Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution v.s. Religion

fire_wings
Posts: 5,563
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 8:28:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I wanted to put this in the religion forum, but because of activity I am putting it here. What are your thoughts? Do you believe in evolution or religion?
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 8:36:57 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 8:28:59 PM, fire_wings wrote:
I wanted to put this in the religion forum, but because of activity I am putting it here. What are your thoughts? Do you believe in evolution or religion?

Many people believe both.
fire_wings
Posts: 5,563
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 8:37:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 8:36:57 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/21/2016 8:28:59 PM, fire_wings wrote:
I wanted to put this in the religion forum, but because of activity I am putting it here. What are your thoughts? Do you believe in evolution or religion?

Many people believe both.

Its one or the other.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 8:43:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 8:37:50 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 3/21/2016 8:36:57 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/21/2016 8:28:59 PM, fire_wings wrote:
I wanted to put this in the religion forum, but because of activity I am putting it here. What are your thoughts? Do you believe in evolution or religion?

Many people believe both.

Its one or the other.
No its not.
Carcharus
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 3:12:46 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I really am appalled that people even consider this a controversial issue, or one worthy of debate. Because it is not worthy of debate. Evolution is a fact, and most arguments against it - usually those employing long-disproved hoaxes such as irreducible complexity - are absolutely unconvincing. The scientific consensus has long been decided, and religious explanations such as 'creationism' are silly. Carbon dating and dendrochronology both posit identical, long dates that easily defeat the nonsensical dates posited by creationism. Uranium-lead dating also fully destroys the case for a 'young earth'. The observance of speciation, and the presence of all evolutionary mechanisms, e.g., biased mutations, easily defeat creationism. The data in favor of an evolutionary explanation is way more than any other data.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 5:13:07 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 3:12:46 PM, Carcharus wrote:
I really am appalled that people even consider this a controversial issue, or one worthy of debate. Because it is not worthy of debate. Evolution is a fact, and most arguments against it - usually those employing long-disproved hoaxes such as irreducible complexity - are absolutely unconvincing. The scientific consensus has long been decided, and religious explanations such as 'creationism' are silly. Carbon dating and dendrochronology both posit identical, long dates that easily defeat the nonsensical dates posited by creationism. Uranium-lead dating also fully destroys the case for a 'young earth'. The observance of speciation, and the presence of all evolutionary mechanisms, e.g., biased mutations, easily defeat creationism. The data in favor of an evolutionary explanation is way more than any other data.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 6:05:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 3:12:46 PM, Carcharus wrote:
I really am appalled that people even consider this a controversial issue, or one worthy of debate. Because it is not worthy of debate. Evolution is a fact, and most arguments against it - usually those employing long-disproved hoaxes such as irreducible complexity - are absolutely unconvincing. The scientific consensus has long been decided, and religious explanations such as 'creationism' are silly. Carbon dating and dendrochronology both posit identical, long dates that easily defeat the nonsensical dates posited by creationism. Uranium-lead dating also fully destroys the case for a 'young earth'. The observance of speciation, and the presence of all evolutionary mechanisms, e.g., biased mutations, easily defeat creationism. The data in favor of an evolutionary explanation is way more than any other data.

The debate occurs because abiogenesis does not explain creation any better than genesis does. To a materialistic/naturalistic person maybe but when creationists are assaulted for not providing Empirical evidence of creation they expect in return empirical evidence of the beginning of life and abiogenesis cannot provide that.

I honestly think the young earth debate is over. Science easily proves an old earth but alot of Christians agree with old earth in the bible.

As for evolution/ species changing kind (like bacteria to human macroevolution) There is reason as well for debate. But there are already a few thousand of them going on right now on this site.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 6:06:47 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 8:28:59 PM, fire_wings wrote:
I wanted to put this in the religion forum, but because of activity I am putting it here. What are your thoughts? Do you believe in evolution or religion?

You are gonna have to clarify what you want to debate? Like creationism vs evolution to explain origins of life? Or are you saying religious people cannot believe in species evolving?
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 8:33:23 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I've read up on both for quite awhile, and my conclusion that I came to is that I'm religious and my view on evolution doesn't matter.

I believe in God. I do my best to take wisdom from the good book, and I do my best to learn about the natural world. None of it changes my faith in the Lord. If he has a problem with my view on evolution then so be it. The difference between me and mainstream Christianity is that I don't have faith that the Bible is a perfect translation of the word of God. I know it was written and translated by men for thousands of years, and I accept that it has it might have its flaws. So I just do the best I can do with what I have. I don't read into the stories too much to try to unravel God's true word, because

A) I don't have an original scrolls
B) I don't have the cultural context
C) I'm humble.

I realize how over my head God is and was to the writers of the Bible, and I am confident that whatever his exact ways are, they'll be revealed in full when the time comes. I've always had a problem with teaching a need for Hail Mary's and the Trinity for that reason. Who are we to say that's what God wants? That's God's job. Traditions surrounding Jesus also seem pretty irrelevant to me. They're great and all, but I have faith in the Lord, not the church, so I feel an overemphasis on traditions when in different church settings. I'll just do my own thing, and hopefully it pleases the Lord. That's my perceived role in the universe and beyond as of now.

Anyway, as you might imagine, I accept Evolution is a definite possibility, and don't read into it too much. Its not completely proven either way to me, and I don't particularly care since that has no affect on our lives.

By not particularly proven I mean, we don't know how/why it works with certainty. I accept the changing of species. I'd also like to add that I've had my faith since I was a child. Its not that I was systematically disproven by science or anything. I just wasn't proven by the church.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 4:13:18 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 3:12:46 PM, Carcharus wrote:
I really am appalled that people even consider this a controversial issue, or one worthy of debate. Because it is not worthy of debate. Evolution is a fact, and most arguments against it - usually those employing long-disproved hoaxes such as irreducible complexity - are absolutely unconvincing. The scientific consensus has long been decided, and religious explanations such as 'creationism' are silly. Carbon dating and dendrochronology both posit identical, long dates that easily defeat the nonsensical dates posited by creationism. Uranium-lead dating also fully destroys the case for a 'young earth'. The observance of speciation, and the presence of all evolutionary mechanisms, e.g., biased mutations, easily defeat creationism. The data in favor of an evolutionary explanation is way more than any other data.

Here here!
Once a scientific question has been answered, there's no need to go over it again. If those who missed it the first go around want to question it, we should tell them they missed the boat and they should get on board without reviewing the evidence! Repeat things in science? Nonsense my good sir!
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 4:56:31 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 8:33:23 PM, Quadrunner wrote:


Anyway, as you might imagine, I accept Evolution is a definite possibility, and don't read into it too much. Its not completely proven either way to me, and I don't particularly care since that has no affect on our lives.

Did you mean to suggest evolution has no impact on our lives, our have I misunderstood?
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
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 1:20:13 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 4:56:31 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/22/2016 8:33:23 PM, Quadrunner wrote:


Anyway, as you might imagine, I accept Evolution is a definite possibility, and don't read into it too much. Its not completely proven either way to me, and I don't particularly care since that has no affect on our lives.

Did you mean to suggest evolution has no impact on our lives, our have I misunderstood?

Yup, or more precisely the concept of evolution. Aside from the random quirks of fate we'd be the same, if not better if it was not in any book anywhere. The progression of DNA research does not require the study of evolution, or even the theory. Evolution works over a larger time scale then any wildlife management policy. The vaccination system, is reactionary anyway, so until we get the ability to predict how strains will evolve, evolution is useless. It's just a non-issue, a fun fact that we could be completely ignorant of and still account for 101% our entire existence.

So why worry about it, unless you are just interested? It is really cool to think about. It just has no impact on our lives. Aside from people who get paid to study evolution, no one benefits from the study of evolution.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 1:44:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 4:13:18 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 3/22/2016 3:12:46 PM, Carcharus wrote:
I really am appalled that people even consider this a controversial issue, or one worthy of debate. Because it is not worthy of debate. Evolution is a fact, and most arguments against it - usually those employing long-disproved hoaxes such as irreducible complexity - are absolutely unconvincing. The scientific consensus has long been decided, and religious explanations such as 'creationism' are silly. Carbon dating and dendrochronology both posit identical, long dates that easily defeat the nonsensical dates posited by creationism. Uranium-lead dating also fully destroys the case for a 'young earth'. The observance of speciation, and the presence of all evolutionary mechanisms, e.g., biased mutations, easily defeat creationism. The data in favor of an evolutionary explanation is way more than any other data.

Here here!
Once a scientific question has been answered, there's no need to go over it again. If those who missed it the first go around want to question it, we should tell them they missed the boat and they should get on board without reviewing the evidence! Repeat things in science? Nonsense my good sir!

Awesome reply
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 1:45:09 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 3:12:46 PM, Carcharus wrote:
I really am appalled that people even consider this a controversial issue, or one worthy of debate. Because it is not worthy of debate. Evolution is a fact, and most arguments against it - usually those employing long-disproved hoaxes such as irreducible complexity

lol. Don't even respond to me, just be honest with yourself - you have not the slightest clue what irreducible complexity is about, amiright?
This space for rent.
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 3:25:56 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
What Carcharus said, x1000.
"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
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,016
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 3:43:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 3:25:56 PM, tejretics wrote:
What Carcharus said, x1000.

As a Catholic Christian, I also agree
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,016
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 3:46:09 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 3:12:46 PM, Carcharus wrote:
I really am appalled that people even consider this a controversial issue, or one worthy of debate. Because it is not worthy of debate. Evolution is a fact, and most arguments against it - usually those employing long-disproved hoaxes such as irreducible complexity - are absolutely unconvincing. The scientific consensus has long been decided, and religious explanations such as 'creationism' are silly. Carbon dating and dendrochronology both posit identical, long dates that easily defeat the nonsensical dates posited by creationism. Uranium-lead dating also fully destroys the case for a 'young earth'. The observance of speciation, and the presence of all evolutionary mechanisms, e.g., biased mutations, easily defeat creationism. The data in favor of an evolutionary explanation is way more than any other data.

As a Catholic Christian, I completely agree.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 10:40:32 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 1:20:13 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/24/2016 4:56:31 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/22/2016 8:33:23 PM, Quadrunner wrote:


Anyway, as you might imagine, I accept Evolution is a definite possibility, and don't read into it too much. Its not completely proven either way to me, and I don't particularly care since that has no affect on our lives.

Did you mean to suggest evolution has no impact on our lives, our have I misunderstood?

Yup, or more precisely the concept of evolution. Aside from the random quirks of fate we'd be the same, if not better if it was not in any book anywhere. The progression of DNA research does not require the study of evolution, or even the theory. Evolution works over a larger time scale then any wildlife management policy. The vaccination system, is reactionary anyway, so until we get the ability to predict how strains will evolve, evolution is useless. It's just a non-issue, a fun fact that we could be completely ignorant of and still account for 101% our entire existence.

So why worry about it, unless you are just interested? It is really cool to think about. It just has no impact on our lives. Aside from people who get paid to study evolution, no one benefits from the study of evolution.

Wow. 'vaccines are reactionary'? Without an understanding of evolution, vaccines would not exist, or at the very least, would not continue to be effective. Evolution affects antibiotics, pesticides, animal husbandry - just to name a few. These might seem trivial to you, but fighting disease and providing food for our ever growing population is kind of important. Understanding how evolution can, and does, play a role in these fields is crucial to human survival.
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
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 11:08:39 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 10:40:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/24/2016 1:20:13 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/24/2016 4:56:31 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/22/2016 8:33:23 PM, Quadrunner wrote:


Anyway, as you might imagine, I accept Evolution is a definite possibility, and don't read into it too much. Its not completely proven either way to me, and I don't particularly care since that has no affect on our lives.

Did you mean to suggest evolution has no impact on our lives, our have I misunderstood?

Yup, or more precisely the concept of evolution. Aside from the random quirks of fate we'd be the same, if not better if it was not in any book anywhere. The progression of DNA research does not require the study of evolution, or even the theory. Evolution works over a larger time scale then any wildlife management policy. The vaccination system, is reactionary anyway, so until we get the ability to predict how strains will evolve, evolution is useless. It's just a non-issue, a fun fact that we could be completely ignorant of and still account for 101% our entire existence.

So why worry about it, unless you are just interested? It is really cool to think about. It just has no impact on our lives. Aside from people who get paid to study evolution, no one benefits from the study of evolution.

Wow. 'vaccines are reactionary'? Without an understanding of evolution, vaccines would not exist, or at the very least, would not continue to be effective. Evolution affects antibiotics, pesticides, animal husbandry - just to name a few. These might seem trivial to you, but fighting disease and providing food for our ever growing population is kind of important. Understanding how evolution can, and does, play a role in these fields is crucial to human survival.

I don't think the forum leader would appreciate this turning into a full scale debate, but we need not know that one strain is changing to another. We need only know they are different to treat different strains.

Evolution is unneeded in antibiotics, pesticides, and animal husbandry. We need only have knowledge that the species, and variants within the species are different. In fact, that's all we really pay attention to when making adjustments to biological threats over the years. We don't necessarily care that flu-2 came from flu-1. It matters only that flu-2 and flu-1 are treatable.

No one, and I mean no one, has cured a disease before it formed. Its always reactionary by nature. The same goes for a pest like a crop eating bug. They eat our crops, THEN we figure out how to repel them.

Animal Husbandry? That has nothing to do with evolution. Okay I take that back, its all genetic, BUT, gene splicing does not require the theory of evolution. Breeding, really doesn't require the theory of evolution, unless you want to split hairs and call adaptation, and artificial selection microevolution. The point is though, if we didn't ever consider breeding to be microevolution, we could still breed better hamburgers, as has been evidenced by thousands of years of breeding before Darwin.

I have worked for university and corn breeding programs. They are really cool. Evolution is accepted and non-applicable.

I'll give you this one. The quirks of fate I mentioned; I do believe that evolution did inspire a lot of genetic study over the years because its just so darn interesting. It was never applicable though. The genetics are required for evolution, not the other way around.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 11:16:49 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 11:08:39 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/24/2016 10:40:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/24/2016 1:20:13 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/24/2016 4:56:31 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/22/2016 8:33:23 PM, Quadrunner wrote:


Anyway, as you might imagine, I accept Evolution is a definite possibility, and don't read into it too much. Its not completely proven either way to me, and I don't particularly care since that has no affect on our lives.

Did you mean to suggest evolution has no impact on our lives, our have I misunderstood?

Yup, or more precisely the concept of evolution. Aside from the random quirks of fate we'd be the same, if not better if it was not in any book anywhere. The progression of DNA research does not require the study of evolution, or even the theory. Evolution works over a larger time scale then any wildlife management policy. The vaccination system, is reactionary anyway, so until we get the ability to predict how strains will evolve, evolution is useless. It's just a non-issue, a fun fact that we could be completely ignorant of and still account for 101% our entire existence.

So why worry about it, unless you are just interested? It is really cool to think about. It just has no impact on our lives. Aside from people who get paid to study evolution, no one benefits from the study of evolution.

Wow. 'vaccines are reactionary'? Without an understanding of evolution, vaccines would not exist, or at the very least, would not continue to be effective. Evolution affects antibiotics, pesticides, animal husbandry - just to name a few. These might seem trivial to you, but fighting disease and providing food for our ever growing population is kind of important. Understanding how evolution can, and does, play a role in these fields is crucial to human survival.

I don't think the forum leader would appreciate this turning into a full scale debate,

I'm sure you're right, so I'll limit my response.

but we need not know that one strain is changing to another. We need only know they are different to treat different strains.

Evolution is unneeded in antibiotics,...

Why do you think patients are instructed to complete their antibiotic treatments?
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
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 11:19:42 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 8:28:59 PM, fire_wings wrote:
I wanted to put this in the religion forum, but because of activity I am putting it here. What are your thoughts? Do you believe in evolution or religion?
I do not believe in religion, regardless of evolution. Nor is religion a sufficient reason to doubt evolution.

Evolution is a product of some 2,300 years of the smartest minds on the planet, of every culture, faith and creed, seeking to make sense of a fact that has been known since the ancient Greeks: that many species which appear as fossils do not appear today, while the species which appear today do not generally appear as fossils. Numerous explanations for this anomaly have been proposed and falsified by evidence until only one survived, and in order to understand why that one survived one needs to know how the others were eliminated by evidence.

Moreover, to understand why the processes of evolution is upheld as fact and not simply theory, one needs to understand the phenomena they predict, which have been observed, and which put common ancestry beyond all reasonable doubt.

Most people with (for example) high school biology educations and exposure to popular science shows don't have the background, so they don't really understand just how valid and reliable evolution is as a scientific product. So they either adopt or discard evolution in partial ignorance -- either in faith of the processes of science and its professionals, or in distrust of the motives of scientists in particular and institutional education in general.

Regardless, evolution does not in itself invalidate the existence of gods, spirits or demons. However, it does illustrate something also illustrated in astronomy, geology, chemistry and medicine, namely that: authors of ancient scriptures were pig-ignorant about how the world worked.

Science illustrates these points inadvertently, but every time it does so, some traditional religious dogmatist wants to contest it, and every time they do, their faiths move on regardless, and generally accept the science, and this has occurred with most sects of most world faiths and biology, as it has with astronomy, geology, chemistry and medicine.

However, evolution is singled out because offers an additional threat to some faiths: it undermines the moral dualism underpinning Abrahamic religions in general, but in Christianity in particular.

So why is some Christian thought having such a hard time with evolution while Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam are all coping quite well?

In ancient times, Christians took a Judaic tradition of tribal sin and personalised it: asserting that each individual was born into sin, and needed personal redemption. This is not a belief shared by other world faiths, including Judaism. The idea only works if the genesis of humanity supports it, and evolution doesn't, really. So Christians very attached to notions of original sin and expiation have more trouble with evolution than Christians less attached. Because evolution makes their claims of original sin look shaky, they'd rather contest the science than revisit the dogma.

But evolution is no problem for most religions over-all. Religions generally want to believe there's some truth in their revelations, but frequently change the truth they claim is there, so they adapt. They often want to believe in a morally-ordered universe, but are happy to place the burden of moral order on some afterlife instead, which lightens the burden of demonstrating it in the world we have (which is just as well, since science keeps finding mechanical explanations for wonders thought to be moral interventions.) Most Christians have done this, but some conservative fundamentalists are having trouble.

The people who want to reject science on grounds of faith generally aren't well-educated in science, except for a cynical few who are exploiting them. Fundamentalists tend to produce few scientists anyway, and so contribute little to science directly, so their disbelief harms science not at all. However, it does risk harming the intellects of future generations, and really, that's where the faith vs. science war is really being fought: antisecular, antimodern, conservative fundamentalists want to drag education of the young back toward the Dark Ages. Most say they don't want to live in a theocracy, but when dogma is permitted to supplant independent inquiry on a national scale, I can't myself see how they'd produce anything else.

This reactionary Christian antiscientific movement is traceable to the end of the nineteenth century, when it occurred as a result of broader social forces that some conservative Christians didn't like. Over a period of about forty years it produced a huge swing of sentiment that continues today. As I mentioned, the fundamentalist movement produces no significant scientific product, but an awful lot of pseudoscientific and political communications, and a great deal of needless and unproductive social division.

The question 'evolution vs religion' is itself a product of that campaigning. Modern mainstream Christian churches see no such dichotomy, and the mainstream of other world faiths have no problem either.

I hope that may be useful.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 4:30:26 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 3:12:46 PM, Carcharus wrote:
I really am appalled that people even consider this a controversial issue, or one worthy of debate. Because it is not worthy of debate. Evolution is a fact, and most arguments against it - usually those employing long-disproved hoaxes such as irreducible complexity - are absolutely unconvincing. The scientific consensus has long been decided, and religious explanations such as 'creationism' are silly. Carbon dating and dendrochronology both posit identical, long dates that easily defeat the nonsensical dates posited by creationism. Uranium-lead dating also fully destroys the case for a 'young earth'. The observance of speciation, and the presence of all evolutionary mechanisms, e.g., biased mutations, easily defeat creationism. The data in favor of an evolutionary explanation is way more than any other data.

As I've said before there is plenty of observational data that is consistent with the claims of Darwinian natural selection.

If you care to do some basic historical science research though you'll find there is plenty of observational data consistent with a host of claims that were once regarded as "fact" but no longer are.

Thus consistency with observation and acceptance by the scientific community are no guarantee of correctness, this is just so basic yet so overlooked by the Darwin fundamentalists (those who describe hypotheses as facts).

What is most relevant here - to the honest seeker after truth anyway - are those areas where observational data is at odds with Darwinian claims. Most laymen I discuss evolution with have almost no idea about these, cannot list examples, have never even thought about them and this is at the very least extremely careless for how can one claim that something is a fact when they remain unaware of a claims weaknesses?

My own willingness to question evolutionary dogma took years because I too considered it beyond question yet had never seriously scrutinized its weaknesses. Investigating these weaknesses and deeply, honestly questioning its infallibility was very hard simply because I'd been led to believe that only fools doubt it, many here take that view, I for one know it isn't true.

Harry.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 4:52:35 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 4:30:26 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/22/2016 3:12:46 PM, Carcharus wrote:
I really am appalled that people even consider this a controversial issue, or one worthy of debate. Because it is not worthy of debate. Evolution is a fact, and most arguments against it - usually those employing long-disproved hoaxes such as irreducible complexity - are absolutely unconvincing. The scientific consensus has long been decided, and religious explanations such as 'creationism' are silly. Carbon dating and dendrochronology both posit identical, long dates that easily defeat the nonsensical dates posited by creationism. Uranium-lead dating also fully destroys the case for a 'young earth'. The observance of speciation, and the presence of all evolutionary mechanisms, e.g., biased mutations, easily defeat creationism. The data in favor of an evolutionary explanation is way more than any other data.

As I've said before there is plenty of observational data that is consistent with the claims of Darwinian natural selection.

If you care to do some basic historical science research though you'll find there is plenty of observational data consistent with a host of claims that were once regarded as "fact" but no longer are.

Thus consistency with observation and acceptance by the scientific community are no guarantee of correctness, this is just so basic yet so overlooked by the Darwin fundamentalists (those who describe hypotheses as facts).

In your view, how does something progress beyond a hypothesis? Do you have an explanation that fits the breadth and depth of the evidence better than evolutionary theory?
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
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 5:57:32 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 4:30:26 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/22/2016 3:12:46 PM, Carcharus wrote:
I really am appalled that people even consider this a controversial issue, or one worthy of debate. Because it is not worthy of debate. Evolution is a fact, and most arguments against it - usually those employing long-disproved hoaxes such as irreducible complexity - are absolutely unconvincing. The scientific consensus has long been decided, and religious explanations such as 'creationism' are silly. Carbon dating and dendrochronology both posit identical, long dates that easily defeat the nonsensical dates posited by creationism. Uranium-lead dating also fully destroys the case for a 'young earth'. The observance of speciation, and the presence of all evolutionary mechanisms, e.g., biased mutations, easily defeat creationism. The data in favor of an evolutionary explanation is way more than any other data.

As I've said before there is plenty of observational data that is consistent with the claims of Darwinian natural selection.

If you care to do some basic historical science research though you'll find there is plenty of observational data consistent with a host of claims that were once regarded as "fact" but no longer are.

Thus consistency with observation and acceptance by the scientific community are no guarantee of correctness, this is just so basic yet so overlooked by the Darwin fundamentalists (those who describe hypotheses as facts).

What is most relevant here - to the honest seeker after truth anyway - are those areas where observational data is at odds with Darwinian claims. Most laymen I discuss evolution with have almost no idea about these, cannot list examples, have never even thought about them and this is at the very least extremely careless for how can one claim that something is a fact when they remain unaware of a claims weaknesses?

My own willingness to question evolutionary dogma took years because I too considered it beyond question yet had never seriously scrutinized its weaknesses. Investigating these weaknesses and deeply, honestly questioning its infallibility was very hard simply because I'd been led to believe that only fools doubt it, many here take that view, I for one know it isn't true.

Harry.

You can disprove evolutionary theory? Get Newsweek on the phone and tell them to hold the front page. Get everyone on the phone and tell them to stop what they're doing. This, they gotta hear:
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 7:04:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 4:52:35 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/25/2016 4:30:26 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/22/2016 3:12:46 PM, Carcharus wrote:
I really am appalled that people even consider this a controversial issue, or one worthy of debate. Because it is not worthy of debate. Evolution is a fact, and most arguments against it - usually those employing long-disproved hoaxes such as irreducible complexity - are absolutely unconvincing. The scientific consensus has long been decided, and religious explanations such as 'creationism' are silly. Carbon dating and dendrochronology both posit identical, long dates that easily defeat the nonsensical dates posited by creationism. Uranium-lead dating also fully destroys the case for a 'young earth'. The observance of speciation, and the presence of all evolutionary mechanisms, e.g., biased mutations, easily defeat creationism. The data in favor of an evolutionary explanation is way more than any other data.

As I've said before there is plenty of observational data that is consistent with the claims of Darwinian natural selection.

If you care to do some basic historical science research though you'll find there is plenty of observational data consistent with a host of claims that were once regarded as "fact" but no longer are.

Thus consistency with observation and acceptance by the scientific community are no guarantee of correctness, this is just so basic yet so overlooked by the Darwin fundamentalists (those who describe hypotheses as facts).

In your view, how does something progress beyond a hypothesis?

The precise point at which some explanatory proposal transitions from hypothesis to theory is not rigorously defined in such a way that we have a single definition across all branches of science.

A theory in physics rests upon mathematical relationships which can be used to deduce predictions, once some explanation in physics reaches that point it becomes a theory.

There are no equations or mathematical laws present in Darwinian claims that allow concrete deductions to be made. There's a huge reliance on anecdotal evidence and cherry picking. As I say observations which fit the claims of evolution are celebrated whereas those awkward observations that seriously undermine it are either ignored or minimized.

The degree to which this happens in evolution is far beyond anything comparable in physics. As a life long student of physics, electronics and engineering I'm familiar with hard theories, mathematically robust models but evolution is not built on such a robust foundation.

Do you have an explanation that fits the breadth and depth of the evidence better than evolutionary theory?

Explanation for what observations specifically?

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 7:07:26 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 5:57:32 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/25/2016 4:30:26 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/22/2016 3:12:46 PM, Carcharus wrote:
I really am appalled that people even consider this a controversial issue, or one worthy of debate. Because it is not worthy of debate. Evolution is a fact, and most arguments against it - usually those employing long-disproved hoaxes such as irreducible complexity - are absolutely unconvincing. The scientific consensus has long been decided, and religious explanations such as 'creationism' are silly. Carbon dating and dendrochronology both posit identical, long dates that easily defeat the nonsensical dates posited by creationism. Uranium-lead dating also fully destroys the case for a 'young earth'. The observance of speciation, and the presence of all evolutionary mechanisms, e.g., biased mutations, easily defeat creationism. The data in favor of an evolutionary explanation is way more than any other data.

As I've said before there is plenty of observational data that is consistent with the claims of Darwinian natural selection.

If you care to do some basic historical science research though you'll find there is plenty of observational data consistent with a host of claims that were once regarded as "fact" but no longer are.

Thus consistency with observation and acceptance by the scientific community are no guarantee of correctness, this is just so basic yet so overlooked by the Darwin fundamentalists (those who describe hypotheses as facts).

What is most relevant here - to the honest seeker after truth anyway - are those areas where observational data is at odds with Darwinian claims. Most laymen I discuss evolution with have almost no idea about these, cannot list examples, have never even thought about them and this is at the very least extremely careless for how can one claim that something is a fact when they remain unaware of a claims weaknesses?

My own willingness to question evolutionary dogma took years because I too considered it beyond question yet had never seriously scrutinized its weaknesses. Investigating these weaknesses and deeply, honestly questioning its infallibility was very hard simply because I'd been led to believe that only fools doubt it, many here take that view, I for one know it isn't true.

Harry.

You can disprove evolutionary theory? Get Newsweek on the phone and tell them to hold the front page. Get everyone on the phone and tell them to stop what they're doing. This, they gotta hear:

Since when does convincing the editorial board of Newsweek play a role in establishing truth?

There are plenty of demonstrably true claims that Newsweek will never ever publish, you are aware of this hole in your reasoning here?

Harry.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 7:15:03 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 7:07:26 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 5:57:32 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/25/2016 4:30:26 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/22/2016 3:12:46 PM, Carcharus wrote:
I really am appalled that people even consider this a controversial issue, or one worthy of debate. Because it is not worthy of debate. Evolution is a fact, and most arguments against it - usually those employing long-disproved hoaxes such as irreducible complexity - are absolutely unconvincing. The scientific consensus has long been decided, and religious explanations such as 'creationism' are silly. Carbon dating and dendrochronology both posit identical, long dates that easily defeat the nonsensical dates posited by creationism. Uranium-lead dating also fully destroys the case for a 'young earth'. The observance of speciation, and the presence of all evolutionary mechanisms, e.g., biased mutations, easily defeat creationism. The data in favor of an evolutionary explanation is way more than any other data.

As I've said before there is plenty of observational data that is consistent with the claims of Darwinian natural selection.

If you care to do some basic historical science research though you'll find there is plenty of observational data consistent with a host of claims that were once regarded as "fact" but no longer are.

Thus consistency with observation and acceptance by the scientific community are no guarantee of correctness, this is just so basic yet so overlooked by the Darwin fundamentalists (those who describe hypotheses as facts).

What is most relevant here - to the honest seeker after truth anyway - are those areas where observational data is at odds with Darwinian claims. Most laymen I discuss evolution with have almost no idea about these, cannot list examples, have never even thought about them and this is at the very least extremely careless for how can one claim that something is a fact when they remain unaware of a claims weaknesses?

My own willingness to question evolutionary dogma took years because I too considered it beyond question yet had never seriously scrutinized its weaknesses. Investigating these weaknesses and deeply, honestly questioning its infallibility was very hard simply because I'd been led to believe that only fools doubt it, many here take that view, I for one know it isn't true.

Harry.

You can disprove evolutionary theory? Get Newsweek on the phone and tell them to hold the front page. Get everyone on the phone and tell them to stop what they're doing. This, they gotta hear:

Since when does convincing the editorial board of Newsweek play a role in establishing truth?

There are plenty of demonstrably true claims that Newsweek will never ever publish, you are aware of this hole in your reasoning here?


Harry.

I'm just saying. if you can disprove evolution, people are going to want to speak to you. Newsweek came to mind, but it's so much bigger than that. Everyone will want to know... not least, me. So please, set out these proofs...
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 7:19:56 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 7:15:03 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/25/2016 7:07:26 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 5:57:32 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/25/2016 4:30:26 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/22/2016 3:12:46 PM, Carcharus wrote:
I really am appalled that people even consider this a controversial issue, or one worthy of debate. Because it is not worthy of debate. Evolution is a fact, and most arguments against it - usually those employing long-disproved hoaxes such as irreducible complexity - are absolutely unconvincing. The scientific consensus has long been decided, and religious explanations such as 'creationism' are silly. Carbon dating and dendrochronology both posit identical, long dates that easily defeat the nonsensical dates posited by creationism. Uranium-lead dating also fully destroys the case for a 'young earth'. The observance of speciation, and the presence of all evolutionary mechanisms, e.g., biased mutations, easily defeat creationism. The data in favor of an evolutionary explanation is way more than any other data.

As I've said before there is plenty of observational data that is consistent with the claims of Darwinian natural selection.

If you care to do some basic historical science research though you'll find there is plenty of observational data consistent with a host of claims that were once regarded as "fact" but no longer are.

Thus consistency with observation and acceptance by the scientific community are no guarantee of correctness, this is just so basic yet so overlooked by the Darwin fundamentalists (those who describe hypotheses as facts).

What is most relevant here - to the honest seeker after truth anyway - are those areas where observational data is at odds with Darwinian claims. Most laymen I discuss evolution with have almost no idea about these, cannot list examples, have never even thought about them and this is at the very least extremely careless for how can one claim that something is a fact when they remain unaware of a claims weaknesses?

My own willingness to question evolutionary dogma took years because I too considered it beyond question yet had never seriously scrutinized its weaknesses. Investigating these weaknesses and deeply, honestly questioning its infallibility was very hard simply because I'd been led to believe that only fools doubt it, many here take that view, I for one know it isn't true.

Harry.

You can disprove evolutionary theory? Get Newsweek on the phone and tell them to hold the front page. Get everyone on the phone and tell them to stop what they're doing. This, they gotta hear:

Since when does convincing the editorial board of Newsweek play a role in establishing truth?

There are plenty of demonstrably true claims that Newsweek will never ever publish, you are aware of this hole in your reasoning here?


Harry.

I'm just saying. if you can disprove evolution, people are going to want to speak to you. Newsweek came to mind, but it's so much bigger than that. Everyone will want to know... not least, me. So please, set out these proofs...

Are you saying that if one cannot convince the media to support you with respect to some claim then we can safely conclude the claim is undoubtedly false?

Because this is precisely what you're implying and it's ridiculous, but on the other hand exactly what I've come to expect from the Darwin fundamentalists.

Harry.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 7:27:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 7:19:56 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 7:15:03 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/25/2016 7:07:26 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 5:57:32 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/25/2016 4:30:26 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/22/2016 3:12:46 PM, Carcharus wrote:
I really am appalled that people even consider this a controversial issue, or one worthy of debate. Because it is not worthy of debate. Evolution is a fact, and most arguments against it - usually those employing long-disproved hoaxes such as irreducible complexity - are absolutely unconvincing. The scientific consensus has long been decided, and religious explanations such as 'creationism' are silly. Carbon dating and dendrochronology both posit identical, long dates that easily defeat the nonsensical dates posited by creationism. Uranium-lead dating also fully destroys the case for a 'young earth'. The observance of speciation, and the presence of all evolutionary mechanisms, e.g., biased mutations, easily defeat creationism. The data in favor of an evolutionary explanation is way more than any other data.

As I've said before there is plenty of observational data that is consistent with the claims of Darwinian natural selection.

If you care to do some basic historical science research though you'll find there is plenty of observational data consistent with a host of claims that were once regarded as "fact" but no longer are.

Thus consistency with observation and acceptance by the scientific community are no guarantee of correctness, this is just so basic yet so overlooked by the Darwin fundamentalists (those who describe hypotheses as facts).

What is most relevant here - to the honest seeker after truth anyway - are those areas where observational data is at odds with Darwinian claims. Most laymen I discuss evolution with have almost no idea about these, cannot list examples, have never even thought about them and this is at the very least extremely careless for how can one claim that something is a fact when they remain unaware of a claims weaknesses?

My own willingness to question evolutionary dogma took years because I too considered it beyond question yet had never seriously scrutinized its weaknesses. Investigating these weaknesses and deeply, honestly questioning its infallibility was very hard simply because I'd been led to believe that only fools doubt it, many here take that view, I for one know it isn't true.

Harry.

You can disprove evolutionary theory? Get Newsweek on the phone and tell them to hold the front page. Get everyone on the phone and tell them to stop what they're doing. This, they gotta hear:

Since when does convincing the editorial board of Newsweek play a role in establishing truth?

There are plenty of demonstrably true claims that Newsweek will never ever publish, you are aware of this hole in your reasoning here?


Harry.

I'm just saying. if you can disprove evolution, people are going to want to speak to you. Newsweek came to mind, but it's so much bigger than that. Everyone will want to know... not least, me. So please, set out these proofs...

Are you saying that if one cannot convince the media to support you with respect to some claim then we can safely conclude the claim is undoubtedly false?

Because this is precisely what you're implying and it's ridiculous, but on the other hand exactly what I've come to expect from the Darwin fundamentalists.

Harry.

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. The media is the ultimate arbiter of truth - specifically, Fox news!
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 7:35:40 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 4:30:26 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/22/2016 3:12:46 PM, Carcharus wrote:
I really am appalled that people even consider this a controversial issue, or one worthy of debate. Because it is not worthy of debate. Evolution is a fact, and most arguments against it - usually those employing long-disproved hoaxes such as irreducible complexity - are absolutely unconvincing. The scientific consensus has long been decided, and religious explanations such as 'creationism' are silly. Carbon dating and dendrochronology both posit identical, long dates that easily defeat the nonsensical dates posited by creationism. Uranium-lead dating also fully destroys the case for a 'young earth'. The observance of speciation, and the presence of all evolutionary mechanisms, e.g., biased mutations, easily defeat creationism. The data in favor of an evolutionary explanation is way more than any other data.

As I've said before there is plenty of observational data that is consistent with the claims of Darwinian natural selection.

If you care to do some basic historical science research though you'll find there is plenty of observational data consistent with a host of claims that were once regarded as "fact" but no longer are.

Thus consistency with observation and acceptance by the scientific community are no guarantee of correctness, this is just so basic yet so overlooked by the Darwin fundamentalists (those who describe hypotheses as facts).

What is most relevant here - to the honest seeker after truth anyway - are those areas where observational data is at odds with Darwinian claims. Most laymen I discuss evolution with have almost no idea about these, cannot list examples, have never even thought about them and this is at the very least extremely careless for how can one claim that something is a fact when they remain unaware of a claims weaknesses?

My own willingness to question evolutionary dogma took years because I too considered it beyond question yet had never seriously scrutinized its weaknesses. Investigating these weaknesses and deeply, honestly questioning its infallibility was very hard simply because I'd been led to believe that only fools doubt it, many here take that view, I for one know it isn't true.

Harry.

LOL. Oh Harry, we all know you don't understand evolution, let alone having the capacity to scrutinize it. Tell us all about those weaknesses, Harry, without falling into the trap of ignorance and incredulity. Will we be seeing another link to the Cambrian era, Harry, something else you still don't understand?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth