No, this thread may continue to evolve.
Anyone hazard a guess as to what human beings will eventually look like after several more thousands of years?
Anyone hazard a guess as to what human beings will eventually look like after several more thousands of years?
PowerEngineer
Diamond Member
- Oct 22, 2001
- 3,606
- 786
- 136
It seems to me that Jimmy Stewart could have made the same argument for Harvey (his 6-foot rabbit companion)!
I'm fairly certain we could uncover facts that would lead most of us to accept the theory (or let's say proposition) that there really is a person who authored each ATOT post in this thread. We could even go so far as to visit him/her if we chose to. For better or worse, the proposition that "God" (particularly the Christian version) exists is much harder to support with convincing facts. And it's this general consensus (by everyone looking at the facts) that an offered proposition is the (simplest) most logical explanation that makes that proposition the accepted scientific "theory" (which will be continually altered and refined by new facts).
A personal "experience" that can not be shared or repeated with others does not constitute "proof" in this context. You're really describing personal "belief".
I have no problem with personal "belief" (i.e. religion/philosophy) up to the point that it leads to denial of the objective reality revealed through the scientific process. The facts supporting some sort of evolutionary process are overwhelming. Most of the people who reject evolution do so because it clashes with their personal beliefs. This is a problem! Don't let your personal beliefs blind you to objective reality! Feel free to believe that God made us (and all other creatures on Earth) through the process of evolution.
Well, you do claim to know (on the basis of your special "life experiences") that it couldn't have gotten here without a "greater force". That really is quite a claim!
Adding "God" into the description of how the universe came to be doesn't really increase our understanding at all. Answering those "why" questions is what religion/philosophy is all about, so have at it! Just don't rely on beliefs to answer the "how" questions...
child of wonder
Diamond Member
- Aug 31, 2006
- 8,307
- 176
- 106
Let's just sum up the creationist argument against evolution.
1. It is only a theory lol!!1!
2. Jesus made the universe you stupid! Why? Because the Bible sez!!!!!
3. Evolutionists/atheists are just a religion, like us!
Let's break these down:
1. If someone expresses this point, they can be instantly branded an imbecile and ignored.
2. Sophomoric, circular logic should be ignored and openly mocked. The debater is an idiot.
3. This is incredibly amusing. The debater is attempting to claim that evolutionists/atheists are a religion and, therefore, bad when they, themselves, ARE A RELIGION. The argument is akin to "I am a moron and you are just like me, so ha!" Further, as someone else was kind of enough to post a dictionary definition of religion, a religion is a set of BELIEFS (aka ideas or opinion not based on evidence but acceptance). Science is the direct anti-thesis of belief. Someone accepts scientific statements because there is evidence and reasoning to back it up.
Now, if a creationist would like to argue against evolution based on scientific evidence, that's fine. However, the points above should NEVER be used in said debate because it is akin to verbal suicide.
1. It is only a theory lol!!1!
2. Jesus made the universe you stupid! Why? Because the Bible sez!!!!!
3. Evolutionists/atheists are just a religion, like us!
Let's break these down:
1. If someone expresses this point, they can be instantly branded an imbecile and ignored.
2. Sophomoric, circular logic should be ignored and openly mocked. The debater is an idiot.
3. This is incredibly amusing. The debater is attempting to claim that evolutionists/atheists are a religion and, therefore, bad when they, themselves, ARE A RELIGION. The argument is akin to "I am a moron and you are just like me, so ha!" Further, as someone else was kind of enough to post a dictionary definition of religion, a religion is a set of BELIEFS (aka ideas or opinion not based on evidence but acceptance). Science is the direct anti-thesis of belief. Someone accepts scientific statements because there is evidence and reasoning to back it up.
Now, if a creationist would like to argue against evolution based on scientific evidence, that's fine. However, the points above should NEVER be used in said debate because it is akin to verbal suicide.
FeuerFrei
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2005
- 9,144
- 929
- 126
Well I got half an hour into this video and this speaker is so close-minded and dogmatic it's really killing my interest in hearing more "evidence." Maybe I'll finish it later.
