Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

[tsugomaru]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

I watched the first 10 minutes of your video and my only thoughts are, "who do they think they are?" They are asking me to not be biased when they themselves are biased.

Also, just because the probability is so low doesn't mean it'll never happen.

I believe there is a certain Quantum law that explains this, but I don't understand it myself, so if I were to explain it, the explanation will be no better than their watch one.

~Tsugomaru

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

How can something so complex where everything, or at least many things work together be a result of randomization and time.

That's because the entire process is directed by the Second Law.

Monkeys banging on typewriters won't produce Shakespeare, but that's not how the world works. The Second Law acts as a guide. If a monkey produces the correct word, it saves that word and moves on. With that direction, you bet live can come to exist!

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Jewpin, that is semantic nonsense and shows a misunderstanding of the concept. I am talking about THE big bang, as an event, and evolution, as an occurance. The 'proof' of a THEORY itself can never be put forth, for a couple reasons, but all of which are quite irrelevant to, for example, the occurance of the big bang. This is like saying you cannot prove that the holocaust happened.

If you, for some reason think that you can't prove that the holocaust happened...well, then **** off XD You see, I wasn't even talking about the Big bang theory. No, I was talking about concrete evidence WMAP has provided to show that, inexorably, the big bang did happen. I would never claim that the theory itself was proven, as it is 1. An incomplete theory, and 2. Is always changing, and 3. 'Proofs' can be left for the mathematicians and their axiomsssssssss and their little universe they create.

If you're still hell bent on the holocaust not being a fact, then...we have clear evidence as to why philosophy held down the progress of mankind for a long time

You should try taking a History and Philosophy of Science course. You know, so you don't have to talk out of your ass so much. Ask any self respecting scientist if they believe Evolution is a fact and they will respond no. Why? BECAUSE THE NATURE OF SCIENCE IS TENTATIVE. Science is what it is because it never assumes anything to be true...even if there is irrefutable evidence to support it.

People who claim that Evolution is a fact only want to push their belief on others.

Now Reach, understand that I am an atheist, I believe in the Big Bang Theory and Evolution.

Oh, and axioms (and deductive reasoning) are the enemy of science. Nothing should ever be assumed true. Ever. Axioms are what philosopher's use to back their claims, not scientists.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Ask any self respecting scientist if they believe Evolution is a fact and they will respond no.

Actually, my professors of the Scientific Method (you know, the guys who teach you about how to approach these subjects for a living, when they're not researching astronomy or particle physics) say that it's a fact.

Saying that it's a fact doesn't mean that it's 100% infallibly true (at least, not in this context). It just means that you'd have to be a freaking idiot to not believe it. Like the example that's so often brought up in evolution debates: gravity. I think it's safe to say that it's a fact because all the evidence points to its being so.

No self-respecting scientist would say that you can't disprove it, but they find it safe to say that it's a fact.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Squeek]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

My last professor of science told the class that evolution is a fact, Jewpin.

He's also the founder of a major study of science now adapted by dozens of universities around the country and has many mentions of his work in the Smithsonian, various scientific magazines, etc.

Whenever I talk about how evolution is a fact, I reference him. His Smithsonian exhibit (coming soon) is a MASSIVE collection of trilobites. He loves the things and keeps finding more fossils all the time.

Wait, fossils? You mean, like, they don't exist anymore? You mean, like, life has changed over time? Isn't that the definition of the word "evolution"?

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

One question, it might seem dumb to ask but what is the general theory about how this dense sphere who's origin is unknown spontaneously combusted which became a catalyst for the smallest of atoms and elements to form within this area we know as the universe that eventually lead up to the creation of complex life forms that have the ability to think and speak. What was it that caused it to explode, thats all i want to know.

A few quick thoughts here though.

It was very disturbing and unconvincing to hear these people say that anyone that doesnt agree is an idiot. It shows signs of one-sided banter. However, it disturbs me almost equally as much to see some of you sit there and call them hypocrites and then turn around to say they are completely wrong and anyone who doesnt agree with them is an idiot. It has almost literally been said on one side of the arguement "we are unbiased but you are an idiot if you dont agree" and then the other side goes and says "you are hypocrites for saying you are unbiased but you are completely wrong". Who is anyone to call anyone else a hypocrite or an idiot for not completely and utterly agreeing?
"God ****ed up and created more life more intelligent than he." Oh my... i seriously dont think i have EVER heard anything more blatantly blasphemous in my entire life. My goodness...

It is known that we do not know everything about everything and as thus science is subject to change as it has done so many times due to new information. As such, you cannot say that from what we know now it is irrefutable that the laws of physics and all other such laws are completely true. This could easily show that both sides of the arguement dont know NEARLY enough information to prove their case. "Fact is.." that science as we currently know it will change to fit newly discovered information which is why they are labeled theories in the first place.

Time for the hardcore religious people. No matter how hard you try you will not be able to convince everyone that because of the bible God exists and is undeniably all-knowing and all-encompasing cause its not gonna happen. Blind faith will get you no more than a stamp on your forehead labeled "close-minded". Imposing your BELIEFS on others and posing them as FACT is not going to get you anywhere. PROVING something through FAITH simply just does not work out.

You have to understand that no matter how much you try to prove a concept to a mass of people there is always going to be at VERY least 1 person thick-headed and stubborn enough to not believe you. The more you try to sit there and prove it to them only proves that you are just as thick-head and stubborn as they are. So i suggest that until one of the sides gains complete, undeniable, absolutely correct information to prove their side to even the most stubborn person on the planet then we should all keep our thoughts on the matter to ourselves because no one is going to change their mind and all it brings is arguement and not intelligent conversation.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

My last professor of science told the class that evolution is a fact, Jewpin.

Oh, that must make it true...you know...coming from a guy whose entire life's work has been based on the theory of Evolution. For him to say otherwise would be like a priest saying "God might not exist."

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Well, what about my professors, jewpin? The guys who are so dedicated to the proper following of the scientific method that they teach courses on it? The guys whose reputations and jobs are staked on such claims and whose professional responsibilities hinge on being unbiased in such matters?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Squeek]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Oh, that must make it true...you know...coming from a guy whose entire life's work has been based on the theory of Evolution. For him to say otherwise would be like a priest saying "God might not exist."

You told us to ask science professors about this!

And no, he's not focusing on the study of evolution. He finds trilobite fossils when he takes walks along the bay.

Edit: His official webpage says he's a research scientist. I can't sum it up better than his biography can.

http://hazen.gl.ciw.edu/?q=node/96

[Specforces]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Nothing is true: everything is permitted.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

What was it that caused it to explode, thats all i want to know.

That's still being debated. M-Theory proposes that our universe is the result of a collision between two other universes. Other theories of physics propose other explanations. Superstring Theory, which currently seems to be the dominant theory of physics, proposes something else altogether

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

You told us to ask science professors about this!

And no, he's not focusing on the study of evolution. He finds trilobite fossils when he takes walks along the bay.

Edit: His official webpage says he's a research scientist. I can't sum it up better than his biography can.

http://hazen.gl.ciw.edu/?q=node/96

So his current field of study is spontaneous creation? Correct me if I am wrong, but those who prescribe to such a belief are most likely atheist. Not that that should discredit anything, but you should be weary of his scientism. If you look at the history of science you will find that evidence that contradicts the paradigm of that time is often discarded or ignored until some years later when a young seemingly insane scientist creates a new crack-job theory to explain the inconsistent data. Even then the scientist is often ridiculed for his blasphemy in speaking out against the accepted theory of the time.

I will say that you'd have to be an idiot to disregard the Theory of Evolution, uniformitarianism, etc. given the evidence to support it, but I still won't say it's a fact because I believe it is important to have an open mind, to be skeptical of everything and to not accept anything to be "true" in the field of science as tomorrow evidence could be unsurfaced that seems to disprove Evolution (not like it will happen, but it could, reality shattering sh*t like that happens all the time in science).

[Reach]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

You should try taking a History and Philosophy of Science course. You know, so you don't have to talk out of your ass so much. Ask any self respecting scientist if they believe Evolution is a fact and they will respond no. Why? BECAUSE THE NATURE OF SCIENCE IS TENTATIVE. Science is what it is because it never assumes anything to be true...even if there is irrefutable evidence to support it.

People who claim that Evolution is a fact only want to push their belief on others.

Now Reach, understand that I am an atheist, I believe in the Big Bang Theory and Evolution.

Oh, and axioms (and deductive reasoning) are the enemy of science. Nothing should ever be assumed true. Ever. Axioms are what philosopher's use to back their claims, not scientists.

I know it's easy to do (I am guilty), but don't throw subtle insults around when debating. I am a science major too, by the way and philosophy courses are nothing new.

That and, all of my bio profs agree that evolution is a fact of life. Every single one of them. Would they tell you, for example, that the theory itself is a fact? No, because it's a theory. I agree with you on that.

I think we are probably disagreeing over what a 'fact' is more than anything. I think, to claim that evolution cannot be shown to be a fact is silly. It doesn't achieve anything. I realize science is tentative, but I use the word fact when something can be backed up by irrefutable evidence. The 'process' of evolution is not a prediction, like the theory of evolution might be. Just like I can know that yesterday I ate cheese, I can know that evolution is at work because I can observe it happening. This, to me, is sufficient to say that something is a fact.

The whole issue is purely semantics at this point, so it's almost pointless to go ahead and argue it, but I will.

As defined by the dictionary, a fact is: something known to exist or to have happened: 'Space travel is now a fact'. If you would like to use a different definition of a fact, then so be it. However, my use of 'fact' when talking about evolution is appropriate.


edit: I just read this XD

"God ****ed up and created more life more intelligent than he." Oh my... i seriously dont think i have EVER heard anything more blatantly blasphemous in my entire life. My goodness...

The whole post was pretty much a joke, in case you didn't notice.

So i suggest that until one of the sides gains complete, undeniable, absolutely correct information to prove their side to even the most stubborn person on the planet then we should all keep our thoughts on the matter to ourselves because no one is going to change their mind and all it brings is arguement and not intelligent conversation.

Define , complete, undeniable evidence/information. How is directly observing genetic evolution in action NOT absolutely correct information? It seems to me like you are suggesting that nothing can be shown to be correct, which is a dodge. It is quite convenient to use this if you wish to dodge the argument at hand...however, I don't buy it. The whole point really, is that the information and evidence here really is undeniable.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Wow, watching this stupidity has made me realize something. I've been selling myself ridiculously short. I'm going to have to go back to school after I finish my present degree program and get training in science.

[ltbby]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Evolution is wrong, in my opinion.