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

Forums - General Discussion - Is the evolution story really scientific?

TornadoCreator on 03 January 2014
ganoncrotch said:

I've edited quote to avoid wall of text - TornadoCreator

I edited down the back and forth to just include the main bits, it's just that you know yourself and I agree with you that this sort of posting is only ever done to annoy people. Thing is on VGchartz if you see someone trolling or obviously flaimbaiting you can click report on them, the mod team on here are pretty sharp and know well what people are aiming to do when it comes to causing grief. The only issue the mods here have, is they can't read everything they mostly just come to some threads when a post gets reported, so often rather than getting called out on VGchartz and responding to it, the best action is to report the post for whatever you think is offensive about it and a mod will look it over and be drawn to check the thread for flaming and trolling going on.

Sorry I'm a tad tired so not as clear as possible I would think, but if someone holds up a sign which says "I'm a big troll" just click report and a mod will sort them out, if you reply instead and insult them for acting like a troll or an idiot then when they return to the thread they'll just report your angry reply and the mods will come and judge you based on what is reported, if you're attacking someone pretty badly they'll sit you out in the sin bin for a day or 3, it happens literally all the time so you can expect to fall into it at least once.

Like someone else said tho, this OP has a history of making pretty weak threads like this and more of the community will ignore them if threads are constantly posted which have zero content or reason to join so then people like that do indeed move on, regarding fanboyism on this site there is a bit of it to be had which no one can deny there are threads set up by community heads on here which are the Hubs of news for each gaming system and the PC and now and again it can breed a slightly them/us kind of attitude. Most of the time it's friendly banter between the groups if one company does something stupid the other 2 have a chuckle over it while the PC master race brags that it's playing World of Warcraft in 4k resolution since the 720ptwins were in diapers :D (I love me some warcraft) but yeah like I said, the mods here are decent and crack down on fanboywars pretty damn fast if it gets in any way nasty.

But yeah - going to sleep! welcome again and try not to get burned for calling a tool a tool :D

Aaah, fair enough. I'm used to most forums having the report button do effectively nothing and I'm still learning the dynamic here. I'm sure I'll learn who the regular trolls are in time and I'll just brush them off in future.



Around the Network
Ganoncrotch on 03 January 2014
lestatdark said:
ganoncrotch said:
lestatdark said:

You people should really let go of Oosnap threads, because they operate in the same fashion always.

He posts a massive wall on non-coherent text, links to a few random, non-credited sites in which people use the most absurd, irrational, illogical and untested claims and try to pass them as facts that supposedly make everything in the bible come true and that somehow the work of thousands of actual credited scientists is all false, and then he completely abandons the thread when people disprove him, only resurfacing when that rare someone has the same logic as his.

Heck, he once tried to argue with me that humans have the ability to live 900 years like some biblical figures did and when I presented him an extensive amount of genetic facts such as telomere length, failure of error correction in the long term by polymerases, single strand breaks, double strand brakes, accumulation of MMRs and so on, which creates a natural limit to a cellular complex, he just said that "god just doesn't want us to live that long anymore"

There's no point discussing with him anything, just let his threads go. If people ignore him, he'll move on from this site.

I had a read through a few of the posts from both sides and thoughts here on the argument and while I'll agree the OP has added little to nothing to the thread other than it's creation the other members who've added to it have helped it evolve beyond a big incoherant explosion of little order.

I agree with you there, and i'm not discouraging that exchange of ideas. The problem with the topics of Oosnap is that they're put in such an extreme manner that it also brings some extreme responses from people that completely disagree or agree with him. And since the topic creator himself adds little to nothing to the topic itself, outside the few proper debates between some participants, you're left with a very unhealthy thread which eventually gets locked (as most of his threads end).

As for the context of the thread itself, i'm both a religious man and a scientist. I'm a Wiccan and a geneticist, so I can see why a topic like evolution arouses much heated exchanges. Personally I think evolution, as the theory is currently formulated, is the most correct proposition we can offer based on the knowledge and studies we've made on it. mRNA testing has given the evolution theory a huge step forward in it's overall acceptance in the scientific community as a whole.

Aye questions like this on a gaming sales forum sorta remind me of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUbjpwyesk0 Clip if from a great sketch show called "That mitchell and Webb look" not sure if they're in anyway known outside of the UK+Ireland but some damn funny stuff. They put odd spins on some pretty funny stuff from both sides some times http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LXCZRpxHpg well worth checking out. It's not all just religious stuff it's just very random digs at everything.

Cool to read you're religious enough to question that the Science of evolution is based on a little faith and Scientific enough to see that there is parts of evolution which question the faith of the "god did it" idea, refreshing to see. I myself am neither, born and baptized as a catholic here in Ireland but with as much belief in the stories of both people envolved with Dec25th as I grew up. I'm not 100% on the term of my belief or lack thereof, I'm 100% okie with the fact that there could be a God or Many Gods which exist I just don't happen to buy into any of the humans who are trying to pedal their wares if they do exist. Only time I visit a church would be to see a family member off as a funeral so they're not really a great happy place for me. When it comes to evolution I mean you look at things like transiant fossils between species and the leftover bits and pieces which we have on our own bodies like the Tailbone with no tail it is hard to argue with that. Close to impossible I'd wager.



