Looks like it's time for another evolution thread

[Thebobo]

These kinds of discussions are not useful. They provide no new knowledge and answer zero questions. T....

Total waste of time.

There is nothing to discuss if people are just going to make up absurd theories to try to debunk one that has actual evidence.

I have to agree there is no point. My dad is Retired Methodist minister and fully accepts science, evolution, big bang etc. The 6K world is just amazingly absurd and I dont want to get in a "polite" discussion with anyone on it because they are wrong. Thats it no maybe, well you have your own ideas, nope, you are wrong and you are doing a disservice to society by perpetuating this nonsense. Hopefully within a couple of generations we will breed out this nonsense.

 

[norseamd]

I have to agree there is no point. My dad is Retired Methodist minister and fully accepts science, evolution, big bang etc. The 6K world is just amazingly absurd and I dont want to get in a "polite" discussion with anyone on it because they are wrong. Thats it no maybe, well you have your own ideas, nope, you are wrong and you are doing a disservice to society by perpetuating this nonsense. Hopefully within a couple of generations we will breed out this nonsense.

agree. if people want to think about intelligent design that is fine because we have no way of knowing right now. but to claim that creationism and such are true is just ignorant.

 

[biostud]

In the scientific method you try to describe the world as precisely as you see it, and if you are proven wrong then you correct your theories and data. In the religious view you try to fit what you see into a prejudiced belief, and if it doesn't fit your beliefs then you don't change your belief, but fix your observations into matching your belief.

An example is when Linné made his taxonomic system, and when we later got DNA techniques lots of species had to be re-arranged. That's the scientific approach.

You use the theories that describe what you see in your discoveries/research in the best way, also if they cannot be proven. But once you find out that something is wrong, you change your theory so that it fits your new the findings even better.

 

[sandorski]

Using Cyclo's methodology, any and every Creation myth is valid. Including such ideas as Earth sitting on the back of a turtle or the Universe coming into existence cause 2 beings did the nasty. It's only the way you frame the argument that matters.

 

[Retro Rob]

I have to agree there is no point. My dad is Retired Methodist minister and fully accepts science, evolution, big bang etc. The 6K world is just amazingly absurd and I dont want to get in a "polite" discussion with anyone on it because they are wrong. Thats it no maybe, well you have your own ideas, nope, you are wrong and you are doing a disservice to society by perpetuating this nonsense. Hopefully within a couple of generations we will breed out this nonsense.

agree. if people want to think about intelligent design that is fine because we have no way of knowing right now. but to claim that creationism and such are true is just ignorant.

In the scientific method you try to describe the world as precisely as you see it, and if you are proven wrong then you correct your theories and data. In the religious view you try to fit what you see into a prejudiced belief, and if it doesn't fit your beliefs then you don't change your belief, but fix your observations into matching your belief.

An example is when Linné made his taxonomic system, and when we later got DNA techniques lots of species had to be re-arranged. That's the scientific approach.

...as Greenman precisely predicted, this thread, in relatively short order, has become full of back-patting atheists reminding us just how 'right' they all are.

Bravo!!

 

[biostud]

...as Greenman precisely predicted, this thread, in relatively short order, has become full of back-patting atheists reminding us just how 'right' they all are.

Bravo!!

That's just the difference between science and religion. Religion cannot be science, because religion is based on believing and science is based on knowledge.

If you know there is a god, then you cannot believe in god, because you know he exists. Just as I don't believe in scientific theories, but accepts them as the best explanations until something better comes along.

If we found scientific proof that a deity existed we would change our natural laws to reflect this. A religious person could never write god out of any equation. And since we know we cannot prove whether god exists or not, then we will keep having these discussions.

 

[Thebobo]

...as Greenman precisely predicted, this thread, in relatively short order, has become full of back-patting atheists reminding us just how 'right' they all are.

Bravo!!

My post was not about the existence of God it is about the absurdity of creationism.

 

[AViking]

...as Greenman precisely predicted, this thread, in relatively short order, has become full of back-patting atheists reminding us just how 'right' they all are.

Bravo!!

It's pretty easy to predict that everyone here would remind the fundamentalists that they are wrong.

Creationism is wrong. On an absurd level. There is evidence proving it wrong but creationists simply reject the evidence since they are ignorant.

 

[beginner99]

You ask why we should care? Ignorant people are a problem. Someone who doesn't believe in evolution or thinks the sun revolves around the earth is doing harm by passing on their ignorance to their kids. It becomes a generational problem of people who are unable to critically think, evaluate something based upon evidence and the scientific method, or make sound judgement calls. If you believe that evolution doesn't happen because your preacher told you so then generally speaking you're going to believe a lot of other things just because a man with authority over you told you so as well. Maybe it will be to discriminate against homosexuals or maybe it will be to hate another religion and wage war against them.

this

These kinds of discussions are not useful.
...
Using the flying spaghetti monster argument to try to debunk science is ridiculous.
...
There is nothing to discuss if people are just going to make up absurd theories to try to debunk one that has actual evidence.

this

People do need to understand how truly important religion is to some. It is the very fabric of their being. Their entire life revolves around it. So if you're going to disrespect religion you're going to disrespect them very deeply.

Agree. The scary thing is that they don't show that so clearly how important it is. I used to have a co-worker that I knew was very religious. We had some occasional discussions but I never pushed to far because we did had to work together. Over time I started to realize more and more how crazy his ideas actually were. At one point he gave me some copies with some vague, very broadly interpretable text (eg. like Nostradamus) and idiotic calculations that the arrival of Jesus was predicted some hundredth of years earlier. He truly believed that shit.

I can live with the fact if someone believes in some kind of nice afterlife or such for comfort but if you have beliefs that are plain retarded like the premonition of Jesus or a 6000 year old earth, that someone in my opinion is plain stupid and will get no respect from me.

 

[OverVolt]

this



this



Agree. The scary thing is that they don't show that so clearly how important it is. I used to have a co-worker that I knew was very religious. We had some occasional discussions but I never pushed to far because we did had to work together. Over time I started to realize more and more how crazy his ideas actually were. At one point he gave me some copies with some vague, very broadly interpretable text (eg. like Nostradamus) and idiotic calculations that the arrival of Jesus was predicted some hundredth of years earlier. He truly believed that shit.

I can live with the fact if someone believes in some kind of nice afterlife or such for comfort but if you have beliefs that are plain retarded like the premonition of Jesus or a 6000 year old earth, that someone in my opinion is plain stupid and will get no respect from me.

Uh, was your friend actually a creationist or no?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Unfortunately in your rage, you missed everything I posted. There are infinitely many models which yield identical predictions regarding any observable event. The two I described are simply two of those infinite possibilities.

But only one of them is scientific: evolution.

I never denied any scientific theory (if such a thing can even exist as a theory is nothing more than a philosophical construct by which we can try to understand observables using abstraction).

Total bullshit. The difference is that evolution doesn't merely explain why things are they way that they are, but it also explains why they aren't different. That's called falsifiability, and it something that magical hocus-pocus creation lacks.

I do find it amusing that you have no trouble brow-beating everyone here with your pseudo-intellectual garbage while conflating omphalism and solipsism.

I haven't conflated anything. I explained precisely why omphalism is simply a solipsistic approach to denying historical knowledge.

I guess most people wouldn't call you on the logical error but I am happy to correct it.

I have made no error in logic.

It is impossible to scientifically distinguish between an omphalic world and any other cosmological world which yields identical predictions (of which there are infinitely many).

It impossible to distinguish the real world from a false one created for your brain in a vat in a mad scientist's laboratory. Which one is the reasonable one to believe?

This idea is quite distinct from solipsism wherein one postulates observables may only exist within one's own mind.

It is impossible to distinguish a real world from an imaginary one wherein the observeables only exist in one's mind. Which one is the reasonable one to believe?

It's the same bullshit Cartesian skepticism applied in every instance, and one that nobody takes seriously because every reasonable person believes that a real world exists and they are able to access it with their senses.

Here I will note I never supported nor denigrated either theory: I simply stated that, as posed, they are scientifically indistinguishable.

That's false, too. We can distinguish the one that is falsifiable from the infinitely many that are not.

