Total Posts:183|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why pick on evolution?

kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 3:24:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Remind me - Why is evolution so unpopular with some people? Why not, for example, elementary optics? According to scientific theory rainbows are due to refractive index being a function of wavelength but the bible says something quite different. Newton with a simple glass prism showed the Bible is wrong just as clearly as Darwin did, but no-one seems worried by that.

Is it because the idea of humans evolving from apes is offensive some people?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 4:49:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 3:24:48 PM, kp98 wrote:
Remind me - Why is evolution so unpopular with some people?

Evolution is faith-shaking for monotheism, KP, as optics are not, because evolution refutes the idea of a compassionate monotheistic creator with a special relationship to humanity.

Compassion, for example, is refuted by a 99% evolutionary extinction rate. The special relationship is challenged by the fact that humanity itself evolved and was not created to be what it is.

When monotheistic faiths encountered evolution they had to decide whether this was a theological heresy masquerading as investigation; new evidence that their theology was right in ways they hadn't anticipated; or whether their theology was wrong.

Initially, pretty much the whole of Christianity and Orthodox Judaism chose the former. However, over time, most of Christianity has accepted that its theology was wrong, while Judaic orthodoxy now includes the middle position -- that its orthodoxy was correct in ways they hadn't fully realised. But there are still hold-outs in the first position, who have long feared (correctly, as history has shown) that rejection of theological authorities will encourage the faithful to turn more to secularism and away from faith.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 5:27:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Excellent post. I never had any religious beliefs worth speaking of so learning about evolution never threatened my world-view. I think you have probably nailed why it worries many other people.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 5:31:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It takes as much faith to believe humans evolved from some primordial soup ( science fiction) as it does to believe we were magically created from literal dirt (religious fiction) .

The fictions are so similar that some believers in God even combine both stories and claim God created man through the process of evolution.
Both stories begin with humans coming from something non human.

Both stories are fiction.

I prefer to believe the FACTS of biogenesis that all Life comes from the life before it and each life form has its own unique cycle. It makes far more sense and the process can be observed every day in reality.

It does end up in the paradox of infinite regress but such is life. It is a paradox if infinite regress which makes sense when you are not stuck in the rut of thinking that once upon a time life in general did not exist.

Individual life forms all come from the corporate body of life as the new life forms constantly replace the old in the great cycle of life which is constantly recycling itself after its own kind like a fractal pattern of every life form in existence.
The patterns do not all come from the same source unless you wish to call the source energy.

Energy has MANY different forms and fractal patterns.
Each fractal pattern repeats itself and does not change into a different pattern.
ironslippers
Posts: 513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 5:35:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 3:24:48 PM, kp98 wrote:
Remind me - Why is evolution so unpopular with some people? Why not, for example, elementary optics? According to scientific theory rainbows are due to refractive index being a function of wavelength but the bible says something quite different. Newton with a simple glass prism showed the Bible is wrong just as clearly as Darwin did, but no-one seems worried by that.

Is it because the idea of humans evolving from apes is offensive some people?

Because their dogma is of perfection. Perfection need not change. Recognizing and adapting to shortcomings (evolution) is a confession of imperfection.
Everyone stands on their own dung hill and speaks out about someone else's - Nathan Krusemark
Its easier to criticize and hate than it is to support and create - I Ron Slippers
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 6:48:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 5:27:37 PM, kp98 wrote:
Excellent post. I never had any religious beliefs worth speaking of so learning about evolution never threatened my world-view. I think you have probably nailed why it worries many other people.

Thanks KP. Certain kinds of monotheism aren't threatened very much (e.g. pantheism isn't); and many kinds of non-monotheistic religions (polytheism, animism, Buddhist nontheism, Taoism) aren't threatened at all.

But the kind of monotheism most threatened by evolution is the paternalistic kind. The kind that says: there is an order to the universe, and it has been revealed to us. It is an order designed, supervised and enforced by a just and compassionate deity, and we have the authority to tell you how it arose and how it works, so that you can live your lives by our instruction.

Three scientific discoveries have shaken these claims to authority badly:

1) A heliocentric view of the solar-system, since paternalistic monotheism is humanocentric and hence geocentric;
2) The Second Law of thermodynamics, since it's hard to see why an omnipotent being would create decay and waste as a universal law; and finally
3) Evolution, since it puts the last nail into the coffin of humanocentrism, and demolishes a moral biological order forever.

But a fourth -- the Big Bang Theory -- is being heralded by some as a scientific return to creationism, while in fact, for those who understand it, it's almost the reverse.

BBT shows that the pretty, twinkling universe we have is transient. It's flying apart, and the lives of stars and galaxies are only a fraction of a wink in its history. For nearly all of its history, BBT predicts that universe will be cold, lonely, lightless, devoured by black holes, and unable to sustain any conceivable form of life. And that doesn't just challenge humanocentrism, but the relevance of Creationism of any kind.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 7:39:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 3:24:48 PM, kp98 wrote:
Remind me - Why is evolution so unpopular with some people? Why not, for example, elementary optics? According to scientific theory rainbows are due to refractive index being a function of wavelength but the bible says something quite different. Newton with a simple glass prism showed the Bible is wrong just as clearly as Darwin did, but no-one seems worried by that.

Is it because the idea of humans evolving from apes is offensive some people?

Since you seem to be at least mildly acquainted with some aspects of science I would think you already would know why Evolution offends and flat-out scares the daylights our of many religious fundamentalists.

Especially the Young Earth Creationists, who somehow are deluded enough to bellieve that the Earth is only 6000 years old, instead of the four billion that it REALLY is.

All that radio-metric dating--there are hundreds of different methods, BTW--they believe to be "wrong." Never mind that all these types of dating always agree with each other. And never mind that even the fundies embrace and use science ever day--as with their computers and phones and cars and meds--but when it come to Archeology and Geology and Anthropology? LOL--well well: all these scientists suddenly do not know what they are talking about!

I know. It is absurd.

And see? Evolution debunks much of the Bible. It also tells them that they are NOT special and created by a personal god. Rather, they are merely one species of animals out of many. And were derived from a common single-celled microbe in the primordial ooze some 3.5 Billion years ago.

This, they find quite unpalatable. It renders false and moot all those miracle stories about Yahweh and Jesus. And makes the Flood Story even more outlandish than it already is. If that is even possible.

Most religious fundamentalists are the way they are out of fear. Fear of living life on its own terms and dealing with the fact that we arose out of blind chance and that this life is all there is. And that they have no BFF sky god up there who cares a fig about them.

So..since Evolution basically proves all of that, they resist it. Including all the mountains of data. And the fact that 98% of all professional Biologists adhere to the idea.

Go figure. To paraphrase the great line from "Cool Hand Luke"..........."some folks, you just can't reach."
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 12:08:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 7:39:48 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:

Go figure. To paraphrase the great line from "Cool Hand Luke"..........."some folks, you just can't reach."

I prefer "... what we have here is a failure to communicate".
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 7:12:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Thanks all! I think one factor is that some people just can't or don't use their imagination. The idea that there was a creator god doesn't take much imagination. It's probably the 'simplest' explanation there is.

I am often amazed at the intricacy and 'magic-seeming' nature of the world and (especially) the living things in it. I can understand why someone would be tempted to believe that the world was 'created' or 'intelligently designed'. It actually takes some effort to accept that they 'just happened'.

If creationists and the like knew more about nature and science they'd realise that things are even more wonderful then they think. Contrary to what creationists think about atheists, it is only the scientifically literate who understand just how amazing and wonderful the world is and so truly appreciate its beauty. At best, creationists only scratch the surface.

It takes an effort to accept that something like - say - even a humble housefly could arise by a natural process. It takes and leap of imagination to go beyond everyday experience and picture a process that spans millions or even billions of years ending with a perfectly formed and perfectly adapted fly. A housefly cannot arise in human timescales - in which 100 years is a long time - so a housefly seems to be impossible. But it only seems that way if one can't imagine beyond experience.

So we atheists are rather more intellectually modest than fundamenalists. I don't have a clue about what stages flies evolved through, but I am not so arrogant to think that because I can't know exactly how it happened it can't have happened. I know the world is bigger than I am. A creationist seems to think that anything that isn;t immediately obvious at once and in detail is impossible - i.e reality is limited to what is obvious.

Atheists know that the world is not limited to the obvious. Its not even limited to the known nor the understandable nor even the imaginable. Atheists are the ones who appreciate how amazing and beautiful the world is. The creationists' world is small and impoverished by comparison. Isn't the Big Bang a more exciting and dramatic story then Genesis 1 and2? What is more beautiful than the idea we are made from the remnants of supernovas that exploded a billion year ago, only to be gathered together again by the force of gravity? We aren't dirt as the Bible says - we are stardust.

Perhaps then it our (ie atheists) willingness not to know everything that distinguishes us from believers. I don't know how a fly evolved, but I don't need to - I am content that we can be confident that it did evolve. We can work out the details of fly evolution later if we need to - there are too many questions to have answers to them all. We have the means to answer them - that's good enough.

But the creationist knows everything already. There are no mysteries because god is the answer to all of them. How deadly dull is that!
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 7:30:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 3:24:48 PM, kp98 wrote:
Remind me - Why is evolution so unpopular with some people? Why not, for example, elementary optics?

Evolution is unpopular because it is nonsense. It is the modern pantheism, a belief in some magical powers hidden in all of nature. Evolution is cousin to the religion of the early Americans, not to the hard sciences like optics.

Optics, you see, are subject to the scientific method. They can be tested, and reproduced at will. You can make your own rainbow with a garden hose on a sunny day. But neither you nor anybody else can ever observe evolution, nor can it be reproduced. It is, in fact, evolution which is a matter of faith.

[quote] the bible says something quite different. Newton with a simple glass prism showed the Bible is wrong just as clearly as Darwin did, but no-one seems worried by that. [/quote]

Newton, I hate to tell you, was a deeply religious creationist. He believed that the elegant balance of the solar system was evidence of a creator.

The Bible says that God gave us the rainbow as a sign. It does not say squat about how the rainbow works.


Is it because the idea of humans evolving from apes is offensive some people?

It's just fanciful, is what it is. Yes, we look a lot like apes, but there is no known mechanism whereby apes could evolve into humans, so it's just some people's wild assed guessing. It frankly belongs with Area 51 fantasies and not in science classrooms. It may well be the most egregious bit of scientific malpractice in human history.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 7:34:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 7:12:30 AM, kp98 wrote:
...

But the creationist knows everything already. There are no mysteries because god is the answer to all of them. How deadly dull is that!

You could not be more wrong. It is the scientific naturalist who lives in a deterministic world, a world of laws, not imagination. The cosmos may be immense, but it all sprung from a singularity and all adds up to zero. It's as depressing as hell once you realize what you're really saying.

No, we children of God live in a world fed by an infinite spring. We have hope for an infinitely interesting future.
This space for rent.
slo1
Posts: 4,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 7:42:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 7:30:49 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/12/2015 3:24:48 PM, kp98 wrote:
Remind me - Why is evolution so unpopular with some people? Why not, for example, elementary optics?

Evolution is unpopular because it is nonsense. It is the modern pantheism, a belief in some magical powers hidden in all of nature. Evolution is cousin to the religion of the early Americans, not to the hard sciences like optics.

Optics, you see, are subject to the scientific method. They can be tested, and reproduced at will. You can make your own rainbow with a garden hose on a sunny day. But neither you nor anybody else can ever observe evolution, nor can it be reproduced. It is, in fact, evolution which is a matter of faith.

[quote] the bible says something quite different. Newton with a simple glass prism showed the Bible is wrong just as clearly as Darwin did, but no-one seems worried by that. [/quote]

Newton, I hate to tell you, was a deeply religious creationist. He believed that the elegant balance of the solar system was evidence of a creator.

The Bible says that God gave us the rainbow as a sign. It does not say squat about how the rainbow works.


Is it because the idea of humans evolving from apes is offensive some people?

It's just fanciful, is what it is. Yes, we look a lot like apes, but there is no known mechanism whereby apes could evolve into humans, so it's just some people's wild assed guessing. It frankly belongs with Area 51 fantasies and not in science classrooms. It may well be the most egregious bit of scientific malpractice in human history.

Let me translate this:

Any science which is difficult to empirically test due to constraints such as extraordinary time lines or environments not currently found on earth should be abandoned and filled with God as the reason. Amen
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 7:49:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Bible says that God gave us the rainbow as a sign. It does not say squat about how the rainbow works.

But science does tell us exactly how a rainbow works. I wonder if there rainbows before the flood. If not then what physical laws did have to God change to make rainbows happen? Isn't it more likely that rainbows always happened and the writers of the bible added that bit just to put some colour - literally - into the story? But if they made up that bit, what other bits are just made up?
slo1
Posts: 4,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 7:56:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 5:31:58 PM, Skyangel wrote:
It takes as much faith to believe humans evolved from some primordial soup ( science fiction) as it does to believe we were magically created from literal dirt (religious fiction) .

It does not take any faith. You see the difference between most who value the scientific method versus religion understand that as facts change beliefs change. It does not take faith to hold a belief that it is plausible that life could come together from organic chemistry. The position is on of plausibility and is one that can be easily abandoned should some facts arise to eliminate that plausibility. It is a position of agnosticism. How many Christians have even questioned and tried to learn why Jews don't believe Jesus filled the prophecy. Not many because that is a tenent that would destroy the faith. A scientist who studies and tries to learn more about life and possible abiogensis pathways who learned her craft was barking up the wrong tree, would of course be crushed, but would move on to an area of science that has more open questions.

This attempt by religious people to put science on the same level as religion in term of faith requirements is absurd. It is an argument that actually rather than tries to elevate religion tries to take true science down to religion's level. It is very unbecoming and exposes that faith is truly a detriment to discovering the truth.

Lastly note that I would never state that all scientists don't utilize a level of faith in their work, scientists are after all human. The standard of science's search for truth beats religions search for truth each and every day.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 10:15:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 7:49:02 AM, kp98 wrote:
The Bible says that God gave us the rainbow as a sign. It does not say squat about how the rainbow works.

But science does tell us exactly how a rainbow works. I wonder if there rainbows before the flood.

Genesis is quite specific about the location of Eden, some have suggested it is now covered by the Persian gulf, southeast of Iraq. At any rate, it's a desert climate, it seems quite possible there were no rainbows there before the flood. Genesis 2 talks about the garden being watered by springs (rather than rain).

... But if they made up that bit, what other bits are just made up?

Well, that's a pretty far subject from evolution, though. I'm posting as a representative of those who think evolution is junk science. It's the creation myth of political correctness, and belongs with pseudo-science like climate change (which is too vague to be either right or wrong).
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 10:22:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 7:56:10 AM, slo1 wrote:
...

This attempt by religious people to put science on the same level as religion in term of faith requirements is absurd.

Yeah, but the problem is that evolution is not science. Evolution IS faith, or worse, wishful thinking on the part of those who do have some awareness of the technical issues. But mainstream belief in evolution is simply a belief that all those very smart scientists can't all be wrong. So it's not science at all, but faith in other people's intelligence.
This space for rent.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 10:53:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 10:15:13 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/13/2015 7:49:02 AM, kp98 wrote:
The Bible says that God gave us the rainbow as a sign. It does not say squat about how the rainbow works.

But science does tell us exactly how a rainbow works. I wonder if there rainbows before the flood.

Genesis is quite specific about the location of Eden, some have suggested it is now covered by the Persian gulf, southeast of Iraq. At any rate, it's a desert climate, it seems quite possible there were no rainbows there before the flood. Genesis 2 talks about the garden being watered by springs (rather than rain).

... But if they made up that bit, what other bits are just made up?

Well, that's a pretty far subject from evolution, though. I'm posting as a representative of those who think evolution is junk science. It's the creation myth of political correctness, and belongs with pseudo-science like climate change (which is too vague to be either right or wrong).

Except no one here who has any substantial science education believes that you know anything about science or how it works. Every conversation you get into that forces you to discuss actual science in any detail on just an introductory level, it quickly becomes clear that you have no idea what you're talking about, and then you run away and pretend it didn't happen, hoping everyone forgets and you can go back to pretending you understand any science and are in a position to make unsubstantiated authoritative claims. Sorry, but you couldn't pass as someone who was semi-educated in any field of science relevant to evolution even if you tried, and I challenge you to try.
slo1
Posts: 4,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 10:57:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 10:22:55 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/13/2015 7:56:10 AM, slo1 wrote:
...

This attempt by religious people to put science on the same level as religion in term of faith requirements is absurd.

Yeah, but the problem is that evolution is not science. Evolution IS faith, or worse, wishful thinking on the part of those who do have some awareness of the technical issues. But mainstream belief in evolution is simply a belief that all those very smart scientists can't all be wrong. So it's not science at all, but faith in other people's intelligence.

Evolution is not faith. This is not a case where you can say it a million times and make it come true. You are trying a moral equivalence argument and being open and spending time in gaining knowledge and understanding is not the same thing as believing in Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, or even Bah"'u'll"h as the main path to eternal bliss is not the same thing.

Abiogensis makes a claim and there are many scientists trying to prove that claim or reach a point where that claim is not viable. Christianity makes a claim. There are mountains of Christians trying to disprove anything which attacks its claim. See the difference?

In other words, if we accept you semantics of the word faith then it is clear that not all faith is the same or equally valid.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 11:08:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 10:53:21 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/13/2015 10:15:13 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/13/2015 7:49:02 AM, kp98 wrote:
The Bible says that God gave us the rainbow as a sign. It does not say squat about how the rainbow works.

But science does tell us exactly how a rainbow works. I wonder if there rainbows before the flood.

Genesis is quite specific about the location of Eden, some have suggested it is now covered by the Persian gulf, southeast of Iraq. At any rate, it's a desert climate, it seems quite possible there were no rainbows there before the flood. Genesis 2 talks about the garden being watered by springs (rather than rain).

... But if they made up that bit, what other bits are just made up?

Well, that's a pretty far subject from evolution, though. I'm posting as a representative of those who think evolution is junk science. It's the creation myth of political correctness, and belongs with pseudo-science like climate change (which is too vague to be either right or wrong).

Except no one here who has any substantial science education believes that you know anything about science or how it works.

First of all, I think you're bluffing, to put it politely, but you're just making my point - you judge my scientific knowledge, not the science itself. You're hoping I don't know what I'm talking about because you are not able to judge the technological issues themselves.
This space for rent.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 11:15:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 11:08:12 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/13/2015 10:53:21 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/13/2015 10:15:13 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/13/2015 7:49:02 AM, kp98 wrote:
The Bible says that God gave us the rainbow as a sign. It does not say squat about how the rainbow works.

But science does tell us exactly how a rainbow works. I wonder if there rainbows before the flood.

Genesis is quite specific about the location of Eden, some have suggested it is now covered by the Persian gulf, southeast of Iraq. At any rate, it's a desert climate, it seems quite possible there were no rainbows there before the flood. Genesis 2 talks about the garden being watered by springs (rather than rain).

... But if they made up that bit, what other bits are just made up?

Well, that's a pretty far subject from evolution, though. I'm posting as a representative of those who think evolution is junk science. It's the creation myth of political correctness, and belongs with pseudo-science like climate change (which is too vague to be either right or wrong).

Except no one here who has any substantial science education believes that you know anything about science or how it works.

First of all, I think you're bluffing, to put it politely, but you're just making my point - you judge my scientific knowledge, not the science itself. You're hoping I don't know what I'm talking about because you are not able to judge the technological issues themselves.

Bluffing? About what? Putting you down both times you've tried to pretend you knew any science (probability of beneficial genes first, information theory second)? We can dig up those threads and see how convincing your pretensions were.

And when you present some science, I'll review the science. But so long as you make authoritative assertions without presenting any logical or coherent argument, or more importantly, evidence, the appropriate thing to do is call you out for not being any more in a position to make those authoritative claims (no one is in science, actually) than any random technician or whatever who has never been involved in scientific research.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 11:15:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 10:22:55 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/13/2015 7:56:10 AM, slo1 wrote:
...

This attempt by religious people to put science on the same level as religion in term of faith requirements is absurd.

Yeah, but the problem is that evolution is not science.

How about you:

1. Actually define what you believe science to be

and

2. Explain why the theory of evolution doesn't fit within the definition of science

Evolution IS faith, or worse, wishful thinking on the part of those who do have some awareness of the technical issues.

Interesting opinion, but that is all it is.

But mainstream belief in evolution is simply a belief that all those very smart scientists can't all be wrong.

Citation needed. I can put stuff out of my arse too if I wanted. Put up.

So it's not science at all, but faith in other people's intelligence.

Then you are referring to "belief that the theory of evolution is true", and not "evolution" itself. It is impossible for a proposition to be faith, as a proposition is a satement that can be true or false, faith is a methodology to accept an epistemological position on a proposition. It is categorically distinct.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 11:29:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 10:22:55 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/13/2015 7:56:10 AM, slo1 wrote:
...

This attempt by religious people to put science on the same level as religion in term of faith requirements is absurd.

Yeah, but the problem is that evolution is not science.

Define "science".

According to standard definitions: "Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."[https://en.wikipedia.org...]

Evolution is a testable explanation and prediction about something within the universe. Whether or not it is true is irrelevant to whether or not it is a scientific proposition -- it was formulated as such, thus is science.


Evolution IS faith, or worse, wishful thinking on the part of those who do have some awareness of the technical issues. But mainstream belief in evolution is simply a belief that all those very smart scientists can't all be wrong. So it's not science at all, but faith in other people's intelligence.

Science is built upon faith in other people's intelligence and testability. Belief and science are not mutually exclusive -- belief is inclusive of science. And the proposition of evolution *has* been proven as likely.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 12:20:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 11:29:50 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/13/2015 10:22:55 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/13/2015 7:56:10 AM, slo1 wrote:
...

This attempt by religious people to put science on the same level as religion in term of faith requirements is absurd.

Yeah, but the problem is that evolution is not science.

Define "science".

According to standard definitions: "Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."[https://en.wikipedia.org...]


That will work. Evolution has never been tested, hence, it is not science.


And the proposition of evolution *has* been proven as likely.

"proven as likely"? What kind of blather is that?
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 12:22:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 11:15:31 AM, Envisage wrote:
...

Interesting opinion, but that is all it is.

But mainstream belief in evolution is simply a belief that all those very smart scientists can't all be wrong.

Citation needed.

More blather. You want citations for my opinion?

Come on, guys, have the guts to really think, to take the risk that something you want to believe just isn't correct.
This space for rent.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 12:26:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 12:20:04 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/13/2015 11:29:50 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/13/2015 10:22:55 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/13/2015 7:56:10 AM, slo1 wrote:
...

This attempt by religious people to put science on the same level as religion in term of faith requirements is absurd.

Yeah, but the problem is that evolution is not science.

Define "science".

According to standard definitions: "Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."[https://en.wikipedia.org...]


That will work. Evolution has never been tested, hence, it is not science.


And the proposition of evolution *has* been proven as likely.

"proven as likely"? What kind of blather is that?

Don't understand that phrase? Do you understand the following phrase: Prove that the probability of X is greater than p?
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 12:28:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 12:22:43 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/13/2015 11:15:31 AM, Envisage wrote:
...

Interesting opinion, but that is all it is.

But mainstream belief in evolution is simply a belief that all those very smart scientists can't all be wrong.

Citation needed.

More blather. You want citations for my opinion?

Come on, guys, have the guts to really think, to take the risk that something you want to believe just isn't correct.

Come on v3nesl. Have the guts to provide evidence, or at least reference evidence provided by others, for your assertions.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 12:54:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 12:08:06 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/12/2015 7:39:48 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:

Go figure. To paraphrase the great line from "Cool Hand Luke"..........."some folks, you just can't reach."

I prefer "... what we have here is a failure to communicate".

Yep..your line was the preceding one in that great movie!

"What we have here is failure...to communicate. Some folks...ya just can't reach. Sooo...ya get what we have here today. Well....that;s the way he wants it.....so he gets it."
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 1:01:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 12:22:43 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/13/2015 11:15:31 AM, Envisage wrote:
...

Interesting opinion, but that is all it is.

But mainstream belief in evolution is simply a belief that all those very smart scientists can't all be wrong.

Citation needed.

More blather. You want citations for my opinion?

Come on, guys, have the guts to really think, to take the risk that something you want to believe just isn't correct.

So you are implying that you cannot back up anything you said? Are you just here to waste yours and my time?

Also you have ignored everything else I said, including my request that you define science and evolution and show how one is not a member of the set.