Is Evolution Rational? [Kill Em With Kindness]

Ali
Ali's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2008-04-09
User is offlineOffline
Is Evolution Rational? [Kill Em With Kindness]

Hopefully I'm on the right section of the forum but hey - I reckon this is as good a section as anywhere.

I was just thinking about Evolution, more particularly the more complex development of creatures through natural selection...

This isn't a "God exists cos evolution... etc" thread (or at least my intention is that it won't be) but I just wanted to know whether people think that the long term concept of cells transforming to complex organisms, fish developing legs etc. is a completely rational idea or whether it is merely an interesting theory.

 

Ali


revanimus
Posts: 12
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
"In the same way, evolution

"In the same way, evolution absolutely exists,"

 

There is a major difference between gravity and evolution. I can experience and see gravity every day. But nobody has ever seen evolving a simple organism to a more complex one. So you can't say evolution exists in the same way as gravity does. Evolution is a theory which tries to explain our world. Nothing more.

Besides: we can't see directly the gravity, we only can see the effect it has. That is somehow similar to another invisible one...

Truth is not depending on what we believe. But our believe should depend on the truth.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Exactly!

revanimus wrote:

Besides: we can't see directly the gravity, we only can see the effect it has. That is somehow similar to another invisible one...

Precisely! By Jove, I think you've got it!

We have seen the effects of evolution all around us. The process itself has also been caught in action, every time we witness genetic diversity arise within a population, or watch the collapse of diversity due to selection pressure. But the effects are incontrovertible, as is evolution as the explanation of the process.

"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
Quote:Besides: we can't see

Quote:
Besides: we can't see directly the gravity, we only can see the effect it has. That is somehow similar to another invisible one...

Self pwning is always fun to watch.

 

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

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


revanimus
Posts: 12
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:We have

nigelTheBold wrote:

We have seen the effects of evolution all around us. The process itself has also been caught in action, every time we witness genetic diversity arise within a population, or watch the collapse of diversity due to selection pressure. But the effects are incontrovertible, as is evolution as the explanation of the process.

 

Where did you SEE a fish evolving into a repitle? Where do you SEE a monkey turning into a human being? Where, where, where? We see minor changes in genetic code, that is all. Evolution from a protozoon to a human being is a BELIEF! Or can you give me any answers to my question? Can you name a successfull  experiment, bringing material to life?

Truth is not depending on what we believe. But our believe should depend on the truth.


revanimus
Posts: 12
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Dear heart,

JillSwift wrote:

Dear heart, what your post proves is that you dont' have the first clue about what solid, real evidence evolution by natural selection has going for it. No doubt you are not aware of these mountains of evidence because you won't look for yourself, but prefer to slurp up the ichor spewed by the likes of Ken Ham.

 

Well, I think, when I want to understand for my self more about our world, then it has to be in the way that is laid before me. I don't wanna have to study biology or anything like that until I am able to understand the world I'm living in. And I don't wanna simply believe in what others tell me. Do you understand: I need to see the truth for myself.

I am aware that evolutionists claim there is a lot of evidence. But evolution is just a theory to explain all the fossils and our nature. Nobody has ever seen turning nothing into something or coming life and intelligent information from dead material.

Simply claiming I "slurp up" others thoughts is an inadaquate and simply wrong answer to my question who could see the evolution? A simply opinion of the majority of scientists is not enough to convince me. Evolution is really interesting but in fundamental questions it fails. Science begins with observation and should never leave it. But evolution lost it's way in countless could be's without having one real evidence. Simply because no one could ever watch it. But it fits well to the human rebellion against a god above him.

Truth is not depending on what we believe. But our believe should depend on the truth.


revanimus
Posts: 12
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Self

Hambydammit wrote:

Self pwning is always fun to watch.

Did you really get what I said?


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I don't wanna have to

Quote:

I don't wanna have to study biology or anything like that until I am able to understand the world I'm living in. And I don't wanna simply believe in what others tell me. Do you understand: I need to see the truth for myself.

 

You can begin by understanding that the word "theory" when used in the sense of a scientific theory does not have the same meaning as when it is used in normal parlance. Evolution is not a hypothesis as you seem to think, in other words. It is a process demonstrated from proof - lots of proofs in fact.

 

But there's another problem you have, and even admit to having.

 

To appreciate these proofs, or at least understand how they can be demonstrated as proofs, requires at least a rudimentary knowledge of biology as a subject. Your refusal to take this rather critical step in educating yourself precludes you from achieving your stated goal of assimilating proven data and not being dependent on simply believing what others say. This refusal to accept everything told to you on its face value is a laudable aim, but if through ignorance you cannot distinguish betweem empty assertion and related fact, then it remains just that and you remain ignorant.

 

The plaintiff cry "Do you understand: I need to see the truth for myself" reminds me of the Asterix story where the dastardly Romans have begun uprooting trees from the forest near the Gaul's village. Asterix and Obelix are given magic acorns the next day by their druid Getafix which, when tossed into the holes left after the deforestation, explode into life in milliseconds and produce an immediate 100 foot replacement oak tree. The first time it happens Asterix is flabbergasted and amazed, but even more amazed to see that his friend Obelix is totally unmoved by the miracle.

 

"But didn't you see how fast it grew!?!?!?!" he asks his pal.

"Yes", says Obelix.

"And wasn't it amazing????"

"Dunno" answers Obelix. "I never saw one grow before."

 

Sometimes eyewitness evidence, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Without a bit of knowledge with which to appreciate it, it remains subjective (and possibly erroneous) input.

 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
revanimus wrote:nigelTheBold

revanimus wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

We have seen the effects of evolution all around us. The process itself has also been caught in action, every time we witness genetic diversity arise within a population, or watch the collapse of diversity due to selection pressure. But the effects are incontrovertible, as is evolution as the explanation of the process.

 

Where did you SEE a fish evolving into a repitle? Where do you SEE a monkey turning into a human being? Where, where, where? We see minor changes in genetic code, that is all. Evolution from a protozoon to a human being is a BELIEF! Or can you give me any answers to my question? Can you name a successfull  experiment, bringing material to life?

