Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 11:51 PM
26 online now:
AZPaul3, Tanypteryx (2 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,245 Year: 5,282/19,786 Month: 1,404/873 Week: 300/460 Day: 52/64 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Evolution: Science or Religion?
mark24
Member (Idle past 3306 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 16 of 41 (46527)
07-19-2003 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by EndocytosisSynthesis
07-19-2003 5:22 PM


Endo,

No I haven't seen an electron with my own eyes, but I have seen photographs of them by electron microscopes and I know that scientists have seen electrons before.

LOL, have you really seen one, even on a photograph? No, you haven't. You think you have? Please provide a photograph of an electron. I think you are probably confusing this with something else. NO scientist has seen an electron, & nor have you. They are too small, you never know exactly where they are, & they don't reflect photons, much less other electrons in such a way an image can be formed. It would be like taking a photograph of an elephant with a camera that fired elephants out of the flash bulb.

So, I repeat, given that no one has observed an electron, do you still think their existence scientific, or not? That is, are you prepared to concede that for something to be scientific, it need not be observed? In fact, it's rather a requirement, or science would have cleaned up centuries ago.

Science isn't about Truth? So I guess that means that Science could be false

That's right. Science might be false. Just like all other scientific theories that have gone by the wayside but were still scientific......

and not truthful and in other words it's irrelevant because It's not the actual truth its just our best understanding which has been wrong before and will be in the future.

I wouldn't have said irrelevant. But yes, that's about right. Different theories are qualitatively different. It's all about getting the level of tentativity to a minimum. A theory might not be wrong as such, just require tweaking when new data becomes avaliable. Take the atomic theory I outlined in my last post. With each new observation we get closer & closer to reality, we can just never know when we are there.......The theory gets less & less tentative... If you ever arrive at a point where someone says, "hey, this is the absolute truth", there can be no room for improvement. How do we know there is no room for improvement? We don't, so we never pretend we have the truth. That's what theists do. That's all it means. That's a huge gap between that & saying something is 50/50 because it is tentative. Take my ol' favourite, phylogenetic analyses, for example. This takes sequence data & produces an "evolutionary tree" with it. Now how many potential evolutionary trees are there taking in ten organisms, do you think? If evolution is true, there is only one true tree, so this type of data should return similar, if not identical results....... There are 34,500,000 possible trees for a ten organism phylogeny. Why is it that phylogenies return such similar results at such vast odds of it occurring by chance? That's 34,500,000:1 for just two ten taxa phylogenies that are 100% congruent, with this data alone we can reduce the tentativity that evolution occurred by an alarming degree, wouldn't you say?

If science is not 100% assured truth than that means Evolution isn't 100% assured to be true, so that means that all those at put faith into to be 100% true are nothing more than religious zealots, because by science Evolution hasn't been proven to 100% true.

No scientist says evolutionary theory is 100% true. This is probably the crux of your misunderstanding, creationists often judge others by their own standards, ie Adhere by blind faith in claiming the absolute truth of something, & assume others who disagree do the same. Not so.

I maintain there is enough independent corroborating evidence that evolution occurred to indicate that it is unreasonable to deny. But there is still much to know as to how it occurred. I wouldn't hold your breath that there is going to be a revolution that reinterprets the data in such a way that evolution never occurred. It would require too many disciplines to be fundamentally rewritten & interpreted a different way. This is why most creationist literature is exposed as the shite it is. It is simply not consistent with all known data.

In summary, I maintain that evolutionary theory meets the standards of the scientific method, & is therefore science.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by EndocytosisSynthesis, posted 07-19-2003 5:22 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by nator, posted 07-19-2003 11:57 PM mark24 has not yet responded

    
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 875 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 17 of 41 (46532)
07-19-2003 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by EndocytosisSynthesis
07-19-2003 11:13 AM


quote:
No one has ever observed an "ape" evolving into a Man, nor has Evolution been proven to be true, nor has the missing link ever been found.
I don't know what your brand of creationism is, but I am wondering whether you have considered the following:

No one has ever observed a "firmament" holding the sun in orbit around earth,
Nor has the existence of God been proven to be true;
Nor has the missing God ever been found.

db


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by EndocytosisSynthesis, posted 07-19-2003 11:13 AM EndocytosisSynthesis has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 18 of 41 (46533)
07-19-2003 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by mark24
07-19-2003 6:35 PM


quote:
It would be like taking a photograph of an elephant with a camera that fired elephants out of the flash bulb.

