You know, I actually wish Dawkins would tone down his displays of his own metaphysical beliefs or lack thereof and concentrate on the science. The two should not be mixed. I have a pretty strong ethical code (in my own not so humble opinion), but I don't go flaunt it in the same sentence that I talk about Lorentz contraction or Schrцdinger's cat.

Hard-line, shortest-distance-between-two-points, propaganda has its time and place. But this day and age is not it. Worldwide we have a neo-religious movement that is gaining in momentum - mainly because our societies walked straight into that obvious ambush all fat, dumb, and happy. Now is the time for subtle propaganda. Guerillia information warfare, if you will. It is time for the telling of those stories that cast the clergy in a realistic light while still showcasing their dirty laundry.

Calling a priest a frothing-at-the-mouth, murderous, raping pedophile won't help - be it ever so true - because those who read it will think merely: Thank God that our priest isn't like that. No, this is a time for moderation. For chipping away at the enemy's armour before you rush in full bore.

One Danish short story stands out in particular in my mind. It is about a woman who goes to her priest to seek a divorce. The priest - of course - tells her that that's impossible. When pressed, the priest admits that adultery is a valid reason for divorce. Then the woman says that adultery is exactly the reason for her seeking divorce. The priest then tells her to her face that if a woman is unfaithful towards her husband, then he is right to seek divorce, but if a man is unfaithful towards his wife, then it is her moral duty to stay in the marriage and support him through what is obviously a hard time.

The genius of that story is that it doesn't really tell the reader anything he doesn't already know at some level. All it really does is compress the timescale to heavily that the hypocricy and goalpost-moving that the clergy is engaged in becomes widely visible and undeniable.

Nobody could accuse it of being 'hateful' or 'anti-christian,' because it faithfully represents the line of argument that the clergy employs - so if they try to attack it, they undermine their own position.

If you shine enlightenment on the clergy, people will see it for what it is and recoil from the hypocricy and deciet. The trick is to shine the light in such a way that it both faithfully illuminates the target and gets past the superficial trappings of morality and knee-jerk rejection of critisism that are so integral parts of religion.

You know, I think that's perfectly true (I love it when people make me think!). Not bad coming from someone with less than 1000 posts:p.

Not bad coming from someone with less than 1000 posts:p.

That's because it counts posts, not words :-D

But is it? (just wondering, not saying)

It today's society you don't get heard with subtle. You don't get listened to with balanced arguments. You don't get elected if you admit some form of doubt or uncertainty.
Today's society likes to be told (in a very short soundbite) what to believe.

Thats why unsupported ideas like ID have gained so much ground over supported ideas like Evolution. Because scientists always try to be fair and balanced and mention any uncertainty... whereas their opponents just trot out soundbite theories that SOUND GOOD.

Maybe what is needed IS for people like Prof Dawkins to come out and start fighting back... because sometimes you have to shout to be heard. (As someone who knew a bit about the issues involved i did get a "he's being a bit unbalanced" feeling occasionally... but if everyone on the other side is being unbalanced...
And even given the provocative title he still gave a lot of time to opposing views (the scientist within?) that opponents wouldn't have done. )

Maybe if a few scientist had shouted louder when the idea of ID first came up it wouldn't have taken off the way it did.

PS/ Darn it, i think i missed the 2nd part of the show.

PPS/ Out of interest, would this sort of programme even get shown on US tv, cos the impression i'm getting these days of the US makes me think a programme that set out to attack religion would have no chance over there.

I see your point. However, the neo-religious movement loves shouting match, because shouting matches convey only simplistic messages. Pro-sanity activists cannot rely on simplistic arguments, since that would be the very antithesis of sanity. Besides, the main battlefield is not the traditional political arena - we must fight the battle there as well, and there the Dawkins approach may be needed, but the main battlefront is the litterature. People read. If they don't read, then we need to get on BoEs and damn well teach them to read. People even read books that offer views that are tangential to their own beliefs if the main story is good enough. If we can get our people into the litterary mainstream and isolate the neo-barbs as wingnuts or paint them as ideolouges, we can gradually push the boundries of what is 'acceptable' in litterature and what is 'mainstream' in litterature. But it has to be subtle. People reject political creeds, but if you have a fictional country with a fictional political system that bears little resemblance to your own country and political system, you can use it to broach ideas such as institutional transparency and secularity.

It has been done before. It can be done again.

Interesting article. Scentists have called for chimpanzees to be reclassified into the human genus after discovering that their DNA is actually closer to that of humans than that of other apes such as gorillas and orangutans.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,9830,1693365,00.html)

It would probably be more appropriate to re-classify humans to Pan sapiens sapiens rather than to re-classify Pan troglodytes or P. paniscus to the genus Homo.

Still, humanity is to anthropocentric to accept such a move. We still have those among our species that seek to remove populations within the species or cleanse them. We're also far to egocentric to accept the closeness with another animal to allow chimps/bonobos to be reclassified H. troglodytes and H. paniscus. And we're certainly too full of ourselves to allow our own genus to be renamed to P. sapiens sapiens.

The chimps and bonobos may be better off keeping their distance from the human species for the time being.

Still, there is little present in humanity that cannot be found in chimp culture: language, war, politics, sexual behaviors, friendships, altruism, family values, abstract thinking, etc, etc.

This is all I have to say is I don't believe women crapp. There is a lot of scientific proof I just don't like the idea.

The thought of women crapping is really unattractive. So I believe that a fairy comes in the middle of the night and hits them on the stomach with a little magic wound. This makes their poop go away. :toilet1:

Skin.. how about religion? They don't have religion, do they? Or philosophy, or art. They don't have Star Wars, those heathens...!


Another quick thought on some of the latter posts in this thread:

I think it's interesting to argue these things based on ideology. I think some people are doing that or referring to that, ie: people are not arguing it based on how the science or the theology plays out, but rather saying "I'm right, because my world view is more MORAL than your's" or "I'm right because I'm a better person."

