[quote]Ronsauce wrote:
miroku333 wrote:
because if it’s on the internet it must be true?
Not always, but you can at least surmise that if many different sources reinforce an idea with evidence, and it all happens to be logical and makes sense, then there’s at least a decent chance it is true.
someone who does not want to be swayed will not be swayed, regardless of facts, logic or insults.
What is a religious person, Alex.
[/quote]
DING DING DING
[quote]AlphaDragon wrote:
What if the entire basis for the belief of evolution is wrong from the get-go? I highly doubt that they would revise it…for the simple fact that so much of our society/education is based on the “fact” of evolution?[/quote]
It’s hard to imagine how the “entire basis” for evolutionary theory could be found to be wrong. The evidence for evolution comes from biology, geology, cosmology, paleontology, and probably a few other -ologies as well. Is there one simple fact that could be discovered that would disprove the whole thing? If not, is it possible that the mountains of evidence that we currently believe supports evolutionary theory are all being misinterpreted? I don’t see how, but I’m an engineer, not a biologist.
Did you have something particular in mind that would disprove evolution as we now know it?
[quote]And, fyi, I don’t think it’s promptly admitted when wrong…but that’s a different topic altogether…
[/quote]
Depends on what kind of time frame you consider to be “promptly”, I suppose, and also what you mean by “wrong”. Whenever scientists make observations that contradict a theory, there are many steps to go through before the theory is revised or discarded. First, the observations must be repeated by other scientists. Then it must be determined whether the observations are simply statistical outliers or actually significant differences from theory predictions. That process can take months or even years, depending on the nature of the observations. Still relatively quick compared to how long it took the Church to recognize the work of Galileo.
Furthermore, the tendency is not to discard a theory until a better one can be proposed. Newton’s theory of gravity was used for quite a while even though it could not account for the orbit of Mercury. It wasn’t until Einstein’s theory of general relativity came along was able to explain the discrepancy and make better predictions of Mercury’s orbit that Newton’s theory was amended. Even so, Newton’s theory is still used most of the time because it is good enough to handle every day situations.
A similar story applies to the idea of “dark matter” (even though no one knows what it really is) and may one day apply to ideas like “dark energy” or string theory.
It is more likely that the theory of evolution will go the way of Newton’s theory of gravity and be revised and extended as biologists learn more about how genetic processes work. It is highly unlikely that it will be flat out disproved and we will one day discover that common genetics are not the result of common descent.
[quote]tkisner wrote:
Explain the flagella in the basic cell structure. Or the eye. Evolution hasn’t been able to. Maybe you can be so wise to deduce it for us.[/quote]
Well I sure as hell can’t but I’m fairly certain someone somewhere will come up with a more plausible hypothesis than, “the big guy we can’t see done it”, before too long. When it turns out the first guy was wrong someone else with have thought of and provided evidence for a better model.
Until then I’ll go with being confused. After all, “it’s not research if you know what you’re doing”. That’s the beauty of the scientific method, something that creationists don’t quite get. Just because we do not understand everything today does not mean we have to give up and invoke a god. Maybe we just aren’t smart enough to figure it out. Or maybe we will eventually, just not yet.
Or maybe there is a god. If so then one day the scientific method will provide good supporting evidence for the hypothesis. Until then the theory of a supreme being is too damn complex for my liking and basically untenable
[quote]AlphaDragon wrote:
By the way,
Great post, Bill
Bill Roberts wrote:
Now that you have concluded from the similarity of a gas pump to a penis and a gas tank to a vagina, regarding complexity of life forms that “organic molecules simply fell into place according to where the laws of physics told them to go” and your gas tank example “destroys any lingering doubts that biological system are too complex to be explained by evolution,” perhaps you can explain to me how the laws of physics told molecules where to go such that, for example:
While having parents that both had two-chambered hearts and corresponding circulatory and respiratory systems that interfaced perfectly with those hearts, molecules were told how to re-arrange for one or more of the offspring so that DNA now coded for new proteins that resulted (how? explain the mechanism) in an offspring with a three-chambered heart, fully functional the first time right off the bat and well interfaced, necessarily differently, with the circulatory and respiratory systems.
And how the laws of physics told molecules how to successfully carry these necessarily quite complex (as the change is quite complex) DNA changes on to future generations, as this was the only creature on the planet at this time with the 3-chambered heart.
I mean, obviously what with the gas pump and the gas tank you’ve proven this… I just would appreciate the explanation that gives at least some degree of detail or at least plausibility?
[/quote]
because it doesn’t happen in one step, it happens in billions of tiny steps over a very long time.