ROTFLMAO!!!

That is the best thing I have read in a long time!

What an image!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 07-19-2003 6:35 PM mark24 has not yet responded

    
EndocytosisSynthesis 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 19 of 41 (46548)
07-20-2003 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by dinoflagulates
07-19-2003 5:58 PM


Not true
We can observe gravity every day, evolution from ape to man cannot be observed everyday.
Your faulty claims about there being no evidence for a Creator are utter hogwash, the Universe itself and why life exists instead of nothing is evidence by itself.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by dinoflagulates, posted 07-19-2003 5:58 PM dinoflagulates has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Asgara, posted 07-20-2003 2:35 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has responded
 Message 22 by NosyNed, posted 07-20-2003 3:02 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has not yet responded
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 07-20-2003 3:57 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has responded
 Message 32 by mark24, posted 07-20-2003 6:08 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has not yet responded

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 413 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 20 of 41 (46550)
07-20-2003 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by EndocytosisSynthesis
07-20-2003 12:50 PM


Hi Endo,

We observe the "effects" of gravity everyday. The Theory of Gravity, how it happens, is still just a theory. Evolution, a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time, is observed all the time. I believe it's the "Theory" of Evolution you are arguing against.

------------------
Asgara

"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by EndocytosisSynthesis, posted 07-20-2003 12:50 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 07-20-2003 3:00 PM Asgara has responded
 Message 25 by EndocytosisSynthesis, posted 07-20-2003 4:23 PM Asgara has responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 21 of 41 (46554)
07-20-2003 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Asgara
07-20-2003 2:35 PM


ToG
In fact, Asgara, there is some chance that the current theory of gravity is not right. We don't have a theory of quantum gravity yet. It is more likely that the ToG is wrong than that the ToE is wrong.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Asgara, posted 07-20-2003 2:35 PM Asgara has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Asgara, posted 07-20-2003 3:09 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 22 of 41 (46555)
07-20-2003 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by EndocytosisSynthesis
07-20-2003 12:50 PM


the Universe itself and why life exists instead of nothing is evidence by itself.

These things are predicted by both sides in the same way. Therefore they are not useful evidence to distinguish between the conflicting ideas. This is not unequivocal evidence for God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by EndocytosisSynthesis, posted 07-20-2003 12:50 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has not yet responded

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 413 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 23 of 41 (46558)
07-20-2003 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by NosyNed
07-20-2003 3:00 PM


Re: ToG
Hi Ned,

Thanks, you are absolutely right. Maybe we could start a forum to discuss how the TOG is unscientific and get it taken out of our school text books.

Seriously, I don't understand the whole conflict concerning the TOE. The general arguments against it would apply equally to most scientific theories and I don't see anyone arguing that the TOG or GToD is unscientific.

------------------
Asgara

"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 07-20-2003 3:00 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 41 (46562)
07-20-2003 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by EndocytosisSynthesis
07-20-2003 12:50 PM


We can observe gravity every day, evolution from ape to man cannot be observed everyday.

Not so, We observe the same mechanism that got us from ape-like ancestor to Homo Sapiens generating new species every day. Did you miss my other post? The one where I said we use natural selection + random mutation to generate circuit designs and jet airplanes? How much more observation do you need?

the Universe itself and why life exists instead of nothing is evidence by itself.

Why do you think there was ever nothing? How do you know the universe ever didn't exist? Maybe all this "something" exists because it's not possible for it not to exist.

Existence is not evidence for a Creator, because you don't always need a creator to get something. It's just evidence for existence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by EndocytosisSynthesis, posted 07-20-2003 12:50 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by EndocytosisSynthesis, posted 07-20-2003 4:29 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 27 by EndocytosisSynthesis, posted 07-20-2003 4:31 PM crashfrog has responded

  
EndocytosisSynthesis 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 25 of 41 (46565)
07-20-2003 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Asgara
07-20-2003 2:35 PM


By Gravity one must assume that I meant effects of gravity, because we don't really even know what gravity is, we know what it does, much less know where to actually observe gravity itself.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Asgara, posted 07-20-2003 2:35 PM Asgara has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Asgara, posted 07-20-2003 4:33 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has responded

  
EndocytosisSynthesis 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 26 of 41 (46567)
07-20-2003 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by crashfrog
07-20-2003 3:57 PM


Not so, We observe the same mechanism that got us from ape-like ancestor to Homo Sapiens generating new species every day. Did you miss my other post? The one where I said we use natural selection + random mutation to generate circuit designs and jet airplanes? How much more observation do you need?

True, But Those circuit designs in jet airplanes would not have occured if an intelligent creator/designer didn't actually design the airplane and all of its components and the circuit boards and everything else first. It can't just appear out of nothing.
It's not that simple. New species are generating everyday? I don't think so, and just because by random chance a circuit rewired itself by random chance doesn't mean that apes evolved into humans, you're taking a giant leap of faith right there and making too many assumptions. As we all know, Evolution hasn't been proven 100%, therefore I'm not going to believe it until it has, and I'm not going to assume it's true simply because a circuit board wired itself by chance, which wouldn't have happened anyway unless there was an intelligent designer making it all possible, and actually designing the circuit board first.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 07-20-2003 3:57 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 07-20-2003 5:09 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has not yet responded
 Message 34 by Rrhain, posted 07-22-2003 5:02 AM EndocytosisSynthesis has not yet responded

  
EndocytosisSynthesis 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 27 of 41 (46568)
07-20-2003 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by crashfrog
07-20-2003 3:57 PM


Not possible for it not to exist? Explain that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 07-20-2003 3:57 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 07-20-2003 5:11 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has not yet responded

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 413 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 28 of 41 (46569)
07-20-2003 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by EndocytosisSynthesis
07-20-2003 4:23 PM


Hi Endo,

I believe YOU are the one arguing that

Let's not forget that in order for a theroy to fall into the category of a Scientific Fact, it must be observable and proven to be true.

So, in light of your last message, when are you going to start arguing that the TOG is unscientific.

------------------
Asgara

"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by EndocytosisSynthesis, posted 07-20-2003 4:23 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by EndocytosisSynthesis, posted 07-20-2003 4:35 PM Asgara has not yet responded

    
EndocytosisSynthesis 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 29 of 41 (46570)
07-20-2003 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Asgara
07-20-2003 4:33 PM


I'm arguing that Creationism it too complex to fall into a simple category of man's science. Creationism is everything, not simply science.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Asgara, posted 07-20-2003 4:33 PM Asgara has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by mark24, posted 07-20-2003 6:22 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 41 (46580)
07-20-2003 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by EndocytosisSynthesis
07-20-2003 4:29 PM


True, But Those circuit designs in jet airplanes would not have occured if an intelligent creator/designer didn't actually design the airplane and all of its components and the circuit boards and everything else first. It can't just appear out of nothing.

No, that's exactly what happened. It's called "genetic programming", and it's a process of generating functional circuits or jet planes in a computer simulation, through processes of natural selection and random mutation. At no point is a circuit design actually designed by a human. Natural selection and random mutation - evolution - does all the designing.

You can read about it here:

www-personal.si.umich.edu/~rfrost/courses/SI110/readings/EvoInventions.pdf

New species are generating everyday? I don't think so

You think wrong. It's very well documented. Look through a biological journal and you'll see new species arising through reproductive isolation. It's a very well-understood phenomenon. There isn't a creationist group today who argues that new species don't arise.

you're taking a giant leap of faith right there and making too many assumptions.

The only assumption I'm making is that natural processes can account for all natural phenomenon - the same assumption used by all the sciences.

Now, believing in a Creator God - that's a leap of faith, and that's making too many assumptions. If you compare you'll find I'm actually making a lot less untestable assumptions than you.

Evolution hasn't been proven 100%, therefore I'm not going to believe it until it has,

It's been proven as well as anything else in the sciences. Perhaps that's what you mean by "100%". Why else would it have near-universal acceptance in the biological community?

which wouldn't have happened anyway unless there was an intelligent designer making it all possible, and actually designing the circuit board first.

Like I said, there's no intervention in the GP process except to set inital conditions. The circuits are designed through the same process that gives rise to new species.

If evolution can make circuits and jet airplanes, why can't it turn an ape-like ancestor into two populations of men and apes?

[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-20-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by EndocytosisSynthesis, posted 07-20-2003 4:29 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019