So you have religious people saying we can't believe in evolution or it'll turn us all into eugenicists and relativists who kill and rape each other. And we have non-religious people saying we have to teach evolution because otherwise we'll turn into hateful evil religious fundamentalists, etc. Neither approach is particularly useful except for back-patting and cheerleading I think. But it is commonly used in popular rhetoric, so it's a fair point to bring up. Good show. It's almost as if some folks don't want fundamentalists to give up creationism. Because if they do, then they have a more reasonable claim on the world at large in terms of ideology. If we see them wrong about science we can more easily dismiss them and say "oh well see, I don't need to listen to anything you have to say because you dismiss something so obviously true like evolution." In that sense, the boogey-man of fundamentalism is perhaps more useful for propaganda purposes, just like somebody like Fred Phelps is useful to gay rights activists who can then say "and look how bad religious nuts are for opposing gay rights, like this guy."

And you hear it commonly argued by certain Christian (evangelical?) apologists. Well, see what atheistic (this or that) is doing to America/the world? Once you get rid of God, then you get (bad things, bad whatever effects)? So therefore we need to keep/increase religious influence in (whatever). The moral-ideological approach has its limitations, and risks dodging the important issue of facts, in favor of feelings and subjective observations.

PS: That ashermenuitica article is interesting. Of course it looks to be as editable as wikipedia, so some caution is warranted, but the information presented there seems a fairly concise summary of what I've read elsewhere regarding the Vatican and evolution. One quirk in the article is the phrase referring to "neo-darwinism" as "perjorative." I was not aware that it was any way perjorative. Then again, such a thing is quite subjective as well. Some people use the term "liberal" as an insult, whereas others use it as a proper self definition and others merely as a descriptive term. Neo-Darwinism as I understand it is merely the body of Darwinian evolutionary theory, amended to include the knowledge of modern genetics. It is contrasted with the parts of Darwin that we know to be incorrect or incomplete (since theories are modified in light of new evidence to better conform to the world as we learn more). You could use the term "Darwinism" itself as perjorative ("ism" to some people implies a false system), but most people don't use it that way, so I take issue with that language. Anyway, just another random thought. ;)

Talking about the evolution: If you want a proof here it is. More or less 5000000000 years ago the atmosfere of the Hearth was reductive. But suddenly some bacteries started doing the photosyntesis. And as itґs very efficient to provide energy the atmosfere became oxidant, filled with oxygen. Did bacteries die? No, they evolved, they underwent a process to be able to use oxygen to provide them energy. Of course lots of them died because they didnґt acomodate well. Thatґs evolution, the most capable to survive eats more, thus reproduces more, thus filles all the space avaliable. Then, the protoeucayotic cell happeared, and integrated inside a oxigen user bacteria. So it could reproduce more, it evolved. that happened 3000000000 years ago, then it took quite little time to develop the multicellular creature, and then, the mammals.

So, thatґs evolution. Those integrated bacterias are the mithocondrion. You can read about in any book on microbiology: endosimbiant theory. proposed by Lynn Margulis. Other examples are the presence of non producer dna in the genome, some genes were switched off because they werenґt need.

Because of this and lots of other facts the serious cientific community accepts the evolution theory: the most able to adapt himself to a place will prevail over the others.

Another bit of evolution filled in:

Scientists have made one of the most important fossil finds in history: a missing link between fish and land animals, showing how creatures first walked out of the water and on to dry land more than 375m years ago.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1748005,00.html)

For the past 100 years or so scientists have made 100s of independent discoveries in different fields of science, in different areas of nature and in different parts of the world. Each of these has filled in another blank in the theory of evolution. None of these have disproved the theory of evolution or supported another theory.

Its like a gigantic picture that is slowly being decoded before our eyes... we can see the big picture now, but each subsequent discovery sharpens a part of the image in a small way.

The recent discoveries of the creation of new species, the evolution of eyes and the transition from water to land have pretty much filled in any remaining areas that had been unclear and the recent development of genetic techniques is likely to bring the whole picture into even sharper focus.

One question I have for people who believe in, say, intelligent design or creationism or whatever outside of evolution, is how does your theory deal with the several mass extinctions the Earth has gone through?

I understand that while the most recent mass extinction 65 mya that brought about the death of the dinosaurs as well as 75% of all the other species on the planet was most likely caused by meteorite impact, (perhaps meteorites are outside of the skills of the intelligent designer?) many of the other mass extinctions are thought to be brought about by natural processes. In particular, the mass extinction at the end of the permian period where as much as 96% of life on the Earth died out is thought to have been brought about by climate change.

There are at least 4 other well known mass extinctions, and how does this fit into the scope of intelligent design? Is the designer just not that intelligent? Made a planet-full of species and then decided that they really weren't that good? Scrap it and make a new batch?

Well, I don't believe in 'Intelligent Design', but I could imagine that mass extinctions might not necessarily fit into a "Intelligent Designer's" plan. Accidents so to say. An arbortive experiment maybe. Simply things that happen to scientists all over the world.

I mean it's Intelligent Design not Omnipotent Design. :P

There are at least 4 other well known mass extinctions, and how does this fit into the scope of intelligent design? Is the designer just not that intelligent? Made a planet-full of species and then decided that they really weren't that good? Scrap it and make a new batch?I think you're mixing up intelligent design with supernatural design. I know that intelligent design exists and it's easily demonstrable, but I sure don't believe that trying to find a supernatural cause for design is useful for anything besides metaphysics.

Intelligent design exists when the term is applied to those things that are designed by humanity. Until such time as we can demonstrate that other worlds exist, this is all we can mean when we refer to "intelligent" design.

But the creationist nutters are referring to the design by a god. This has no evidential support and the entire premise is pseudoscience.

The creation explanation can be immediately disgarded, since there are many hundreds of variations of these and none are testable.
Just because it isn't testable, doesn't mean it isn't there.
Also, you are leaving out of this "debate" a very large majority of the world's population with that statement.

I make the distinction because in nearly every evolution argument I've been in, within a few posts the opponent to the fact of evolution will bring up the beginning of the universe.
That's because in the creation theory, the origin of species and the origin of the universe usually go hand-in-hand.

To me, this thread doesn't seem like a debate. It seems more like an excuse to tell each other how great the evolution theory is. Because you said that you disregarded creation because it can't be tested. And you have already stated that evolution is the only theory that is a demonstrable mechanism to explain our existence. Therefore you will disregard anyone who believes anything other than evolution. Therefore this thread is pointless.

Just because it isn't testable, doesn't mean it isn't there.

Alright, but, it must be fair to say then that even though you can't test that the sun is made of cheese, doesn't mean it's not made of cheese.

Also, you are leaving out of this "debate" a very large majority of the world's population with that statement.

If there's anything we've learned throughout history, it's that being in the majority doesn't make you right.

I know that intelligent design exists and it's easily demonstrable, Are you discussing intelligent design in the matter of the creation of all life on this planet? Because if so...I'd love to see that demonstration.

Generally when discussing "Intelligent Design" it's being applied to the belief that the creation of life on this planet was at least guided by some "designer". If this is the case, why did the designer decide to eradicate so much of it's work? For it to be a viable theory it MUST be able to explain why those happened.

Alright, but, it must be fair to say then that even though you can't test that the sun is made of cheese, doesn't mean it's not made of cheese.
That's different. Because that's disprovable. There just... aren't enough cows. :p
Point is, creation isn't really disprovable. And you must remember that there is some basis for creation. It's not just something people believe out of spite. And not all creationists are just delusional.

If there's anything we've learned throughout history, it's that being in the majority doesn't make you right.
That might be true in some cases, but not always. Besides, that wasn't really my point. I wasn't saying being in the majority makes me right, I was saying that if you're looking for debating opponets who don't believe in creation or evolution. Well... that's a rather small opposition.

One question I have for people who believe in, say, intelligent design or creationism or whatever outside of evolution, is how does your theory deal with the several mass extinctions the Earth has gone through?

I understand that while the most recent mass extinction 65 mya that brought about the death of the dinosaurs as well as 75% of all the other species on the planet was most likely caused by meteorite impact, (perhaps meteorites are outside of the skills of the intelligent designer?) many of the other mass extinctions are thought to be brought about by natural processes. In particular, the mass extinction at the end of the permian period where as much as 96% of life on the Earth died out is thought to have been brought about by climate change.

There are at least 4 other well known mass extinctions, and how does this fit into the scope of intelligent design? Is the designer just not that intelligent? Made a planet-full of species and then decided that they really weren't that good? Scrap it and make a new batch?

No matter what theory you believe in, whether we came from the sea or God made us as described in genesis. Both would have had to survive mass extinction's.

No matter what theory you believe in, whether we came from the sea or God made us as described in genesis. Both would have had to survive mass extinction's.That's kind of the point. Most things didn't survive the mass extinctions...that's why they're called mass extinctions.

Then your point is.... pointless? You asked how did mass extinction's fit into ID, and I was saying they go to evolution too. So do you just like hearing yourself speak or is there actully (holds breath) a point?

Evolution has an explanation for maxx extinction. Creatures die out due to changing conditions that they are incapable of adapting to. (Or in the case of the K-T extinction, they get vaporized by a giant meteor)

But if you don't believe in the survival of the fittest model, then why did everything die? I'm not saying that they DON'T explain it, I'm just asking what the explanation IS.

Are you discussing intelligent design in the matter of the creation of all life on this planet? Because if so...I'd love to see that demonstration.

Generally when discussing "Intelligent Design" it's being applied to the belief that the creation of life on this planet was at least guided by some "designer". If this is the case, why did the designer decide to eradicate so much of it's work? For it to be a viable theory it MUST be able to explain why those happened.No, I was meaning pretty much what Skinwalker said. Using the supernatural in intelligent design is kind of like dividing by infinity. It doesn't come up with a meaningful answer, because you can't define God.

Your second point- the designer doesn't exactly need to watch what the things it created are doing, nor does it have to care about them. Whether or not they get smacked by an asteroid is kind of irrelevant to whether they were designed or not.

Hey, who is this so-called "intelligent designer" anyway?

I've seen supporters of the "theory" asked that many times, and yet they can't exactly answer that question...

Hey, who is this so-called "intelligent designer" anyway?

I've seen supporters of the "theory" asked that many times, and yet they can't exactly answer that question...That's because they don't have an answer. It's not required to know who the designer is to use ID. Basically all ID says is that things which are more complex are more likely to have been designed (especially if that complexity is not natural, a la crystal formations).

That's because they don't have an answer. It's not required to know who the designer is to use ID. Basically all ID says is that things which are more complex are more likely to have been designed (especially if that complexity is not natural, a la crystal formations).

That's maybe a guess, at best. Not a theory, not even a hypothesis.

In order to be considered, "ID" needs to be able to come up with some evidence that there is an intelligent designer.

We all know that this is just creationism in disguise... let's be honest here. That's why so many Christians are behind it (except the Pope... he says evolution is right!) and the science community is against it.

Hey, who is this so-called "intelligent designer" anyway?

I've seen supporters of the "theory" asked that many times, and yet they can't exactly answer that question...

Depends on what religion. If it's Chritianity it's simply the God of the bible. What more do you need? Or are you really just asking where he came from? Becuase he's always been. I think in any theory of existance you have to have something that's always been there.

Depends on what religion. If it's Chritianity it's simply the God of the bible. What more do you need? Or are you really just asking where he came from? Becuase he's always been. I think in any theory of existance you have to have something that's always been there.

So this theory is only valid if you are religious? :confused:

If you're an atheist, who is the intelligent designer?

That's maybe a guess, at best. Not a theory, not even a hypothesis.

In order to be considered, "ID" needs to be able to come up with some evidence that there is an intelligent designer.Ususally, it's paired up with the idea of Irreducible Complexity, which makes it harder to dismiss. Even then, many of the supposedly irreducibly complex organisms that the ID/IC supporters have chosen turn out not really to be IC. Then they move to the next 'IC' bit of life. It's clearly not going to stop them to show that they are wrong in any given situation, and it's impossible to show that they are wrong in all situations.

We all know that this is just creationism in disguise... let's be honest here. That's why so many Christians are behind it (except the Pope... he says evolution is right!) and the science community is against it.Right. If you want to read some more about why ID is useless when trying to prove God, try some of Immanuel Kant's writings.

Just because it isn't testable, doesn't mean it isn't there.

Agreed. But that which isn't testable is far from reality when the alternative explanation is replete with evidence.

Also, you are leaving out of this "debate" a very large majority of the world's population with that statement [...] I wasn't saying being in the majority makes me right, I was saying that if you're looking for debating opponets who don't believe in creation or evolution. Well... that's a rather small opposition.

I must say that I find both statements ambiguous and I'm not sure what your intent is. At first, I thought as TK-8252 that you were implying that science and knowledge were that which could be voted upon. Now, I've no idea what point you're making. I'm assuming at this point you're commenting on my assertion that creation mythology can be discarded and that, if there's anything to debate, it must be with some other assertion.

I agree with you, however, that there is nothing to debate. Evolution is a fact. Creation is merely a myth that is perpetuated by those that hold onto ancient superstitions.

That's because in the creation theory, the origin of species and the origin of the universe usually go hand-in-hand.

There's no such thing as a "theory" when it comes to "creation." Creation is a subject of stories from various cultures of the world. Its mythology. We don't assert that there are minotaurs or volcano gods. Quetzecoatl isn't really a feathered serpent god of war.

To me, this thread doesn't seem like a debate. It seems more like an excuse to tell each other how great the evolution theory is. Because you said that you disregarded creation because it can't be tested. And you have already stated that evolution is the only theory that is a demonstrable mechanism to explain our existence. Therefore you will disregard anyone who believes anything other than evolution. Therefore this thread is pointless.

And yet you felt the need to post here and express your view. It would seem that you find the subject debatable (it isn't, btw). Not all threads in the Senate are "debates." Serious discussion can occur without the need for disagreement. The thread topic is "Evolution - and how we know it's right" not 'evolution vs. creation.'

Point is, creation isn't really disprovable.

Nor is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Bow down to your God (http://www.venganza.org/)!) :cool:

And you must remember that there is some basis for creation.

Which is....?

It's not just something people believe out of spite. And not all creationists are just delusional.

If they believe the Earth was created by a god about 10,000 years ago they are. If they believe the Earth was created 4.6 billion yrs ago but man didn't evolve from earlier primate species they're probably just ignorant, but I could still argue delusion if they've been educated and still believe the superstition.

Well, some believe it was aliens...not me personally, but I've heard it put forward before.

Your second point- the designer doesn't exactly need to watch what the things it created are doing, nor does it have to care about them. Whether or not they get smacked by an asteroid is kind of irrelevant to whether they were designed or not.
It seems that the designer DOES watch what it created, because it KEEPS creating them, and after all the mass Extinctions it 'made' billions more. And as far as we know, only one of the mass extinctions in history was caused by an asteroid impact, a lot of them were natural changes in the environment. So why didn't the designer start designing future iterations of creatures that were resillient to those kinds of changes?

Seems to me the title should be at least changed to 'lacks common sense designer'.

And yet you felt the need to post here and express your view. It would seem that you find the subject debatable (it isn't, btw). Not all threads in the Senate are "debates." Serious discussion can occur without the need for disagreement. The thread topic is "Evolution - and how we know it's right" not 'evolution vs. creation.'

But that's exactly the point I was making, it isn't debatable, it's just a thread designed to pat yourself on the back about your beliefs. I posted in this thread specifically to point that out. I just had the notion that the senate chambers were reserved for topics that would spark debates. And I came in here finding that no debate was invited. If I made a thread named "Creationism - and how we know it's right" that didn't invite a debate, i'd get floods of posts about evolution from all the rest of the (liberal) senate chamber-goers. And it'd probably end up being called spam and locked down.

Look, first of all, I was not impressed with that post. I was excpecting more from you. You only showed your complete ignorance of the history and beliefs of Christianity. And that you obviously have no place in your heart for any other religion but your own.
Yes, that's right, monkey boy, your beliefs require just as much faith as mine.
You obviously have it engrained into your mind that evolution can do no wrong. But I don't care how much "evidence" your scientists can gather. Evolution is neither provable nor unprovable, just like Christianity, and many other religions.
You might have some predjudice about how much I know about evolution. But I have have seen your "evidence." And I am not impressed.
Remember, I have actually educated myself on both Christianity and evolution. I am a person and I am not delusional. I can be just as smart as you'll ever be. I have opened my mind to evolution, and I am sorely dissapointed.

I'm not going to say anything more about creation because obviously that's not wanted in this thread, and you're clearly not that educated on the matter anyways, so i'm not going to waste my time. I'm also not going to say anything about evoution because I know you'll always think it's without flaw no matter what anyone says about it. So it's rather pointless to try.

The only point to this thread is so you can do your little evolution dance and flaunt around about how you think you're so right and everyone else is so wrong. And anyone who comes in and says otherwise will be doing so against your rules. It's childish at best.
And if you ask me, that doesn't sound like a "serious discussion" or a topic "worthy of Galactic recognition."

First of all, this isn't STRICTLY debate forum. Secondly, discussion of evolution is a serious discussion. Thirdly, you should stop telling a moderator how to moderate their forum.

And finally, to say that Skinwalker is not educated in the matter is inviting a very large, lengthy post showing that Skinwalker very likely knows vastly more than you do on both subjects, which you have shown very little evidence of knowledge on in this thread.
your beliefs require just as much faith as mine.
To say a scientific belief requires faith is pure ignorance about how science itself is structured and works. There is no inherent belief system of science. Science does not want people who simply believe in it. Science wants those who will test, and falsify, and corroborate it's theories.
Evolution is neither provable nor unprovable
There's no such thing as a 'provable' theory, but evolution is VERY disprovable. That's one of the absolute cores in creating a scientific theory, is that it MUST be somehow falsifiable.

Say that, in looking at the fossil record right after the K-T mass extinction we found that there was no gradual return to a wide variety of species. Directly above the K-T boundary there were just billions of new animals everywhere. That would be a pretty strong indication that evolution might have it wrong. The fact that this kind of evidence HASN'T been found is a source of strength for evolution, but it doesn't make it non-falsifiable.
I have opened my mind to evolution, and I am sorely dissapointed.
I'm truly curious what you aren't impressed about in evolution. Are you unimpressed by the logic? By the ever-growing mountain of evidence that continually corroborates the theory? By the fact that in all the years that it has existed nobody has managed to come up with a suitable counter-theory? I'm just wondering.

I simply don't want him to continue saying that a third of the world is dilusional and calling creationists nutters and crap like that, it certainly sounds very ignorant. I admit, sure, maybe he does know more about either subject than me. I don't know. But you can't claim i'm just blindly beliving something and am not educated about all sides of it. It's pretty insulting.

which you have shown very little evidence of knowledge on in this thread.
That doesn't mean I don't have the knowledge. I'm just not going to write a book on it just for this thread because that would be pointless. Not to mention unwanted.

To say a scientific belief requires faith is pure ignorance about how science itself is structured and works.
Yet you still say it's not provable. If you can't prove it and you can't know for sure, believing it still requires faith.

I'm truly curious what you aren't impressed about in evolution. Are you unimpressed by the logic?
Pretty much.

Thirdly, you should stop telling a moderator how to moderate their forum.
Why not? I have the right to. I still believe the context of this thread is pointless. And after his shameless slandering torwards all people who don't believe in evolution, I tend to take his rationality into question.

Yet you still say it's not provable. If you can't prove it and you can't know for sure, believing it still requires faith.not true. I don't BELIEVE in any scientific doctrine. I don't have faith that evolution is the correct theory. I accept the current best theory available to explain a phenomenon. If Evolution is eventually falsified I will stop accepting it, and move on to the new theory.
NOTHING in science is provable. There is no guarantee that ANYTHING we currently accept is the full truth. And a scientist doesn't believe that they are the truth, either. THAT is why science is no religion, and not a matter of faith.

To believe that there is some truth to a theory requires no faith, it simply means they are able to look at the evidence. "Well, this gravity idea certainly seems reasonable...everytime I drop this rock it falls right down."

What science has the religion deffinately does NOT have is flexibility, and acceptance of new ideas and removal of old ones.
Pretty much.Care to elaborate just what about the logical structure of it isn't impressing you?

You are right about the purpose of this thread - the topic should give it away. Since every few months a creationist vs evolution thread flairs up it seems sensible to have a thread ocntaining evidence supporting the evolution side of the argument.

You are welcome to start a "Creationism - and how we know it is right" thread if you want. But it will be very short. It will bascially consist of "because thats what my parents told me" and not much more.

And you must remember that there is some basis for creation.

I've never heard anyone mention any. Did i miss it?

Ususally, it's paired up with the idea of Irreducible Complexity, which makes it harder to dismiss. Even then, many of the supposedly irreducibly complex organisms that the ID/IC supporters have chosen turn out not really to be IC. Then they move to the next 'IC' bit of life. It's clearly not going to stop them to show that they are wrong in any given situation, and it's impossible to show that they are wrong in all situations.

That is what i was trying to show with my recent post about scientists making a major fosil discovery.

- Evolution gains new evidence every day, and hasn't yet run into a single thing that even remotley disproves it.

- Creationism/ID/IC has a part of it disproved every day and keeps having to shift its battlegrounds as it retreats. Pretty soon all they will be left with is "Creationism is true because we say it is" - which is pretty much all they have ever really had anyway.

@IG-64: the fact that a large proportion of the world believes in creationism is no reason to give it credence. A large proportion of the world believes in ghosts, goblins, aliens, voodoo, witch doctors and a lot of other myths too.
The only thing that is surprising is that belief in these fairytales isn't restricted to remote tribes and undeveloped cultures - but also seems to aflict supposedly advanced cultures like the US!

What science has the religion deffinately does NOT have is flexibility, and acceptance of new ideas and removal of old ones.


First we have people calling religious people ignorant, now its my turn. :rollseyes:

This is a generalization. You feel perfectly inclined to take a few groups of fundies and say "Look! This is what religion does to people!" I agree they are closed minded and weird. But to slap that label on all religious groups like you did only shows that you really don't care if they are fundies or not, your just generalizing. Unless you can prove to me that not ONE religion has ever changed, revised old doctrines etc. then you can't support that statement.

I have to agree this is an Evolution (as some people put it) backpating thread, so heres to me! *Pats self on back*

But that's exactly the point I was making, it isn't debatable, it's just a thread designed to pat yourself on the back about your beliefs.

Actually, if you bothered to read the thread, it was a post that ShadowTemplar started in response to some comments that another member made regarding the veracity of evolution and how 'intelligent' design was as viable a theory. It would seem that the member in question decided (wisely?) not to debate the fact of evolution. So it was actually intended to be a debate of sorts. However, I took advantage of the general nature of the thread title to provide some opportunity to provide an educational thread on the information that is available that supports and demonstrates the various assertions of science with regard to evolution.

Unfortunately, I'm trying to get into grad school and have had little time to devote to the thread itself, though I had some ideas which I discussed with ShadowT -who also has some academic responsibilities that are taking up his time, I believe. Needless to say, it hasn't moved forward yet and would probably become another thread entirely now.

I posted in this thread specifically to point that out. I just had the notion that the senate chambers were reserved for topics that would spark debates. And I came in here finding that no debate was invited. If I made a thread named "Creationism - and how we know it's right" that didn't invite a debate, i'd get floods of posts about evolution from all the rest of the (liberal) senate chamber-goers. And it'd probably end up being called spam and locked down.

Tell you what: I invite the debate. If you have an alternative assertion to the fact of evolution (the provable and proved fact of evolution), state it here. I'll gladly debate it.

Look, first of all, I was not impressed with that post. I was excpecting more from you. You only showed your complete ignorance of the history and beliefs of Christianity. And that you obviously have no place in your heart for any other religion but your own.

I have no religion, sonny. Moreover, the reason I have no religion is that I'm educated in the historical , anthropological, psychological and sociological origins and causes of religion. I invite you to look at an educational work in-progress: The Scientific Study of Religion (http://www.thescienceforum.com/The-Scientific-Study-of-Religion-2160t.php). Having said that, I challenge you to cite exactly where I have "showed" my "complete ignorance of the history and beliefs of Christianity" so that I might clarify or correct myself. Since this is a very blunt assertion, it would be unfair not to qualify it and failing to do so would reveal what I suspect is the true nature of the words: a simple derision from a frustrated believer in an out-dated superstition.

Yes, that's right, monkey boy, your beliefs require just as much faith as mine.

First, I will remind you that such comments are considered insults and against LF rules. I'm not sure if you were implying that I lack intelligence, bipedalism, have a prehensile tail, or that I favor an arboreal lifestyle. However, I'll tolerate them directed toward me and I'll promise to to respond in kind by referring to you as an ovicaprid, etc. Just don't let me see you make a similar comment to other mods or members.

Second, which "beliefs" do I have that require "faith?" I have none. The only "beliefs" I might have are balanced by the weight of evidence. Faith is belief without evidence. I challenge you to clarify this as well.

You obviously have it engrained into your mind that evolution can do no wrong.

Then you obviously don't understand my "beliefs" nor do you seem willing. I hold that science, which explains evolution, must be potentially wrong! Indeed, this is a strength of science: that it can recognize when there is an assertion that is wrong and allow for revision. Religious superstitions, while they *do* change, are far more resistant to revision, often violently so. Evolution isn't a discipline of science, it is an explanation for how the fantastic diversity of life on this planet came to be in a gradual nature over a long period of time. Biology, chemistry, astronomy, anthropology, geology, physics, etc are all disciplines that contribute to the explanation that life evolved on this planet. In most cases, the mountains of data that these disciplines have uncovered regarding evolution were arrived at independently and yet they are completely cooberative!

But I don't care how much "evidence" your scientists can gather. Evolution is neither provable nor unprovable, just like Christianity, and many other religions.

I have no scientists. None work for me any more than they do yourself. But your pejorative use of "your scientists" serves only to distance yourself from the mainstream of society and cement yourself in a superstitious sect of a given religious cult without regard to the facts that exist. Clearly, you have an anti-science worldview that is becoming popular among believers in the paranormal from religious superstitions to ESP and alien abductions.

You might have some predjudice about how much I know about evolution. But I have have seen your "evidence." And I am not impressed.

I'm not convinced you've "seen" the evidence or, if you have, you were obviously incapable or unwilling to comprehend it. Perhaps you bit off more than you can chew or perhaps you had little interest to begin with, most likely deterred by the indoctrination of a religious dogma that specifically targets science as an evil, atheist institution bent on bringing down the institution of religion. In other words, you most likely looked at the evidence (though I still question how much) with an pre-set expectation that it was false, and did not bother to appropriately question the validity. If I'm wrong, I challenge you to cite what "evidence" you've been exposed to and why you found it unconvincing.

Remember, I have actually educated myself on both Christianity and evolution. I am a person and I am not delusional. I can be just as smart as you'll ever be. I have opened my mind to evolution, and I am sorely dissapointed.

I've no interest in questioning your intellect. I genuinely hope you are smarter than I -indeed, I'm really not that smart at all in my own opinion. But I have been educated in many disciplines of science as well as many religious beliefs. I've certainly *not* limited myself to just christianity and evolution. But what has dissapointed you about science, specifically? What revelations of scientific study have you found to be less than genuine?

I'm not going to say anything more about creation because obviously that's not wanted in this thread, and you're clearly not that educated on the matter anyways, so i'm not going to waste my time. I'm also not going to say anything about evoution because I know you'll always think it's without flaw no matter what anyone says about it. So it's rather pointless to try.

I think you're incapable of speaking about either subject. This isn't a bad thing, really, and I don't fault you for it. Some simply haven't the ability to defend their beliefs -perhaps they are content to simply believe without allowing for critical thought. Certainly this is far easier and simpler and I respect that choice. I do, however, fault your willingness to make derisive and pejorative comments without supporting them. Derision has it place but needs qualification and clarification.

Care to elaborate just what about the logical structure of it isn't impressing you?
You've probably heard all my arguments before from other Christians. If I use my imagination, I can think of how stuff might possibly get more advanced through natural selection within a species. I don't, however, get how multiple species help each other out in a chain somehow. What is this natural law that tells a species to help another species in a certain way?
Also, I don't believe the earth can be that old. I just don't. I don't believe you can accurately date anything that old. I don't like the reasoning behind the dating system. In order to date something billions of years old, you have to assume the universe is billions of years old in the first place. And there would be so many changes in the world in that amount of time, it just seems unfathomable that you could accurately predict how any of it happend.
I also have yet to see the stockpiles of transitional fossils. It seems like over millions of years of generations of all the species, there would be massive piles of these fossils everywhere.
And I have seen some of the diffrent transitional fossils. You can't really be sure in any way those diffrent species actually evolved into each other. I know the evolution of the horse is used alot as an example but it seems like it could be trasitional species, or it could just be similar species found from all over the world and put together in a hypothetical phase of the evolution of a horse.
The transitional species of humans are pretty unimpressive as well. It seems like the entire logic of it is based simply on the fact that humans and apes look alike. It seems like all the species found are either apes that kind of look like humans (and in some cases are dramatized in "recreations" to looks more like humans than they actually do) or vice verca, a human that looks kind of like an ape. I also heard the other day that human-apes and humans supposedly lived together now?
More uncertainty can be found in the evolution of the dinosaur to modern birds. It seems like at first dinosaurs evolved into birds... Now they're saying birds evolved into dinosaurs?
And then theres the geologic column. Theres no where on earth you can actually see a whole geologic column. So isn't that just hypothetical as well? And all the stuff that goes on with the rock layers. You can't really prove it happend over billions of years. For all you know, it could've happend all at once. Or in short bursts. Who knows.
A very large reason I don't believe in evolution is that I beleive everything has a purpose. We have to be here for a reason. It can't just all be pointless.

Those are a few of the reasons. I have more but I gotta do school now.

[EDIT] Lol, i'm not even gonna try to respond to all that, skinwalker. I didn't mean to insult you. (though you technically called me a "nutter" which is what I was bouncing back on when I called you monkey boy. :P)
I'm just trying to get the message across that you can believe in creationism and not be an idiot. There are alot of smart people in the world and in history who believe in creationism.
As you can tell, i'm not very experienced at debates, and sometimes I have trouble getting my message across. I also tend to get worked up very easily.

(the provable and proved fact of evolution)Karl Popper frowns on you :xp:


Unless you can prove to me that not ONE religion has ever changed, revised old doctrines etc. then you can't support that statement.The important difference is in frequency and timing. Science has, is, and will always be undergoing change. It is designed to do so. Religion is most deffinately NOT. There may be times when some of the Dogma is changed or re-interpreted, but it is infrequent, and not planned for. It is also generally met with extreme resistance.

I think you're incapable of speaking about either subject. This isn't a bad thing, really, and I don't fault you for it. Some simply haven't the ability to defend their beliefs -perhaps they are content to simply believe without allowing for critical thought. Certainly this is far easier and simpler and I respect that choice.

I kind of do a little bit of both. I'm open to critical thought, but i'm also pretty hard set on what I believe. Creationism just seems more logical to me than anything else. At any rate, I rarely let it bother me very much.

However, I see you devote much of your life to it.

Obviously I shouldn't get so worked up over what you say because we have a very, very diffrent way of thinking.

I think it's interesting to note that Creationism and science are not opposing forces. They can, and do, coexist quite peacefully for some - even the account of Creation in Genesis is remarkably similar to the Big Bang theory; so similar, in fact, that it might well be taken as an account of the Big Bang from an ignorant observer. You might try checking out Evolutionary Creationism as well.

Science cares very little about God; it has no reason to. Religion should care very much about science; you can only know God through his word and works, right? If science isn't something we were meant to use in that endeavor then I must be seriously mistaken.

IG, having been active in the Senate, I can tell you that this place can become quite a commitment. Usually I'd expect rccar to be debating on your side, but he appears to be AWOL. :p

Karl Popper frowns on your :xp:

But Dawkins would rub my head and say, "good show."

I'm not referring to the "proof" that you can get in mathematics: 12 into 24 = 2, which you can prove by multplying 12 by 2 which equals 24.

I'm talking about the proof that comes from confirmations of predictions that science gets when it examines evolutionary details like the fossil record for a given species. In hominid evolution, for instance, we expected to see certain transitional features in new hominid finds which were located by the Leakey's in Africa. Features that were morphologically between modern humans and earlier primates like Aegyptopithicus. These features were found in Australopithicus.

I'm also talking about the proofs that come in the form of confirmations between disciplines. Geologists verify the predictions of biologists; astronomers verify the predictions of geologists; chemists verfiy the predictions of astronomers; etc. The explanation of evolution is replete with examples of complimentary deductions, conclusions and discoveries which cooberate the data obtained by each of the disciplines of science involved.

We can prove gravity exists, though Popper would argue the degree to which that proof could go. We can prove the Sun is vital to photosynthesis, yet I'm sure Popper would argue that it isn't actually a proof since we cannot test the negative hypothesis of removing the Sun.

Evolution is as provable as gravity and photosynthesis. It really happened.

You've probably heard all my arguments before from other Christians.

Would you likewise concede that these arguments have been debunked? If not, perhaps it would be useful to specify the ones that haven't. If so, why then would you want to continue with a debunked belief? See my last paragraph for clarification of this, as it isn't just a simple derision of Christianity.

I don't, however, get how multiple species help each other out in a chain somehow. What is this natural law that tells a species to help another species in a certain way?

I'm not sure I understand the question. If, by chain of species, you mean the phylogeny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogeny), there isn't a "natural law" other than fitness. Speciation typically occurs when populations of a given species become separated and gene flow is limited. This allows the two (or more) populations to begin taking advantage of different environments. The orangutans in Borneo and Sumatra are good examples of speciation in the make. The species were once able to interact but became separated with the rise of sea levels with the end of the last glacial age. The two populations already exhibit very different physical characters and are distinct even to lay-persons. If the two populations survive for the next million years or so, the differences that genetic drift and natural selection pressure their DNA with could create populations that are unable to mate and create viable offspring.

In the Galapagos Islands, there exist turtles that have been separated long enough that their populations have diverged to the point of speciation (they cannot produce viable offspring). Their DNA is very, very similar but each population adapted for the different environs of the different islands.

In primates, there is a clear morphological progression in features that range from fused mandibular syntheses to cranial structure to hip structures. When these specimens are laid out in order of what strata they were found for a given locality (i.e. Africa, S. America), the morphological progression is gradual and obvious in all features from phalanges to limbs to hips to vertebrae to cranial features that include manibular and maxillary characteristics as well as overall cranial form. And that just with a given line of primates. This can be done with all mammals, angiosperms, amphibians, conifers, etc. The results are always the same and not one species has exhibited features that were out of place. If that isn't evolution, then there is a god that wanted us to think there is. Ironically, the religious ignore this god's work.


Also, I don't believe the earth can be that old. I just don't.

I must say, "I just don't" is not exactly a logical reason.

I don't believe you can accurately date anything that old. I don't like the reasoning behind the dating system.

It can be difficult to accept or understand if you haven't spent the time or effort to learn how it is that science manages to use the very wide variety of dating methods that, by the way, each cooberate each other very efficiently. I would hesitate to go into the details of dating since there are so many methods that range from K-Ar isotope analysis to dendrochronolgy to paleomagnetics to C14 analysis among many others. Suffice it to say, the same science that has given us the very computers we are communicating on is used to analyse isotopes and determine their ages. Electrons and atomic theory are essential to development of modern electronics, particularly computers.

Do you believe your computer works?

I also have yet to see the stockpiles of transitional fossils. It seems like over millions of years of generations of all the species, there would be massive piles of these fossils everywhere.

I was just visiting a museum storeroom last year. I saw the stockpiles of transistional fossils. There are thousands upon thousands and this was in one single museum. Again, when laid out in chronological order derived from the stratigraphy, they are gradually changing and representative of a transistion from one form to another to another.

And I have seen some of the diffrent transitional fossils. You can't really be sure in any way those diffrent species actually evolved into each other.

Which ones, specifically? Perhaps we could discuss the transitional nature of these?

The transitional species of humans are pretty unimpressive as well. It seems like the entire logic of it is based simply on the fact that humans and apes look alike.

If that's what you think, then its very clear that you haven't studied the subject at all. The transistional nature of Homo sapiens back through early primate species like Aegyptopithicus is astounding! The gradual change in form is tremendously obvious when the time is actually taken to examine the various species in the manner I describe above.

And then theres the geologic column. Theres no where on earth you can actually see a whole geologic column. So isn't that just hypothetical as well?

Nope. Its factual. The amazing thing is that the geologic column is one of the most predictable features of the planet. That there are those that continue to dispute it is the real story. The stratigraphy of South Texas can be matched up in Great Britain. They have different names for the stratigraphic members than we do here, but the chemistry and composition as well as the order are identical.

And all the stuff that goes on with the rock layers. You can't really prove it happend over billions of years. For all you know, it could've happend all at once. Or in short bursts. Who knows.

Paleomagnetic dating is but one demonstrative method. The sea-floor spreads at a measurable rate. The alignment of magnetic molecules in rock can thus be matched to the pattern on the sea-floor spreading out from a mid-oceanic ridge. This is the process in a nutshell and is but one process. The radioactive decay of certain isotopes is also a mathematically derived figure and atomic theory is well established and demonstrated. Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) analysis can reveal the age of a rock by noting the amount of decay the isotopes have experienced. Again, the process in a nutshell.

A very large reason I don't believe in evolution is that I beleive everything has a purpose. We have to be here for a reason. It can't just all be pointless.

I can't speak to that. I don't see purpose in life, only the opportunity to live it as best you can. I don't see evidence of any other life after this one and therefore do not intend to live this one as if I have another chance somewhere else. That would waste the one opportunity that I have, and I'll go on appreciating your life and the lives of all I meet as well as the planet I live on. I'm in continuous amazement at the little bubble of existence we have in a universe that is otherwise inhospitiable.

Finally

One of the things that upsets most believers in creation the most is that the person that invariably argues the validity of evolution is an atheist or at least agnostic about the existence of a god. It is a common misconception that to be a Christian, one must reject evolution -a misconception that certain religious leaders are all too eager to promote. I assert that this is because its easier to maintain a membership in a given culture if you can rally the members to a common cause, which is most easily done with an other (a.k.a. a bogeyman).

Another misconception is that all proponents of evolution as an explanation for life on the planet is automatically an atheist. While this is true in my case, I know many who are religious (most of these are christian) who fully accept evolution. One of them recently remarked to me that it is blasphemous, in his opinion, for creationists to continually assert that the Earth cannot be as old as science has discovered or that God cannot set into motion, over 13 billion years ago, the process that produced the evolutionary mechanism that science has discovered. "How dare they," my friend exclaims quite loudly, "pretend to know what God's limitations are and attempt to limit His ability to create!"

My friend knows I don't believe this, but nor do I discount it out of hand. We simply don't have sufficient evidence to know what happened 13 billion years ago and how. We do, however, have sufficient evidence of what occurred on this planet in the last 4.6 Gy.

One of the things that upsets most believers in creation the most is that the person that invariably argues the validity of evolution is an atheist or at least agnostic about the existence of a god. It is a common misconception that to be a Christian, one must reject evolution -a misconception that certain religious leaders are all too eager to promote.

Indeed, the official position of the Pope is that evolution does not conflict with Christian beliefs. Maybe because the Catholics say evolution is okay is why other Christian leaders like Pat Robertson want to say it's wrong? :p

I'm not referring to the "proof" that you can get in mathematics: 12 into 24 = 2, which you can prove by multplying 12 by 2 which equals 24.
I rather understand your meanings, I just don't like the term 'proven' in relation to science. I'm certainly no Popperian, but I do prefer 'not falsified' and 'strongly coroborated' as terms.

Proven just strikes me as too concrete a term.

In order to date something billions of years old, you have to assume the universe is billions of years old in the first place.No, in order to date something to that age you simply need to know the rate of decay in certain radioactive elements. Uranium-235, for example, decays into Lead-207. Uranium-235 has a half-life of 704 million years, so any rock that contains an even distribution of those two elements is likely to be approximately 704 million years old. There are several different elements used in this form of dating, and as Skinwalker has said, there are other observational methods (Seafloor spreading, etc.).

Edit - Just saw this article (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/12/fossil.evolution.ap/index.html) on CNN. It seemed pertinant.

Indeed, the official position of the Pope is that evolution does not conflict with Christian beliefs. Maybe because the Catholics say evolution is okay is why other Christian leaders like Pat Robertson want to say it's wrong? :p
Evangelicals take a very literalistic view of the books of the Bible... and for some even the actual date of creation plays a very important part in the plan of salvation. Either way, their view is that since every word of the bible was inspired by God, and God cannot lie... then the creation story, as it is set down in Genesis, HAS to be the literal truth.

Catholics just don't seem to have the same hang ups about that... or perhaps they've just outgrown it. (I must confess that I don't know enough about Catholicism to know why it's different... )

The important difference is in frequency and timing. Science has, is, and will always be undergoing change. It is designed to do so. Religion is most deffinately NOT. There may be times when some of the Dogma is changed or re-interpreted, but it is infrequent, and not planned for. It is also generally met with extreme resistance.


Nice job ignoring the question. You just cling to that argument if it makes you feel better.

And just as a call out, Great thread! I actully got thinking about evolution more (science is not really my cup of tea) and learned some stuff, I really enjoyed it.

And special thanks to Krugan for his post about the books of the bible, that was really cool and I enjoyed reading it.
(I'm saying this cause I fear the thread is going to decay rapidly while I am away over Easter, and it was such a good one too :()