Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 115

Thread: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

  1. #61
    World Champion Array title="Just George is on a distinguished road"> Just George's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The World
    Gender
    Posts
    627

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vis View Post
    You're an evolutionist too. Or do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

    But let's start your exercise:

    Terms

    Evolution:
    Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms.

    Adaptation:
    The adjustment or changes in behavior, physiology, and structure of an organism to become more suited to an environment. According to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, organisms that possess heritable traits that enable them to better adapt to their environment compared with other members of their species will be more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass more of their genes on to the next generation.



    Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

    It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

    In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

    The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.


    Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.


    One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.


    In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.


    Beyond this I don't know where to start. Are we in kindergarten, high school, undergrad, or post-grad? If I assume you have knowledge you don't, you will say I'm making unproven statements. If I assume you lack knowledge you do have and agree with, you will say I'm mocking you. I think you believe in evolution as a process but that you maintain the creation of life is a miracle for which there will be no scientific explanation. If it is ever explained, you will either fight the explanation or you will accept it and say that all of the rules of matter and energy were designed perfectly by god so there was no need for him to alter them to create life, it was all one plan from the beginning. There is no scientific argument against the belief that science is how we discover all the wonder of god's creation and that it is all discoverable. It's only the belief that there's some difference between physics and the work of god that is unsupported.
    ok this is nice I like this. I am not getting into my personal belief's too strongly as that will then be the focus instead of the issue I am asking about. For alot of Evolutionist ( I don't know if you are one or not) the statement is that natural selection, adaptation and mutation etc explains all life with out the need for a Supernatural component. So if that is the theory then what I am saying is Evolutionist have to answer how did life begin via natural processes. I appreciate you defining your terms (qouted) but that still does not answer where is the proof of the theory, what is the natural process that led to the creation of the universe and life in the universe.

  2. #62
    The Oncoming Storm Array title="Vis will become famous soon enough"> Vis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    1,487

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Just George View Post
    ok this is nice I like this. I am not getting into my personal belief's too strongly as that will then be the focus instead of the issue I am asking about. For alot of Evolutionist ( I don't know if you are one or not) the statement is that natural selection, adaptation and mutation etc explains all life with out the need for a Supernatural component. So if that is the theory then what I am saying is Evolutionist have to answer how did life begin via natural processes. I appreciate you defining your terms (qouted) but that still does not answer where is the proof of the theory, what is the natural process that led to the creation of the universe and life in the universe.
    You keep attacking evolution but your questions are only about the big bang and the origin of life so I will leave any talk of the rise of the planet of the apes behind.

    How did the first cells begin? You know the hypothesis since you posted it.

    Here's the latest thing I can find.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0321161904.htm

    I still don't understand why this will change any argument on the existence of a creator. Squeezing God into the areas of the unknown has never worked. those areas keep shrinking. Once you agree that the Book of Genesis is allegory you can accept science. God said let there be light. Maybe God said let there be physics.

  3. #63
    World Champion Array title="Just George is on a distinguished road"> Just George's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The World
    Gender
    Posts
    627

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vis View Post
    You keep attacking evolution but your questions are only about the big bang and the origin of life so I will leave any talk of the rise of the planet of the apes behind.

    How did the first cells begin? You know the hypothesis since you posted it.

    Here's the latest thing I can find.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0321161904.htm

    I still don't understand why this will change any argument on the existence of a creator. Squeezing God into the areas of the unknown has never worked. those areas keep shrinking. Once you agree that the Book of Genesis is allegory you can accept science. God said let there be light. Maybe God said let there be physics.
    I know I keep going to the origin of the universe and life because that is where you have to start. what natural mechanism accounts for how nothing became something and how non-life became life. those are the questions that need to answer before we can discuss what kind of mechanism account for the diversity of life.

    As far as Bada's experiements go since he is using Miller's research aren't the same questions about Miller Urey applicable to Bada?

    "Former Scripps undergraduate student Eric Parker, Bada and colleagues report on their reanalysis of the samples in the March 21 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Miller's 1958 experiment in which the gas hydrogen sulfide was added to a mix of gases believed to be present in the atmosphere of early Earth resulted in the synthesis of sulfur amino acids as well as other amino acids."
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0321161904.htm

    As I stated earlier Miller Urey has been questioned for years.

  4. #64
    Senior Member Array title="BnG_Hevn has much to be proud of"> BnG_Hevn's Avatar
    Battleball Champion!

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,070

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    The way I see it is this. Religion is based not only on faith, but ultimately blind faith.

    If you have it and you're right and you go to heaven for it, then when you die you've got it made.

    if you don't have it and you're wrong and you go to hell for it, then better luck next time.

    In the end, WHO CARES what other people believe, as long as they abide by the laws that govern where they live? For me, you can believe or not believe as long as you have moral integrity that prevents you from mass murdering people.

  5. #65
    The Oncoming Storm Array title="Vis will become famous soon enough"> Vis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    1,487

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Just George View Post
    I know I keep going to the origin of the universe and life because that is where you have to start. what natural mechanism accounts for how nothing became something and how non-life became life. those are the questions that need to answer before we can discuss what kind of mechanism account for the diversity of life.

    As far as Bada's experiements go since he is using Miller's research aren't the same questions about Miller Urey applicable to Bada?

    "Former Scripps undergraduate student Eric Parker, Bada and colleagues report on their reanalysis of the samples in the March 21 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Miller's 1958 experiment in which the gas hydrogen sulfide was added to a mix of gases believed to be present in the atmosphere of early Earth resulted in the synthesis of sulfur amino acids as well as other amino acids."
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0321161904.htm

    As I stated earlier Miller Urey has been questioned for years.
    Sure it's questioned. It's an experiment. But what are the questions and have they been answered in the newer experiments?

    I take issue with your statement that you have to have figured out how life began before you can discuss how life changes and grows more complex. Those processes aren't questioned any longer. See post #60.

  6. #66
    World Champion Array title="Just George is on a distinguished road"> Just George's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The World
    Gender
    Posts
    627

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vis View Post
    Sure it's questioned. It's an experiment. But what are the questions and have they been answered in the newer experiments?

    I take issue with your statement that you have to have figured out how life began before you can discuss how life changes and grows more complex. Those processes aren't questioned any longer. See post #60.
    ok lets start again

    Quote Originally Posted by Vis View Post
    Even your question presupposes something that it should not. It isn't that atheist don't believe in a christian god, we don't believe in any. Bachmann's god holds no more weight than does Vishnu or Zeus or Allah or Thor. Teach them all as myth or give them all the benefit of some doubt but don't elevate one over another.
    you posited that you were an atheist, I refuted the statement that atheist did not believe in anything


    Quote Originally Posted by Just George View Post
    ok have been avoiding this whole discussion as it typically never serves a point to get involved but I have to point out the fallacies in these statements. Atheism is about belief the belief that there is no God and CLAIM that they know there is no God. It just bothers me when people are trying to deny that Atheism is like any other belief system. There is doctrine and articles of faith.
    Quote Originally Posted by Just George View Post

    atheism
    a·the·ism

    1. thedoctrineorbeliefthat there is no God.
    2. disbelief in theexistence of a supremebeingorbeings.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism


    then the discussion turned to evolution because I was refuting steeldawgs assertion that there is plenty of evidence for evolution that creationist deny.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just George View Post
    ok this is a big red herring too. There are many different thoughts on "Creation" while there are strict creationist (6 day creation of the world) there are also scientific Creationist/Intelligent Design.
    Quote Originally Posted by Just George View Post
    intelligent design
    noun
    thetheorythat the universe and living things were designed and created by the purposefulactionofanintelligentagent.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intelligent+design

    when talking about evolution the problem is that most people (even people who claim they believe in Evolution) don't know what they are arguing about.

    There are plenty of Christians who believe in Micro evolution. the fact that there is evidence of evolutionary changes in nature among "kinds" You can see that dogs over time have evolved to seperate types of dogs but are still dogs not Birds, that birds have different types in its kind and that envionmental changes can lead to changes in say beak size (ala Darwin's observations).

    However what people in the ID community say they can't resolve is the idea of Macro evolution the idea in Evolutionary theory that natural selection, mutation etc explain ALL life.

    ok well the Miller Urey experiment have been shown to have many problems that cast doubt on this theory.

    "These discoveries created a stir within the science community. Scientists became very optimistic that the questions about the origin of life would be solved within a few decades. This has not been the case, however. Instead, the investigation into life's origins seems only to have just begun.

    There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.

    Many of the compounds made in the Miller/Urey experiment are known to exist in outer space. On September 28, 1969, a meteorite fell over Murchison, Australia. While only 100 kilograms were recovered, analysis of the meteorite has shown that it is rich with amino acids. Over 90 amino acids have been identified by researchers to date. Nineteen of these amino acids are found on Earth. (table showing comparison of Murchison meteorite to Miller/Urey experiment) The early Earth is believed to be similar to many of the asteroids and comets still roaming the galaxy. If amino acids are able to survive in outer space under extreme conditions, then this might suggest that amino acids were present when the Earth was formed. More importantly, the Murchison meteorite has demonstrated that the Earth may have acquired some of its amino acids and other organic compounds by planetary infall.
    If these compounds were not created in a reducing atmosphere here on Earth as Miller suggested, then where did they come from? New theories have recently been offered as alternative sites for the origin of life."

    http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

    one of these theories is that life came to this planet from outer space on a meteor

    "As scientific mysteries go, this is the big one. How did life on Earth begin? Not how did life evolve, but how did it start in the first place? What was the initial spark that lit the fire of evolution?
    Charles Darwin solved the mystery of life's wondrous diversity with his theory of natural selection. But even he was flummoxed by the ultimate mystery of mysteries: what led to the origin of life itself?

    In trying to answer the problem, scientists have turned to the stars, or at least the "builders' rubble" of meteorites and comets left over from the formation of our solar system some five billion years ago. These space rocks, they believe, could help to explain why life began here on Earth."
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/were-all-aliens-how-humans-began-life-in-outer-space-2228530.html

    HOWEVER this does NOT answer the question of HOW life started. the fact that arm chair evolutionist dont know or understand or except is that the THEORY of evolution DOES NOT have any answers for the MACRO evolution they just pretend it does or willfully put their blind faith in a theory they don't really understand.

    OK once you answer the question about the origion of life then you can start explaining how Macro evolution from simple to complex and individual kind to multiple kinds happened. Evolution can't even answer the first question but gloss over it and say no no evolution explains everything.

    Science for over 40 years have been looking for other ways of explaining the genesis of life, but the "militant" evolutionist never notice that the arguement has moved they just want to say "non evolutionist are stupid, inbreed ninny heads. HA HA look at those stupid religious folk." WELL that is a great arguement.

    SO please stop acting so superior to people that believe God is the creator of life and the Uncaused first cause of everything. If you want to disagree with me that is fine if you want to debate me that is fine, but don't act as if atheism and evolution don't take EVERY BIT AS MUCH FAITH AS faith in God.

    There are many intelligent, educated, articulate Christians who have researched, studied, prayed and decided Belief in God makes more sense then Belief in NOTHING.

    as always the above is my opinion only and not a reflection on the beliefs or views of this board, the admins or mods.
    You then said

    Quote Originally Posted by Vis View Post
    Evolution is a fact. No one doubts it unless it conflicts with a belief. No one. Find an atheist evolution doubter. You don't have to believe it or understand it .


    So I am asking logically, if evolution is a FACT, what is the natural mechanism that explains the creation of the universe and the creation of life. THAT is logically where evolution needs to start if there is no universe if there is no life there is no observable phenomena. Evolutionist must explain how they get started.

    I even mention micro evolution which I think is all you are concerned about, noticable changes, adaptations obseved in nature. BUT Darwin's theory states that ONLY natural phenomena explains life. you can't pick up evolution after the genesis of life and say now we can explain everything from here. We can't explain how life was created but we know what happens after it is created.

    That is not an explanation of how life began.

    as far as the Miller Urey experiment as I linked
    "There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced."

    http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise...gy/miller.html

    we have not even gotten into the concerns that Miller interfered with the experiement and tweaked the conditions to get the result he was after.

    so if Bada is using the same methadology, which it seemed he was, any results he gets are equally suspect.

    you then "take issue with your statement that you have to have figured out how life began before you can discuss how life changes and grows more complex. Those processes aren't questioned any longer."

    ok take issue with it but I have not said anything yet about the processes of Micro evolution but I am still waiting for the evolutionist answer to what natural mechanism it is that explains and PROVES their belief that nothing can become something and that non life can become life by mutation, adaptatoin, natural selection (Evolution)

    you dont want to talk about this, you can't answer it you say well I don't understand it but it must be true so I need to accept your statements of fact based on the assertion that it MUST be true.

    well if blind faith does not work for people who don't believe in Evolution then it can't work for people who do. Can't you see and admit that you have a blind allegiance to evolution theory that you don't understand because someone told you it is real.

    reqouting here Charles Darwin solved the mystery of life's wondrous diversity with his theory of natural selection. But even he was flummoxed by the ultimate mystery of mysteries: what led to the origin of life itself?


  7. #67
    Klaatu barada nikto Array title="suitanim has a brilliant future"> suitanim's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    By the way (and speaking of..........sort of), I saw "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" last night. Damned god movie. Paid homage to the first without being campy or heavy-handed about. Highly recommended!
    Last edited by suitanim; 08-31-2011 at 07:54 AM.
    Fire Goodell

  8. #68
    The Oncoming Storm Array title="Vis will become famous soon enough"> Vis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    1,487

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    George, you're back to - God is there because of what we don't know. Well, there will always be things we don't know so it that's what does it for you, go with it. Everyday what we don't know gets smaller. If your god relies on our gaps in knowledge, he will ever shrink.

    On your semantic argument about atheism being a belief:

    No, atheism is not a belief. Atheism is not the a priori assumption that there is no God. My atheism is not an article of faith, adhered to regardless of what evidence does or does not support it. Atheism is not the absolute, 100%, unshakable certainty that there is no God. Atheism is a provisional conclusion, based on careful reasoning and on the best available evidence we have. If atheism is a belief, then any conclusion we can't be 100% certain of is a belief. And that's not a very useful definition of the word "belief." Atheism is the conclusion that the God hypothesis is unsupported by any good evidence.

    So do you have anything to offer in the way of something we do know that is actual evidence (subject to the same stringent tests of reliability you apply to the Miller experiment) of any God existing that isn't anecdotal, scriptural, or a priori? Your turn to step up to the plate if you can.

  9. #69
    World Champion Array title="Just George is on a distinguished road"> Just George's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The World
    Gender
    Posts
    627

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vis View Post
    George, you're back to - God is there because of what we don't know. Well, there will always be things we don't know so it that's what does it for you, go with it. Everyday what we don't know gets smaller. If your god relies on our gaps in knowledge, he will ever shrink.

    On your semantic argument about atheism being a belief:

    No, atheism is not a belief. Atheism is not the a priori assumption that there is no God. My atheism is not an article of faith, adhered to regardless of what evidence does or does not support it. Atheism is not the absolute, 100%, unshakable certainty that there is no God. Atheism is a provisional conclusion, based on careful reasoning and on the best available evidence we have. If atheism is a belief, then any conclusion we can't be 100% certain of is a belief. And that's not a very useful definition of the word "belief." Atheism is the conclusion that the God hypothesis is unsupported by any good evidence.

    So do you have anything to offer in the way of something we do know that is actual evidence (subject to the same stringent tests of reliability you apply to the Miller experiment) of any God existing that isn't anecdotal, scriptural, or a priori? Your turn to step up to the plate if you can.
    before we get into any discussion about if there is a God can you provide any citation regarding your claim that evolution is a fact and how that theory explains the creation of the universe and life. You seem to have abandoned any attempt to defend that claim and want to move the discussion elsewhere.

    I think this has proven my point that evolutionist don't have as many answers as they think.

    It is easy to say well I don't know how the universe began and I don't know how life began so I will just say there is a scientific answer and that evolution has provided a way we just have not found it yet, but some day we will.

    That is also a God of Gaps arguement.

    Why is it ok for evolutionist to claim they don't know everything but their beliefs have to be accepted as fact. I also reject your claim that "Everyday what we don't know gets smaller" there has been this presumption in science that if you can continue to reduce things to the basic fundemental blocks of matter, process and mechanisms, cause/effect, reactions and gain more knowledge that we will understand everything. Well as science has made more discoveries we have seen that what we thought went from complex to simple is in fact showing us systems of incredible complexity on small and grand scale.

    it seems that at the foundation of your arguement is your faith that while you personally don't have the knowledge and have not yourself found the evidence to answer my questions that the information is out there or will one day be discovered at some point and until then "based on careful reasoning and on the best available evidence" you are ok in believing evolution is in fact true.

    To claim, even if indirectly, that the knowledge is there and we will eventually find it seems weak. Especially when some one who just questions evolution based on the lack of evidence on the questions of creation of the universe and the genesis of life is viewed as some slack jawed, slope headed yokel or a sheep being led by others.

  10. #70
    Senior Member Array title="steeldawg is a jewel in the rough">

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,533

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Just George View Post
    ok have been avoiding this whole discussion as it typically never serves a point to get involved but I have to point out the fallacies in these statements. Atheism is about belief the belief that there is no God and CLAIM that they know there is no God. It just bothers me when people are trying to deny that Atheism is like any other belief system. There is doctine and articles of faith.
    atheism

    a·the·ism

    1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
    2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
    This is wrong atheists do not claim to know anything they simply do not believe in gods. Being an atheist does not mean you think this way or think that way, it just simply means that you do not believe in god, end of story.

  11. #71
    World Champion Array title="Just George is on a distinguished road"> Just George's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The World
    Gender
    Posts
    627

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    also it seems to me that when people who claim the superiority of science and demand scientific answers for my beliefs get frustrated when they are held to their own standards to answer there's.

    "So do you have anything to offer in the way of something we do know that is actual evidence (subject to the same stringent tests of reliability you apply to the Miller experiment) of any God existing that isn't anecdotal, scriptural, or a priori? Your turn to step up to the plate if you can."

    This is a good technique in debating to try to redirect from your own lack of evidence by demanding I instead provide proof for something else. However for the purposes of this discussion YOU claimed evolution was fact. I was just looking for something that verified that, but to so far I still have not seen it.

  12. #72
    World Champion Array title="Just George is on a distinguished road"> Just George's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The World
    Gender
    Posts
    627

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by steeldawg View Post
    This is wrong atheists do not claim to know anything they simply do not believe in gods. Being an atheist does not mean you think this way or think that way, it just simply means that you do not believe in god, end of story.
    Ok the statement that can be seen as "Atheist claim to know nothing" is funny

    but taking your statement on face value think about this logically if an atheist say I do not believe in the supernatural idea of a higher power (what ever the name) God/gods do not exist. If you are saying there is no God (end of story) then you are claiming knowledge! Simply put you claim the know that God does not exist.

    or are you really an agnostic and say you don't know/can't know

    Agnostic
    1.a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan. 2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
    3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

    oh and what is wrong? the dictionary.com defination of Atheist?

  13. #73
    The Oncoming Storm Array title="Vis will become famous soon enough"> Vis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    1,487

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Just George View Post
    before we get into any discussion about if there is a God can you provide any citation regarding your claim that evolution is a fact and how that theory explains the creation of the universe and life. You seem to have abandoned any attempt to defend that claim and want to move the discussion elsewhere.

    I think this has proven my point that evolutionist don't have as many answers as they think.

    It is easy to say well I don't know how the universe began and I don't know how life began so I will just say there is a scientific answer and that evolution has provided a way we just have not found it yet, but some day we will.

    That is also a God of Gaps arguement.

    Why is it ok for evolutionist to claim they don't know everything but their beliefs have to be accepted as fact. I also reject your claim that "Everyday what we don't know gets smaller" there has been this presumption in science that if you can continue to reduce things to the basic fundemental blocks of matter, process and mechanisms, cause/effect, reactions and gain more knowledge that we will understand everything. Well as science has made more discoveries we have seen that what we thought went from complex to simple is in fact showing us systems of incredible complexity on small and grand scale.

    it seems that at the foundation of your arguement is your faith that while you personally don't have the knowledge and have not yourself found the evidence to answer my questions that the information is out there or will one day be discovered at some point and until then "based on careful reasoning and on the best available evidence" you are ok in believing evolution is in fact true.

    To claim, even if indirectly, that the knowledge is there and we will eventually find it seems weak. Especially when some one who just questions evolution based on the lack of evidence on the questions of creation of the universe and the genesis of life is viewed as some slack jawed, slope headed yokel or a sheep being led by others.
    I think the point this discussion has made is that you will ignore the things I post and rely on semantics. You don't seem to want science to find answers. it threatens you since you have only the unknown to prove your god. Yet your here online so you're not Amish. I'm just thankful people are looking for the answers. I supplied the answer to the evolution is a fact question already. I supplied the thinking on abiogenesis. I've jumped through your hoops. Do you now have anything to offer on your side? I'm betting you dodge again.

  14. #74
    Klaatu barada nikto Array title="suitanim has a brilliant future"> suitanim's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Don't you guys get it? You will NEVER change your minds, or the minds of your opposition. It just ain't happenin'.

    It's why I stopped arguing specifically on issues like this, abortion, death sentences, etc, etc...better to try and reach some agreementa s to why we actually argue, what went into the formation of the base (and unchangeable) positions, stuff like that.
    Fire Goodell

  15. #75
    The Oncoming Storm Array title="Vis will become famous soon enough"> Vis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    1,487

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    George, if you have any honest intellectual curiosity read this:

    http://www.astrosafor.net/Huygens/20...Entrevista.htm

  16. #76
    World Champion Array title="Just George is on a distinguished road"> Just George's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The World
    Gender
    Posts
    627

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vis View Post
    I think the point this discussion has made is that you will ignore the things I post and rely on semantics. You don't seem to want science to find answers. it threatens you since you have only the unknown to prove your god. Yet your here online so you're not Amish. I'm just thankful people are looking for the answers. I supplied the answer to the evolution is a fact question already. I supplied the thinking on abiogenesis. I've jumped through your hoops. Do you now have anything to offer on your side? I'm betting you dodge again.
    well actually I linked to Abiogensis and I you can insult me if you want I am not threatened in any way, and again if all you can do is say things like well you are online so you are not amish, that is funny. I believe that people should look for answers, that is why I have continued to ask for the answers of how Natural mechanisms can explain the creation of life and the universe. I am not sure why you can't see that inorder for the theory of evolution to hold water it must explain those two things. this is not semantics, this is not me being tricky this is about looking at your claim and saying logically OK if there is no God, as you say, and nature alone explains it then show me. That is all I am doing. I have not yet said put God in that place, I am just asking you to explain this to me, show me. I have not claimed to be a creationist/Intelligent design theorist/young earth/old earth believer. You keep asking me what I believe and I tell you that is not the point of this discussion. You are making alot of assumptions. I have posted info on intelligent design, Miller Urey, definitions, article on the theory that the fundemental building blocks of life came to earth via "space rocks", I have done this to further the discussion. BUT YOU CONTINUE TO avoid showing me the evidence I am asking for. Is it really too much for me to ask for that after you claim Evolution is a FACT.

    Your evidence about evolution is limited to claims that it is true everyone knows it there is no dispute by right thinking folk on this. Well ok If I take your statements at face value if it is true if everyone knows it then simply provide the evidence.

    Just tell me don't even find the citation. How did the universe come into being. How did life start. to the best of your understanding what is the manner that these two things happened.

  17. #77
    World Champion Array title="Just George is on a distinguished road"> Just George's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The World
    Gender
    Posts
    627

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by suitanim View Post
    Don't you guys get it? You will NEVER change your minds, or the minds of your opposition. It just ain't happenin'.

    It's why I stopped arguing specifically on issues like this, abortion, death sentences, etc, etc...better to try and reach some agreementa s to why we actually argue, what went into the formation of the base (and unchangeable) positions, stuff like that.
    It is not my place to change minds, I did not enter into this to convince you, vis, steeldawg etc. But am I not allowed to say ok you are all making some claims so explain them to me. I am not trying to be offensive and in fact I am enjoying the discussion. Vis instead of cutting and running from a discussion has continued to stay in it. I do think we may be talking past each other becuase to this point I have not overtly declared a stance but by arguing from a position has led Vis to ask for my proof. When what I am really interested in is Him having to defend his statement with proof.

  18. #78
    Senior Member Array title="steeldawg is a jewel in the rough">

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,533

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Just George View Post
    before we get into any discussion about if there is a God can you provide any citation regarding your claim that evolution is a fact and how that theory explains the creation of the universe and life. You seem to have abandoned any attempt to defend that claim and want to move the discussion elsewhere.

    I think this has proven my point that evolutionist don't have as many answers as they think.

    It is easy to say well I don't know how the universe began and I don't know how life began so I will just say there is a scientific answer and that evolution has provided a way we just have not found it yet, but some day we will.

    That is also a God of Gaps arguement.

    Why is it ok for evolutionist to claim they don't know everything but their beliefs have to be accepted as fact. I also reject your claim that "Everyday what we don't know gets smaller" there has been this presumption in science that if you can continue to reduce things to the basic fundemental blocks of matter, process and mechanisms, cause/effect, reactions and gain more knowledge that we will understand everything. Well as science has made more discoveries we have seen that what we thought went from complex to simple is in fact showing us systems of incredible complexity on small and grand scale.

    it seems that at the foundation of your arguement is your faith that while you personally don't have the knowledge and have not yourself found the evidence to answer my questions that the information is out there or will one day be discovered at some point and until then "based on careful reasoning and on the best available evidence" you are ok in believing evolution is in fact true.

    To claim, even if indirectly, that the knowledge is there and we will eventually find it seems weak. Especially when some one who just questions evolution based on the lack of evidence on the questions of creation of the universe and the genesis of life is viewed as some slack jawed, slope headed yokel or a sheep being led by others.
    There are mountains of evidence to support evolution , read "On the origin of species". Yes it is true we cannot say 100% how life got started, because the only way to do that would be to wipe everything out and start over. Based on the processes of life observed today and over time scientist are able to put together scientific theories on how it began. Just because they cannot start the world over does not in anyway lend any crediblity to a god creating the world and the universe. Every person who denys evolution trys to point to the very small holes in the theory while ignoring the evidence, and then points to a story like one from the bible and says, there now thats how it happened. Intelligent design and creation have one huge problem they cannot produce a designer or creator, nor is there evidence in anything today that points to a designer or creator. You are taking what science has explained and then what they havent yet and filling that gap with god, lucky for us though that gap is getting smaller everyday. Faith is believing in something without evidence, so you would have to say that there is no evidence in evolution for it to be based on faith. I accept evolution as fact because it is studied and accpeted by scientists from all over the world and all disciplines, there are papers and records of expirements and observable data on the theory, why shouldnt i accept that as truth.

  19. #79
    The Oncoming Storm Array title="Vis will become famous soon enough"> Vis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    1,487

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Just George View Post
    well actually I linked to Abiogensis and I you can insult me if you want I am not threatened in any way, and again if all you can do is say things like well you are online so you are not amish, that is funny. I believe that people should look for answers, that is why I have continued to ask for the answers of how Natural mechanisms can explain the creation of life and the universe. I am not sure why you can't see that inorder for the theory of evolution to hold water it must explain those two things. this is not semantics, this is not me being tricky this is about looking at your claim and saying logically OK if there is no God, as you say, and nature alone explains it then show me. That is all I am doing. I have not yet said put God in that place, I am just asking you to explain this to me, show me. I have not claimed to be a creationist/Intelligent design theorist/young earth/old earth believer. You keep asking me what I believe and I tell you that is not the point of this discussion. You are making alot of assumptions. I have posted info on intelligent design, Miller Urey, definitions, article on the theory that the fundemental building blocks of life came to earth via "space rocks", I have done this to further the discussion. BUT YOU CONTINUE TO avoid showing me the evidence I am asking for. Is it really too much for me to ask for that after you claim Evolution is a FACT.

    Your evidence about evolution is limited to claims that it is true everyone knows it there is no dispute by right thinking folk on this. Well ok If I take your statements at face value if it is true if everyone knows it then simply provide the evidence.

    Just tell me don't even find the citation. How did the universe come into being. How did life start. to the best of your understanding what is the manner that these two things happened.
    I've answered all of that. If you have done any research you know I've answered everything to the extent it can be answered save for any unpublished discovery on the origin of life. Because you know I've supplied the current knowledge on the question you must be not looking for the answer, you just want to point out there isn't proof of one theory all scientist accept for abiogenesis. That fact and your continued use of the term "evolution" when you mean "abiogenesis" has me thinking you are just playing games.

    I don't believe you are sincere in asking me to provide all the evidence for evolution after life began. I don't believe you are that lacking in knowledge on this subject. But since you won't tell me anything about your beliefs, level of knowledge, or opinions on anything, my assumptions is all I'll ever have.

  20. #80
    World Champion Array title="Just George is on a distinguished road"> Just George's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The World
    Gender
    Posts
    627

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vis View Post
    George, if you have any honest intellectual curiosity read this:

    http://www.astrosafor.net/Huygens/20...Entrevista.htm
    ok that was interesting. I will need to do some more reading on Dr. Wächtershäuser. i have heard of the theory of the oceanic volcanic vent stuff but did not know wachtershauser's name. But interesting side note. in the article they again bring up Miller Urey and the many problems with that study. SO again your previous post about Bada redoing Miller Urey is still suspect. But since the 60's Miller Urey has been used as the proof for evolution. so again as research is done the culture latchs on to "see here is the proof" then when it is shown to be faulty there is no honesty in "well ok we got it wrong, but this time it is right" Wächtershäuser might be promising but I have to look into him more.

    And Vis I am going to give you props for bringing something new to the table thanks.

  21. #81
    The Oncoming Storm Array title="Vis will become famous soon enough"> Vis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    1,487

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Just George View Post

    And Vis I am going to give you props for bringing something new to the table thanks.
    Return the favor

  22. #82
    World Champion Array title="Just George is on a distinguished road"> Just George's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The World
    Gender
    Posts
    627

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by steeldawg View Post
    There are mountains of evidence to support evolution , read "On the origin of species". Yes it is true we cannot say 100% how life got started, because the only way to do that would be to wipe everything out and start over. Based on the processes of life observed today and over time scientist are able to put together scientific theories on how it began. Just because they cannot start the world over does not in anyway lend any crediblity to a god creating the world and the universe. Every person who denys evolution trys to point to the very small holes in the theory while ignoring the evidence, and then points to a story like one from the bible and says, there now thats how it happened. Intelligent design and creation have one huge problem they cannot produce a designer or creator, nor is there evidence in anything today that points to a designer or creator. You are taking what science has explained and then what they havent yet and filling that gap with god, lucky for us though that gap is getting smaller everyday. Faith is believing in something without evidence, so you would have to say that there is no evidence in evolution for it to be based on faith. I accept evolution as fact because it is studied and accpeted by scientists from all over the world and all disciplines, there are papers and records of expirements and observable data on the theory, why shouldnt i accept that as truth.
    ok same request for you. Cite the evidence for what natural mechanism created the universe and life. Now we are getting some where in this discussion, but again your statements that it is true anda everyone knows it is an arguement not proof.

  23. #83
    Klaatu barada nikto Array title="suitanim has a brilliant future"> suitanim's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Fair enough. Let me try this one other way, kind of framing the argument differently.

    Some people believe that if there were no birds, man would have never learned to fly. I don't buy that. In the argument about evolution versus creationism, we went from wholly believing in creationism (in one form or another, as there really WAS no scientific explanation for the genesis of life on this planet for most of human existence) to coming up with the theory of evolution. It seems to me we moved forward, then we moved back.

    A timeline:
    1. Creationism (like, forever generally accepted)
    2. Evolution
    3. The two "battled" in a tug-of-war of exclusivity.
    4. Inclusiveness. This is (sorry, but this IS what brought this hole mess up) Huntsman's position, that evolution is part of God's plan.
    (Note: number 4 seems to me to be the very best of what we have come up with so far. 1. Was based on a lack of understanding of the World around us. 2. Is simply a 100% belief in science and only science. 4. lets both sides be right, and doesn't step on toes)
    5. Now we seem to be slipping back to a version of 2. I'm not saying that this is 100% true (because I was indoctrinated with creationism, but was still able to justify both beliefs in my own personal view), but it seems to me that we have now reached a point where the battle for minds starts young. The far right has launched a concerted effort to, at any and all costs, refute evolution. The best tool in their belt is early and complete indoctrination of total belief in only ID.

    There is now a whole system of Christian schools (and that is NOT an accident) from K-post graduate degrees that teach their version of science. Preach chimed in with one of their prevailing arguments right now, which is (I'm simplifying, but the basic tenet is correct) that evolution can't be right because the way that it was thought up was wrong. The problem with that is that you can think about it in different ways and still reach the same conclusion. There really is only one road to creationism, but many to evolution.

    We could all post as many articles as we like, and lay out as many arguments as there are people on the planet, but if someone is NOT going to believe in something because they have spent their whole life being taught that that only their way is right, there is no way to change their mind. Even if 100 people look at the sun and 99 say that it is yellow, if the one holdout actually believes that yellow is a different color, and he's actually seeing an orange sun (based on him being taught that orange IS yellow), there will never be a way to convince him that he is wrong.
    Fire Goodell

  24. #84
    World Champion Array title="Just George is on a distinguished road"> Just George's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The World
    Gender
    Posts
    627

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vis View Post
    I've answered all of that. If you have done any research you know I've answered everything to the extent it can be answered save for any unpublished discovery on the origin of life. Because you know I've supplied the current knowledge on the question you must be not looking for the answer, you just want to point out there isn't proof of one theory all scientist accept for abiogenesis. That fact and your continued use of the term "evolution" when you mean "abiogenesis" has me thinking you are just playing games.

    I don't believe you are sincere in asking me to provide all the evidence for evolution after life began. I don't believe you are that lacking in knowledge on this subject. But since you won't tell me anything about your beliefs, level of knowledge, or opinions on anything, my assumptions is all I'll ever have.
    no I am not playing games. I am pointing out that the truth of the Theory of evolution is that it is the belief that natural mechanism's account for everything about creation of life. A natural part of that argument that is continually passed over is that means Evolution must have an answer to the creation of the universe and life. Yes it is a difficult question and yes there is limited understanding, but I just finding irksome from a discussion point of view that those issues are put in the realm of "other" in the over all debate. I have no problem with Evolutionist honestly saying they don't have all the answer's but then also be charitable when other's may not have all the answers.

    MY bigger point in all of this was to point out some of the meanspirited insulting ways this debate unfolds, I for one find the original article in this thread offensive. I really don't know how any one could say take the vote away from evolutionist (I wish this guy was engaging in some weird dark humor thing for effect) but also evolutionist typicall take this higher then mighty stance that anyone who even questions evolution is a nutjob, uneducated, ignorant, even though both sides have their share of uneducated people. There are people who argue vehemently for evolution and against that have never gone beyond just hearing someone else talk about it.

    For me I also find it funny that people will claim knowledge, make truth statements then get offended when asked to cite it. I am not saying anyone here did that because in my mind this has been a good discussion without alot of name calling, (though VIS you did get some drive by's in, the amish thing was subtle in implying i seemed to be fringe just not too fringe ) I believe that people can take different points in a discussion and both be intelligent, sincere, knowledgable but arrive at different conclusions. There is honestly always going to be enough uncertainty in this debate for people to have questions. It is not only how we come to our conclusions but how we treat others that define us and our world view.

  25. #85
    World Champion Array title="Just George is on a distinguished road"> Just George's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The World
    Gender
    Posts
    627

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by suitanim View Post
    Fair enough. Let me try this one other way, kind of framing the argument differently.

    Some people believe that if there were no birds, man would have never learned to fly. I don't buy that. In the argument about evolution versus creationism, we went from wholly believing in creationism (in one form or another, as there really WAS no scientific explanation for the genesis of life on this planet for most of human existence) to coming up with the theory of evolution. It seems to me we moved forward, then we moved back.

    A timeline:
    1. Creationism (like, forever generally accepted)
    2. Evolution
    3. The two "battled" in a tug-of-war of exclusivity.
    4. Inclusiveness. This is (sorry, but this IS what brought this hole mess up) Huntsman's position, that evolution is part of God's plan.
    (Note: number 4 seems to me to be the very best of what we have come up with so far. 1. Was based on a lack of understanding of the World around us. 2. Is simply a 100% belief in science and only science. 4. lets both sides be right, and doesn't step on toes)
    5. Now we seem to be slipping back to a version of 2. I'm not saying that this is 100% true (because I was indoctrinated with creationism, but was still able to justify both beliefs in my own personal view), but it seems to me that we have now reached a point where the battle for minds starts young. The far right has launched a concerted effort to, at any and all costs, refute evolution. The best tool in their belt is early and complete indoctrination of total belief in only ID.

    There is now a whole system of Christian schools (and that is NOT an accident) from K-post graduate degrees that teach their version of science. Preach chimed in with one of their prevailing arguments right now, which is (I'm simplifying, but the basic tenet is correct) that evolution can't be right because the way that it was thought up was wrong. The problem with that is that you can think about it in different ways and still reach the same conclusion. There really is only one road to creationism, but many to evolution.

    We could all post as many articles as we like, and lay out as many arguments as there are people on the planet, but if someone is NOT going to believe in something because they have spent their whole life being taught that that only their way is right, there is no way to change their mind. Even if 100 people look at the sun and 99 say that it is yellow, if the one holdout actually believes that yellow is a different color, and he's actually seeing an orange sun (based on him being taught that orange IS yellow), there will never be a way to convince him that he is wrong.
    #4 is also the stance of the Catholic church today.

  26. #86
    The Oncoming Storm Array title="Vis will become famous soon enough"> Vis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    1,487

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    just for fun:

    http://scit.us/redlynx/

  27. #87
    The Oncoming Storm Array title="Vis will become famous soon enough"> Vis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    1,487

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Just George View Post
    #4 is also the stance of the Catholic church today.
    Even under the new Pope? Sure under JPII but the church seems to be backsliding on a number of things.

  28. #88
    The Oncoming Storm Array title="Vis will become famous soon enough"> Vis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    1,487

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Suit, science can never prove there is no God. That's not what science does. It has proven that many things thought to be God are natural and explainable. But if the faith is that God created the natural world and all the laws of physics etc... and he hasn't needed to violate them since (and why would he if the creation was exactly what he wanted the first time) then science can never touch that faith in either direction. It's the belief that God violated those laws in an otherwise unexplainable way that has no factual backing.

    So #4 is fine. You can't prove a negative. I think it was Bertrand Russell who once said that he couldn't prove that there was not a teapot orbiting Mars. So he's a teapot agnostic. I'm a teapot agnostic with regard to God, too. I can't prove that God doesn't exist. I can't prove that Zeus or Jupiter or Woden or...(you get the point) doesn't exist either.

    I have a feeling that not as many people actually believe in God as say they do. Many people believe in belief of God. That is, they think it's a good thing, and they try to believe in God, they hope to believe in God, they wish they could believe in God and they say they believe in God, they go through all the motions, they try very hard to be devout. Sometimes they succeed and for some periods of their life they actual do, in some sense, believe that there is a God and they think they are the better for it. Otherwise, they behave like people who probably don't believe in God. Very few people behave as if they really believe in God. A lot of people behave as if they believe they should believe in God.

  29. #89
    K = Dean + Roy Array title="steeldevil is a jewel in the rough"> steeldevil's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Queen City, NC
    Gender
    Posts
    4,216

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    This thread is fun to read.

  30. #90
    The Oncoming Storm Array title="Vis will become famous soon enough"> Vis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    1,487

    Re: Should Evolutionists be allowed to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by steeldevil View Post
    This thread is fun to read.
    Enjoy while I go to Publix. Out of caffeine.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •