Quantcast
Prove that evolution is what actually happened.

Forums - General Discussion - Prove that evolution is what actually happened.

Tagged games:

Runa216 said:
Cirio said:
Runa216 said:
Cirio said:

Proof =/= Evidence. Proof is a mathematical concept while evidence is scientific. We are AWARE that evolution occurs, and we've tested it a billion times with evidence that supports this theory. I agree that Evolution occurs, but it is still a scientific theory where one cannot claim "evolution is a proven fact". His question NOW makes sense after he changed his title, but originally he asked to simply "prove evolution", which by definition is not possible because almost all scientific theories don't prove anything.

This is the kind of logic that people use to disregard anything they can.  "There are no absolutes" logic is the same kind of argument I've seen child molesters use to excuse themselves from their actions "Well 17 is no different than 18, logically, and 16 is just another step from there..." I've actually sat there and listened to a person try to philisophically justify that kind of action by saying there are no absolutes. 

Which is the same thing that's happening here..."Nothing is proven" may be technically true, but how much evidence do you need to be convinced of something?  How many supporting facts do you need?  what's the positive to negative ratio in which something is considered proven?  I'm sorry, but I'm not buying into this "nothing is proven" deal.  Yes, we may be wrong, but until we find evidence to the contrary (substantial evidence), it's a VERY fair assumption that something is proven.  

I don't know where I was going with this, it's late and I worked all day. 

You're pretty much expanding on what I'm saying. Yes, evolution does exist, we have sufficient enough evidence to confidently say that evolution indeed does occur. But scientifically, we cannot say that evolution is PROVEN, even though there isn't anything besides creationists philosophy that says otherwise. I was simply commenting on his original thread title "prove evolution" because you cannot make that statement in a scientific setting. Evolution DOES occur, but one cannot say that he/she has PROVEN evolution. I'm nitpicking but I've had this discussion with my Biology professors and they tell me not to use the word "prove" in almost anything related to scientific theories.

The point I was trying to make is that you're arguing semantics. The intimate details of whether something is 'proven' or not is irrelevant, you're wasting your time arguing over a meaning of a word instead of actually debating the point at hand.  

It wasn't my intention to argue over the definition of a scientific theory. It was that other guy who called my original post "gross and a terrible misrepresentation", so naturally I had to defend my position.



Around the Network

Ive always found these types of debates fascinating.

I do not think the question of evolution is does it exist, but in what form does it exist?

The reason we call it the "Theory of Evolution" is Darwin had a hypothesis that Natural Selection was occurring, and went to do research on his idea. (Granted it is much more in depth than this). Out of his research into Natural Selection, the scientific community began researching into his ideas further, and into other areas of Evolution (random mutations and the like).

For someone who believes in GOD or any other GODLIKE deity, is the above out of Gods reach? How do the two HAVE to be seperate and not of the same origin? People believe that GOD created everything (from Matter, to Energy to even all Idea's) so couldnt this GOD have created the "Theory of Evolution"  and the application of such?

And I would also like to put in on the Proven/Unproven debate. There is a reason the Scientific Community stopped using the term Law (Proven) to describe Scientific concepts. Newton came up with very specific laws of motion. At the time, these laws were seen as irrefutable. After many a year, we have determined that these laws are NOT absolutes but very good approximations that work great for the macroscopic scale but do not work on the quantum scale. Just because we can or cannot try to take these ideas to the level of truth, does not mean that it has to always be true. If it works here, maybe it does not work elsewhere? This is why the term Theory should always be used.

Just remember: Science just can't commit all the way to absolute - otherwise it wouldn't be science, it would be faith.



Ssenkahdavic said:

Ive always found these types of debates fascinating.

I do not think the question of evolution is does it exist, but in what form does it exist?

The reason we call it the "Theory of Evolution" is Darwin had a hypothesis that Natural Selection was occurring, and went to do research on his idea. (Granted it is much more in depth than this). Out of his research into Natural Selection, the scientific community began researching into his ideas further, and into other areas of Evolution (random mutations and the like).

For someone who believes in GOD or any other GODLIKE deity, is the above out of Gods reach? How do the two HAVE to be seperate and not of the same origin? People believe that GOD created everything (from Matter, to Energy to even all Idea's) so couldnt this GOD have created the "Theory of Evolution"  and the application of such?

And I would also like to put in on the Proven/Unproven debate. There is a reason the Scientific Community stopped using the term Law (Proven) to describe Scientific concepts. Newton came up with very specific laws of motion. At the time, these laws were seen as irrefutable. After many a year, we have determined that these laws are NOT absolutes but very good approximations that work great for the macroscopic scale but do not work on the quantum scale. Just because we can or cannot try to take these ideas to the level of truth, does not mean that it has to always be true. If it works here, maybe it does not work elsewhere? This is why the term Theory should always be used.

Just remember: Science just can't commit all the way to absolute - otherwise it wouldn't be science, it would be faith.

That is possible. The reason why people generally avoid making that argument is that it violates Ockham's razor (the idea that the simplest explanation is the best explanation). If evolution completely explains the origin of life, there is no reason to bring God into the picture as well. It just makes the explanation more complicated than it needs to be.



Gnac said:

...And yet another thread "devolves" into arguing about semantics


So many arguments do because an agreement on the definition of terms is fundamental to the resolution of any argument. It's a necessary evil. 

If the OP really wants proof in the literal sense, then I think we ought to explain to him that he's never going to get it. If he just wanted evidence... well... I would think that there was plenty enough of that around to satisfy anybody willing to be swayed by it.

And I think it's an important point to understand that science doesn't actually deal in proof. Any knowledge past "I think therefore I am" comes with some level of uncertainty, and as Runa216 points out, at some point you have to be satisfied that something is true despite that little bit of uncertainty.

People naturally want truth to be an absolute, but the universe is never that simple. I think it's important for us to accept the complexity and uncertainty while we forge past it.

In a similar topic on another forum, somebody linked this awesome piece by Isaac Asimov:

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

There is no proof, both titles lack good understanding. :)

I see it from another angle , we know that the evolution does happen in a limited form between breeds, but the theory goes against what we know as humanity, as the white Europeans ( where Darwin is from ) are the most evolved, and according the the law of jungle (the strong survive) they have the right to do anything to "survive", is that something you'd like to follow?, especially as I said there is no proof and the "links" will never be found.
Also, what about some animals have more advanced ability than us, Climbing Monkeys, owls have extraordinary night vision , how can this be explained ?.



Around the Network

"The righteous shall live by faith.” Romans 1 17

 

________________________________

To buy silver or  check my credit rating & lookfor affiliate marketing now



spurgeonryan said:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=133558&page=1

This not a joke thread. I truly would like to see if I have been actually wrong all these years believing in God.

Could it be that God just did his miracles and magic in a scientific way? Maybe 7 days to him was 7 million years and he made us evolve in that time? Then the Bible just starts off when Man was able to talk and think. Maybe the Plagues can be explained rationally and so can the flood.

So what proof is there that this was not the case? That there really is no God, and we all just came from anti-matter and matter exploding, slime, fish, monkeys, Adam, Me.

The Big Bang theory and evolution are not related; don't toss them into the same bag, they aren't even the same kind of theory. First of all, Evolution is a scientific theory, we can test its various components - The Big Bang theory is not testable, and is therefore not Scientific - in fact, most of the Big Bang theory is propped up by non-testable adjustments (96% of matter and energy are dark matter and dark energy which cannot be observed, and therefore not verified).

The major difference between a Scientific theory and a Philosophical theory is that a a Philosophical theory is more or less a hypothesis based on ideas with some hard evidence and facts involved. A Scientific theory is an equation made up of components of scientific fact; and without the sorts of "ideas" involved in Philosophical theories like the Big Bang. Evolution takes into account the FACTS that genetics exist, that there is a rate of genetic mutation, natural selection and sexual selection exist, that certain mutations are more successful than others allowing for the success of some in populations, over the success of others, etc.. etc.. etc... 

For example, in homonid species, those that adapted to be skinnier, walk more upright, were - despite being physically weaker - able to survive on much less energy (1500 calories a day vs 5000 for Neanderthals, as an example). We are able to stalk prey for vast distances, outrunning and tiring them out, and then using weapons to kill them. The human body also adapted sweat glands to keep cool in the hot African climate; evaporation is still one of the most effective cooling systems known to humanity. We also cook our food, which makes it softer, easier to consume. If God did indeed create humans the way he wanted, it is not likely we would eat the flesh of other animals; however, given that cooked meat is the most efficient income of nutrients and energy in the world, it makes sense for humans to cook meat on the fire from an evolutionary standpoint.

 

Was there a God behind the mechanisms of evolution? Could have been, hyou can believe what you want; but there didn't need to be.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

*sigh*
If we were to take the Bible and read it, we'd learn that first humans were created from God's image. Those were Adam and Eve.
Now skipping all the other stories about them, think about it. How human race was supposed to survive like that?
You'd say "well, we have male and female so they can reproduce"..and you'd be right about it, however in order to survive, that would end up in incest relationship, because there's no other species to breed with.
Church is against incest relationship.

Where's logic in that? You'd think if God was so fucking powerful, he'd create thousands of humans to inhabitate the land. Don't forget about worldwide flood that God decided to do just to kill everyone but Noah's family for some "divine retribution", and again there's no way to reproduce but with incest relationship.

I prefer science over religion's babbling simply because it actually makes sense. Humankind gradually developed from less-intelligent species and become smarter and smarter with each generation, not only biologically, but we also had to have some kind of culture, some knowledge that would be passed from generation to generation.



spurgeonryan said:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=133558&page=1

This not a joke thread. I truly would like to see if I have been actually wrong all these years believing in God.

Could it be that God just did his miracles and magic in a scientific way? Maybe 7 days to him was 7 million years and he made us evolve in that time? Then the Bible just starts off when Man was able to talk and think. Maybe the Plagues can be explained rationally and so can the flood.

So what proof is there that this was not the case? That there really is no God, and we all just came from anti-matter and matter exploding, slime, fish, monkeys, Adam, Me.

Your fundamental flaw is that God and evolution are incompatible. The literalist interpretation of the Bible and evolution are incompatible, but that's got nothing to do with God.

As the Christian scholar George Townshend observes: the Bible is all about the evolution of human civilisation. Given the spiritual/human civilisation subjects in the Bible are a story of evolution, then it follows that any statements about how the universe came into being in the Bible would actually support the concept of physical/biological evolution. The mistake people make is to interpret passages which tell spiritual truths as telling physical truths. If Genesis really is a story about the origins of the universe, then it's told from the perspective of an adult trying to explain evolution to a 2-year old. Just think about the scientific knowledge that existed at the time Genesis was written (2000BC (or earlier)).

Fundamentally you cannot prove God does not exist by proving the truth of evolution. I absolutely subscribe the theory of evolution. Evolution IS how the universe works. I also believe in God. My view is that God is not concerned with the minutae of how the universe runs. What God is concerned with is the evolution of human civilistation (and that of other civilisations in the universe). And make no mistake, I think God wants human civilisation to evolve. And evolution means (as we see parallelled in biology) sometimes great progress and other times major crises. 2 steps forward one step back is still forward progress.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

spurgeonryan said:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=133558&page=1

This not a joke thread. I truly would like to see if I have been actually wrong all these years believing in God.

Could it be that God just did his miracles and magic in a scientific way? Maybe 7 days to him was 7 million years and he made us evolve in that time? Then the Bible just starts off when Man was able to talk and think. Maybe the Plagues can be explained rationally and so can the flood.

So what proof is there that this was not the case? That there really is no God, and we all just came from anti-matter and matter exploding, slime, fish, monkeys, Adam, Me.


Read this book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/055277524X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1315394601&sr=8-4

It does the job very well.

Also note evolution does not preculde God.  For me it does personally but it doesn't literally.  The Catholical Church, for example, accepts evolution and God at the same time.  The current view from the CT is that God created the Universe and created it such that evolution was a mechanism within it to achieve his design of animals, etc.

Part of the problem, as Dawkins notes in the book I've linked, is that most people don't understand how the word "theory" should be used or aplied when we talk about the "Theory" of evolution or the "Theory of General Relativity" vs a simple matematical proof vs facts.

Anyway, as I say, why take my word for it, Dawkins has nicely collated all the evidence into one nice handy book for you to read.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...