So you dismiss the small, observable evolutionary changes because you haven't see anything on a grand enough scale to satisfy you? Why is evolution a belief but a deity creating something from nothing is something you know?

Are you waiting on Cameron's crocoduck?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
revanimus wrote:Where did

revanimus wrote:


Where did you SEE a fish evolving into a repitle? Where do you SEE a monkey turning into a human being? Where, where, where? We see minor changes in genetic code, that is all. Evolution from a protozoon to a human being is a BELIEF! Or can you give me any answers to my question?

Have you ever heard of fossils?  Have you ever made an honest effort to learn anything about evolution.

 

Quote:
Can you name a successfull  experiment, bringing material to life?
If you're asking about non living proteins coming alive, then no, I can't think of any successful experiments, but if you want to discuss that, perhaps you should start a new thread, as I believe this one is about the evolution of life.

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
revanimus wrote:Where do you

revanimus wrote:

Where do you SEE a monkey turning into a human being? Where, where, where?

I've never seen a monkey turn into a human being, but I've seen lots of humans make monkeys of themselves.

Quote:

We see minor changes in genetic code, that is all. Evolution from a protozoon to a human being is a BELIEF! Or can you give me any answers to my question? Can you name a successfull  experiment, bringing material to life?

How about Jack Szostak's experiments at Harvard?

It's pretty damned close to life, as it's close to being self-replicating. (Currently, it requires a little assistance in the replication process.) As with most of our gaps in knowledge, science fills those gaps daily; this is just one case where the gaps are filling. Daily.

You say "BELIEF!" as if it's a bad thing. Strictly speaking, what you say is true -- the evolution of life is a BELIEF! However, as science produces both facts and explanations of those facts (we call those explanations "hypothesis," and after they've been positively tested, "theories" ), it is a BELIEF! backed by facts and tested theories.

I suspect (though you've not come out and said it) that you have a BELIEF! in some sort of God. Perhaps it's Vishnu, or Jupiter (by Jove!), or may even Allah. In any case, that sort of BELIEF! lacks both facts, and tested theories. It is a weak sort of BELIEF!, one barely worthy of consideration outside of anthropology, history, or psychology.

All BELIEF!s are not created equal. Those backed by observation and logical thinking are stronger than those backed by supposition and blind tradition. Those backed by predictive tests are stronger still.

If you are unable to grasp the facts or the theories behind the process of evolution through genetic diversification and selection pressure, your ability to effectively critique them is highly impaired. You mention on one hand that we know the invisible force of gravity through its effects, yet deny our knowledge evolution through its effects. You can't have it both ways. I've never seen the force of mutual attraction of an object with the earth; but I've seen objects accelerate to the ground, and I've seen the moon progress against the heavens. I've never seen an oxygen atom combine with two hydrogen atoms; but I've seen the conflagration of hydrogen gas, and seen the resulting water.

revanimus's signature wrote:

Truth is independent from what we believe. Our believe should be dependent from the truth.

I assume you mean, "Our BELIEF!s should be dependent on the truth." With this I agree. The essential epistemic question is, "How do you determine the truth?" So far, the only reliable answer to that question is, "Via the scientific method."

"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


revanimus
Posts: 12
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
Answer to the last few postings

[quote = Nordmann]Your refusal to take this rather critical step in educating yourself precludes you from achieving your stated goal of assimilating proven data and not being dependent on simply believing what others say. This refusal to accept everything told to you on its face value is a laudable aim, but if through ignorance you cannot distinguish betweem empty assertion and related fact, then it remains just that and you remain ignorant.

That is exactly what I could say to you concerning my belief as a christian. Maybe you know a lot about christians, but as long as you don't know christ himself it is only theory.

[quote = jcgadfly]

Why is evolution a belief but a deity creating something from nothing is something you know?

Because I found out that the source that tells me so, is reliable in every word it says.

[quote = hazindu]Have you ever heard of fossils?

Surely I did. And I also found that there are scientists who say that these fossils are not speaking of evolution, cause they are not the missing links. Certain parts of the skeleton do not meet the expectations. Have you ever heard of fossils of different complexity which where found in one rock formatio?. Evolution tells that there should be millions of years between them. But there are all in one rock formation.

[quote = nigelthebold]It's pretty damned close to life, as it's close to being self-replicating. (Currently, it requires a little assistance in the replication process.) As with most of our gaps in knowledge, science fills those gaps daily; this is just one case where the gaps are filling. Daily.

So I think you belief that one day all gaps are filled.

Quote:
You say "BELIEF!" as if it's a bad thing.[quote/]

No, I don't think belief is a bad thing. I just want to say that evolution is a belief as much as creationism is one. I can't prove scientifically that god made the world in six days. But his existence is undeniably.

Quote:
All BELIEF!s are not created equal. Those backed by observation and logical thinking are stronger than those backed by supposition and blind tradition. Those backed by predictive tests are stronger still.

Yes, I absolutely agree. I don't believe because of tradition. That would make me sick. I believe because of the work of god in my heart and life.

Quote:
If you are unable to grasp the facts or the theories behind the process of evolution through genetic diversification and selection pressure, your ability to effectively critique them is highly impaired.

Well I would say, when evolution can't give answers to fundamental questions like origin of the brilliant way to store information in the dna and origin of the information itself, or origin of the energy, then it is unable to explain the world completely.

Quote:
The essential epistemic question is, "How do you determine the truth?" So far, the only reliable answer to that question is, "Via the scientific method."

Yes, I totally agree as far as scientific method means observation. I engaged in the belief that there is a creator. That has been when I was a child. More than ten years later I engaged in the believe in Jesus Christ as the redeemer. That day god prove himself to me in a fantastic way, which only those can understand, who made the same experience. And from this day I can understand the world how it is today much better, too. That is my observation and besides: Billions of people have made this observation, and a lot of former atheists, too. If you want some prove for that, you'll find it in churches around you, you'll find them in history, you'll find them in countrys where people are killed for being christians, e.g. in atheistic North Korea or China, or in islamic cultures. Everywhere, where people commited their souls to christ and not to a church or a tradition.

 

So far, I think this is enough. All other questions require a deeper knowledge of science on my side. I think I have some reason to get deeper into this.

