Quantcast
Prove that evolution is what actually happened.

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

Tagged games:

silicon said:
The best way to answer the OP is to show that humans evolved the belief in religion...

They already know that people have a genetic predisposition to believing in religion.


They also are starting to realize how religions evolve and adapt to human circumstances. Humanity needed a reason for people to take care of the poor, sick, old, disadvantaged etc.

One of the modern intellectual vices is to try to find a connection between evolution and everything. Believe it or not, but no study actually shows any 'predisposition to believe in religion'. They just show parts of the brain active when people think about religion (which doesn't mean that those areas activate as a sort of reflex, forcing the person to have those thoughts, but simply that they're the areas used when a person things such things). Evolution has nothing to do with social and cultural practices, which are taught after a person is born.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Around the Network
theprof00 said:
padib said:

1. I readdressed that part by saying it's not religious people, it's bad christians who are the problem. Unfortunately bad christians are the majority.

2. WHAHAHAHAHA

Guess who were the main opponents of heliocentrism. Guess who were the main opponents of Darwin. Hint: the church.

And don't act like science today is anything like science many hundred years (or in some cases, thousands) ago...things aren't as ignorantly held in belief like they once were.

1. Okay, but still do your best. It makes it hard to join these forums, trust me. I'm not being overly sensitive it really is tough to bear. I don't think you would like that in return.

2. What does that have to do with anything. I was aware of that and I assumed you were reasonable enough to look at what mattered in the example I used, in that it was a false theory. Again, you do realize that Copernicus and Gallileo were faithful believers.

3. I can tell  you that there are many theories today that, like back then, will be invalidated. Maybe, given an even greater pool of thought, that there will be even more today, and that they are even more complex, than those back then.

Also, please reread my post. I answered to your point.

both copernicus and darwin feared for their lives over the things they had discovered. Such impediments do not exist today. Do not confuse the two. Things will be invalidated as a course of science, as that is the natural progression of science. It is not some arbitrary decision process. When you compare the past and the present, you have very different environmental factors.

And it's not like someone is going to go, "hey look turns out evolution is false". A theory isn't going to get upturned just like that. The only really big thing debated nowadays is climate change. That one is a big political battle in the end, but every step of the way, the scientists FOR man-made climate change are making headway. At first, politically charged scientists didn't even agree that climate change was happening. Now they all agree, but argue over what is causing it. Soon, that argument will be over, and they'll argue over whether we can do things to change it, and then they'll argue whether c02 has any real effect. And I'm sorry that I have to tell it like it is, but It's no surprise that one side of the argument is religiously charged. And have already been wrong once in these debates.

Thanks, I appreciate your post. I know that there is a consensus for a given theory and as it is, the stronger one prevails. I believe we agree. However, am I mistaken to believe that it so happened in the past that one previously prevailing theory was reiging dominant after a struffle for veracity, until another came to topple it? In other words, the fact that ToE is the current winner does not make it the be all end all, and that's what I oppose. I don't oppose looking into it, I oppose the fact that people take is as given and refuse to think outside the box. Had Einstein done that (remained closed-minded)  would he have the theory of relativity as it is today?

To me, all in all, I believe that there is credibility to the science behind ToE. But the rhetoric provided by the polemic crowd only leads us in the wrong direction. Some fear religion because it leads people to say "God said so therefore it is". But all I hear rather is "Science said so therefore it is" and leave no room for alternative theorizing. Creation scientists (the honest ones) are pursuing understanding nature around them from another vantage point, albeit a scientific one, but just a different one. Why are folks so opposed to that? Is that science?

That's my gripe friend.



sapphi_snake said:
VXIII said:

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 ?.

Don't confuse Darwin's theory of evolution (which referres to biology) with social Darwinism (a movement based on misconceptions about Darwin's ideas, and heavily influenced on racist ideeas that predate Darwin, and have nothing to do with him). Actually, when Darwin used the term 'survival of the fittest' he meant 'better adapted for local environment', not 'the strong survive'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest


As a creationist, I support the logic in this post. ToE <> Social Darwinism. Fact.

ToE works on random processes, not on directed survival (social).



sapphi_snake said:

Will you give that advice to your kids?

Made me laugh..


I think the best advice for my kids (if I ever have any) would be to not repeat my past mistakes.  I've made way too many mistakes in my life.  I don't consider tripping a mistake though and I am glad I did it (glad I didn't do too much also).  Even though shrooms are natural there are possibilities of getting bad shrooms.  I've never had a bad trip (bought some bad acid before that didn't do anything) but I know people do have bad experiences tripping (one girl from hs days said her toilet started overflowing and she spent like the next 5 hours trying to fix it while she was tripping).  If you surround yourself with your best friends then the likely hood of a bad trip is very minimum.  

I even got choked by my dad when I was in high school while tripping on acid (he never did anything like that before or after) and didn't have a bad trip then.  He thought we were smoking in my room when he really just smelled our clothes (we baked out my mom's explorer with a ton of blunts, we actually parked by an abandoned house out in the country that was supposed to be haunted which wasn't the smartest idea considering if a cop actually saw us back there then we would be pretty much f'd) .  I'm just rambling on here but I have some pretty funny memories.  First time I ever tripped we actually went sledding.  I didn't bring any gloves so I only did it about 3-4 times before my hands started getting too cold.  I then did a few donuts in an empty parking lot that was covered in snow.  Last time I tripped (shrooms) I watched the Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus and it blew my mind (already saw it before sober) plus we couldn't stop laughing... I almost just deleted this post but I hope someone finds amusement in my tripping stories.  I'll stop now...



padib said:

Thanks, I appreciate your post. I know that there is a consensus for a given theory and as it is, the stronger one prevails. I believe we agree. However, am I mistaken to believe that it so happened in the past that one previously prevailing theory was reiging dominant after a struffle for veracity, until another came to topple it? In other words, the fact that ToE is the current winner does not make it the be all end all, and that's what I oppose. I don't oppose looking into it, I oppose the fact that people take is as given and refuse to think outside the box. Had Einstein done that (remained closed-minded)  would he have the theory of relativity as it is today?

To me, all in all, I believe that there is credibility to the science behind ToE. But the rhetoric provided by the polemic crowd only leads us in the wrong direction. Some fear religion because it leads people to say "God said so therefore it is". But all I hear rather is "Science said so therefore it is" and leave no room for alternative theorizing. Creation scientists (the honest ones) are pursuing understanding nature around them from another vantage point, albeit a scientific one, but just a different one. Why are folks so opposed to that? Is that science?

That's my gripe friend.

I know not everyone would agree with me, but it is just as important WHY someone is doing something as WHAT they are doing. If a scientist were the one saying that some entity created everything, and had more evidence than conspiracy theories (which, face it, is one of the predominant circumstantial evidences in use) then I'd try to take the idea for its merit because he is trying to explore something new, which is what science is all about.

However, MY gripe is that exploration of the possibilities is not on the table for creationists. There is no push for discovery. It is what it is and there is no arguing with it. In fact, it is an Achilles heel of science that it uses methodology that people can call conspiratorial. Carbon Dating, for example is called a conspiracy, just because it is not understood, or other scientific principles involved are misunderstood.

And yes, you are correct that scientific theories are debated..however...they are usually debated with OTHER scientific theories. The theory of geocentrism came as a result of examining movements of stars, and a faulty assumption. There was originally evidence. It was then later, after much threat under the church, that another theory, using NEW evidence appeared. It was even longer after that that it was realized the sun was not the center of the universe, just the solar system, that that the galaxy had it's OWN center. These are all things that stood at least for some time, through evidence available. But it's again not some haphazard decision. Like I mentioned in my first post, these ideas are all related, it's only the specifics which are replaced. At it's root is "orbit occurs" and it's just a matter of what is orbitting what.

This ToE vs Creationism, again, is not even on the same page. It's one body of overwhelming evidence coming from the process of speciation. And the other trying to replace it, is a philosophical idea. If ToE were ever to be replaced, it would be replaced with more refinement, not something completely different.

In fact, the replacement of theory usually springs from study error. LIke, Copernicus back in the day was like, "hey baby, check out my telescope, if geocentrism is right, mars should be appearing in about a quarter-hourglass" - 15 minutes later- "damnit, this never works properly, I'll never get laid at this point. I'm going to figure out how this works and then get all the tail in the world". BUT- this isn't the case. It's "Daddy, if dinosaurs never lived with humans, did they only live for one day?" - "You mean the story of creation? No baby, dinos and humans lived together, scientists are wrong" - "but they said dinosaurs went extinct millions of years before.." - "YOU ARE A WICKED CHILD AND WILL BE PUNISHED WITH THE FLAMES OF HELL". That's how I see it at least...probably because my dad is a devout christian and spanked me for arguing carbon dating with him.



Around the Network
sethnintendo said:
sapphi_snake said:

Will you give that advice to your kids?

Made me laugh..


I think the best advice for my kids (if I ever have any) would be to not repeat my past mistakes.  I've made way too many mistakes in my life.  I don't consider tripping a mistake though and I am glad I did it (glad I didn't do too much also).  Even though shrooms are natural there are possibilities of getting bad shrooms.  I've never had a bad trip (bought some bad acid before that didn't do anything) but I know people do have bad experiences tripping (one girl from hs days said her toilet started overflowing and she spent like the next 5 hours trying to fix it while she was tripping).  If you surround yourself with your best friends then the likely hood of a bad trip is very minimum.  

I even got choked by my dad when I was in high school while tripping on acid (he never did anything like that before or after) and didn't have a bad trip then.  He thought we were smoking in my room when he really just smelled our clothes (we baked out my mom's explorer with a ton of blunts, we actually parked by an abandoned house out in the country that was supposed to be haunted which wasn't the smartest idea considering if a cop actually saw us back there then we would be pretty much f'd) .  I'm just rambling on here but I have some pretty funny memories.  First time I ever tripped we actually went sledding.  I didn't bring any gloves so I only did it about 3-4 times before my hands started getting too cold.  I then did a few donuts in an empty parking lot that was covered in snow.  Last time I tripped (shrooms) I watched the Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus and it blew my mind (already saw it before sober) plus we couldn't stop laughing... I almost just deleted this post but I hope someone finds amusement in my tripping stories.  I'll stop now...

Well, at least the toilet didn't start talking and yelling obscenities at her.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

 

theprof00 said:

"YOU ARE A WICKED CHILD AND WILL BE PUNISHED WITH THE FLAMES OF HELL". That's how I see it at least...probably because my dad is a devout christian and spanked me for arguing carbon dating with him.

 

Okay, it helps to understand what happened. With due respect, I know you love your father but I don't believe that was good parenting. Even God does not behave that way with us, biblically speaking. We are all given freedom to choose but ultimately the punishment (according to the bible) is our fully decided choice. As God judges the heart, and the bible is clear when it says that he has revealed himself through his handiwork, so that men are without excuse. His provision of redemption also leaves us with no excuse. In other words, hell is our decision and God leaves us that solemn choice. Okay I'm done, I'll just say that helps me understand the hostility and you are right to feel that way.

 

I know not everyone would agree with me, but it is just as important WHY someone is doing something as WHAT they are doing. If a scientist were the one saying that some entity created everything, and had more evidence than conspiracy theories (which, face it, is one of the predominant circumstantial evidences in use) then I'd try to take the idea for its merit because he is trying to explore something new, which is what science is all about.

I understand what you're looking for and that's an unbiased search for what truly happened. The truth is theprof00, no matter what name people give themselves (professor, doctor), when it comes to the topic on origins, unless the person is an agnostic, they will be affected by a bias. It's an a priori towards either the metaphysical or the natural. When I study the topic, I try to put my a priori aside, but it's exceedingly difficult. So, I just try to learn as much as I can despite my bias so as to at least be informed. The reason I have this struggle is due to my conviction of the supernatural. However, I don't let my bias affect my learning/discovery. It could cause me to challenge things more, but as one friend of mine (also a proponent of evolution) told me through a supported link of his that science is always challenging itself. In that way I'm glad my bias favors the scientific process, as it makes me that much more critical of explanations/theories that contradict my conviction. However, the point I don't want to find myself in is denial. Thankfully I haven't hit the end of the room just yet. Now here I'm being completely transparent with you. The day I'll be in denial bud, I'll let you know. For now, I'm still just not convinced.

With that in mind, I try to look at both sides of the debate (both creationist and evolutionist), and try to see how each are progressing with their challenges and answers to challenges. Right now I'm looking at the fusion of primate chromosomes as a serious challenge to creationism. I still think it's presumptouous to completly ingnore the alternate view simply because some theories of theirs were laughingly discarded. Okay, it is humiliating and awkward but that's true to both sides. No-one is uninformed enough to tell me that ToE is what it is today without having to discard intermediate, disproven explanations. So the same fairness should be awarded the alternate view. Let's go multiplat with science! lol

However, MY gripe is that exploration of the possibilities is not on the table for creationists. There is no push for discovery. It is what it is and there is no arguing with it. In fact, it is an Achilles heel of science that it uses methodology that people can call conspiratorial. Carbon Dating, for example is called a conspiracy, just because it is not understood, or other scientific principles involved are misunderstood.

But it shouldn't be that way! And I feel like the defensive nature of certain proponents of ToE is also leading to that. It's not good in either camp. Liken it to fanboyism in console gaming fandom. It's not good, neither on Nintendo products, nor on Sony product, nor on Microsoft products. Fanboyism is bad wherever it is, and that's not limited to any platform. The same can be said about these two viewpoints. They should just have their fair share, and anything scientifically unfeasible is considered and discarded. If there is a new challenge, it must be considered no matter where it originates from.

If Carbon Dating is considered conspirational, try to understand why. If their challenge is valid, or seemingly valid, it's important to consider it, if science is truly honest and constantly challenging itself. That's the right approach. If I tell you carbon dating is something I don't consider completely accurate, if you are honest you will ask me why. Then I will go on to tell you its possible failings, scenarios where it was inadequate, and the possibility of using alternatives dating methods which may be more faithful to the actual timeline of past events (examples would be the rate of helium decay, or sedimentary depositing in the sea floor, the movements of the stars, etc.).

And yes, you are correct that scientific theories are debated..however...they are usually debated with OTHER scientific theories. 

It is not because a theory assumes the metaphysical that it cannot be debated scientifically. You were witness to my debate with Sri Lumpa, and I was providing creationist claims which we were debating on scientific terms (sadly I lost track of that thread but it's still on my mind). Examples of things we were debating were the depositing of fossils given a global flood, chalk deposits, all kinds of challenges and possible explanations which can be verified scientifically, just like any other naturalistic claim. That's what most people on this forum fail to understand, even the believing ones. It's that the creationist claims are subject to the same scientific laws as naturalistic claims, only that in the case of a metaphysical event of origination the only part you leave out of scrutiny is the miracle itself. Anything after that is fair play and it works we've tried it on the other thread. Things are verifiable, refutable, and self-challenging.

I believe the alternate view has been discredited already too strongly and I believe we are subject to hidden agendas and naturalistic agendas in this case specifically. Put the bias aside and you'll see there is still value in working with the opposing view. If it's honest science there is place for it.

Like I mentioned in my first post, these ideas are all related, it's only the specifics which are replaced. At it's root is "orbit occurs" and it's just a matter of what is orbitting what.

I understand. And it is the same thing here. For instance, for creationism natural selection and speciation are explained one way (inbreed mutation, genetic defects and loss of genetic complexity due to enthropy - as I understand it atm though I have to look into that) going from top to bottom, yet for evolution they explain it with an increase in genetic complexity going from bottom up. Indeed, both attempt to explain the same thing, it's just the specifics as you say that differ. The truth is the one that fits the best with what we see around us and to be honest I see more loss of genetic complexity in the mutations I've witnessed (fruit flies, general deterioration caused by inbreeding in certain cultures) than I do increase (of these I have witnessed none but have yet to research this more in depth).

To sum:

- There is value to exploring the alternate explanations, and not to let dogmatic thinking in either camp spoil scientific advancement and increase of knowledge.

- There is dogma in all camps, it's human nature.

- There are hidden agendas we are to be wary of. We don't need to be subject to such things from either camp.

- Theories change, and sometimes they are only differing on specifics. Sometimes they are altogether replaced (the five elements that comprise matter of Aristotle).

- Creation science is verifiable and falsifiable.

and more. ;)

k, I'm done :D



NNN2004 said:
its already disapproved many times.


Really.  Got any details because so far as I'm aware evolution has been dispproved... oh zero times.



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

Reasonable said:
NNN2004 said:
its already disapproved many times.


Really.  Got any details because so far as I'm aware evolution has been dispproved... oh zero times.


What is that in your avatar cats mouth? True to what you said about evolution being disprobed zero times. I wonder how many times the religion or alien theory has been disprobed?



    The NINTENDO PACT 2015[2016  Vgchartz Wii U Achievement League! - Sign up now!                      My T.E.C.H'aracter

GameOver22 said:
Ssenkahdavic said:
GameOver22 said:
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.

Ahh there is the Rub.  Glad you brought that up!  William (of Ockham or Occam) used the principle to justify many conclusions, including the statement that "God's existence cannot be deduced by reason alone." That one didn't make him very popular with the Pope.  Also, using the prinicple of "the idea that the simplest explanation is the best explanation" is not all together accurate.  The Razor is more of a guideline (hence being a principle) that says ""when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."  Better, not best.  Ockham fully admitted his theories could be wrong or that they could be the only explanation.

 

Sir Isaac Newton said it the best I think "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

Very true. The problem I've always had with Ockham's razor is that the simpler explanation is not necessarily the better explanation. The only place where Ockham's razor makes sense is in a system that appears as if it was designed (a system that is highly ordered with no extraneous parts). If there are extraneous parts, Ockham's razor can't be used because these parts might attach onto the simpler explanation and make it more complex.

Ockham's razor itself makes some fundamental assumptions, but the assumptions are not necessarily true. For that reason, I would say Ockham's razor is useful, but hardly foolproof. It should be used carefully, but I usually have a hard time understanding when it is actually applicable.


And the best part of all of this is if you use the principle of Ockham's Razor to justify evolution.  What do you think is the simplest explanation? 

That the pattern of evolution is GODs plan.  While I might not agree with this, it can definitely be in the realm of possibility.  Is this the best explanation? Not at all, but it is probably the simplist.  I am also very sure that Wiliam of Ockham did not mean for his principle to be used in this way.  His way would be more of: How are were here through evolution or GOD?  GOD because its a much simplier explanation.   Part of why he said "God's existence cannot be deduced by reason alone."