Dawkins 1 - Creationists 0

[Hayabusa Rider]

Evolution would still have occurred.

What that does not do is invalidate the concept that our reality was implemented by some intelligence. This is an argument that has never been settled and by it's nature cannot be. That is distinct from any scientific issue because it's not subject to examination by the scientific method.

It seems some people have trouble defining what they are defending or arguing against. That evolution is a scientific fact is not open to serious debate. The "whys" of it? I have no idea and neither does anyone else. That would be a question for philosophy, not science, classroom.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

What that does not do is invalidate the concept that our reality was implemented by some intelligence. This is an argument that has never been settled and by it's nature cannot be. That is distinct from any scientific issue because it's not subject to examination by the scientific method.

I disagree. True, we can never prove that method A was the way through which life originated on the planet. But if there is enough evidence for method A and it provides a much better explanation of the evidence than methods B or C, then I think we should be able to confidently say that method A was what happened, even though we will never know. And that is science.

That evolution is a scientific fact is not open to serious debate.

Go tell creationists. This would sure be news to them.

 

[Genx87]

Evolution would still have occurred.

I never denied it would.

 

[Darwin333]

Yay! Don't like someones theory then crush it by government regulations or changing the rules...

it is not a scientific theory.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I disagree. True, we can never prove that method A was the way through which life originated on the planet. But if there is enough evidence for method A and it provides a much better explanation of the evidence than methods B or C, then I think we should be able to confidently say that method A was what happened, even though we will never know. And that is science.

You are arguing a point I haven't made. I'm not arguing against the scientific method when properly applied, however I am saying that science is a tool to explain what is amenable to investigation by it's means. It is good at answering the "hows" to the extent that our minds are capable of understanding but it says nothing (nor should it) about the deeper "whys" that we as human are obliged to ask by our very nature. I'm perfectly satisfied with how our understanding of the universe is progressing keeping in mind that there will be revisions as experiment and data require. I won't become ensnared in the trap of saying it is the beginning and end to all questions. That's a belief system in itself.

Go tell creationists. This would sure be news to them.

I have. The phrase "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up" sums up the response.

 

[sandorski]

I never denied it would.

...then Dawkins would not be wrong.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

...then Dawkins would not be wrong.

Specifically, what is it that Dawkins is not wrong about? I'm not sure what we're attributing to him.

 

[sandorski]

What that does not do is invalidate the concept that our reality was implemented by some intelligence. .

True enough, but where's the evidence that such a thing exists, nevermind actually Created anything?

 

[sandorski]

Specifically, what is it that Dawkins is not wrong about? I'm not sure what we're attributing to him.

Evolution.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I won't become ensnared in the trap of saying it is the beginning and end to all questions. That's a belief system in itself.

Ain`t that the truth!!

 

[randomrogue]

Lets all beat this dead horse some more.

Science does not try to prove stuff that is beyond observation and experimentation. That is left to philosophy. There are plenty of examples where things might mingle (white hole and black hole, multidimensional universe) but there is nothing wrong with proposing a hypothesis as long as you recognize that it can't become a theory.

The problem is that people are calling things theories when they aren't. This is, as has been outlined by at least 3 of us above, because people don't understand the scientific method. I can propose that the Moon was created by Jesus Christ on his first arrival to Earth in the year 3,040,303 BC from the Planet Jebuziki. However this is not a theory. This is a hypothesis.

In addition imagine that you were born into a room with no doors. Everything you need to survive is in this room so don't worry. However you are asked to explain what is outside of this room. Can you do it within the confines of the scientific method? Of course not. Science does not have theories for things that are outside of our reality.

 

[Darwin333]

Sure it is but in this context we are discussing if humans have an intelligent designer or if we evolved from apes. If aliens come down and tell us they designed us hundreds of thousands of years ago in a lab that means we have an ID. Whether or not Aliens have an ID or evolved from something else is irrelevant to the discussion from where humans came.

IF we had an intelligent designer, which there is absolutely no evidence of including the fact that we aren't very intelligently designed, than they designed us to evolve. Therefore the Theory of Evolution would remain unchanged since it doesn't cover how life started, it only covers how life changes after it started. So regardless of your belief they are not "competing theories" and wouldn't be even if we found evidence that an intelligent designer created us.

Once we have an actual theory (that follows the scientific method) on an intelligent designer then we can include that in science class. We can even put it/them/him/her in Evolution as the inventor or whatever but evolution would still be taught just as it is now.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

True enough, but where's the evidence that such a thing exists, nevermind actually Created anything?

That is not a question which is appropriate to consider in the context of science and that's my point. Whether God exists and had an influence on our Universe is a subject that is rightly excluded by scientists because it cannot be evaluated. Therefore it's something else entirely and usually placed into the category of philosophical concerns. One might argue that since it isn't amenable to the examination of physical evidence that it falls under the category of any other arbitrary question and therefore not important. Well if one wants to isolate themselves from the ancient question by saying that you can't ask it and no one cares then they are welcome to do so. The facts are that this isn't a trivial issue to tucked away because it's inconvenient to ask. The key is context and what one is trying to demonstrate. Evolution? That's another matter because it is subject to scrutiny. Having the background to understand the subject I do not find fault with the conclusions of the evidence. Until there is overwhelming evidence showing it's false I'll go with that which remains the best explanation based on applied knowledge.

I see you replied to my question regarding Dawkins and his point with "evolution". Now if you mean "evolution is the accepted process by which life changes over time" I'd agree with him. If on the other hand you were to extend this beyond the proper definition and significance to his other personal beliefs I would probably pass. I find the man irritating, not very bright and adversarial for contentions sake. I'm more inclined by disposition and intellect to embrace Martin Rees who I think is the superior man intellectually and in terms of being able to remove his ego from the issues. In other words he's not so big a dick

Evolution in no way addresses the existence of God. My perspectives are irrelevant to the demonstrated facts to go beyond that is speculation.

 

[beginner99]

I love how people get so worked into knots defending their little theory as fact. Everything about what we "know" about the beginning of the universe is a theory. There is no empiracle evidence, there is no proof. Until it is validated with 100% unfalterable proof, it's a theorem, and according to this, does not belong in schools.

Your eitjher a troll, infected by a mind virus (http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html) or plain dumb. You have about 0 clue about scientific method and what a scientific theory is.
[/QUOTE]

How do you test that carbon dating is accurate back 4 billion years? We'd have to create a test which would prove the tests are accurate. We can't, and will never be able to. We assume the scale is linear, when we have no way to know for sure.

Here is what wiki says:

Carbon-14 has a relatively short half-life of 5730 years.

How do we know it is 5730 years? How did they determine this?

There are other forms of datign stuff 4 billions years back namley with isotopes that have much longer half-lives. And half-live is a physical property of an isotope. It does not change over time as physics don't change over time. This is actually very accurate as it is pretty basic math (statistics).

Your point? It's not proven, therefore it has no business being taught. The blind lead the blind on the faith that our scientists are correct. Our scientists only know part of the story, the part they can test. Again where is matter being created out of nothing? When we get that point taken care of we'll go on into that matter evolving (which I agree with, I just see limited genetic mutations being the evolution, I don't believe, regardless of how many years you give it, even trillions of trillions of years, that they will hop species).

learn English first as it is actually hard to understand what you are saying. And yes genes and their mutations easily hop from species to species. Maybe not from humans to tigers but sure between bacteria. Actually that is extremely common and one effect of it are multi-resistant strains.

Beyond that most people are too clueless to get what 4 billion years mean. Just see what humans were able to do with breeding in only decades (dogs, farm animals + plants...). read dakwins different books and read up on evolution theory. The more you understand it the more obvious it becomes that it is unavoidable if the right conditions are there.

The main thing is that god and religion explains nothing but leads to conflict, misery and war:

When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You need a vacation. Reported.

Tell you what -- you stop being a disingeuous, fuck-faced, shit-for-brains prick, and I'll stop pointing out that you are in fact a disingenuous, fuck-faced, shit-for-brains prick. Deal?

And don't think nobody noticed that you're pussying out on addressing my rebuttals, either.


Just a heads-up, this manner of excessively egregious personal attack is actionable and does merit infraction.

That has always been the rule but it hasn't been robustly enforced recently. It soon will be, so consider this your heads-up and warning all rolled into one.

No more of this excessive personal attack and insult posting.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Macro happens across species, micro within a single population. They are definately related and definately different.

No, the difference between micro and macro-evolution is precisely the difference between walking to the end of the drive way and walking a mile down the road. You get to both places the same way, one is just farther along than the other.

When you realize that the concept of "species" is something superimposed onto populations of organisms, you'll realize that this doesn't conflict with anything said in the link you cited, dumbass.

Oh, and we have observed speciation, so your claim that we've not observed macro-evolution is about as stupid as anything else you've claimed, idiot.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Do you know ancient Hebrew? Since I assume not, I will let the great RAMBAM explain:


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewsevolution.html
But lets get more modern, eh?

You didn't answer my question, so I will repeat it:

Which Hebrew words?

But to get more specific, GOD rested on the 7th day, the Earth did not rest, it continued to create and change.

Where does it say that? Can you say "eisegesis"?

God's work in creation was done, but that was just the beginning of things, not the end.

So God did not do any "work" "in creation" after that? He was done? Is that really your claim, doofus?

 

[sandorski]

That is not a question which is appropriate to consider in the context of science and that's my point. Whether God exists and had an influence on our Universe is a subject that is rightly excluded by scientists because it cannot be evaluated. Therefore it's something else entirely and usually placed into the category of philosophical concerns. One might argue that since it isn't amenable to the examination of physical evidence that it falls under the category of any other arbitrary question and therefore not important. Well if one wants to isolate themselves from the ancient question by saying that you can't ask it and no one cares then they are welcome to do so. The facts are that this isn't a trivial issue to tucked away because it's inconvenient to ask. The key is context and what one is trying to demonstrate. Evolution? That's another matter because it is subject to scrutiny. Having the background to understand the subject I do not find fault with the conclusions of the evidence. Until there is overwhelming evidence showing it's false I'll go with that which remains the best explanation based on applied knowledge.

I see you replied to my question regarding Dawkins and his point with "evolution". Now if you mean "evolution is the accepted process by which life changes over time" I'd agree with him. If on the other hand you were to extend this beyond the proper definition and significance to his other personal beliefs I would probably pass. I find the man irritating, not very bright and adversarial for contentions sake. I'm more inclined by disposition and intellect to embrace Martin Rees who I think is the superior man intellectually and in terms of being able to remove his ego from the issues. In other words he's not so big a dick

Evolution in no way addresses the existence of God. My perspectives are irrelevant to the demonstrated facts to go beyond that is speculation.

I suspect your and others primary problem with Dawkins is that he asks questions which are difficult for the Believer to answer.

As for questions of "God" and other things for which Science can not Test, why should any Reasonable person accept what is Untestable? Something Exists or it doesn't.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Kind of depressing when an online forum that is supposed to be full of nerds, knowledgeable on the details of science and its methodology, are still arguing for several pages about what a theory is.

Scientific method (one version):

1) Problem
2) Observation(s)
3) Hypothesis
4) Experimentation(s)
5) Theory
6) Proof(s)
7) Law

Next time someone wants to argue about the "theory of creationism", ask them first if they know how the scientific method works. They will answer "NO" 100% of the time (nobody who knows how the scientific method works would call creationism a theory...) Tell them to go learn how the scientific method works before wanting to discuss the subject

FYI, a theory cannot become a law and vice versa.

A theory is a summary of a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested with the same results (or results that don't falsify the theory, and keep in mind this can cause a revision to the theory to fit a new test result that didn't fit previously). A law will generalize observations. It does not describe them and answer the "why" behind it. A theory attempts to explain the "why."

A theory won't "graduate" to a law ever. We will never have the law of evolution.

 

[cybrsage]

You didn't answer my question, so I will repeat it:

Which Hebrew words?

The ones which are not there saying creation was complete.

So God did not do any "work" "in creation" after that? He was done? Is that really your claim, doofus?

His work in creating was complete, and He rested. Not that God needed rest, but as a prelude to giving the Israelites the Sabbath Day.

 

[cybrsage]

No, the difference between micro and macro-evolution is precisely the difference between walking to the end of the drive way and walking a mile down the road. You get to both places the same way, one is just farther along than the other.

You go ahead and write Berkely University and explain how their science department is wrong and you know far more than they do about evolution. Better yet, travel to them and film it...that way we all get to see them laugh at you.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The ones which are not there saying creation was complete.

You didn't say that certain words didn't say that your claim isn't false. You said rather that some words actually "implied" what you claimed.

Which words were those? Or are you still being a disingenuous prick?

His work in creating was complete, and He rested.

That's not what you said, either. Do you have trouble remembering even the things you write yourself, dumb fuck? No wonder you can't even grasp the arguments with which I'm constantly trouncing you.

Not that God needed rest, but as a prelude to giving the Israelites the Sabbath Day.

Cool story, bro.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You go ahead and write Berkely University and explain how their science department is wrong and you know far more than they do about evolution. Better yet, travel to them and film it...that way we all get to see them laugh at you.

They aren't wrong, and I specifically addressed that fact in the part of my post you disingenuously ignored, prick.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I have an exercise for cybersage:

Imagine I'm in room with a man named Fred, and this room has no windows, only one door, and in the center rests a ball, and a sealed, hollow and transparent glass cube on a plain table.

You close the door to the room and re-enter in in 5 mins to find that Fred and I are still standing there, and the ball is now inside the sealed glass cube on the table.

You ask me how the ball got inside the cube.

I replied "Fred did it."

Now, I want you to "continue that thought forward" and tell us how "Fred did it" explains the location of the ball inside the sealed glass cube.

I eagerly await your thoughtful response.

No, the subject at hand was Dover vs. Kitzmiller, you disingenuous prick.


You asked me to show you an alien-based religion and I did. You didn't ask for one acknowledged as a religion by the UK. That came later. That's textbook goalpost shifting, fuck face.



Who cares if the UK grants it an "official" status? Why is that suddenly the metric by which "real" religions are judged?


Show me a list of ANY "official" UK religions. As far as I know, the Anglican church is the only "official" UK religion. Does that mean Islam is not a religion, now, shit-for-brains? What does it mean to be an "official" religion in the UK and what difference does it make in this context, dickhead?


My referenced link demonstrated that Raelianism is officially a religion in the UK.

Still too much of a pussy to address these rebuttals, eh, prick?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I suspect your and others primary problem with Dawkins is that he asks questions which are difficult for the Believer to answer.

As for questions of "God" and other things for which Science can not Test, why should any Reasonable person accept what is Untestable? Something Exists or it doesn't.

Precisely what questions does Dawkins ask that I cannot answer or make a statement about? When have I said that Creationism is correct? Why am I obliged to dumb myself down to fit into his version of what is possible? Who is Dawkins to set himself as the absolute arbiter of what one must believe or not?

Why should I feel compelled to accept the untestable as truth whether it's a religious dogma or the belief of Dawkins?

I think the reason that Dawkins is popular with some is because he's a loudmouth. That his points may or may not be correct or reasonable is secondary to his aggression.