 

 

Truth is not depending on what we believe. But our believe should depend on the truth.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Well, if you're going to

Well, if you're going to back a book about a Caanaanite deity instead of what science and your own eyes show you, I fear you're beyond hope.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Did you really get

Quote:
Did you really get what I said?

Yes.  The irony is that you are the only person in this thread who didn't get what I said.

 

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

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


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
 Nordmann wrote:Your

 

Nordmann wrote:

Your refusal to take this rather critical step in educating yourself precludes you from achieving your stated goal of assimilating proven data and not being dependent on simply believing what others say. This refusal to accept everything told to you on its face value is a laudable aim, but if through ignorance you cannot distinguish betweem empty assertion and related fact, then it remains just that and you remain ignorant.

revanimus wrote:

 

That is exactly what I could say to you concerning my belief as a christian. Maybe you know a lot about christians, but as long as you don't know christ himself it is only theory.

 

What I said is not theory but common sense, as is evidenced by your agreeing with it even though you labour otherwise under a delusion that one can "know" a fictitious invention of a character as if that character was a living person.

 

The essential difference of course, and that which renders your attempt to reconcile my logic with your delusion futile, is that I speak of education while you speak of blind faith. They are not the same thing (thankfully so), and the fact that you can presume to place them equal in terms of worth and meaning merely demonstrates that my advice to you, which you choose to subvert and then ignore, is all the more timely.

 

In fact that was the point of my remark in the first place, and its relevance is enhanced rather than refuted by your insistence on revelling in ignorance.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Sleestack
Sleestack's picture
Posts: 172
Joined: 2008-07-07
User is offlineOffline
revanimus wrote:Where do you

revanimus wrote:

Where do you SEE a monkey turning into a human being?

I think that would be a new species if that happened. What scientists have 'seen' in the fossil record is humans and monkeys sharing a common ancestor...We don't want to give out incorrect information when we are trying to prove which side of an argument is wrong by lying do we? So, I'm sure your statement about a monkey turning into a human being was simply a typo, right?

I'm not doing your homework for you, but, I'll get you started - do a Google search on: list of transitional fossils

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Where do you SEE a

Quote:
Where do you SEE a monkey turning into a human being?

Actually, this is when you know you don't have to listen to anything he's saying.

 

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

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


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
revanimus wrote:hazindu

revanimus wrote:

hazindu wrote:
Have you ever heard of fossils?

Surely I did. And I also found that there are scientists who say that these fossils are not speaking of evolution, cause they are not the missing links. Certain parts of the skeleton do not meet the expectations. Have you ever heard of fossils of different complexity which where found in one rock formatio?. Evolution tells that there should be millions of years between them. But there are all in one rock formation.

Again, I implore you -- educate yourself about evolution before making statements like this. You are destroying any kind of cache you might have.

You realize that evolution is not a movement from the less-complex to the more-complex, right? Complexity can increase, but it isn't what evolution is about. Much of life is still very simple. Take planera or hydra or amoebas. Or fungus, for that matter. These are are relatively simple organisms, especially compared to the blue whale, as an example. So that fact that the fossils in a specific bed represent creatures of different levels of complexity does not indicate that evolution is somehow wrong.

As for the "missing link," you must understand that there aren't enough fossils in the world to represent every interesting specimen, every bit of genetic diversity. There are many "missing link" fossils, and every time a new type of fossil is found, it generally fits very neatly between two previously-known specimens.

Honestly, though, we are all potential transition fossils. Evolution doesn't stop. It doesn't have a goal. It's a process as continuous and inexorable and directionless as geologic uplift and erosion. So this "missing link" you are looking for is a ridiculous quest. It's like asking to fill in the light spectrum, one frequency at a time.

Quote:

No, I don't think belief is a bad thing. I just want to say that evolution is a belief as much as creationism is one. I can't prove scientifically that god made the world in six days. But his existence is undeniably.

I'm not quite sure how the potential existence of God relates to him making the world in six days. Are you saying that if God exists, the Bible must be true? Why do you say that? Because you feel it in your heart? If that is so, then the Qu'uaran must be true, as many Muslims "feel it in their heart."

That means that anything we feel must be true, MUST BE TRUE. After all, humans aren't good at self-deception, and our emotions have always proven to be excellent guides to reality.

Quote:

Yes, I absolutely agree. I don't believe because of tradition. That would make me sick. I believe because of the work of god in my heart and life.

So, you believe in God based on a feeling? It seems you believe in a strict Biblical interpretation of God, based on the "god made the world in six days" remark.  How are you sure the Bible is true, even given the existence of God? Why not the Muslim God? Why not Brahma or Jupiter the Supreme God of Drink and Flatulence, Who farted the universe into existence, thereby clearing the room of all other Gods?

Quote:

Quote:
If you are unable to grasp the facts or the theories behind the process of evolution through genetic diversification and selection pressure, your ability to effectively critique them is highly impaired.

Well I would say, when evolution can't give answers to fundamental questions like origin of the brilliant way to store information in the dna and origin of the information itself, or origin of the energy, then it is unable to explain the world completely.

Evolution isn't about abiogenisis. That's a specific branch of biochemistry, whereas evolution cuts across almost all fields of biology and medicine, and even has strong implications for anthropology and psychology. So evolution will never answer the question of abiogenisis. That doesn't mean we'll never know; as I indicated in a previous post, we are close to being able to create life in the laboratory. If you are not too old, and you avoid accidents and terminal illness for another decade or so, you will live to see life created wholecloth in the laboratory.

As for the information stored in DNA, it's already fairly well understood. The fundamentals are based on (and have contributed greatly to) information theory, rather than strict biology. The origin of the information itself is governed by controlled information replication with limited variation in a feedback loop with the environment. It's really just that simple.

The origin of the energy? Which energy is that? Chemical? Radiant? Kinetic? Atomic? There are many kinds of energy in the universe. Do you mean the energy required to drive evolution? That's easy -- that comes from the radiant energy of the sun, ultimately from the atomic coupling of simple atoms into more complex atoms (atomic fusion).

Evolution doesn't strive to explain the world completely. Evolution merely describes the process by which genotypes change over generations, and the environmental feedback that culls certain phenotypes over variant phenotypes.

Quote:

Quote:
The essential epistemic question is, "How do you determine the truth?" So far, the only reliable answer to that question is, "Via the scientific method."

Yes, I totally agree as far as scientific method means observation. I engaged in the belief that there is a creator. That has been when I was a child. More than ten years later I engaged in the believe in Jesus Christ as the redeemer. That day god prove himself to me in a fantastic way, which only those can understand, who made the same experience. And from this day I can understand the world how it is today much better, too. That is my observation and besides: Billions of people have made this observation, and a lot of former atheists, too. If you want some prove for that, you'll find it in churches around you, you'll find them in history, you'll find them in countrys where people are killed for being christians, e.g. in atheistic North Korea or China, or in islamic cultures. Everywhere, where people commited their souls to christ and not to a church or a tradition.

Most of the world once thought the sun revolved around the earth, and the earth was flat. Just because a belief is widespread doesn't make it correct.

Many atheists were once believers in one form of God or another. Many have experienced these moments of revelation. It's a bit disengenuous to claim we cannot understand your belief until we also accept it as true. That's like saying you can't imagine what burning alive feels like until you've been burned alive. Maybe it feels really good.

In the end, you are trusting your interpretation of an extremely subjective experience, for which there is no objective analogue. The mind is a terrible thing; it'll play tricks on you, and try to fit its internal experience into a framework which it understands. That is why Hindus tend to remain Hindu, even after experiencing a similar feeling; Muslims tend to stay Muslim. If there were an objective God, His revelations would drive individuals to a single belief, a unified understanding, instead of this divisive stew of disparate religions.

Quote:

So far, I think this is enough. All other questions require a deeper knowledge of science on my side. I think I have some reason to get deeper into this.

Excellent. This is the most rational thing you've said.

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10492
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
deludedgod wrote:Age is no

deludedgod wrote:

Age is no excuse. I first read Douglas J Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology (the current edition being the standard textbook in university courses on evolutionary biology) when I was 17.

And I read The Hobbit at 8. But not everyone has that kind of reading capability or even has access to the prerequisite knowledge required to understand evolution. I've known people in their 80's who had less skills or life knowledge than illiterate teenagers. You are simply too well informed to make sense to most theists, and your arguments fly right over their collective heads. I'm not meaning this as a criticism, but as a compliment to your knowledge. I've learned a lot about certain fields of biology thanks to you, and yet still there are many terms and statements that you use that I have to work at understanding.

JillSwift wrote:

Alexander Sawadsky wrote:

Well, did anybody observe the evolution? Can we watch how live is coming from the ocean, evolving first into a fish, then into a reptile and finally into a human being. No, of course we can't see the evolution in front of our houses, we can't see it on TV or through a microscope or a telescope. All we can see are little changes. A butterfly is changing his colors over a few years. But nobody could see a fish evolving to a reptile or a monkey turning into a man. Do you know what that tells me? It tells me that atheists are believers too. They only believe something different than christians do. Sometimes they even believe into an scientological achievement or a proof for evolution that still has to come. But they believe it. Everybody is free to believe what he wants. But nobody should believe that his believe decides what is fact and what not.

Dear heart, what your post proves is that you dont' have the first clue about what solid, real evidence evolution by natural selection has going for it. No doubt you are not aware of these mountains of evidence because you won't look for yourself, but prefer to slurp up the ichor spewed by the likes of Ken Ham.

Point, set, match.

revanimus wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

We have seen the effects of evolution all around us. The process itself has also been caught in action, every time we witness genetic diversity arise within a population, or watch the collapse of diversity due to selection pressure. But the effects are incontrovertible, as is evolution as the explanation of the process.

 

Where did you SEE a fish evolving into a repitle? Where do you SEE a monkey turning into a human being? Where, where, where? We see minor changes in genetic code, that is all. Evolution from a protozoon to a human being is a BELIEF! Or can you give me any answers to my question? Can you name a successfull  experiment, bringing material to life?

I find it exceptionally amusing to see someone who is standing right on the truth, yet cannot see it. Thanks man, you just made my day.

Quote:
I don't wanna have to study biology or anything like that until I am able to understand the world I'm living in.

How exactly do you think you are going to understand the world you live in when you intentionally ignore and avoid that which can teach you about the world you live in? The ultimate circle of stupidity has been witnessed yet again.
 

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
Did you really get what I said?

Yes.  The irony is that you are the only person in this thread who didn't get what I said.

Game over.

Editted to fix tags

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


revanimus
Posts: 12
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
The truth will finally have

The truth will finally have the last word.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10492
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
It always does. No matter

It always does. No matter how hard the theists try to crowd it out.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The truth will finally

Quote:
The truth will finally have the last word.

Ooooh.... scary!

I think he wants us to realize that we're going to burn in hell one day when god punishes us for believing in evolution.  Is that right, rev?  Now that you have run out of arguments, are you trying to scare us?


 

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

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


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
revanimus wrote:The truth

revanimus wrote:
The truth will finally have the last word.
I doubt it. No matter how well established any truth is, three's always some group of wingnuts screaming their damn fool heads off about how it's not true, because their ancient holy text claims otherwise.

However, no matter how much anyone wants it to be otherwise, or how little we might understand it, what is real persists in being real even when you refuse to believe in it.

"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


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
As Jack Nicholson once

As Jack Nicholson once famously yelled at a pygmy scientologist - "The truth? You can't handle the truth!"

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Sleestack
Sleestack's picture
Posts: 172
Joined: 2008-07-07
User is offlineOffline
There is no god. If there

There is no god. If there was, he/she/it sucks ass at making things, especially humans.


revanimus
Posts: 12
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
No, I'm not trying to scare

No, I'm not trying to scare anyone. I said, what I said. We can discuss a lot and bring argument by argument. But we won't change a bit of the truth.

Truth is not depending on what we believe. But our believe should depend on the truth.


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
revanimus wrote:Quote:Our

revanimus wrote:

Quote:
Our believe should be dependent from the truth.

I have a feeling I'm going to regret this, but could you explain this quote, please ? 

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


revanimus
Posts: 12
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote: However,

JillSwift wrote:

 

However, no matter how much anyone wants it to be otherwise, or how little we might understand it, what is real persists in being real even when you refuse to believe in it.