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

BMaker11 on 03 January 2014
padib said:
BMaker11 said:

If you see that Wendy Wright interview, she does exactly bonzobana said.

With regard to "like what", I already gave examples. But to expand: Lightning was thought to come up because the gods were angry. Nope, just electrons bouncing around in the atmosphere. Crops growing was thought to be because the gods were pleased with your work, so they grew your food. Nope, it was just plants growing in a good farming season. Thought that the gods were shaking the earth, for some reason, and that caused earthquakes. Nope, tectonic plates. Thought gods caused possessions (via demons). Nope, epilepsy. Thought gods caused eclipses. Nope, just the moon moving in between the earth and sun. Thought gods caused diseases and sickness (also, via demons). Nope, germs.

You see where I'm going with this?

If the bible is true, then germs would be evil in origin, even if they are defined by science, science does not provide their spiritual origin, that's religion's job. Science describes, religion gives the purpose.

According to the bible, disease, predation and thorns are part of the curse at the fall of man. You have no way to prove that such things did not exist prior to the fall (say 6k years ago). Also, there are reports of prayer healing people, and there is a lot of work done on the power of the mind over disease. So it still begs the question.

Problem is though, some of those "evil" germs can be beneficial as well. HIV has been used to treat cancer. So is HIV "good" now? An even greater problem is the leap "if the Bible is true" because for all intents and purposes, it isn't (as a form of history). And yea, I can prove that predation existed more than 6,000 years ago. There are many fossils of prey dinosaurs with incisor marks in their bones. We know dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. The incisor marks show one animal eating another. I can't prove that disease happened more than 6,000 years ago but that's only because written history started roughly 6,000 years ago. But if other stuff you attribute to "the fall" can be shown to happen more than 6,000 years ago, it can be assumed that disease occured as well.

Also, the "reports" of prayer healing people have all either came from the citation having a religious bias or a sickness that can randomly go into remission (like some forms of cancer). So either it's pandering to your own audience, or just being wrong about "the power of prayer". Prayer doesn't heal the flu. The flu goes away after a week in most people, for example. But let's not forget the plethora of times that parents forwent simple medical treatments for their children that could quickly save them and instead tried "the power of prayer" and their children died as a result. 



nuckles87 on 04 January 2014

Adding to "heal through prayer". There have also been "reports" of alien abductions, Big Foot, the Lochness Monster, Mothman and the Wendigo. That does not mean they exist. There is no scientific evidence of prayer healing anyone.

Anyway, I think this article below is something anyone should take to heart before debating a young earth creationist:

http://www.godofevolution.com/is-it-even-possible-to-debate-a-young-earth-creationist/

"Is it even possible to debate a young earth creationist?

One of our commenters thinks not.

In response to my thoughts yesterday on Bill Nye the Science Guy’s probably misguided debate with young-earth creationist Ken Ham, an anonymous reader said the following (emphasis mine):

I am not “too afraid” to play a tree, to sing the color blue, or to write a stone. I am not “making an excuse” when I explain my reasons for doing so. A tree is not a collection of rules for entertaining gaming. The color blue is not a selections of lyrics put to melody. A stone is not a sequence of letters and symbols.

Similarly, a creationist is not a critical thinker seeking to evaluate the merit and accuracy of his own position, and this means you cannot debate one. Fear has nothing to do with it. Not all verbs can be performed on all subjects.

And Bill Nye isn’t going to “debate” Ken Ham, either. He’s going to explain how Ken Ham is wrong at (not to) Ken Ham, while Ken Ham repeats the same script of logical fallacies and lies that have already been exposed, verbatim, that he always does.

I think it’s a fair point, and one that very much needs to be made, as the great K-Ham begins to crow about how terrified those of us who accept evolution are of him. A debate implies an open exchange of ideas on a given topic on the basis of the evidence available and the arguments presented.

Defending one’s position is one thing, but if a party is completely shut off to any and all evidence that may be offered, well, then I daresay this commenter is right: You can no more “debate” that person than you could fricassee a cemetery.

What do you think?

One quick note: I don’t at all think it’s pointless to discuss matters of evolution, the age of the earth and the proper interpretation of Genesis with all creationists. If I did, I doubt I’d be running a website like this one.

I think there are plenty of creationists — young-earthers, even — in the general public who have been given from trusted sources (like a pastor, or a “respected ministry” like K-Ham’s Answers in Genesis) a severely skewed and incomplete picture of the scientific evidence. Sharing the truth with such individuals in a gracious way can indeed be effective and valuable, as I myself have found.

It is only with those who are quite familiar with the evidence but utterly refuse to accept it that I feel one is flirting with futility."



Aielyn on 04 January 2014
padib said:
According to the bible, disease, predation and thorns are part of the curse at the fall of man. You have no way to prove that such things did not exist prior to the fall (say 6k years ago). Also, there are reports of prayer healing people, and there is a lot of work done on the power of the mind over disease. So it still begs the question.

There's an entire field of scientific study called "Paleopathology", which is the study of ancient diseases. And yes, they study the diseases of dinosaurs, amongst other diseases.

So yes, there is proof (to the extent that one can "prove" something physical) of disease a lot further back than 6k years ago. As already noted by someone else, there is "proof" of predation back then, too. As for "thorns"...

http://joelkontinen.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/fossils-of-thorns-and-thistles.html

"A textbook on the evolution of plants shows that there were thorny plants already in the Devonian Era roughly 345–395 million years ago. It has a picture of Psilophyton crenulatum, a plant that is not very different from the thorny plants we see in our time."



Around the Network
Farmageddon on 04 January 2014

A interesting video on the blind watchmaker arguemnt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0



DarkWraith on 05 January 2014
Farmageddon said:
DarkWraith said:

okay so no education on the topic, so you tout suppositions as counters? erm...you dont get logic do you? the extent of your counter to posted logic is "well im sure someone has argued against it, IT CANT BE SO SIMPLE" it is, why do you think philosophy is the field with the lowest amount of god believers? you cant inject reason into a faith position. doesn't work.

when you argue, you have to decide with which premise you disagree. if you accept the premises, the conclusion follows necessarily.

there are no "great thinkers" on the side of theim. you have ontological and cosmological arguments which purport some non-interventionist deity. no arguments even exist for personal gods because the idea is so silly and childish. 

nope, omnibenevolence is assigned as a trait by MANY christians (nothing about good is invoked in this argument). therefore it became an a priori truth. the argument simply uses the a priori truths as defined by christianity to argue that such a deity cannot possibly exist due to contradictions with reality.

then you reject Rationalism as a way to discover truth, which is fine. 

if you cant put it into words, you can't argue in favor of it and that reduces it to an argument from ignorance fallacy.


Maybe it was a bit of my fault, but I think you either missed or ignored some of my points. The actual relevan ones, actually.

For one, you provided no reason why any deity should be supposed to be bounded by logic, which was my main problem originally.

Then there's also, supposing a deity so bound, the definition of omnibenevolence - which of course does depends on our definition of "good", as benevolence is the will to do good  - and our hability to judge it. Your argument can only hold if you assume you absolutely know what's good and can with absolute confidence judge the "goodness" of the world. I ask why should it be reasonable to suppose that. I realize it makes more sense when speaking of very specific Gods, but the more generic it gets the less it does so.

That's the reason I wrote about some of the possible ways one might define "good", to illustrate.

I used theism on a broader sense, as in "there's some form of god". I realize now in our context it would mean a personal God. My bad.

I'm not saying "we don't know that it's not, so it must be". All I said was "We can't really say for sure it's not. Might be, might not". There's no fallacy in that.

DarkWraith said:

probably shouldnt even waste my time here as it will only give you another opportunity to present further piss poor arguments, but here we go. 

P1) A maximally Excellent being exists.

P2) A maximally Excellent being would create a maximally Excellent world.

P3) A maximally Excellent world would be the one best fine-tuned for its purpose.

P4) A maximally Excellent world best fine-tuned for its purpose would be one in which its purpose is maximally achieved.

P5) The purpose for this maximally Excellent world is human life.

P6) Humans are restricted to living on one planet, in one solar system, in one galaxy, in one Universe.

C1) Such a world does not exist. P3 & P6.

C2) Such a being does not exist, C1 & P2.

This is an original argument, so there may be flaws not apparent to me. But I think it's quite concise and gets to the point.

For this you need to suppose you are able to know and define this single, straight-forward objective of some supposed almigthy creator in two words - "human life" - and also give a very precise meaing to these two words in order to judge how well such goal is achieved. I don't think there's any reason to believe any of that to be true on light of a God, specially one from a religion which focus a lot on the concept of an after-life, which further complicates your simplistic vision of His "goal". It's a lot like my objection of your judgment of how much "benevolence" the world shows.

the reason we can evaluate a deity via rational argument is because the premises are drawn directly from definitions of that particular deity. for example, if the claim is made for omnipotence, it then becomes true by definition. this is simply testing for internal consistency and contradiction with what is observed.

you couldn't, for instance, have omnipotence as a trait while being unable to do something.

your point about knowing what is good is important. It is drawn from christianity from "god" as "good" is simply obedience to god. if its obedient, it's good. if not, bad. murder is disobedient, therefore bad/evil exists. 

it seems like you're arguing that the existence of god in some form is unknowable but we can know some concepts are invalid as I mentioned previously.

...

well the user put forward the purpose is human life, I simply used that in the argument. futhermore, the afterlife is obsolete. the only question is maximal purpose which is patently absurd given the rather tiny portion of the universe we can survive in.