestor, and the process by which the divergent taxa are produced from a common ancestor is due to the gradual changes in lineages from that ancestor by means of the non-random gradual change in gene frequencies within a population over generations by means of natural selection.

    Quote:

    by the way, this common ancestor has yet to be found.

    "This common ancestor" would be an incorrect statement in the context of the general principle of a clade because every clade has a common ancestor, and of the clades that we have constructed, we have thus identified their various common ancestors. Thus, for example, we know the common ancestor of the Pan/Hominid cladogenesis split that produced the lineage leading to humanity. By "the common ancestor" you presumably refer to the hypotethical organism that is the ancestor, via many generations, of all life on this planet, which is the central basis of evolution, you are correct that it has "yet to be found", because it has long since faded into history. We can infer properties of the organisms that are the progenitors of life in the current biosphere based on numerous extrapolative techniques and analyses, but if you are asking us to present to you the common ancestor you are being ridiculous, insofar as it has faded into taxonomic history along with 99% of all past species inhabiting the biosphere over the last 3.8 billion years.

    Quote:

    errotic..

    HA! Jesus, what a fucking brilliant Freudian slip. At any rate

    (a) You don't know what a molecular clock is, as you just demonstrated

    (b) You are incorrect to state that the principle is in error. It is well-established.

    In modern phylogenetics, rates of evolution are quantified in terms of base pair substitutions. According to the principle called the molecular clock, the differences in any two homologous nucleotide sequences is directly proportional to the time since those two sequences diverged. Also, according to the hypothesis, the rate at which base pair substitution occurs in any nucleotide sequence is determined by how conserved the sequence is. The more conserved the sequence is, the less substitution there is. For example, in eukaryotes, a protein called Histone H2 is extremely highly conserved because it is extremely important to all Eukaryotic organisms and virtually all point mutations in the protein are fatal. As such, the difference between the human H2 and, say, the histone H2 in cows, is 2 nucleotides per 1000. This is tiny. The reason that some sequences will mutate at faster rates than others is because in certain more conserved sequences, mutations are more deleterious, therefore eliminated by natural selection. On the other hand, a sequence which has no conservation whatseover will mutate solely on the basis of purely random frequency. This principle is very important. Sequences which have no use or conservation will simply mutate out of existence. There is no such thing as "dormancy" in evolutionary biology. If selection pressure is relaxed, it (the sequence) will be destroyed.

    Here's an example of the predictive usefulness of the molecular clock

     The other thing to stress is that evolutionary rates are highly constrained. Populations need to be able to adapt to the environment by means of changes in the lineage caused by the propagation of advantageous variations in individuals due to genetic makeup, otherwise they will die out. On the other hand, if the rate of mutation is too high, the deleterious mutations will be overwhelming and the organism will be rapidly destroyed, as high levels of cancers and premature deaths result from an excess of deleterious mutations. As such, changes in evolutionary rates need to fall within this balance.

    Quote:

    yes, I do know how to identify

    So, how?

     

    "Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

    -Me

    Books about atheism


    deludedgod
    Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
    deludedgod's picture
    Posts: 3221
    Joined: 2007-01-28
    User is offlineOffline
    Quote:Creationism nor

    Quote:

    Creationism nor evolution have passed this process--does this mean that they are both false, or is the method faulty?

    I have just demonstrated that you do not know what evolution is or what it entails, as you could not give a simple and very rudimentary definition. Thus,  your ability to make this assertion is totally nullified.

    "Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

    -Me

    Books about atheism


    Merehuman
    Posts: 6
    Joined: 2008-08-19
    User is offlineOffline
    Hey DG, I have to go to bed,

    Hey DG, I have to go to bed, got other things to do. I'll make more comments in time. In the meantime, none of my questions have been addressed, and I think it only fair that you answer some of mine as wellSmiling You sure know your evolutionary/Darwinism facts! How much have you studied intlligent design? I need you to list the scientific evidence FOR it, and not blow it off so it won't be a one-sided conversation here. Adios!


    Merehuman
    Posts: 6
    Joined: 2008-08-19
    User is offlineOffline
    You can also give scientific

    You can also give scientific evidence against it as well, if you'd like. You have passed the challenge given by Cervantes that I mentioned previously, but what do you know extensively about the opposing belief?


    deludedgod
    Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
    deludedgod's picture
    Posts: 3221
    Joined: 2007-01-28
    User is offlineOffline
    Quote:In the meantime, none

     

    Quote:

    You sure know your evolutionary/Darwinism facts!

    a) I should. It is what I study for a living.

    b) Do not use the term Darwinism. It is anachronistic and inacurate. Modern evolutionary biology would be insensible to Charles Darwin. Virtually all of it was formulated after the modern synthesis in the 1930s.

    Quote:

    How much have you studied intlligent design?

    Intelligent Design consists primarily of attacking evolution and asserting that structures, biological features and machines are so complex they must have been designed. Insofar as intelligent design consists of arguments against evolution, I am familiar with most of these arguments, indeed I would wager that I have read more creationist literature than most creationists. However, Intelligent Design does not have any scientific content in the sense that it proposes a mechanism which has testable predictions about the phenotypic and genotypic diversity of biological life. Thus, there is nothing to study.

    Quote:

    I need you to list the scientific evidence FOR it

    Science, as you should know, entails making testable predictions. Evolution makes a very large number of testable predictions about the nature of life on this planet, all of which have been fulfilled. For example, modern evolutionary biology predicts that the primary mechanism by which new genotypic and phenotypic features will arise is via duplication and divergence, facts which are confirmed by the modern study of phylogenetics, using supercomputers to compare the genotypic profiles of organisms. It also predicts that there will be a match between the phylogenetic trees we can predict on the basis of an organism's genotype with that of phenotypic changes in organisms we can classify as homologous through other means (such as bones, teeth, facial features, organs, etc. etc. called comparitive anatomy). There is such a match.

    Evolution also predicts that genes will change at predictable rates throughout lineages, which they do, a principle which has been heavily verified via ecology. Evolution also predicts that the biology will be modular in a pattern consistent with common descent (such as the pattern found by the molecular clock). It is. Modularity in biology refers to the existence of distinct biological modules which can be classified in many ways, such as anatomic, proteomic and genomic. Thus, for example, the cell-cycle control system is said to have eukaryotic modularity and conservation because the cell-cycle control genes employed in yeast can function in human cells. The genomic modularity found in organisms, when compared with the time divergence in their arisal (which is usually found through the fossil record) is consistent with a pattern of duplication and divergence (which indicates common descent).

    Evolution also predicts that the rate of change of alleles within populations will not only be measurable but will depend on the environment the population inhabits in a readily predictable way. This was first noticed by Darwin at the Galapagos, even though he did not understand the concept of genetic particles. Evolution also predicts that without natural selection acting upon sequences of genes, hence the functions they code for, random mutations will schocastically rapidly destroy them, which is also fulfilled.

    All of these testable predictions and more, are filled. The patterns of genetic differences between organisms and species, as well as the modular patterns of phenotypic differences, indicate common descent (such as the near-universal employment of the same base-pair coding in transcription and translation, the central biological processes of all organisms). The changes in genotype and phenotype, which can be readily analyzed, throughout a lineage, are consistent with evolution. The rates of change of genes and characteristics throughout a lineage are consistent with the concept of gene frequency. The readily observable phenomenon of gene conservation is heavily consistent with natural selection. The structure of eukaryotic cells clearly indicates endosymbiosis which clearly indicates common descent.

    Here's something to get you started:

    Molecular Evolution Lecture Section IV Part ii) Homology and Evolutionary Modularity

    "Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

    -Me

    Books about atheism


    I AM GOD AS YOU
    Superfan
    Posts: 4793
    Joined: 2007-09-29
    User is offlineOffline
    I love your informative

    I love your informative words DG , but please more paragraphs. That last block of text was great ! ... but hard to to mentally re- track the last long paragraph. Lot's of us need help reading, lots of paragraphs do help  .... LOL. Thanks for writing that .... 

      About ID, it's idol worship and says fucking nothing. Wow "god done it", making up bull shit and using big numbers as if that is some profound understanding of science and math,  ... umm HOW ? Evolution is how, GO Science ....

       Geezz I hate idol worshiping creationists  .....

      EDIT - Thanks DG , that really helps , as you added helpful paragraphs. Cool ! Keep rocking LOUD DG !  ....


    Thomathy
    SuperfanBronze Member
    Thomathy's picture
    Posts: 1861
    Joined: 2007-08-20
    User is offlineOffline
    Merehuman wrote:By the way,

    Merehuman wrote:

    By the way, just so everybody is clear on the steps for the scientific method, here they are in simple form:

     

  • Ask a Question
  • Do Background Research
  • Construct a Hypothesis
  • Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
  • Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
  • Communicate Your Results
     
  •  

    I got my link from here: http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml

     

    Creationism nor evolution have passed this process--does this mean that they are both false, or is the method faulty?

    Creationism is not scientific.  Repeat that until you appreciate its meaning.  To help you along, Creationism makes no testable predictions about anything.  There is nothing scientific about creationism.

    Evolution, on the other hand, is something which we can be as certain about as the General Theory of Relativity or the Theory of Gravity.  ((These are just theories, of course, but you must be aware (or I hope you should now) of the difference between the colloquial use of 'theory' and the scientific use.))  Evolution makes testable predictions.  Better than that even, it has never made a prediction that has failed a test -it is such a well supported theory that there is no alternative theory that can explain the available evidence.  And, just to be clear, creationism is not an alternative theory.

    BigUniverse wrote,

    "Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


    Merehuman
    Posts: 6
    Joined: 2008-08-19
    User is offlineOffline
    I guess we will always agree

    I guess we will always agree to disagree. I think I can live with that ayeSmiling


    deludedgod
    Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
    deludedgod's picture
    Posts: 3221
    Joined: 2007-01-28
    User is offlineOffline
    If I knew beforehand that

    If I knew beforehand that was going to be your response, I would not have wasted all that time writing.

    "Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

    -Me

    Books about atheism


    BobSpence
    High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
    BobSpence's picture
    Posts: 5816
    Joined: 2006-02-14
    User is offlineOffline
    Be interesting if Merehuman

    Be interesting if Merehuman can point to a tested prediction of Intelligent Design....

    Even if there was such a thing, I rather doubt there would be anything remotely comparable to the amount of evidence and successfull predictions supporting the evolutionary theory, so it is ludicrous to suggest they are close to being on a equal footing.

    No scientific theory should be regarded as 100% proven, but some have such solid evidentiary support, the current Theory of Evolution being among the strongest.

    Even suggesting that because two theories may both have met some minimal test, we are justified in treating as equally supportable is insane.

    I would still really like to see what test ID has actually passed.

    Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

    "Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

    The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

    From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


    nigelTheBold
    atheist
    nigelTheBold's picture
    Posts: 1868
    Joined: 2008-01-25
    User is offlineOffline
    Merehuman wrote:I guess we

    Merehuman wrote:

    I guess we will always agree to disagree. I think I can live with that ayeSmiling

    Ah, yes. The old "bury your head in the sand" retort. Nice!

    This is one of the defining characteristic of the Intelligent Design movement. When faced with logic, facts, and proofs, ignore them, and re-assert your original false claims.

    "Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


    Hambydammit
    High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
    Hambydammit's picture
    Posts: 8657
    Joined: 2006-10-22
    User is offlineOffline
    I love watching discussions

    I love watching discussions like this:

    Creationist: Yeah, but evolution is just a theory

    Scientist: {Nine pages of empirical proof of evolution}

    Creationist: Yeah, but um... have you studied ID?

    Scientist: There's nothing to study.  It's not a predictive model

    Creationist: Um... well... neither is evolution

    Scientist: {Nine pages of predictions, tested and verified}

    Creationist: Well, evolution is not true, so we'll just agree to disagree.

    I've seen this exact same discussion at least fifty times just on this board, and it's probably happened a thousand times elsewhere.  On the one hand, it's really scary to see how resistant to reason can be the human mind.  On the other hand, it's nice to get these discussions in writing so others with potentially open minds can see just how ridiculous are the creationist arguments.

     

    Oh, and for the record, there are tons of predictions that can be verified in a lab with specific animals.  A good example is an experiment done in the 70s (IIRC) with honeybees.  With respect to a particular hygienic behavior, there are two types of bees -- those which uncap contaminated larval cells and then drag the larva out of the hive, and those which don't.  Scientists isolated the particular genes responsible for this behavior, and then, predicting their conclusion based on the theory of evolution, they cross-bred certain queens with certain drones, and verified that it is actually two genes, one for uncapping, and one for dragging.  By creating simple Punnett squares, which DG mentioned earlier, they can now accurately predict which bees will produce which variety.  This is extremely useful, since the hygienic bees are much more resistant to certain diseases.

    While we're at it, the theory of evolution is being used predictively by every farmer in the nation.  Virtually every fruit, vegetable, and meat you buy in the grocery store has been genetically engineered, whether by cross-breeding or in the lab.   Sometime when you have a minute, look up some websites about bull semen.  Not only will you get to think about bull semen for several minutes, you'll see very clearly that bull farmers are keenly aware of their bulls' genetic traits, and they can tell you very accurately what kind of offspring you'll get.

    You can thank evolutionary theory next time you get sick and amoxicillin  doesn't get the job done.  Lucky for you, scientists have engineered antibiotics that are staying ahead of resistant strains of bacteria.  This would be impossible if they were not able to make predictions as to what effects changes in the antibiotics will have.

     

    Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

    http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
    Books about atheism


    thingy
    SuperfanGold Member
    thingy's picture
    Posts: 1022
    Joined: 2007-02-07
    User is offlineOffline
    I think we need a "burned"

    I think we need a "burned" or "pwned" tag for the recipients of Hamby & Deluded's posts.

    Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
    Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
    AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


    Sleestack
    Sleestack's picture
    Posts: 172
    Joined: 2008-07-07
    User is offlineOffline
    Merehuman wrote:Hey DG, I

    Merehuman wrote:

    Hey DG, I have to go to bed, got other things to do. I'll make more comments in time. In the meantime, none of my questions have been addressed, and I think it only fair that you answer some of mine as wellSmiling You sure know your evolutionary/Darwinism facts! How much have you studied intlligent design? I need you to list the scientific evidence FOR it, and not blow it off so it won't be a one-sided conversation here. Adios!

    Heck, I'm still waiting for your evidence of intellicreationism.

    I'm not a expert on evolution and not an expert on creationallgence, but, I think I can draw you a picture of how much evidence, wait wait, scientific evidence there is for intellidesignism.....

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Ah, there you go! Hope that helps in your studies.


    JillSwift
    Superfan
    JillSwift's picture
    Posts: 1758
    Joined: 2008-01-13
    User is offlineOffline
    Exchanges such as these

    Exchanges such as these serve to remind me that folks who "support" creationism/ID at the street level are idiots. I don't mean that as a pejorative, but really - they are idiots.

    They have swallowed the pablum without a single moment's resistance. They found it comforting and flavorful, because it matches the other spoonful of pablum they accepted as children. They hear the words of those who have political reasons to push creationism/ID and absorb those hoary old non-arguments (I mean, please people: "Were you there?" ). Thinking their fantasy as truth and believing themselves armed with irrefutable arguments, they tilt at those poor deluded Evilutionists.

    And in short order discover the arguments they have are far from irrefutable, and the evidence for evolution vastly outweighs their wildest expectations. Their only hope for maintaining their comfortable world-view is to retreat.

    Meanwhile they've helped out the bastards trying to keep us all ignorant because they believe it will help keep us moral. It's the same old power struggle we've seen since humans started to live in permanent settlements:

    A pious few using ignorance and fear to keep folks in line.

    "Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


    deludedgod
    Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
    deludedgod's picture
    Posts: 3221
    Joined: 2007-01-28
    User is offlineOffline
    Quote:I love watching

    Quote:

    I love watching discussions like this:

    I certainly don't. They should tell me beforehand if they're going to ignore me instead of wasting my time.

    "Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

    -Me

    Books about atheism


    nikimoto
    nikimoto's picture
    Posts: 235
    Joined: 2008-07-21
    User is offlineOffline
    Below is a Youtube exchange

    (post deleted, formatting all screwed up and I couldn't fix it. will try again later)


    Kevin R Brown
    Superfan
    Kevin R Brown's picture
    Posts: 3142
    Joined: 2007-06-24
    User is offlineOffline
    Quote:By the way, just so

    Quote:
    By the way, just so everybody is clear on the steps for the scientific method, here they are in simple form:

     

  • Ask a Question
  • Do Background Research
  • Construct a Hypothesis
  • Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
  • Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
  • Communicate Your Result
  •  

     

    ...And here I thought that at least the skeletal construct of the scientific method - the backbone of research and development - at least was intuitive enough even for creationists to understand.

    Silly me.

     

    Mere, bear in mind that science, when all is said and done, is about applications. It's about knowing the world around us to our benefit. Observing your list, we see that this notion has somehow been put aside.

    Step 1 is to identify a problem you wish to resolve, or a mystery you wish to uncover. Step 2  is to formulate a hypothesis - speculate and dare to imagine what might possibly by filling that gap in our knowledge. Step 3 is to make a prediction based on your hypothesis; if you're correct, what should we observe under given conditions? Step 4 is test, and test rigorously, those predictions you made. Step 5, if your tests seem to confirm your predictions, is to submit your results to peer review. Step 6, assuming peer review finds no error in your results, is to have your work published. From there it can be checked for it's falsifiability and other researches can attempt to replicate your results.

    If all of the above work, typically spanning many years, bears fruit and produces new technology or establishes new understanding (or both), your Hypothesis becomes a Theory.

     

    Compare that to what you envisioned as the scientific method. The first 3 steps seem reasonable enough, but the rest? Doing a single experiment and drawing a conclusion based strictly on that alone? Then communicating that as a definate answer? No! You consult with other experts, you do a substantial number of rigorous tests, you publish and allow others to try and replicate your results and see if there aren't alternative answers to yours.

    This is a huge part of the problem with the Intelligent Design movement. They refuse to be subject to the scrutiny of experts or invest the time and energy necessary to engage in the scientific field seriously. Speculation is fine - you can imagine anything you want to about anything in the universe, but if you want to walk the courageous road to where the truth lies, it can't end with your imagination. You have to be open to the possibility that you may be wrong, and you must drop any preconceptions in favor of evidence and skepticism.

    Quote:
    "Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

    - Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
    February 27, 1940


    inspectormustard
    atheist
    inspectormustard's picture
    Posts: 537
    Joined: 2006-11-21
    User is offlineOffline
    Kevin R Brown wrote:Mere,

    Kevin R Brown wrote:

    Mere, bear in mind that science, when all is said and done, is about applications. It's about knowing the world around us to our benefit. Observing your list, we see that this notion has somehow been put aside.

    You're confusing science with engineering. Science doesn't necessarily have to be practical for anything, even though it often is. I still consider mathematics a science, even though I've heard of people vocally oppose including it under the heading "natural science," and recreational math was for a long time the last refuge of elitist mathematicians who didn't want to contribute anything to war (one of the first places state of the art technology is applied). You can bet they were disappointed when it was realized that many of their theorems were found to be useful in cryptography, one of the most important parts of any war effort.


    Vastet
    atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
    Vastet's picture
    Posts: 10641
    Joined: 2006-12-25
    User is offlineOffline
    As regards to evolution,

    As regards to evolution, yes. Most of our current level of technology is completely based upon the fact that evolution happens.

    The big bang is a bit different. There are too many schools of thought and theory on how existance came to be, if indeed it did, for me to be particularly upset with religions attacking that particular theory. Let them concentrate themselves on flogging it while the intellectuals amongst us figure out what happened, how, and why. If any of these questions can be answered conclusively that is.

    Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.