If I live on y=5t, how do I know if I'm on a line or a segment beginning at t=0 when t is always increasing? I can't - all I can do is extrapolate my observations backwards and assume that it's a line or that it's a segment. Unless I have a time machine. Thus, the time machine is the only weapon in your crusade.

My point remains -- you are hypocrite if you claim that the theory of evolution is indistinguishable from magical hocus-pocus creation and simultaneously accept that there is a true reality within reach of your physical senses. You are arbitrarily applying Cartesian skepticism because you don't want to accept that evolution is as much a fact as is the computer monitor in front of your face. Knowledge of both facts rely on the same assumptions, but you arbitrarily reject the assumption in the case of evolution. Hypocrite.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

One cannot test scientific hypotheses objectively without invoking a mathematical model of the hypothesis.

Nonsense. Mathematics has nothing to do with objective reality.

Scientific theories make mathematical predictions.

No they don't. They make factual predictions.

That's how they can be tested.

They are tested against reality, and math has nothing to do with reality.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

But you did critize a person, in a way, by attacking theist beliefs. Few beliefs are more personal. How could someone educated not see that? If you truly cared about teaching, as you claim, you'd see how abrasive your style is, but I really don't think that's your motive. Mostly I think you're just here to show off how smart you are, and to score some points on whichever theists you can bait.

Its all about the manner in which it is done. As the old saying goes: "you attract more bees with honey than with vinegar".

See how crashtestdummy approaches religious people. He's very respecful, and I don't recall him ever getting the ire from us the way Taxt does.

Nothing wrong with a critique. The attacks though seem to be very personal among several and that may be what mursilis refers to.

I certainly don't mind having an open discussion about my beliefs. But when you begin attacking me or my beliefs, then the discussion for me ends because you have lost all chance at ever changing my mind once that happens.

Maybe all you delicate little flowers need to grow up and be honest with yourself about the things you believe and the reasons (or lack thereof, in this instance) that you believe them. You're not gonna get a great deal of sympathy from me if you can't look at your own beliefs in an objective manner, and instead get all butthurt when someone points out how ridiculously baseless they are.

Your problems are caused by your own emotional attachments. You are not your beliefs, and an intellectually honest person could recognize and acknowledge those beliefs he holds onto for emotional reasons rather than rational ones without feeling personally attacked.

 

[sandorski]

Maybe all you delicate little flowers need to grow up and be honest with yourself about the things you believe and the reasons (or lack thereof, in this instance) that you believe them. You're not gonna get a great deal of sympathy from me if you can't look at your own beliefs in an objective manner, and instead get all butthurt when someone points out how ridiculously baseless they are.

Your problems are caused by your own emotional attachments. You are not your beliefs, and an intellectually honest person could recognize and acknowledge those beliefs he holds onto for emotional reasons rather than rational ones without feeling personally attacked.

Pretty much. I have scratched my head quite a few times when I have seen accusations of "Ad hominen" or "Personal Attack" when the accused was merely showing why the Belief was ridiculous/silly/wrong.

 

[Retro Rob]

Maybe all you delicate little flowers need to grow up and be honest with yourself about the things you believe and the reasons (or lack thereof, in this instance) that you believe them. You're not gonna get a great deal of sympathy from me if you can't look at your own beliefs in an objective manner, and instead get all butthurt when someone points out how ridiculously baseless they are.

Your problems are caused by your own emotional attachments. You are not your beliefs, and an intellectually honest person could recognize and acknowledge those beliefs he holds onto for emotional reasons rather than rational ones without feeling personally attacked.

Ha, I'd argue that each and every last one of us -- yeah, you included, have an emotional investment in everything we take seriously, to a greater or lesser degree.

Your posts, in this thread in particular, bleeds of it.

 

[sandorski]

Ha, I'd argue that each and every last one of us -- yeah, you included, have an emotional investment to everything we take seriously, to a greater or lesser degree.

Your posts, in this thread in particular, bleeds of it.

I agree, however, there's a difference between that and taking criticism of Ideas as personal attack.

 

[Retro Rob]

I agree, however, there's a difference between that and taking criticism of Ideas as personal attack.

Not really, because people's ideas are closely tied to who they are and these ideas play a large part in shaping the individual.

You should know...religion (or the lack thereof) can transform how a person views the world. This is something that has to be handled with dignity, or your words will fall of deaf ears.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Ha, I'd argue that each and every last one of us -- yeah, you included, have an emotional investment in everything we take seriously, to a greater or lesser degree.

Where did I exempt myself from the collection of persons with emotional attachments? The difference is that I don't let them get in the way of rationally evaluating things. Y'know, like an adult should.

Your posts, in this thread in particular, bleeds of it.

You go on and believe that if it helps you sleep, but you'll notice that you don't see me whining about my poor hurt feelings because someone said evolution isn't true.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Not really, because people's ideas are closely tied to who they are and these ideas play a large part in shaping the individual.

That's their problem, not ours.

You should know...religion (or the lack thereof) can transform how a person views the world. This is something that has to be handled with dignity, or your words will fall of deaf ears.

I'm perfectly willing to treat intelligence, integrity, and maturity with well-deserved dignity. Ignorance, irrationality, and disingenuousness are not entitled to that courtesy.

 

[disappoint]

I agree that personal attacks, including name calling and accusations of evil intent, should be out of bounds in this forum. I do wonder where you draw the line between an "attack" on your beliefs and the skeptical questioning and/or expression of disagreement with your beliefs. What you and other believers have posted also has me thinking that the personal nature of faith may make it hard for a believer to make a distinction between him/herself and his/her beliefs. Is a strident rejection of your beliefs an attack? Is it against you? And is there really a chance that your mind (or perhaps more accurately your soul) can be changed about a faith-based belief?

What exactly is a soul?

 

[Greenman]

That's their problem, not ours.


I'm perfectly willing to treat intelligence, integrity, and maturity with well-deserved dignity. Ignorance, irrationality, and disingenuousness are not entitled to that courtesy.

Well there's a back door that couldn't be open any wider.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You dismiss it using a philosophical argument (i.e. it's ridiculous). However, you can never scientifically prove that it's incorrect.

Reading through this again, and this stood out to me in particular as a good place to highlight your category error.

That's the difference. The premise of the OP is that the two are scientifically distinguishable. The conclusion of my original post here is that that premise is false.

They are scientifically distinguishable, even if they are logically indistinguishable. You are introducing logically possible alternative models which no a priori reasoning could exclude -- in the same way that solipsism is logically possible and cannot be falsified a priori.

In order to evaluate them scientifically, however, you must accept the presuppositions of methodological naturalism. If you do not, then you are not conducting a scientific evaluation. That is why it is false to claim that they are "scientifically indistinguishable." That is why I am correct when I point out that one model is falsifiable and the others are not. That is why I'm spot-on when I note that you inconsistently accept the same presuppositions when you infer the existence of a real world from the data of your senses, and hypocritically reject them in this instance because it suits your agenda.

This category mistake is also evident in the mathematical language of your argument. Mathematics is just logic. It isn't empiricism. I'll grant you that there are literally infinite logically or mathematically possible alternative models. There is only one scientifically valid model however, and that is evolution.

I'm not arguing for one model or the other. I'm simply arguing that, if one presumes to appeal to higher faculties to dismiss something by invoking science, he'd better be damn sure that it's really science he's using. Otherwise he opens himself to ridicule.

You don't know what science is. If you did, you wouldn't make such a silly mistake.

 

[beginner99]

Maybe all you delicate little flowers need to grow up and be honest with yourself about the things you believe and the reasons (or lack thereof, in this instance) that you believe them. You're not gonna get a great deal of sympathy from me if you can't look at your own beliefs in an objective manner, and instead get all butthurt when someone points out how ridiculously baseless they are.

Yeah another good argument. I've experienced it many times. You can't have a normal rational discussion with religious people even if it isn't about religion itself. AT some point you will always say something that offends one of their stupid beliefs and form there it can only go south. They lack proper introspection and self-criticism.

 

[beginner99]

Uh, was your friend actually a creationist or no?

No but believing that someone had a premonition about Jesus and then trying to proof that with some quotes from the bible is just as ridiculous.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Well there's a back door that couldn't be open any wider.

Still can't seem to find your way back on-topic, eh?