I am yet to see a person who doesn’t believe in Evolution who can acurately explain it. Seriously read some of Dawkins work on evolution (other than his straight up anti god ones) and he explains it in very easy to understand terms.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Rather a scientific person SHOULD NOT blithely assume and assert that because there are some principles and mechanisms we understand, we know for a fact that everything observed, including things far beyond our understanding, are definitely caused by those principles and mechanisms.
If one can’t follow through in detail as to how yes in fact this is explained and here’s how, it’s bad practice to assume and assert it’s proven that one’s master explanation is correct.
(snipped more good stuff for space)
[/quote]
Well, sure, but much the same can be said for gravity. We have no idea how gravity really works, by what means it propagates (or even if it propagates at all). No one has yet been able to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics.
But that doesn’t mean that if I were to drop something out the window there is a significant chance it wouldn’t fall to the ground.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
So today I was filling up my car at the gas station and it occurred to me that the way that gas is transferred from the pump to the car is similar to the manner in which semen is transferred from the male to the female; i.e. by inserting a funnel into a reciprocal.
This got me thinking. Is it some big coincidence that the engineers devised the same system of fluid transfer as nature? Of course not. The penis/vagina arrangement was neither intelligently designed, nor did it occur randomly. Instead, it simply evolved in the only way that was possible, conforming to the niche created by nature. The organic molecules simply fell into place according to where the laws of physics told them to go.
I feel somewhat stupid for not realizing this a long time ago. Nevertheless, it destroys any lingering doubts that biological system are too complex to be explained by evolution.[/quote]
This is one of the least “fact-based” arguments for evolution I’ve ever seen.
[quote]milod wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
What if the entire basis for the belief of evolution is wrong from the get-go? I highly doubt that they would revise it…for the simple fact that so much of our society/education is based on the “fact” of evolution?
It’s hard to imagine how the “entire basis” for evolutionary theory could be found to be wrong. The evidence for evolution comes from biology, geology, cosmology, paleontology, and probably a few other -ologies as well. Is there one simple fact that could be discovered that would disprove the whole thing? If not, is it possible that the mountains of evidence that we currently believe supports evolutionary theory are all being misinterpreted? I don’t see how, but I’m an engineer, not a biologist.
Did you have something particular in mind that would disprove evolution as we now know it?
And, fyi, I don’t think it’s promptly admitted when wrong…but that’s a different topic altogether…
Depends on what kind of time frame you consider to be “promptly”, I suppose, and also what you mean by “wrong”. Whenever scientists make observations that contradict a theory, there are many steps to go through before the theory is revised or discarded. First, the observations must be repeated by other scientists. Then it must be determined whether the observations are simply statistical outliers or actually significant differences from theory predictions. That process can take months or even years, depending on the nature of the observations. Still relatively quick compared to how long it took the Church to recognize the work of Galileo.
Furthermore, the tendency is not to discard a theory until a better one can be proposed. Newton’s theory of gravity was used for quite a while even though it could not account for the orbit of Mercury. It wasn’t until Einstein’s theory of general relativity came along was able to explain the discrepancy and make better predictions of Mercury’s orbit that Newton’s theory was amended. Even so, Newton’s theory is still used most of the time because it is good enough to handle every day situations.
A similar story applies to the idea of “dark matter” (even though no one knows what it really is) and may one day apply to ideas like “dark energy” or string theory.
It is more likely that the theory of evolution will go the way of Newton’s theory of gravity and be revised and extended as biologists learn more about how genetic processes work. It is highly unlikely that it will be flat out disproved and we will one day discover that common genetics are not the result of common descent.[/quote]
Yeah like he said!
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
Otep wrote:
Evolution tries, at least, and when it’s wrong, it’s both promptly admitted and the old model is revised in light of newer facts.
Just for the sake of argument:
What if the entire basis for the belief of evolution is wrong from the get-go? I highly doubt that they would revise it…for the simple fact that so much of our society/education is based on the “fact” of evolution?
And, fyi, I don’t think it’s promptly admitted when wrong…but that’s a different topic altogether…
Umm… There are countless examples in science of something being proven wrong, and then the rest of the community readily accepting it. You just cant argue with fact… Unless you are religious.
What in our society (of which more than 50% of the population rejects the theory, and up to 75% reject it as a natural phenomenon) is based on evolution?[/quote]
Not debating right or wrong in this post, but…
Things like global warming and evolution are religion for a lot of people. I would even go as far as to sometimes label “anti-christian” as much a religion as christianity itself.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
By the way,
Great post, Bill
Bill Roberts wrote:
Now that you have concluded from the similarity of a gas pump to a penis and a gas tank to a vagina, regarding complexity of life forms that “organic molecules simply fell into place according to where the laws of physics told them to go” and your gas tank example “destroys any lingering doubts that biological system are too complex to be explained by evolution,” perhaps you can explain to me how the laws of physics told molecules where to go such that, for example:
While having parents that both had two-chambered hearts and corresponding circulatory and respiratory systems that interfaced perfectly with those hearts, molecules were told how to re-arrange for one or more of the offspring so that DNA now coded for new proteins that resulted (how? explain the mechanism) in an offspring with a three-chambered heart, fully functional the first time right off the bat and well interfaced, necessarily differently, with the circulatory and respiratory systems.
And how the laws of physics told molecules how to successfully carry these necessarily quite complex (as the change is quite complex) DNA changes on to future generations, as this was the only creature on the planet at this time with the 3-chambered heart.
I mean, obviously what with the gas pump and the gas tank you’ve proven this… I just would appreciate the explanation that gives at least some degree of detail or at least plausibility?
because it doesn’t happen in one step, it happens in billions of tiny steps over a very long time.
I am yet to see a person who doesn’t believe in Evolution who can acurately explain it. Seriously read some of Dawkins work on evolution (other than his straight up anti god ones) and he explains it in very easy to understand terms.[/quote]
You truly do not get my post, do you.
[quote]milod wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Rather a scientific person SHOULD NOT blithely assume and assert that because there are some principles and mechanisms we understand, we know for a fact that everything observed, including things far beyond our understanding, are definitely caused by those principles and mechanisms.
If one can’t follow through in detail as to how yes in fact this is explained and here’s how, it’s bad practice to assume and assert it’s proven that one’s master explanation is correct.
(snipped more good stuff for space)
Well, sure, but much the same can be said for gravity. We have no idea how gravity really works, by what means it propagates (or even if it propagates at all). No one has yet been able to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics.
But that doesn’t mean that if I were to drop something out the window there is a significant chance it wouldn’t fall to the ground.[/quote]
You are attempting to reason by analogy but your analogy fails.
In the case of theories of gravity, countless examples have been worked out where objects are indeed observed to move precisely as the theory says.
Additionally, the theory does not attempt to say that it knows that there is nothing else, only that the things it says it explains, it does accurately model.
In the case of evolution as conceived by many and the original poster – supposedly a master theory that supposedly shows that nothing is needed but chemistry and selection processes most particularly for amount of replication over time – it is not the case that for every case one might put up demanding “Well, demonstrate how mutations that could possibly occur can yield this particular change” that this has always been successfully done. Unlike gravity. Indeed, for many we don’t remotely have the first grasp even of the general question of how different proteins could yield the different outcome.
And second, people speaking of evolution in this sense – supposedly demonstrating that mechanisms of evolution are definitely all that is needed to explain all life on Earth – do indeed claim their theory to explain which in fact they cannot explain with it, but only assert “could” be explained.
Of course scientifically that is not what is meant by the theory of evolution, but it is what the original poster meant and what, going from public debate, the public generally believes of it, and no shortage of teachers, etc, either do as well.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Of course scientifically that is not what is meant by the theory of evolution, but it is what the original poster meant and what, going from public debate, the public generally believes of it, and no shortage of teachers, etc, either do as well.
[/quote]
Ah, Bach.
Yes, that is one of the difficulties of discussing “evolution” especially online; the word has so many different meanings. Of course, this also raises the danger of arguing with a straw man.
That said, the fact that the theory of evolution cannot explain in detail every mechanism by which novel traits arise in a population is not per se evidence against evolution. These are areas that remain to be explored and no one knows whether evolution or some competing theory will explain them better.
[quote]miroku333 wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
tkisner wrote:
Explain the flagella in the basic cell structure. Or the eye. Evolution hasn’t been able to. Maybe you can be so wise to deduce it for us.
Please, please, please tell me you are joking? You could literally spend 14 seconds on google or wikipedia and find this information out.
because if it’s on the internet it must be true?[/quote]
Of course not EVERYTHING on the internet is true(see: Creationism), but that doesn’t mean we throw the baby out with the bath water. Should I have recommended a text book? I’m sure you would have said something along the lines of “Because if its in a book it must be true?”
When someone tells me they think the eye MUST have been created, its very, very obvious they have not done even the basic research to see the eye has progressed through stages, not a sudden emergence, that is well explained by the evolution.
[quote]is this debate really going on again?
someone who does not want to be swayed will not be swayed, regardless of facts, logic or insults.
however, that being said, carry on - this is very entertaining so far.[/quote]
If I can get even one person to examine their beliefs critically, even if I feel they have come to the wrong conclusion at the end of the day, thats fine with me.
Science, Reason, and rationality are ideas worth fighting for in my opinion. Obviously your opinion differs.
[quote]streamline wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
Otep wrote:
Evolution tries, at least, and when it’s wrong, it’s both promptly admitted and the old model is revised in light of newer facts.
Just for the sake of argument:
What if the entire basis for the belief of evolution is wrong from the get-go? I highly doubt that they would revise it…for the simple fact that so much of our society/education is based on the “fact” of evolution?
And, fyi, I don’t think it’s promptly admitted when wrong…but that’s a different topic altogether…
What if Religion was all wrong, right from the start. Do you think they would admit it. I’m preety damn sure they were and are wrong, but I can’t prove it.[/quote]
YES!
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
miroku333 wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
tkisner wrote:
…
When someone tells me they think the eye MUST have been created, its very, very obvious they have not done even the basic research to see the eye has progressed through stages, not a sudden emergence, that is well explained by the evolution.
is this debate really going on again?
someone who does not want to be swayed will not be swayed, regardless of facts, logic or insults.
however, that being said, carry on - this is very entertaining so far.
If I can get even one person to examine their beliefs critically, even if I feel they have come to the wrong conclusion at the end of the day, thats fine with me.
Science, Reason, and rationality are ideas worth fighting for in my opinion. Obviously your opinion differs.[/quote]
YES!
That is not evolution. Now if we could have sex with a hot woman every time we got gas, THAT would certainly be a step up to a higher existence, or evolution!
[quote]AlphaDragon wrote:
streamline wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
Otep wrote:
Evolution tries, at least, and when it’s wrong, it’s both promptly admitted and the old model is revised in light of newer facts.
Just for the sake of argument:
What if the entire basis for the belief of evolution is wrong from the get-go? I highly doubt that they would revise it…for the simple fact that so much of our society/education is based on the “fact” of evolution?
And, fyi, I don’t think it’s promptly admitted when wrong…but that’s a different topic altogether…
What if Religion was all wrong, right from the start. Do you think they would admit it. I’m preety damn sure they were and are wrong, but I can’t prove it.
Of course, it will never be proven wrong.
But for the sake of argument:
If it was proven, I’d bet many true believers would abandon their ways and go into “Eat, Drink, and be Merry for tomorrow we die,” mode.
Now that I answered you, what about my original question?
[/quote]
Evolution is a scientific Theory of the origins of human kind. There are thousands of unanswered questions. There is more than one theory about evolution as well.
The belief in evolution is the scientific approach to our existance. At least evolution can either be proven or disproven in time. Religion relies on mythology and can not be proven or disproven.
Someday we’ll have it mostly figured out.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
And second, people speaking of evolution in this sense – … do indeed claim their theory to explain which in fact they cannot explain with it, but only assert “could” be explained.
[/quote]
Is this like all those people who claim that they know someone who got big from TBT and not full body splits?
<ducking… running…>
[quote]streamline wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
streamline wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
Otep wrote:
Evolution tries, at least, and when it’s wrong, it’s both promptly admitted and the old model is revised in light of newer facts.
Just for the sake of argument:
What if the entire basis for the belief of evolution is wrong from the get-go? I highly doubt that they would revise it…for the simple fact that so much of our society/education is based on the “fact” of evolution?
And, fyi, I don’t think it’s promptly admitted when wrong…but that’s a different topic altogether…
What if Religion was all wrong, right from the start. Do you think they would admit it. I’m preety damn sure they were and are wrong, but I can’t prove it.
Of course, it will never be proven wrong.
But for the sake of argument:
If it was proven, I’d bet many true believers would abandon their ways and go into “Eat, Drink, and be Merry for tomorrow we die,” mode.
Now that I answered you, what about my original question?
Evolution is a scientific Theory of the origins of human kind. There are thousands of unanswered questions. There is more than one theory about evolution as well.
The belief in evolution is the scientific approach to our existance. At least evolution can either be proven or disproven in time. Religion relies on mythology and can not be proven or disproven.
Someday we’ll have it mostly figured out.[/quote]
Do you realize that there is a science called “Creation Science” and has some fascinating thoughts that focus on scientifically proving many things that the Bible says?
If you are truly interested in science, then you may want to check out Creation Science. And, if you scoff at the idea, be aware that many PhD and notable people (including former pro-evolution advocates who say that science does not disprove the Bible but rather proves it…and that “after reviewing what we know, it takes more faith to believe in evoluion…than it does to believe in intelligent design”) advocate Creation Science.
If you are truly interested in science, then I offer this idea to you to research and check out.
Please explain, using facts, what testable propositions “creation science” puts forward that offer any positive evidence against evolution. That is to say, not saying “evolution can’t explain , therefore God did it,” but rather actively explaining something that evolution cannot.
If you can do this, then I will accept that “creation science” is in fact science, and not just an attempt to undermine the empirical method that has provided countless benefits to both you and I.
I’d love to learn more about creation science. Please explain.