First of all he defines scientific fact not so much as truth but as consensus, which ought to raise a red flag, because then it's not necessarily "fact." Keep that in mind you dogmatic evolutionists.
He lumps subspeciation in as part of the theory of evolution, even though he admits it has to be proved separately. Doofus. Subspeciation is simply a shift in gene expression frequency. It doesn't involve increasing genetic complexity like evolutionary theory demands. Subspeciation has been observed. No creationist contests it. Creationists don't label it "evolution" but evolutionists often do to make their position look scientific and dissenters look dumb.
He totally fails to admit that morphological similarities do not imply a common ancestor. Phylogenies based on anatomy can and do conflict with phylogenies based on biochemistry. But that inconvenient fact doesn't fit into his line of reasoning, so he ignores it.
He dogmatically declares that limb nubs on embryonic dolphins are vestigial legs, despite the fact that if they ever do develop, they become fins, not legs. Whatever man. You still haven't found a dolphin with legs.
He laughs at the idea that the detached whale bones do in fact anchor muscles used to maneuver the reproductive organ of a whale, but he can't and doesn't deny it. Though he does try tell us those are vestigial legs because they can bear a superficial resemblance. That's real science!!
Also he mentioned Archeopteryx which is a proven hoax.
I guess if you listen to this with your brain off, you might think evolution is being substantiated not merely postulated.
First of all he defines scientific fact not so much as truth but as consensus, which ought to raise a red flag, because then it's not necessarily "fact." Keep that in mind you dogmatic evolutionists.
He lumps subspeciation in as part of the theory of evolution, even though he admits it has to be proved separately.
Doofus. Subspeciation is simply a shift in gene expression frequency. It doesn't involve increasing genetic complexity like evolutionary theory demands. Subspeciation has been observed. No creationist contests it. Creationists don't label it "evolution" but evolutionists often do to make their position look scientific and dissenters look dumb.He totally fails to admit that morphological similarities do not imply a common ancestor. Phylogenies based on anatomy can and do conflict with phylogenies based on biochemistry. But that inconvenient fact doesn't fit into his line of reasoning, so he ignores it.
He dogmatically declares that limb nubs on embryonic dolphins are vestigial legs, despite the fact that if they ever do develop, they become fins, not legs. Whatever man. You still haven't found a dolphin with legs.
He laughs at the idea that the detached whale bones do in fact anchor muscles used to maneuver the reproductive organ of a whale, but he can't and doesn't deny it. Though he does try tell us those are vestigial legs because they can bear a superficial resemblance. That's real science!!
Also he mentioned Archeopteryx which is a proven hoax.
I guess if you listen to this with your brain off, you might think evolution is being substantiated not merely postulated.
Last edited:
Well I got half an hour into this video and this speaker is so close-minded and dogmatic it's really killing my interest in hearing more "evidence." Maybe I'll finish it later.
First of all he defines scientific fact not so much as truth but as consensus, which ought to raise a red flag, because then it's not necessarily "fact." Keep that in mind you dogmatic evolutionists.
He lumps subspeciation in as part of the theory of evolution, even though he admits it has to be proved separately.
He totally fails to admit that morphological similarities do not imply a common ancestor. Phylogenies based on biological similarities can and do conflict with phylogenies based on biochemistry. But that inconvenient fact doesn't fit into his line of reasoning, so he ignores it.
He dogmatically declares that limb nubs on embryonic dolphins are vestigial legs, despite the fact that if they ever do develop, they become fins, not legs. Whatever man. You still haven't found a dolphin with legs.
He laughs at the idea that the detached whale bones do in fact anchor muscles used to maneuver the reproductive organ of a whale, but he can't and doesn't deny it. Though he does try tell us those are vestigial legs because they can bear a superficial resemblance. That's real science!!
Also he mentioned Archeopteryx which is a proven hoax.
I guess if you listen to this with your brain off, you might think evolution is being substantiated not merely postulated.