 

That's all what I wanted to say.And I want to add: It takes more to find out the truth than only our mind.

Truth is not depending on what we believe. But our believe should depend on the truth.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:That's all what I

Quote:

That's all what I wanted to say.And I want to add: It takes more to find out the truth than only our mind.

 

What do you propose using then?

 

Quote:

 

Truth is independent from what we believe. Our believe should be dependent from the truth.

 

Reality is most definitely independent from what theists believe, that's for sure.

Your second sentence is badly written (dependent from?). If you're saying that what a person believes should be grounded in reality then you contradict the theist's primary assumption and state what any good skeptic would advocate. If you meant to say that belief should be independent from the truth then you advocate stupidity.

 

 

 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
revanimus wrote:That's all

revanimus wrote:
That's all what I wanted to say.And I want to add: It takes more to find out the truth than only our mind.
When it comes to understanding, thinking, learning and observing - that is, discovering truth - what else is there but the mind?

  • The heart does no thinking, it's a blood pump.
  • Emotions don't lead to understanding (and often inhibit understanding).
  • Faith is the precise opposite of understanding.

 

"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


revanimus
Posts: 12
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote: What do you

Nordmann wrote:

 

What do you propose using then?

 

 

That sounds as if I wanted to use something else than my mind. No, I want to use my mind and other things: My eyes, my ears and a lot of straightforwardness.

 

Quote:

 

Reality is most definitely independent from what theists believe, that's for sure.

But you don't want to tell me that it depends on what atheist believe, do you?

Quote:

Your second sentence is badly written (dependent from?). If you're saying that what a person believes should be grounded in reality then you contradict the theist's primary assumption and state what any good skeptic would advocate. If you meant to say that belief should be independent from the truth then you advocate stupidity.

Excuse my bad english. I simply want to say, that it doesn't matter what we believe. Truth will stay true, even if no one believes in it.

Truth is not depending on what we believe. But our believe should depend on the truth.


revanimus
Posts: 12
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:revanimus

JillSwift wrote:

revanimus wrote:
That's all what I wanted to say.And I want to add: It takes more to find out the truth than only our mind.
When it comes to understanding, thinking, learning and observing - that is, discovering truth - what else is there but the mind?

  • The heart does no thinking, it's a blood pump.
  • Emotions don't lead to understanding (and often inhibit understanding).
  • Faith is the precise opposite of understanding.

 

It also takes my eyes and ears and a lot of straightforwardness.

Truth is not depending on what we believe. But our believe should depend on the truth.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
revanimus wrote:JillSwift

revanimus wrote:

JillSwift wrote:

revanimus wrote:
That's all what I wanted to say.And I want to add: It takes more to find out the truth than only our mind.
When it comes to understanding, thinking, learning and observing - that is, discovering truth - what else is there but the mind?

  • The heart does no thinking, it's a blood pump.
  • Emotions don't lead to understanding (and often inhibit understanding).
  • Faith is the precise opposite of understanding.

 

It also takes my eyes and ears and a lot of straightforwardness.

And a persuasive pastor to tell you what you want to hear...

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:That sounds as if I

Quote:

That sounds as if I wanted to use something else than my mind. No, I want to use my mind and other things: My eyes, my ears and a lot of straightforwardness.

 

I trust you realise yourself with embarrassment how silly that remark is. The brain depends on its organs of input, but it is not those organs that deduce anything from what they relay. Personally I find using my eyes and my ears rather an empty experience without a brain to rationalise the input.

 

Quote:

But you don't want to tell me that it (reality) depends on what atheist believe, do you?

 

Of course not. But recognition of what's real and distinguishing it from fantasy is much more likely to occur if the person hasn't adopted a set of beliefs already based on nothing real at all. So while reality does not depend on anyone's "beliefs", enjoyment of it and the appreciation of it very much does. Of course one has to start by recognising it.

 

Quote:

Excuse my bad english. I simply want to say, that it doesn't matter what we believe. Truth will stay true, even if no one believes in it.

 

Ah, but those whose beliefs are predicated on evidence and are rooted in reality stand a much better chance of identifying a truth than those whose blind beliefs, based on nothing real, encourage them to lie - however unwittingly - even to themselves.

 

Just one other correction - "truth" is not always as objective a concept as "reality", it has tended to acquire a lot of shades of meaning depending on its application. In some of these senses there isn't even a guarantee that things deemed true now will always apply in the future. Reality however is of much sturdier semantic stock.

 

What they both have in common however is that neither stands much chance of being recognised by anyone using their eyes and ears, but with a disengaged brain.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


revanimus
Posts: 12
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:And a

jcgadfly wrote:

And a persuasive pastor to tell you what you want to hear...

Well I don't know how you can think you could know me. All you have are few lines written down in a forum. This is a simple prejudice.

Surely I have a pastor whom I trust. But he isn't my "final decision maker" concerning my final believe.

And what about you? Don't you have any scientist, who is telling "you what you want to hear."? Or did you explore everything by yourself?

Truth is not depending on what we believe. But our believe should depend on the truth.


revanimus
Posts: 12
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote: I trust you

Nordmann wrote:

 

I trust you realise yourself with embarrassment how silly that remark is. The brain depends on its organs of input, but it is not those organs that deduce anything from what they relay. Personally I find using my eyes and my ears rather an empty experience without a brain to rationalise the input.

 

Well you didn't see any macroevolution. You see microevolution and your brain is telling you that macroevolution is true, too. You see fossils and interpretate them in a certain way. But the fossils can also be interpretated in a way that fits in a creation theory. You don't see Macroevolution happening.

 

Quote:

Of course not. But recognition of what's real and distinguishing it from fantasy is much more likely to occur if the person hasn't adopted a set of beliefs already based on nothing real at all. So while reality does not depend on anyone's "beliefs", enjoyment of it and the appreciation of it very much does. Of course one has to start by recognising it.

Why do many atheists think believers came to belief by tradition or any sort indoctrination? I decided to believe in God because of the creation and I experience his power everyday, when he is changing my heart.

Quote:

 

Ah, but those whose beliefs are predicated on evidence and are rooted in reality stand a much better chance of identifying a truth than those whose blind beliefs, based on nothing real, encourage them to lie - however unwittingly - even to themselves.

 

I think I answered already. The atheistic evidence is just one way to interprated what is found in rock formations or what happens with moleculs and dna. But it's not the only one possible.

Quote:

Just one other correction - "truth" is not always as objective a concept as "reality", it has tended to acquire a lot of shades of meaning depending on its application. In some of these senses there isn't even a guarantee that things deemed true now will always apply in the future. Reality however is of much sturdier semantic stock.

 

What they both have in common however is that neither stands much chance of being recognised by anyone using their eyes and ears, but with a disengaged brain.

That's how you understand the word "truth". I believe the truth never changes. Well our world does, but it's not the whole truth. Truth how I understand it is everything visible and invisible, that has an influence in and on our world.

Don' t worry. Though it seems to you I'm not thinking I am a person, who never stops to. I have continuous experiences with God and Jesus, which I can't deny and I am thinking how that all fits to what I hear and see in this world and to what I read in the bible. Atheists fit well into this picture, too. How? you may ask. Well simply because the bible is talking about people denying the existence of god. The bible also talks about the rebellion in the human nature. We don't like to have a God above us, because we want to have our own will. Evolution is good explanation for the world and serves this rebellion. Therefore you can't "see" or "hear" him. But there is no peace for the godless.

 

I think I've heard enough in this forum and I need a time now to get involved into the scientific things.

 

Truth is not depending on what we believe. But our believe should depend on the truth.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
revanimus wrote:I think I've

revanimus wrote:
I think I've heard enough in this forum and I need a time now to get involved into the scientific things.
Laughable.  You've forsaken science.

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."


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
I give you: the light argument

revanimus wrote:

Well you didn't see any macroevolution. You see microevolution and your brain is telling you that macroevolution is true, too. You see fossils and interpretate them in a certain way. But the fossils can also be interpretated in a way that fits in a creation theory. You don't see Macroevolution happening.

Pray tell, how are macroevolution and microevolution different? In fact, what are macroevolution and microevolution? And how are they distinguished from just plain-old evolution?

There is no "creation theory." There are creation myths, but no "creation theory." At least, not in the scientific sense.

If evolution depended only on fossils, you might have a point about alternate interpretations. But, the way science works is simple: an hypothesis must be strong enough to make predictions about reality, and those predictions must turn out to be true. This adds strength to the hypothesis. The process of evolution has made many predictions, all of which have turned out to be true. It has given us entire new branches of research and medicine.

So, for there to be a "creation theory," it must make predictions that are testable. It'll be helpful if those predictions were to be unique to the hypothesis, as well.

As soon as you make the assumption of creation (which is what you are doing, rather than applying a theory), any data falls within it, as you can merely state, "God did it that way for a reason." And here is where creation falls apart.

Let me ask: how long ago was the universe created? Do you believe in a young universe (say, less than 100,000 years old)? If so, how do you account for the light between the stars? We know that light travels at a specific speed in a vacuum, and we also know that there are stars much farther away than 100k light-years. How do you account for the light between the stars? Did God place it there?

If so, did he also create that light as if it has been in transit this whole time? For instance, light generated behind absorption nebula has been filtered by the nebula, even though the nebula is more than 100k light years away. Also, light has been lensed by galaxies, which are much farther away than 100k light years.

My point is: if you recognize that life changes over time ("microevolution," as you called it), then doesn't it make sense that life would change greatly over vast amounts of time?

It seems you have two choices: a young universe, in which God is fucking with us by making it look like an old universe; or, an old universe, which has had plenty of time for evolution to give us this variety of life.

This might be a false dichotomy. If so, please give a third option. (Oh! I know. God made the universe a long, long time ago, and then only just recently made life. This seems almost as ridiculous as the "God is fucking with us" hypothesis.)

"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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
revanimus wrote:jcgadfly

revanimus wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

And a persuasive pastor to tell you what you want to hear...

Well I don't know how you can think you could know me. All you have are few lines written down in a forum. This is a simple prejudice.

Surely I have a pastor whom I trust. But he isn't my "final decision maker" concerning my final believe.

And what about you? Don't you have any scientist, who is telling "you what you want to hear."? Or did you explore everything by yourself?

No, I do this really nifty thing called reading. I read material from both sides of an issue as opposed to your style of only picking the parts you like.. Where I can do the experimemt, I do. Where I can work the math, I do. Where I can't I find people to help me understand.

Where an opinon makes sense to me I agree with it. Where it doesn't, I argue it. I don't go out of my way to find opinions I agree with. I have a brain and I evaluate things.

Just from evaluating your postings, I see that your thought processes stop at the Bible and your pastor.

I'd love to be proven wrong.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10492
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
revanimus wrote:No, I'm not

revanimus wrote:

No, I'm not trying to scare anyone. I said, what I said. We can discuss a lot and bring argument by argument. But we won't change a bit of the truth.

You keep saying this, but have demonstrated an incapacity to accept it yourself.

revanimus wrote:

Nordmann wrote:

What do you propose using then?

 

 

That sounds as if I wanted to use something else than my mind. No, I want to use my mind and other things: My eyes, my ears and a lot of straightforwardness.

All of these things come from your mind. So please, again suggest what other than a mind one can use.

revanimus wrote:

Quote:

 

Reality is most definitely independent from what theists believe, that's for sure.

But you don't want to tell me that it depends on what atheist believe, do you?

Reality is oblivious to what anyone believes. Accept this, move on.

revanimus wrote:
Quote:

Your second sentence is badly written (dependent from?). If you're saying that what a person believes should be grounded in reality then you contradict the theist's primary assumption and state what any good skeptic would advocate. If you meant to say that belief should be independent from the truth then you advocate stupidity.

Excuse my bad english. I simply want to say, that it doesn't matter what we believe. Truth will stay true, even if no one believes in it.

Yet again, you demonstrate the capacity to communicate this, yet show no capability to accept it yourself.

revanimus wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

And a persuasive pastor to tell you what you want to hear...

Well I don't know how you can think you could know me. All you have are few lines written down in a forum. This is a simple prejudice.

Surely I have a pastor whom I trust. But he isn't my "final decision maker" concerning my final believe.

And what about you? Don't you have any scientist, who is telling "you what you want to hear."? Or did you explore everything by yourself?

Some meat! Excellent. There is a specific difference between a preist and a scientist. They are similar in that they will tell you something, yes. However, a scientist can prove his or her assertions through experimentation. A preist cannot prove anything.

revanimus wrote:
Well you didn't see any macroevolution. You see microevolution and your brain is telling you that macroevolution is true, too.

The terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" are fictional, and have nothing to do with evolution. You demonstrate your lack of understanding of evolution merely by using these terms. THEY DO NOT EXIST. When you have learned and accepted this, you will be in a better position to debate evolution. Though, of course, you will be no more successful than you are now.

revanimus wrote:
You see fossils and interpretate them in a certain way. But the fossils can also be interpretated in a way that fits in a creation theory. You don't see Macroevolution happening.

Because macroevolution is the creation of theists like yourself, who are unable or unwilling to learn what exactly evolution is. Fossils prove evolution conclusively, and attempting to make them work for you is just laughable.

revanimus wrote:
Why do many atheists think believers came to belief by tradition or any sort indoctrination? I decided to believe in God because of the creation and I experience his power everyday, when he is changing my heart.

No, you didn't. You would never have heard of or conceived of the notion of the god you believe in had noone ever presented it to you. You may have made up your own god, but you wouldn't have made up the one you currently bow down to.

revanimus wrote:
I think I answered already. The atheistic evidence is just one way to interprated what is found in rock formations or what happens with moleculs and dna. But it's not the only one possible.

You equate the term "atheist" with the term "scientist" when the terms have nothing to do with each other. The fossil record can be interpretted correctly in only one way with the scientific method. You are making up stories by suggesting otherwise. Worse, you are not corroborating your stories with evidence.

revanimus wrote:

That's how you understand the word "truth". I believe the truth never changes. Well our world does, but it's not the whole truth. Truth how I understand it is everything visible and invisible, that has an influence in and on our world.

How you interpret the word is completely irrelevant. The definition of truth is quite clear in the English language, and your refusal to accept it merely furthers the proof of your illogical and irrational position.

revanimus wrote:
Don' t worry. Though it seems to you I'm not thinking I am a person, who never stops to. I have continuous experiences with God and Jesus, which I can't deny and I am thinking how that all fits to what I hear and see in this world and to what I read in the bible. Atheists fit well into this picture, too. How? you may ask. Well simply because the bible is talking about people denying the existence of god. The bible also talks about the rebellion in the human nature. We don't like to have a God above us, because we want to have our own will. Evolution is good explanation for the world and serves this rebellion. Therefore you can't "see" or "hear" him. But there is no peace for the godless.

So you like to believe. Maybe one day you will find the TRUTH.

revanimus wrote:

I think I've heard enough in this forum and I need a time now to get involved into the scientific things.

 

Aw, don't leave yet. I was just starting to have fun ripping apart your arguments.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
revanimus wrote:Well you

revanimus wrote:

Well you didn't see any macroevolution. You see microevolution and your brain is telling you that macroevolution is true, too. You see fossils and interpretate them in a certain way. But the fossils can also be interpretated in a way that fits in a creation theory. You don't see Macroevolution happening.

This to me is exactly like the 1 Million dollar argument.  I have not seen $1,000,000 but I have seen $10,000.  $1,000,000 would be like seeing 100 $10,000.  We don't call a 1 dollar micromoney and 1 million dollars macromoney its just money.

Funny thing about Missing links here is what a missing link is.

I have 1 Old fossil (OF) and one newer fossil (NF). So I have a missing link (?)  between them. (OF) ? (NF)

I find a middle aged fossil (MF) and I can now put it between.  So now I have 2 missing links.  (OF) ? (MF) ? (NF)

The idea a fossil exists for ever generation is idiotic and not required for the theory of evolution.

 

[Edit: change the (MF) at end of line 4 to (NF)]

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10492
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Magus wrote:revanimus

Magus wrote:

revanimus wrote:

Well you didn't see any macroevolution. You see microevolution and your brain is telling you that macroevolution is true, too. You see fossils and interpretate them in a certain way. But the fossils can also be interpretated in a way that fits in a creation theory. You don't see Macroevolution happening.

This to me is exactly like the 1 Million dollar argument.  I have not seen $1,000,000 but I have seen $10,000.  $1,000,000 would be like seeing 100 $10,000.  We don't call a 1 dollar micromoney and 1 million dollars macromoney its just money.

Funny thing about Missing links here is what a missing link is.

I have 1 Old fossil (OF) and one newer fossil (NF). So I have a missing link (?)  between them. (OF) ? (MF)

I find a middle aged fossil (MF) and I can now put it between.  So now I have 2 missing links.  (OF) ? (MF) ? (NF)

The idea a fossil exists for ever generation is idiotic and not required for the theory of evolution.

 

Oo. That is an interesting way to put it. I'm going to have to try and remember that for future reference. Thanks! Laughing out loud

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Revanimus, I'm neither

Revanimus, I'm neither trying to convert you in any way nor am I accusing you of being brain dead,. But when you say that I shouldn't worry as, despite the evidence, you are constantly thinking, then I feel obliged to point out that thinking is not enough, and means even less when it is simply the regurgitation of fantasies.

 

So to help you realise some of the more obvious errors of your ways (and hopefully help you develop the rather stricter and more critical faculties you will require in your planned venture into learning more "science" ) I will simply take the last post you addressed to me and indicate from your own words in just your opening sentences the evidence that such a change in your mental direction is overdue.

 

1. "Well you didn't see any macroevolution."

(this is very true - no one has outside of fundamentalist christian propaganda and the debates it sometimes engenders)

 

2. "You see microevolution and your brain is telling you that macroevolution is true, too."

(only if I'm on drugs, concussed or in some other manner operating at a fraction of my normal brain capacity. But that you think you can make this assertion is important. I'll get back to that in a moment)

 

3. "You see fossils and interpretate them in a certain way."

(but not just ANY way. In fact I don't interpret fossils - I interpret paleontological data which includes fossil data according to the restrictions imposed rationally by other related disciplines such as biology, geology, molecular phylogenetics, genetics, chemistry, mathematics and a host of others. Interestingly you might care to mull over the fact that each of these disciplines approaches the fossil record from a different angle but draws incredibly uniform interpretations regardless - now there's a thought! Compare it to the fundamentalist christian claim and tell me which, when it comes to the chances of being correct in their findings, would a rational person place their bets on?) 

 

4. "But the fossils can also be interpretated in a way that fits in a creation theory."

(and there you have it, exactly where all fundamentalists end up - mangling the sense of words. You see what you've done? You've made a succession of ill-informed assumptions about your subject and topped them off with a conclusion which employs two insensible phrases just to scan, let alone make sense. Interpretation without knowledge of that which is being interpreted is not interpretation but wild guesswork. Nor is a theory in the sense you use the term anything remotely like a scientific theory which requires proofs in its construction. Which gets me back to sentence 2 above. While it is undoubtedly my brain with which I can in any way discern the truth of anything it is not my brain alone that constructs the truth in a comprehensive manner so that it can be realised. That entails input, and qualitative input. Using scientific thinking the quality of that input lies in its ability to be verified, not in its emotional appeal. And this in turn explains the main difference between the two "theories" you juxtapose. The scientific one allows no room for invention, The creationist one allows room for little else.)

 

5. "Why do many atheists think believers came to belief by tradition or any sort indoctrination?"

(because they did, and you're proof of it. You weren't born mouthing terms like "creationist theory", let alone believing them to be true. And nor were you born with the absolute absence of curiosity required to adopt such a shoddy myth as a more reasonable proposition than that which the evidence actually supports. It took a bit of work to get you there, and you might be amazed how little of that work was yours.)

 

6. "I decided to believe in God because of the creation and I experience his power everyday, when he is changing my heart."

(you fail three simple logic tests there all in one sentence - impressive stuff! To place an unsupported supposition as the basis of a decision to elevate hhypothesis to belief is to fly in the face of even the most minimal requirements required to study science. To ascribe a physical attribute - power - to an undetectable source and presume this assertion requires no supportive evidence does the same. The last bit simply means that you fail to see the irony evident to any biologist why a supreme being would be interested in your cardio-vascular properties.)

 

You go on to iterate and compound the fallacies you extol above in the rest of your post. You even finish with the inevitable christian "threat" to anyone who disagrees (they will find no peace, as if such a subjective term could ever be universally applied).

 

And then, almost as an afterthought, you amaze me with the first honest and intelligent statement you have yet made. You say that you have "had enough" of this debate and will now make some time to investigate science (though the last bit is not something I would be overly confident of surviving its expression here, I have to admit). But the honest admission that you have hit your wall, and so soon, is of great reassurance to the rest of us here who attempt to live rational and intelligent lives. Most christians tend to slink off.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3701
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Micro/Macro

In case Ali is still on this forum, I'll try to show the flaw in believing in microevolution, but not macroevolution. I'm only 18 years old, so perhaps you'll be able to understand my impossibly simple explanation.

We know that there is variation in traits among different organisms, produced by mutations, etc. We can see it. One dog has slightly longer legs. One dog has a slightly longer tail. One dog has slightly thicker hair.

We know that traits are passed down. If my parents are blond, I'll probably be blond. If my parents have black hair, I'll probably have black hair.

We know that in any environment, some traits will be more advantageous than others. Organisms with better traits have a better chance of survival. Organisms with traits that are detrimental to its survival will have a lower chance of survival. For example, if the climate suddenly got colder, organisms that could survive in colder weather would be more likely to survive. Thus, eventually, the area will end up with many species that are proficient at surviving in cold weather.

Of course, this process never stops. Natural selection continues, always selecting the best adapted organisms. The organism does not consciously attempt to be a better organism. The environment does not consciously strive to change the organism. It is automatic. This produces change

This is evolution. Microevolution is evolution. Macroevolution is still evolution. The only difference between the two is the variable of time. Macroevolution is just a bigger change than microevolution. Thus, it takes a longer period of time.

People who deny evolution always make the argument that a dog can change, but it will always be a dog, it can't change into something else. But, why not? If a chihuahua can evolve into a great dane, (I'm not stating that it did. This is hypothetical.) what prevents it from changing more? They both work by the same process. This is like saying that you can walk to the kitchen, but you can't walk to the mall, because it's too far away. In order to prove that microevolution is true, but macroevolution is not, you would have to show that there is some kind of invisible DNA barrier that prevents your genes from changing from a certain point. Obviously, Creationists aren't going to find this "wall" because it doesn't exist. Our genes are subject to mutations, and when our genes change, our characteristics change.

Can you see why scientists become so annoyed when people accept micro but reject macro?

Furthermore, determining speciation is not easy and the answers aren't perfect. Since organisms are constantly changing and humans discover new species all the time, scientists frequently debate about what animal belongs where. Take the platypus, it's warm blooded, amphibious, and lays eggs. Where do you place this animal? Scientists decide, not God. Zebras can mate with horses. Are they the same species? If not, at what point do they become different species. Once again, the answer is only estimated by the parameters that biologists, zoologists, etc. have set. The answers are not absolutes.

Creationists seem to believe that when you change from animal X to animal Y, you start with animal X, then briefly becomes a freaky half X half Y abomination, then change into animal Y. This is ridiculous. This is ludicrous. Evolution works in small steps.

Ray Comfort stated that we have never observed a transitional form. When confronted with a platypus, his answer was that even though it looks strange, it just means that God creates all kinds of special animals. We always think that the way the animals are right now is the right way because the alternative is counterintuitive. In the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Jim shouted, why don't a Frenchman talk like a man. He had never experienced other languages before. However, the state that organisms currently occupy are not the "only," "best" or "highest" state, they're just a state.

If you're still watching this board, Ali, I hope that helped.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3701
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Hmmmmm

magus wrote:
This to me is exactly like the 1 Million dollar argument. I have not seen $1,000,000 but I have seen $10,000. $1,000,000 would be like seeing 100 $10,000. We don't call a 1 dollar micromoney and 1 million dollars macromoney its just money.

Oh, I think that's a good analogy.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare