By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

Tagged games:

nightsurge on 07 September 2011
Runa216 said:
nightsurge said:
Runa216 said:
yo_john117 said:

Well there is one part of evolution that is true...I forget what exactly it is but it has to do with different breeds mating and creating slightly different breeds of the same kind of animal.

But the rest of evolution takes as much faith to believe in as it takes to believe in Creation or whatever other theory people happen to believe in.


....No.  Just no.  An observable, testable, phenomena does not require faith to believe in, that's just a truly foolish thing to say. 

Are you kidding me? Of course it requires faith to believe in. Since it cannot be proven 100% beyond reasonable doubt it requires at least a small amount of faith/belief in its most basic form.

Also, how can you say there is NO evidence of a God when hundreds of millions of people have observed acts that seem to give credence to a divine being? When all logic is defied and someone specifically observes an act of this nature themselves, that's a big thing. Sure you can try to call it "chance" or try to explain things scientifically, but I'm mostly just trying to point out that there are plenty of observations made out there to support a god. Science and it's evidence is based on observations, and there are just as many observations supporting a divine being/divine intervention as there are scientific based observations for theories.

Okay...here's the issue.  It cannot be proven 100%, no, but it already has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It's observed daily, we were able to test, restest, create, and recreate evolution in bacteria and plants.  To deny that is foolish.  evolution IS real, and while there is that infinitecimal chance we're wrong, evolution has been as proven as anything is going to get. 

Those who deny that are foolish.  

As for the whole God thing..that has nothing to do with it. Religious theory and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive and nowhere on this site, this thread, or the other infamous thread have I once tried to convince anyone that God is not real or that they shouldn't believe.  The entire original argument was based on the fact that if religion wants to be taken seriously as an origin theory, or to keep having its claws dug into our collective social psyche, we should stop treating it with kids gloves, and it should lose its supposed immunity to criticism.  

I'm not trying to cause shit, but people seem to jump on any bandwagon they can rather than addressing the issue initially brought up...which has been completely ignored in lieu of much more heated arguments about various oppressions, insensitivity, and mutually exclusive assumptions.  

Seriously, stop that. 

Where did I ever try to say that we should deny evolution or scientific theories? Like you said, they are not mutually exclusive and I don't see any problem with either.

Also, while you may have had supposed good reasons for your thread and replies, you poison your posts with snide insults towards religious people or religious beliefs. You flame them by calling their god a "master puppeteer"; you call religion childish, old fashioned, naive; even in this post you add a patronizing tone by saying "treating it with kids gloves"...

Religion is far from immune to criticism, everyone should be able to see that. You keep asking someone to prove what cannot be testable. You can't "test" an act that defies logic, so really trying to critique both Scientific and Religious theories in the same manner is extremely shallow and foolish.



Around the Network
GameOver22 on 07 September 2011
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.



theprof00 on 07 September 2011

Two parts of this argument need to be understood before we can resolve this.
(And I find it funny that the religious one is "misinformed" about what a scientific theory is. Because that's just typical)

First of all, theory IS the highest level an idea can have. Theory doesn't become law once it's proven. Theory is the highest level. Once you understand that, you can think about this next part. Theories are never 100% proven, because we could always be wrong....wait for it....about a technicality. For example, it was a theory that everything revolved around the sun. This was 99% true. Everything (in our solar system) revolves around the sun. It took MORE INFO to realize that it was slightly off, and that there was more out there that revolved around other things.

Sure it wasn't a SMALL mistake, but they were right about all the data they had, until new data appeared. This is the beauty of science as compared to say, religion. People that believe in science use faith as well, but are always willing to accept that new data might prove them wrong or incorrect. Such isn't the case with religion (you know what, it's not religion at fault here, let's get it right....it's bad christians), there is never new data, and they are never wrong.

Now, I'm a psych major, so let me tell you something interesting about THAT little comparison. Strong people are capable of accepting new points of view. Weak people are stubborn and are much harder to change.


Second of all, it was an idiotic christian decision to go up against science. But that's not surprising at all. Evolution could have been intertwined with the story of creation. Christians could have accepted that to god, his one day took up a million years because he is beyond time. They could have gone right along with science. THE FUNNY THING IS, the sequence of events is VERY close to what is scientifically "proven".

Day 1: The heavens, the earth, light and darkness. =big bang

Day 2: Heaven = heaven

Day 3: Dry land, the seas, and vegetation. = planets forming

Day 4: The sun, the moon and the stars. = kind of out of order (but could mean in relation to the earth, like there were gasses in the atmosphere, and then cleared up)

Day 5: Living creatures in the water, birds in the air. fish and dinosaurs, evolving to birds

Day 6: Land animals and people. mammals and humans

It's very close to the actual order of events, and it's arrogant foolish pride that made an entire culture say, "herp derp, it was actually 7 days". Another example of arrogant religious pride and inability of the weak to change.


That's all the rambling I have for today.

 

EDIT: I meant that second part to be more about evolution than creationism, but you get the point. Birds are related to dinos, it could've been done. Everyone who knows anything about the Bible already knows that a lot of it is metaphorical. But this time, it couldn't be a metaphor, it had to be cold hard reality no room for millions of years. Just an all around bad, ignorant, overly prideful, weak decision.



Runa216 on 07 September 2011
nightsurge said:

Where did I ever try to say that we should deny evolution or scientific theories? Like you said, they are not mutually exclusive and I don't see any problem with either.

Also, while you may have had supposed good reasons for your thread and replies, you poison your posts with snide insults towards religious people or religious beliefs. You flame them by calling their god a "master puppeteer"; you call religion childish, old fashioned, naive; even in this post you add a patronizing tone by saying "treating it with kids gloves"...

Religion is far from immune to criticism, everyone should be able to see that. You keep asking someone to prove what cannot be testable. You can't "test" an act that defies logic, so really trying to critique both Scientific and Religious theories in the same manner is extremely shallow and foolish.

But religion IS irrational, it IS naiive.  I've read plenty of books on the topic, as well as engaged in heavy debate with doctors, scientists, and historians about the validity of the Bible, and the one thing everyone (except one person) I talked to about the subject who also had the credentials to be qualified to talk about it agreed on: People believe in religion because they want to, not because it's rational.  they do it because that's what everyone else is doing, they do it because that's what they grew up believing, they do it because they want hope of an afterlife, they do it because that's what makes them happiest.  In spite of all the evidence we've picked up over the years supporting evolution, pointing out how the things in the bible are impossible or at least the product of a misunderstanding or a loss of translation, people STILL want to teach intelligent design in school.  People STILL kill one another over their religion.  People STILL judge, hate, and control others based on their faith.  

And the worst part is...pointing this out is deemed unacceptable.  it's considered insensitive, rude, ignorant, or on forums it's flamebait.  this thread proves that as conclusively as I can imagine.  It's okay (and even encouraged) to question science, to demand proof or evidence, to re-test theories and put each idea through a rigourous battery of tests, but when you do the same of religion, you get hostile responses.  They claim you're being insensitive to their faith, you're causing a fight, you're judging them or repressing them.  This is just ignorant.  Do you understand what "kid gloves" are?  it means you have to treat them like children or they go on tantrums.  You have to beat around the bush and play nice, you have to be sensitive and blunt honesty is not encouraged because they can't handle that, and this thread is evidence of that.  

Look at the whole thread...I didn't tell people not to believe (while I certainly think such a thing is foolish, but I GENERALLY keep that to myself), all I did was ask for supporting evidence to support their belief, and I got a litany of posts telling me I should be banned, that the thread should be locked, that I Was being insensitive, and that I Was flamebaiting.  I've had people call me ignorant, I've had people call me stupid (not the same thing, contrary to popualr belief), and I've had people threaten me with hellfire and brimstone over a QUESTION.  not an accusation, not an attack, an honest question, a demand for proof, and yet that is not accepted. 

Religion is criticism proof. 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

theprof00 on 07 September 2011
padib said:
Runa216 said:
Aww, I got a fanclub! I think this is the third or fourth thread to link to mine because apparently it's so unethical to suggest we offer proof.

But seriously here, I've paid attention to science, I've done a LOT of research on evolution, and while I don't have the links handy (I'm currently at work and the bandwidth here sucks), I can assure you that not only does evolution happen, but we witness it every single day. New breeds are created, species mingle, new generations adapt to problems, the weak die out, and the strong survive to mate again. Denying this is honestly as ignorant as...I don't even know something so brazenly stupid to compare it to, it's that bad.

you know how, in biology class, you're told that only the strongest Elk or whatever survive (due to their horns)? yeah, selective breeding? that's a form of evolution. you know how the only bugs to survive and pass on their genes are the ones resistant to poisons? That's a form of evolution. You know how some plants are resistant to herbicides? That, too, is a form of evolution. You know how we humans get the common cold, but as we age we succumb less and less to it? That's a form of evolution. you know how, in spite of our immune systems combatting and beating each year's flu, people still get whatever new strain pops up? that's a form of evolution.

Just because the BIG changes happen gradually over many, MANY years and have no observable effect doesn't mean that we haven't observed evolution happening all around us.

To deny this is just foolish. Hell, you'd look smarter if you were a Climate Change critic, at least that skepticism has some merit to it (even though that is also almost unanimously agreed upon as a real phenomenon.)

You confuse evolution with natural selection. Genetic adaptation to external pressure does not equate to evolution. It could also be due to devolution. Losing genetic complexity does not mean losing an edge against environmental pressure.

To deny this is just foolish. 

It might be time for you to look in the mirror Runa.

That's actually a good point, natural selection is not the only method to evolution. This is why a theory is a theory and not proven, because we don't know all the effects that produce evolution.

However, it's important to note that natural selection and speciation are the dominant processes of evolution, so much so, that they are nearly interchangeable. Emphasis on nearly. While I would agree with you bringing up that point, I would disagree that Runa is as far-off the mark as you make it seem.

He is slightly wrong about specifics, but globally right. His critic (not you) is globally, specifically, and semantically wrong.



Around the Network
theprof00 on 07 September 2011
padib said:

"And I find it funny that the religious one is "misinformed" about what a scientific theory is. Because that's just typical"

Stop! for heaven sakes stop with the labelling. You think religion was free of criticism, really?! That's not the world I've lived in for the past 27 years. All my life I've been made to feel stupid because I believed in God. Damn it you guys don't see reality as it is do you? There are misinformed people everywhere, it's just a fact of life. And the further we go on in a direction of hegemony in this pseudo-science, the more you will see such ignorance also in that camp. It's human nature and has everything to do with common ideology. It's a trap to many people, but not all.

Anyways, to get back to the point. 

First of all, theory IS the highest level an idea can have. Theory doesn't become law once it's proven. Theory is the highest level. Once you understand that, you can think about this next part. Theories are never 100% proven, because we could always be wrong....wait for it....about a technicality. For example, it was a theory that everything revolved around the sun. This was 99% true. Everything (in our solar system) revolves around the sun. It took MORE INFO to realize that it was slightly off, and that there was more out there that revolved around other things.

What about the theory in Gallileo's time that everything revolved around the earth. It was mostly false, apart for the moon. There are theories that contradict each other and in many if not most cases only one can be true. You can't use a case of a theory that is very solid like Heliocentrism and use that as a all-englobing scenario. There were opposing theories that were proven false in the mean time. It's like evolution in a sense, the strongest theory survives. So it's not because the strongest theory survived that a theory in general is the closest to the truth. On the contrary for that one surviving theory a handful of others were invalidated. So a theory is but a theory. It can become the theory accepted by mankind, or it can be completely rejected.

For the rest, I would appreciate less venom. Phrases like "foolish pride", "an idiotic christian decision" and other wordings are hostile and offensive. It would be best if you just kept it to yourself honestly.

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.



Runa216 on 07 September 2011
padib said:
Runa216 said:
Aww, I got a fanclub! I think this is the third or fourth thread to link to mine because apparently it's so unethical to suggest we offer proof.

But seriously here, I've paid attention to science, I've done a LOT of research on evolution, and while I don't have the links handy (I'm currently at work and the bandwidth here sucks), I can assure you that not only does evolution happen, but we witness it every single day. New breeds are created, species mingle, new generations adapt to problems, the weak die out, and the strong survive to mate again. Denying this is honestly as ignorant as...I don't even know something so brazenly stupid to compare it to, it's that bad.

you know how, in biology class, you're told that only the strongest Elk or whatever survive (due to their horns)? yeah, selective breeding? that's a form of evolution. you know how the only bugs to survive and pass on their genes are the ones resistant to poisons? That's a form of evolution. You know how some plants are resistant to herbicides? That, too, is a form of evolution. You know how we humans get the common cold, but as we age we succumb less and less to it? That's a form of evolution. you know how, in spite of our immune systems combatting and beating each year's flu, people still get whatever new strain pops up? that's a form of evolution.

Just because the BIG changes happen gradually over many, MANY years and have no observable effect doesn't mean that we haven't observed evolution happening all around us.

To deny this is just foolish. Hell, you'd look smarter if you were a Climate Change critic, at least that skepticism has some merit to it (even though that is also almost unanimously agreed upon as a real phenomenon.)

You confuse evolution with natural selection. Genetic adaptation to external pressure does not equate to evolution. It could also be due to devolution. Losing genetic complexity does not mean losing an edge against environmental pressure.

To deny this is just foolish. 

It might be time for you to look in the mirror Runa.

Really?  The "I know you are but what am I" rebuttal?  seriously? 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

nightsurge on 07 September 2011
Runa216 said:
nightsurge said:

Where did I ever try to say that we should deny evolution or scientific theories? Like you said, they are not mutually exclusive and I don't see any problem with either.

Also, while you may have had supposed good reasons for your thread and replies, you poison your posts with snide insults towards religious people or religious beliefs. You flame them by calling their god a "master puppeteer"; you call religion childish, old fashioned, naive; even in this post you add a patronizing tone by saying "treating it with kids gloves"...

Religion is far from immune to criticism, everyone should be able to see that. You keep asking someone to prove what cannot be testable. You can't "test" an act that defies logic, so really trying to critique both Scientific and Religious theories in the same manner is extremely shallow and foolish.

But religion IS irrational, it IS naiive.  I've read plenty of books on the topic, as well as engaged in heavy debate with doctors, scientists, and historians about the validity of the Bible, and the one thing everyone (except one person) I talked to about the subject who also had the credentials to be qualified to talk about it agreed on: People believe in religion because they want to, not because it's rational.  they do it because that's what everyone else is doing, they do it because that's what they grew up believing, they do it because they want hope of an afterlife, they do it because that's what makes them happiest.  In spite of all the evidence we've picked up over the years supporting evolution, pointing out how the things in the bible are impossible or at least the product of a misunderstanding or a loss of translation, people STILL want to teach intelligent design in school.  People STILL kill one another over their religion.  People STILL judge, hate, and control others based on their faith.  

And the worst part is...pointing this out is deemed unacceptable.  it's considered insensitive, rude, ignorant, or on forums it's flamebait.  this thread proves that as conclusively as I can imagine.  It's okay (and even encouraged) to question science, to demand proof or evidence, to re-test theories and put each idea through a rigourous battery of tests, but when you do the same of religion, you get hostile responses.  They claim you're being insensitive to their faith, you're causing a fight, you're judging them or repressing them.  This is just ignorant.  Do you understand what "kid gloves" are?  it means you have to treat them like children or they go on tantrums.  You have to beat around the bush and play nice, you have to be sensitive and blunt honesty is not encouraged because they can't handle that, and this thread is evidence of that.  

Look at the whole thread...I didn't tell people not to believe (while I certainly think such a thing is foolish, but I GENERALLY keep that to myself), all I did was ask for supporting evidence to support their belief, and I got a litany of posts telling me I should be banned, that the thread should be locked, that I Was being insensitive, and that I Was flamebaiting.  I've had people call me ignorant, I've had people call me stupid (not the same thing, contrary to popualr belief), and I've had people threaten me with hellfire and brimstone over a QUESTION.  not an accusation, not an attack, an honest question, a demand for proof, and yet that is not accepted. 

Religion is criticism proof. 

Goodness you are so long winded. Religion is under constant criticism as you very well pointed out. And what you constantly highlight in your reasonings for disliking religion is only true of the corrupt, flawed, extremist religious individuals and not of the practice in it's true intended form. People kill people, start wars, judge, hate, and control others for far more reasons than religion and some far sillier or less significant.

And as you said earlier, the evidence behind evolution and other theories does not exclude a divine being, so why even bring that up again as a supporting argument? A lot of the problem is a misunderstanding or wrong assumptions about faith/the Bible and a lot is also translation errors.

Also, I know exactly what "kid gloves" means which is why I said it gives a patronizing tone to your posts.

I am not trying to say religion gets a free pass. You should not say or talk about anything in the manner that you do. I can't go about calling science and scientists foolish, idiotic, pipe dreamers, lab rats etc. I am merely highlighting that you cannot question the validity of the two areas in the same exact manner because they are very different. You can't go about testing/proving something like religion in the same way that you can a scientific theory.



theprof00 on 07 September 2011
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.



sethnintendo on 07 September 2011
nightsurge said:

Are you kidding me? Of course it requires faith to believe in. Since it cannot be proven 100% beyond reasonable doubt it requires at least a small amount of faith/belief in its most basic form.

Also, how can you say there is NO evidence of a God when hundreds of millions of people have observed acts that seem to give credence to a divine being? When all logic is defied and someone specifically observes an act of this nature themselves, that's a big thing. Sure you can try to call it "chance" or try to explain things scientifically, but I'm mostly just trying to point out that there are plenty of observations made out there to support a god. Science and it's evidence is based on observations, and there are just as many observations supporting a divine being/divine intervention as there are scientific based observations for theories.

The closest I ever came to an act of God was when I tripped balls.  Shrooms, 2ce, 2ci, AMT, acid.....  Not trying to be a smart ass but when using those drugs (rarely, not all time considering it would be too much) I actually feel a connection to the world.  Nature seems even more beautiful (I have a wildlife major so I already like nature to begin with).  Anyways, I only do shrooms now and I would suggest anyone to at least trying shrooms once.