You're correct that its possible for animals to be similar/develop similar traits but not share a common ancestor, although if anything that actually would give more credence to evolutionary theory, not less as you seem to think. The reason he doesn't touch on that is that he's showing how traits change as they go through evolution (I believe this is when he was showing the change in feet in horses and its ancestors). You'll notice, he doesn't go too in depth at any point, and so that's probably why he doesn't cover it in this video.
Look at pictures of the dolphin with the extra appendages, they are clearly significantly different from regular fins (even comparing other creatures that develop fins back there, such as some sharks, they're not thick and rounded, but resemble regular fins, clearly different from here). But ok, we'll just go with the genetic mutation approach with that. However, by all means, if you can explain why dolphins and whales develop these in the first place, only to lose them later before birth, I'm sure scientists would love to hear it. The reason why he laughs off that its for support of reproductive organs is that they look at whale fossils and have seen them reduce over time.
You are flat out wrong about Archeopteryx being a hoax. It was professed to be, by a group (led by an astronomer and a physicist, who would clearly know more than say paleontologists, right?), who lacked in knowledge, claimed it couldn't be correct, but people who had worked with similar fossils showed them to be incorrect in their assumptions.
As for your postulation about it being true due to a consensus, he explains this. He gives 6 reasons, that combine to be consensus for why evolution should be considered true. Not to mention, scientific theory is considered true, when the consensus of scientists feel it is true and are unable to present anything that absolutely directly falsifies it. This is the case with the theory of evolution.
Last edited:
Dawkins is an atheist but not every evolution believer is atheist.
Take Kenneth Miller, Brown University professor, evolution believer (who testified at the Dover, Pa trial) and...*drumroll* Roman Catholic
As someone already pointed out, scientists answer the how, what, etc. but only philosophy/religion/metaphysics can answer the 'why'.
Take Kenneth Miller, Brown University professor, evolution believer (who testified at the Dover, Pa trial) and...*drumroll* Roman Catholic
As someone already pointed out, scientists answer the how, what, etc. but only philosophy/religion/metaphysics can answer the 'why'.
Q
Lifer
- Jul 21, 2005
- 12,046
- 4
- 81
I watched first 10 minutes then skipped to last 20, I don't understand what anyone would 'shit a brick' over?
clamum
Lifer
- Feb 13, 2003
- 26,256
- 406
- 126
GodlessAstronomer
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2007
- 17,009
- 5
- 0
Lol, I love you guys. Could you please give me a more detailed explanation of how the lack of faith is in fact the presence of faith?
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
I think you fell out of the stupid tree & hit every branch on the way down.
A. Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang. And, like it or not, scientists pretty much understand what went on, back to less than a second after the big bang.
B. There's nothing off the wall about macro evolution. Most people's brains can't comprehend how long 1 million years is, or 1 billion years. You're certainly no exception.
C. If you don't know how the Sun formed, and why it's bright... wow. Just wow. p.s. We observe galaxies and areas where new stars are being formed all the time. The process is quite well understood.
D. You got one thing right - we don't know how the first life came into being on this planet. But even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then. A little off on the date though.
You can't reason someone out of something that they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.
Mike Gayner
Diamond Member
- Jan 5, 2007
- 6,175
- 3
- 0
CKent
Diamond Member
- Aug 17, 2005
- 9,020
- 0
- 0
Good watch, thanks for the link OP. Surprising to see people arguing against evolution on a tech forum where we're all ostensibly intelligent and rational thinkers. I'd like to think they're just honing their debating skills by playing devil's advocate, but knowing how much of ATOT is in the south / midwest, I'm afraid that's just wishful thinking.
Good watch, thanks for the link OP. Surprising to see people arguing against evolution on a tech forum where we're all ostensibly intelligent and rational thinkers. I'd like to think they're just honing their debating skills by playing devil's advocate, but knowing how much of ATOT is in the south / midwest, I'm afraid that's just wishful thinking.
I honestly don't see how a thinking person can be "against" a natural process. Evolution is merely a description of the natural order. If creationists refuse to evolve and incorporate new knowledge into their belief system, THEY are the ones fighting the works of their God..not scientists.
PlasmaBomb
Lifer
- Nov 19, 2004
- 11,636
- 2
- 81
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter