Total Posts:142|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Theistic evolution

PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 8:25:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I personally believe in theistic evolution. This is the idea that god did indeed create the universe and all that is in it, but used the methods of the Big Bang and evolution to do so.

I would like to point out that this is intended to be a discussion among theists. If you are an atheist wishing to challenge me regarding the existence of god, I am not willing to get into that discussion. Science cannot prove or disprove god.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 8:41:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think it would promote a far better discussion if you briefly defined God, Evolution, and the Big Bang.

Else, nobody will be on the same page.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
srehtiw
Posts: 491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 3:00:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 8:25:11 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
I personally believe in theistic evolution. This is the idea that god did indeed create the universe and all that is in it, but used the methods of the Big Bang and evolution to do so.

I would like to point out that this is intended to be a discussion among theists. If you are an atheist wishing to challenge me regarding the existence of god, I am not willing to get into that discussion. Science cannot prove or disprove god.

Interesting. We seem to share the same beliefs. It's nice to meet someone with the same opinion of me.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 10:26:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 8:41:57 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
I think it would promote a far better discussion if you briefly defined God, Evolution, and the Big Bang.

Else, nobody will be on the same page.

Very well.

God: The omnipotent, omniscient deity responsible for the creation and design of the universe and all that is in it, including human beings.

The Big Bang: The event of rapid cosmological expansion that occurred roughly fourteen billion years ago, sparking the development of celestial bodies and elements, including our earth, which was formed roughly four billion years ago.

Evolution: the method by whichever life developed, diversified, and spread via pan-generational changes as the result of genetic mutation and natural selection, as established and described by consensus of the scientific community.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 11:01:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 10:26:20 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Evolution: the method by whichever life developed, diversified, and spread via pan-generational changes as the result of genetic mutation and natural selection, as established and described by consensus of the scientific community.

That's not a useful definition of Evolution, and certainly not useful for debate.

Are you trying to define Evolution as "the idea that all life evolved from a common ancestor via genetic mutation and natural selection"? Because that is a working definition.

"As established and described by consensus of the scientific community" is not useful because no consensus (or even remnant of a consensus) exists. The closest thing you might come to a defining of this hypothetical consensus is a speech known as something like "The 7 Postulates Of Evolution":

http://archive.org...

Given by an Evolutionists; however, I doubt a majority would agree with his postulates.

They are in chapter 2 of that text, by the way.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2014 12:45:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 11:01:37 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/18/2014 10:26:20 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Evolution: the method by whichever life developed, diversified, and spread via pan-generational changes as the result of genetic mutation and natural selection, as established and described by consensus of the scientific community.

That's not a useful definition of Evolution, and certainly not useful for debate.

Explain why this is not a useful definition of evolution.


Are you trying to define Evolution as "the idea that all life evolved from a common ancestor via genetic mutation and natural selection"? Because that is a working definition.

This is not the theory of evolution, this is the hypothesis of abiogenesis. Note the distinction.


"As established and described by consensus of the scientific community" is not useful because no consensus (or even remnant of a consensus) exists.

There is in fact a consensus. Evolution is agreed upon by all qualified biologists.

The closest thing you might come to a defining of this hypothetical consensus is a speech known as something like "The 7 Postulates Of Evolution":

http://archive.org...

This is sixty years old. Sixty years ago, we did not even know what DNA looked like, much less have the sequencing and analysis technology we have today. This information is obselete, and no longer holds any weight.

Second, it is clearly written by a sceptic, and is biased.


Given by an Evolutionists; however, I doubt a majority would agree with his postulates.

They are in chapter 2 of that text, by the way.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2014 1:12:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/19/2014 12:45:57 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/18/2014 11:01:37 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/18/2014 10:26:20 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Evolution: the method by whichever life developed, diversified, and spread via pan-generational changes as the result of genetic mutation and natural selection, as established and described by consensus of the scientific community.

That's not a useful definition of Evolution, and certainly not useful for debate.

Explain why this is not a useful definition of evolution.

"The method by whichever life developed [...] as established and described by consensus of the scientific community" does nothing to answer the question, "What is Evolution?" Your definition doesn't clarify anything. If there was a consensus in the scientific community on what Evolution is, then nobody would even be asking what Evolution is in the first place.


Are you trying to define Evolution as "the idea that all life evolved from a common ancestor via genetic mutation and natural selection"? Because that is a working definition.

This is not the theory of evolution, this is the hypothesis of abiogenesis. Note the distinction.

It's not the ToE according to you. Note the distinction.


"As established and described by consensus of the scientific community" is not useful because no consensus (or even remnant of a consensus) exists.

There is in fact a consensus. Evolution is agreed upon by all qualified biologists.

There is in fact no consensus. If only you would provide me with a definition of Evolution, I would be able to demonstrate this to you.

What in the world does "qualified biologists" mean? If it means "biologists who subscribe to Evolution," as I suspect it means, than you're making a meaningless claim.

The closest thing you might come to a defining of this hypothetical consensus is a speech known as something like "The 7 Postulates Of Evolution":

http://archive.org...


This is sixty years old. Sixty years ago, we did not even know what DNA looked like, much less have the sequencing and analysis technology we have today. This information is obselete, and no longer holds any weight.

Second, it is clearly written by a sceptic, and is biased.

The relevant information in that paper is most certainly NOT obsolete. I did not post the link for the purposes of using his arguments as evidence. The only reason I posted that link is to show you the popular beliefs held by most Evolutionists, and yes, it hold weight and is still true today. In fact, you likely believe all of them yourself!
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2014 1:32:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/19/2014 1:12:32 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/19/2014 12:45:57 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/18/2014 11:01:37 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/18/2014 10:26:20 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
the method by whichever life developed, diversified, and spread via pan-generational changes as the result of genetic mutation and natural selection, as established and described by consensus of the scientific community.

That's not a useful definition of Evolution, and certainly not useful for debate.

Explain why this is not a useful definition of evolution.

"The method by whichever life developed [...] as established and described by consensus of the scientific community" does nothing to answer the question, "What is Evolution?" Your definition doesn't clarify anything. If there was a consensus in the scientific community on what Evolution is, then nobody would even be asking what Evolution is in the first place.

There is a consensus among all qualified biologists. By qualified I mean attained a graduate degree in the field and has published work in respected peer reviewed scientific journals.

Second, there is nothing wrong with this definition; you have failed to illustrate its fault.



Are you trying to define Evolution as "the idea that all life evolved from a common ancestor via genetic mutation and natural selection"? Because that is a working definition.

This is not the theory of evolution, this is the hypothesis of abiogenesis. Note the distinction.

It's not the ToE according to you. Note the distinction

This is the established definition taught in all college level courses.
What you describe is the definition of the hypothesis of abiogenesis, as taught in all college level courses. There is an established distinction, not according to me, but according to the experts in the field.

For emphasis, I will reiterate.

Evolution: the method by which life developed, diversified, and spread via pan-generational changes as the result of genetic mutation and natural selection, as established and described by consensus of the scientific community.

The hypothesis of abiogenesis: the idea that life began spontaneously, forming a single or limited number of prokaryotic organisms from which all life then evolved.

Note that they are two separate concepts.
.


"As established and described by consensus of the scientific community" is not useful because no consensus (or even remnant of a consensus) exists.

There is in fact a consensus. Evolution is agreed upon by all qualified biologists.

There is in fact no consensus. If only you would provide me with a definition of Evolution, I would be able to demonstrate this to you.

What in the world does "qualified biologists" mean? If it means "biologists who subscribe to Evolution," as I suspect it means, than you're making a meaningless claim.

The closest thing you might come to a defining of this hypothetical consensus is a speech known as something like "The 7 Postulates Of Evolution":

http://archive.org...


This is sixty years old. Sixty years ago, we did not even know what DNA looked like, much less have the sequencing and analysis technology we have today. This information is obselete, and no longer holds any weight.

Second, it is clearly written by a sceptic, and is biased.

The relevant information in that paper is most certainly NOT obsolete. I did not post the link for the purposes of using his arguments as evidence. The only reason I posted that link is to show you the popular beliefs held by most Evolutionists, and yes, it hold weight and is still true today. In fact, you likely believe all of them yourself!

The relevant information in this work is obsolete. Please demonstrate its relevance to current times. Keep in mind that in the field of genetics and biology, anything older than four or five years is generally considered obselete.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2014 1:40:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/19/2014 1:12:32 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
If there was a consensus in the scientific community on what Evolution is, then nobody would even be asking what Evolution is in the first place.
Do you struggle to be stupid, or does it come off naturally?
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2014 1:41:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/19/2014 1:40:56 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 1/19/2014 1:12:32 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
If there was a consensus in the scientific community on what Evolution is, then nobody would even be asking what Evolution is in the first place.
Do you struggle to be stupid, or does it come off naturally?

Kfc
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2014 12:19:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/19/2014 1:32:47 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/19/2014 1:12:32 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/19/2014 12:45:57 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/18/2014 11:01:37 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/18/2014 10:26:20 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
the method by whichever life developed, diversified, and spread via pan-generational changes as the result of genetic mutation and natural selection, as established and described by consensus of the scientific community.

That's not a useful definition of Evolution, and certainly not useful for debate.

Explain why this is not a useful definition of evolution.

"The method by whichever life developed [...] as established and described by consensus of the scientific community" does nothing to answer the question, "What is Evolution?" Your definition doesn't clarify anything. If there was a consensus in the scientific community on what Evolution is, then nobody would even be asking what Evolution is in the first place.

There is a consensus among all qualified biologists. By qualified I mean attained a graduate degree in the field and has published work in respected peer reviewed scientific journals.

Second, there is nothing wrong with this definition; you have failed to illustrate its fault.



Are you trying to define Evolution as "the idea that all life evolved from a common ancestor via genetic mutation and natural selection"? Because that is a working definition.

This is not the theory of evolution, this is the hypothesis of abiogenesis. Note the distinction.

It's not the ToE according to you. Note the distinction

This is the established definition taught in all college level courses.
What you describe is the definition of the hypothesis of abiogenesis, as taught in all college level courses. There is an established distinction, not according to me, but according to the experts in the field.

For emphasis, I will reiterate.

Evolution: the method by which life developed, diversified, and spread via pan-generational changes as the result of genetic mutation and natural selection, as established and described by consensus of the scientific community.

The hypothesis of abiogenesis: the idea that life began spontaneously, forming a single or limited number of prokaryotic organisms from which all life then evolved.

Note that they are two separate concepts.

So, let me get this straight:

"Evolution" is defined as "The idea that life developed, diversified, and spread via pan-generational changes as the result of genetic mutation and natural selection."

Is this correct?
.


"As established and described by consensus of the scientific community" is not useful because no consensus (or even remnant of a consensus) exists.

There is in fact a consensus. Evolution is agreed upon by all qualified biologists.

There is in fact no consensus. If only you would provide me with a definition of Evolution, I would be able to demonstrate this to you.

What in the world does "qualified biologists" mean? If it means "biologists who subscribe to Evolution," as I suspect it means, than you're making a meaningless claim.

The closest thing you might come to a defining of this hypothetical consensus is a speech known as something like "The 7 Postulates Of Evolution":

http://archive.org...


This is sixty years old. Sixty years ago, we did not even know what DNA looked like, much less have the sequencing and analysis technology we have today. This information is obselete, and no longer holds any weight.

Second, it is clearly written by a sceptic, and is biased.

The relevant information in that paper is most certainly NOT obsolete. I did not post the link for the purposes of using his arguments as evidence. The only reason I posted that link is to show you the popular beliefs held by most Evolutionists, and yes, it hold weight and is still true today. In fact, you likely believe all of them yourself!

The relevant information in this work is obsolete. Please demonstrate its relevance to current times. Keep in mind that in the field of genetics and biology, anything older than four or five years is generally considered obselete.

The "relevant information" is NOT his arguments and stuff. The only "relevant information" that is relevant to this discussion is the 7 postulates of Evolution, which are certainly relevant to this discussion. Keep in mind that "relevant information" cannot be "obsolete," lol.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2014 2:04:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/19/2014 12:19:53 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/19/2014 1:32:47 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/19/2014 1:12:32 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/19/2014 12:45:57 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/18/2014 11:01:37 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/18/2014 10:26:20 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
the method by whichever life developed, diversified, and spread via pan-generational changes as the result of genetic mutation and natural selection, as established and described by consensus of the scientific community.

That's not a useful definition of Evolution, and certainly not useful for debate.

Explain why this is not a useful definition of evolution.

"The method by whichever life developed [...] as established and described by consensus of the scientific community" does nothing to answer the question, "What is Evolution?" Your definition doesn't clarify anything. If there was a consensus in the scientific community on what Evolution is, then nobody would even be asking what Evolution is in the first place.

There is a consensus among all qualified biologists. By qualified I mean attained a graduate degree in the field and has published work in respected peer reviewed scientific journals.

Second, there is nothing wrong with this definition; you have failed to illustrate its fault.



Are you trying to define Evolution as "the idea that all life evolved from a common ancestor via genetic mutation and natural selection"? Because that is a working definition.

This is not the theory of evolution, this is the hypothesis of abiogenesis. Note the distinction.

It's not the ToE according to you. Note the distinction

This is the established definition taught in all college level courses.
What you describe is the definition of the hypothesis of abiogenesis, as taught in all college level courses. There is an established distinction, not according to me, but according to the experts in the field.

For emphasis, I will reiterate.

Evolution: the method by which life developed, diversified, and spread via pan-generational changes as the result of genetic mutation and natural selection, as established and described by consensus of the scientific community.

The hypothesis of abiogenesis: the idea that life began spontaneously, forming a single or limited number of prokaryotic organisms from which all life then evolved.

Note that they are two separate concepts.

So, let me get this straight:

"Evolution" is defined as "The idea that life developed, diversified, and spread via pan-generational changes as the result of genetic mutation and natural selection."

Is this correct?
.


"As established and described by consensus of the scientific community" is not useful because no consensus (or even remnant of a consensus) exists.

There is in fact a consensus. Evolution is agreed upon by all qualified biologists.

There is in fact no consensus. If only you would provide me with a definition of Evolution, I would be able to demonstrate this to you.

What in the world does "qualified biologists" mean? If it means "biologists who subscribe to Evolution," as I suspect it means, than you're making a meaningless claim.

The closest thing you might come to a defining of this hypothetical consensus is a speech known as something like "The 7 Postulates Of Evolution":

http://archive.org...


This is sixty years old. Sixty years ago, we did not even know what DNA looked like, much less have the sequencing and analysis technology we have today. This information is obselete, and no longer holds any weight.

Second, it is clearly written by a sceptic, and is biased.

The relevant information in that paper is most certainly NOT obsolete. I did not post the link for the purposes of using his arguments as evidence. The only reason I posted that link is to show you the popular beliefs held by most Evolutionists, and yes, it hold weight and is still true today. In fact, you likely believe all of them yourself!

The relevant information in this work is obsolete. Please demonstrate its relevance to current times. Keep in mind that in the field of genetics and biology, anything older than four or five years is generally considered obselete.

The "relevant information" is NOT his arguments and stuff. The only "relevant information" that is relevant to this discussion is the 7 postulates of Evolution, which are certainly relevant to this discussion. Keep in mind that "relevant information" cannot be "obsolete," lol.

The 7 postulates you cite are, indeed, irrelevant. The first two are in reference to abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a completely different theory from evolution. The success or failure of abiogenesis has no impact on evolution. The others can indeed be verified by dna and ubiquitous genes. Your information is out of date.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2014 2:52:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Is anybody going to define Evolution?

Referring to some consensus in some community is only dodging the question.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 5:29:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have a couple of questions for you:

1. Technically, the TOE does not address the origin of life. How do you believe a completely inorganic universe ushered forth life, and why do you believe it?

2. Evolution is a completely unguided process. What do you mean when you say that "God used evolution?" If we can agree that logical absurdities are just that - logical absurdities (such as, "Can God make a square circle?"), are you not guilty of a logical absurdity? If God "uses" an unguided process, how can we understand such a statement in any meaningful way unless we are saying that to "use" this process is to "guide" it?

Thanks.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 7:21:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/19/2014 2:52:58 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is anybody going to define Evolution?

Referring to some consensus in some community is only dodging the question.

The definition I put forth is correct and suitable. Evolution is a process, not an idea. You may take a pro or con stance on the existence of evolution, if that is what you are looking for.

You still have not clarified what is wrong with my definition.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 7:31:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 5:29:36 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
I have a couple of questions for you:

1. Technically, the TOE does not address the origin of life. How do you believe a completely inorganic universe ushered forth life, and why do you believe it?

I do not believe that an inorganic universe ushered forth life. Science does not have an explanation for the bare bones origin of life. This is where I believe god first comes into the equation.


2. Evolution is a completely unguided process.

Not necessarily. It is unguided as far as obvious natural influence goes, but nothing in it negates the design of a supernatural deity.

What do you mean when you say that "God used evolution?" If we can agree that logical absurdities are just that - logical absurdities (such as, "Can God make a square circle?"), are you not guilty of a logical absurdity? If God "uses" an unguided process, how can we understand such a statement in any meaningful way unless we are saying that to "use" this process is to "guide" it?

What I mean by this is that God created life, and designed evolution as a mechanism for development, diversification, and spread. There is nothing in science that negates this, and I do not believe in the bible, so arguments from that sector do not have a bearing on this idea.


Thanks.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 7:34:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 5:29:36 PM, joepalcsak wrote:

2. Evolution is a completely unguided process. What do you mean when you say that "God used evolution?" If we can agree that logical absurdities are just that - logical absurdities (such as, "Can God make a square circle?"), are you not guilty of a logical absurdity? If God "uses" an unguided process, how can we understand such a statement in any meaningful way unless we are saying that to "use" this process is to "guide" it?

Even from a naturalistic standpoint, it would be inaccurate to say that evolution is completely unguided - the significance of Darwin's work is his proposal of natural selection as the guiding force of evolutionary change, and natural selection is relevant to evolutionary research today. Sure, there's other factors to consider (for example, neutral drift which is unguided), but the same molecular data which we use to identify when selection has played a significant role in evolutionary change could be rationalised with God.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 7:35:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 7:34:27 PM, Enji wrote:
At 1/20/2014 5:29:36 PM, joepalcsak wrote:

2. Evolution is a completely unguided process. What do you mean when you say that "God used evolution?" If we can agree that logical absurdities are just that - logical absurdities (such as, "Can God make a square circle?"), are you not guilty of a logical absurdity? If God "uses" an unguided process, how can we understand such a statement in any meaningful way unless we are saying that to "use" this process is to "guide" it?

Even from a naturalistic standpoint, it would be inaccurate to say that evolution is completely unguided - the significance of Darwin's work is his proposal of natural selection as the guiding force of evolutionary change, and natural selection is relevant to evolutionary research today. Sure, there's other factors to consider (for example, neutral drift which is unguided), but the same molecular data which we use to identify when selection has played a significant role in evolutionary change could be rationalised with God.

But apparently he didn't mean this anyway.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 7:40:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 7:21:30 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/19/2014 2:52:58 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is anybody going to define Evolution?

Referring to some consensus in some community is only dodging the question.

The definition I put forth is correct and suitable. Evolution is a process, not an idea. You may take a pro or con stance on the existence of evolution, if that is what you are looking for.

You still have not clarified what is wrong with my definition.

Now that's ridiculous. Evolution is certainly an idea. You're telling me that Darwin never had the idea of Evolution? He had the "process" of Evolution?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 8:01:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 7:40:03 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/20/2014 7:21:30 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/19/2014 2:52:58 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is anybody going to define Evolution?

Referring to some consensus in some community is only dodging the question.

The definition I put forth is correct and suitable. Evolution is a process, not an idea. You may take a pro or con stance on the existence of evolution, if that is what you are looking for.

You still have not clarified what is wrong with my definition.

Now that's ridiculous. Evolution is certainly an idea. You're telling me that Darwin never had the idea of Evolution? He had the "process" of Evolution?

Is the assembly line an idea? Is gravity an idea? Are heat or cold ideas? No. There are concepts associated with them, but they are not ideas. The same goes for evolution. It is a process that was first studied in depth by Darwin. Again, one can debate the existence of the process, but it is not correct to refer to it as an idea.

You still have not pointed out the flaw with my definition.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 8:22:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 8:01:43 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/20/2014 7:40:03 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/20/2014 7:21:30 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/19/2014 2:52:58 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is anybody going to define Evolution?

Referring to some consensus in some community is only dodging the question.

The definition I put forth is correct and suitable. Evolution is a process, not an idea. You may take a pro or con stance on the existence of evolution, if that is what you are looking for.

You still have not clarified what is wrong with my definition.

Now that's ridiculous. Evolution is certainly an idea. You're telling me that Darwin never had the idea of Evolution? He had the "process" of Evolution?

Is the assembly line an idea? Is gravity an idea? Are heat or cold ideas? No. There are concepts associated with them, but they are not ideas. The same goes for evolution. It is a process that was first studied in depth by Darwin. Again, one can debate the existence of the process, but it is not correct to refer to it as an idea.

You still have not pointed out the flaw with my definition.

Yes, all those things you listed can be ideas. If we wanted to debate the existence of the assembly line, we wouldn't debate the physical object itself, because that is illogical. We would debate it's existence.

I want a definition of the idea of Evolution, without references to a "consensus."
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 9:04:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 8:25:11 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
I personally believe in theistic evolution. This is the idea that god did indeed create the universe and all that is in it, but used the methods of the Big Bang and evolution to do so.

I would like to point out that this is intended to be a discussion among theists. If you are an atheist wishing to challenge me regarding the existence of god, I am not willing to get into that discussion. Science cannot prove or disprove god.

This is an interesting theory. I've got some questions for you if that's OK (I'm an atheist but not interested in questioning the existence of God. I'm just curious about the implications of your theory).

1. When you say God used evolution, do you mean that He knew in advance the way it would turn out and it was all predetermined? So does that mean that you don't believe there's a chaotic element to evolution?

2. Do you see human consciousness as an artifact of evolution (a tool of reproduction and survival), including religious belief, or do you think that the human mind/soul has some kind of divine aspect?
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 9:10:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 8:22:33 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/20/2014 8:01:43 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/20/2014 7:40:03 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/20/2014 7:21:30 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/19/2014 2:52:58 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is anybody going to define Evolution?

Referring to some consensus in some community is only dodging the question.

The definition I put forth is correct and suitable. Evolution is a process, not an idea. You may take a pro or con stance on the existence of evolution, if that is what you are looking for.

You still have not clarified what is wrong with my definition.

Now that's ridiculous. Evolution is certainly an idea. You're telling me that Darwin never had the idea of Evolution? He had the "process" of Evolution?

Is the assembly line an idea? Is gravity an idea? Are heat or cold ideas? No. There are concepts associated with them, but they are not ideas. The same goes for evolution. It is a process that was first studied in depth by Darwin. Again, one can debate the existence of the process, but it is not correct to refer to it as an idea.

You still have not pointed out the flaw with my definition.

Yes, all those things you listed can be ideas. If we wanted to debate the existence of the assembly line, we wouldn't debate the physical object itself, because that is illogical. We would debate it's existence.

I guess we agree here in a roundabout way. The debate would indeed be focused on its existence.

The definition I provided is standard in the field and there are no active flaws therein. With all due respect, definitions don't change because you want them to.

That said, for the sake of argument, I will present a revised version.

Evolution: The idea that life developed, diversified, and spread via pan-generational changes as result of genetic mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection.

While this definition is not the standard scientific definition, I feel like it maintains the most important clauses, and should work.

I reiterate that these are my own modifications presented at your request. The definition Itself remains the same, regardless of your preferences.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 9:24:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 9:04:33 PM, rross wrote:
At 1/16/2014 8:25:11 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
I personally believe in theistic evolution. This is the idea that god did indeed create the universe and all that is in it, but used the methods of the Big Bang and evolution to do so.

I would like to point out that this is intended to be a discussion among theists. If you are an atheist wishing to challenge me regarding the existence of god, I am not willing to get into that discussion. Science cannot prove or disprove god.

This is an interesting theory. I've got some questions for you if that's OK (I'm an atheist but not interested in questioning the existence of God. I'm just curious about the implications of your theory).

1. When you say God used evolution, do you mean that He knew in advance the way it would turn out and it was all predetermined? So does that mean that you don't believe there's a chaotic element to evolution?

I should clarify here that my understanding of god does not come from Christian sources, as I am a Muslim. I do believe in the absolute omniscience of God, and I do believe that he predetermined everything. At the same time, I do believe that as far as our own world is concerned, the chaotic element of evolution stands. This may seem contradictory at first, but I see the exact nature of Gods work to be beyond our comprehension. Muslim scientists have used this logic to harmonize science and religion for centuries. Two separate fields, one physical and one spiritual, and they do not have to overlap.


2. Do you see human consciousness as an artifact of evolution (a tool of reproduction and survival), including religious belief, or do you think that the human mind/soul has some kind of divine aspect?

I do see the soul to be a supernatural phenomenon. Of course, neither myself nor anyone else has any evidence to back up the existence of it. The reasons for this belief are purely spiritual.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 7:45:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 9:24:40 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
...

I should clarify here that my understanding of god does not come from Christian sources, as I am a Muslim. I do believe in the absolute omniscience of God, and I do believe that he predetermined everything. At the same time, I do believe that as far as our own world is concerned, the chaotic element of evolution stands. This may seem contradictory at first, but I see the exact nature of Gods work to be beyond our comprehension.

As one of the great Christian thinkers (C.S. Lewis) pointed out, there's a big difference between believing God is capable of things we can't understand and thinking he's capable of logical inconsistency. Just adding "God can" to nonsense doesn't make it any less nonsensical.

So, evolution is a theory that says environmental noise is sufficient to shape life. Like stirring cream into one's morning coffee, no specific stimuli is needed - any old stirring or shaking and enough time and the cream will be evenly distributed through the coffee.

So, is life an unguided random process like this? That's the scientific question, and I think the answer is "obviously not". The problem here is not squaring religion and science, the problem here is that evolution is just nonsense, the mother of all junk science.
This space for rent.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 8:24:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 9:10:59 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/20/2014 8:22:33 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/20/2014 8:01:43 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/20/2014 7:40:03 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/20/2014 7:21:30 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/19/2014 2:52:58 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is anybody going to define Evolution?

Referring to some consensus in some community is only dodging the question.

The definition I put forth is correct and suitable. Evolution is a process, not an idea. You may take a pro or con stance on the existence of evolution, if that is what you are looking for.

You still have not clarified what is wrong with my definition.

Now that's ridiculous. Evolution is certainly an idea. You're telling me that Darwin never had the idea of Evolution? He had the "process" of Evolution?

Is the assembly line an idea? Is gravity an idea? Are heat or cold ideas? No. There are concepts associated with them, but they are not ideas. The same goes for evolution. It is a process that was first studied in depth by Darwin. Again, one can debate the existence of the process, but it is not correct to refer to it as an idea.

You still have not pointed out the flaw with my definition.

Yes, all those things you listed can be ideas. If we wanted to debate the existence of the assembly line, we wouldn't debate the physical object itself, because that is illogical. We would debate it's existence.

I guess we agree here in a roundabout way. The debate would indeed be focused on its existence.

The definition I provided is standard in the field and there are no active flaws therein. With all due respect, definitions don't change because you want them to.

That said, for the sake of argument, I will present a revised version.

Evolution: The idea that life developed, diversified, and spread via pan-generational changes as result of genetic mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection.

While this definition is not the standard scientific definition, I feel like it maintains the most important clauses, and should work.

I reiterate that these are my own modifications presented at your request. The definition Itself remains the same, regardless of your preferences.

Thank you. That's what I was asking for all along, but I wasn't sure how to say it.

What's genetic drift, by the way?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 8:34:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 7:45:53 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/20/2014 9:24:40 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
...

I should clarify here that my understanding of god does not come from Christian sources, as I am a Muslim. I do believe in the absolute omniscience of God, and I do believe that he predetermined everything. At the same time, I do believe that as far as our own world is concerned, the chaotic element of evolution stands. This may seem contradictory at first, but I see the exact nature of Gods work to be beyond our comprehension.

As one of the great Christian thinkers (C.S. Lewis) pointed out, there's a big difference between believing God is capable of things we can't understand and thinking he's capable of logical inconsistency. Just adding "God can" to nonsense doesn't make it any less nonsensical.

So, evolution is a theory that says environmental noise is sufficient to shape life. Like stirring cream into one's morning coffee, no specific stimuli is needed - any old stirring or shaking and enough time and the cream will be evenly distributed through the coffee.

So, is life an unguided random process like this? That's the scientific question, and I think the answer is "obviously not". The problem here is not squaring religion and science, the problem here is that evolution is just nonsense, the mother of all junk science.

And chalk up yet another lie on the part of creationists. Evolutionists the world over are, and always have been, unanimous in their agreement that complex structures did not arise by chance. The theory of evolution does not say they did, and to say otherwise is to display a profound absence of understanding of evolution. The novel aspect that Darwin proposed is natural selection. Selection is the very opposite of chance.

Selection of randomly introduced variation is known to be able to produce complex formations, including functional circuits (Davidson 1997; Thompson 1996) and robots (Lipson and Pollack 2000). Creationists have never proposed a reason to explain why the same processes would not produce the same results in nature.

The principles by which evolution works, including random variation and recombination and natural selection, have proven successful and useful for designing new drugs (Coghlan 1998), for designing better enzymes for detergents (Pollack 2000), and, as genetic algorithms, for many other applications.

Just face it, your side has lost. You are nothing more than the remnants of a dying flock of lunatics, killed off by a combination of the scientific data and consensus, as well as you guys being all too happy to continually shoot yourselves for our amusement (Kitzmiller v Dover, the Expelled movie).
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 8:58:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 8:34:29 AM, JonMilne wrote:
At 1/21/2014 7:45:53 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/20/2014 9:24:40 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
...

I should clarify here that my understanding of god does not come from Christian sources, as I am a Muslim. I do believe in the absolute omniscience of God, and I do believe that he predetermined everything. At the same time, I do believe that as far as our own world is concerned, the chaotic element of evolution stands. This may seem contradictory at first, but I see the exact nature of Gods work to be beyond our comprehension.

As one of the great Christian thinkers (C.S. Lewis) pointed out, there's a big difference between believing God is capable of things we can't understand and thinking he's capable of logical inconsistency. Just adding "God can" to nonsense doesn't make it any less nonsensical.

So, evolution is a theory that says environmental noise is sufficient to shape life. Like stirring cream into one's morning coffee, no specific stimuli is needed - any old stirring or shaking and enough time and the cream will be evenly distributed through the coffee.

So, is life an unguided random process like this? That's the scientific question, and I think the answer is "obviously not". The problem here is not squaring religion and science, the problem here is that evolution is just nonsense, the mother of all junk science.

And chalk up yet another lie on the part of creationists. Evolutionists the world over are, and always have been, unanimous in their agreement that complex structures did not arise by chance. The theory of evolution does not say they did, and to say otherwise is to display a profound absence of understanding of evolution. The novel aspect that Darwin proposed is natural selection. Selection is the very opposite of chance.

Evolution is based 100% on luck. Natural Selection does not explain how more advanced life came into being. It just says that life that is better suited for survival will have more luck at surviving then life less suited for survival.

That's hardly an explanation for anything. And Darwin didn't propose a novel aspect, lol. All he did was devise a clever label for a tautology.

When you use words like "Natural Selection" it makes it sound like it's not a random process, but if you replace the words "Natural Selection" for its definition, the disguise is shed and you are left with only random mutations to account for the evolution of lizards into eagles.

When you get down to it, it's 100% random.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 9:10:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 8:34:29 AM, JonMilne wrote:
At 1/21/2014 7:45:53 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/20/2014 9:24:40 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
...

I should clarify here that my understanding of god does not come from Christian sources, as I am a Muslim. I do believe in the absolute omniscience of God, and I do believe that he predetermined everything. At the same time, I do believe that as far as our own world is concerned, the chaotic element of evolution stands. This may seem contradictory at first, but I see the exact nature of Gods work to be beyond our comprehension.

As one of the great Christian thinkers (C.S. Lewis) pointed out, there's a big difference between believing God is capable of things we can't understand and thinking he's capable of logical inconsistency. Just adding "God can" to nonsense doesn't make it any less nonsensical.

So, evolution is a theory that says environmental noise is sufficient to shape life. Like stirring cream into one's morning coffee, no specific stimuli is needed - any old stirring or shaking and enough time and the cream will be evenly distributed through the coffee.

So, is life an unguided random process like this? That's the scientific question, and I think the answer is "obviously not". The problem here is not squaring religion and science, the problem here is that evolution is just nonsense, the mother of all junk science.

And chalk up yet another lie on the part of creationists. Evolutionists the world over are, and always have been, unanimous in their agreement that complex structures did not arise by chance. The theory of evolution does not say they did, and to say otherwise is to display a profound absence of understanding of evolution. The novel aspect that Darwin proposed is natural selection. Selection is the very opposite of chance.

Funny thing - I never used the word 'chance'. And you call me a liar.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 9:15:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 8:58:10 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
..

Evolution is based 100% on luck. Natural Selection does not explain how more advanced life came into being. It just says that life that is better suited for survival will have more luck at surviving then life less suited for survival.

That's hardly an explanation for anything. And Darwin didn't propose a novel aspect, lol. All he did was devise a clever label for a tautology.


Yeah, I agree - it really just boils down to 'que sera, sera'

People don't realize that it really introduces metaphysical concepts, like "suited" or "survive". What does survive really mean in physics, with regards to life? Is matter being created or destroyed?
This space for rent.