Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
27 online now:
Diomedes, dwise1, jar, kjsimons, PaulK (5 members, 22 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,628 Year: 18,664/19,786 Month: 1,084/1,705 Week: 336/518 Day: 12/88 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can Biologists believe in the ToE?
nator
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 1 of 304 (392546)
04-01-2007 9:06 AM


In another thread, ICANT wrote the following:

quote:
I do not see how anyone can believe in the Theory of of evolution.

My reply was:

1) As crash writes, people who accept the overwhelming evidence in favor of the ToE do just that. "Belief", like "belief" in gods, is not why people who understand a bit of Biology accept the ToE.

2) Do you really think that the hundreds of thousands of scientists who have been advancing our understanding Biology over the last 150 years at the most astonishing pace have all just been deluded? Since several of the main occupations of scientists are critically examining theory and trying to falsify hypotheses, are you also accusing all of those Biologists of being so poor at doing science that they have, to a person, missed the fact that the overarching, foundational theory that underpins all Biology is completely false?

It seems to me that many religious people who oppose the ToE are under the impression that others, including scientists and science-minded people, "believe" in the same way that religious people "believe" in gods.

I also have noticed that when religious people make such a claim, they do not realize that they are calling into question the integrity, intelligence, and basic professional competence of generations of scientists.

I would like those who reject the ToE to explain how they reconcile their rejection with the logical implications regarding scientists I have listed above.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by mike the wiz, posted 04-01-2007 6:52 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Taz, posted 04-01-2007 9:24 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 5 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 04-01-2007 9:28 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 04-01-2007 10:49 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 7 by ICANT, posted 04-02-2007 9:16 PM nator has responded
 Message 130 by Q, posted 09-06-2007 7:25 PM nator has responded
 Message 269 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-12-2007 6:02 AM nator has not yet responded
 Message 288 by AreWeNotMen?, posted 12-13-2007 12:13 PM nator has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 304 (392566)
04-01-2007 11:39 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4660
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 3 of 304 (392676)
04-01-2007 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
04-01-2007 9:06 AM


Shraffy writes:

It seems to me that many religious people who oppose the ToE are under the impression that others, including scientists and science-minded people, "believe" in the same way that religious people "believe" in gods.

Yes, it's the infamous tu qouque argument.

Infact, I can prove you're correct because it's a vacuous truth that a person would believe in a fact. The name "evolutionist" is only created because of the opposition's existence.

So the linguistic relevancy can be shown. For example, gravitationist. Ah - those great believers!

S0 I agree because in a way they're comparing unsound claims with sound claims, and saying they should both be treated as equally sound.

So a Biologist believes in the ToE, but it's known as a vacuous truth. It's certainly unfair to accuse a Biologist of the same religiosity.

There's no comparison between a genuine faith and a relevant linguistic anomoly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 04-01-2007 9:06 AM nator has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1578 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 4 of 304 (392715)
04-01-2007 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
04-01-2007 9:06 AM


nator writes:

I would like those who reject the ToE to explain how they reconcile their rejection with the logical implications regarding scientists I have listed above.


I'd like to point out that their rejection of ToE also undermines the many many scientific progress over the decades that have saved and fed millions and millions of lives. These same idiots who believe in ToE also created anti-biotics, genetic engineering, and the myriad of other things that define a modern and developed society.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 04-01-2007 9:06 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Tal, posted 09-16-2007 8:33 AM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 257 by Antioch's Fire, posted 11-04-2007 1:48 AM Taz has not yet responded

AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 5 of 304 (392717)
04-01-2007 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
04-01-2007 9:06 AM


In the US, there are probably about 20 times as many Clausians as biologists (where a Clausian is a person who accepts the validity of the existence of Santa Claus based on the overwhelming evidence). And yet, the majority of people in the US reject the validity of SC's existence, even though they are familiar with the same evidence, and in many cases were the ones who first exposed the believers to that evidence. I have no idea if this is relevant to your point, or if its just one of those tu quoquequidproquo arguments that MiketheWhiz is so fond of exposing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 04-01-2007 9:06 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-18-2007 10:57 AM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 6 of 304 (392725)
04-01-2007 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
04-01-2007 9:06 AM


oops
It seems to me that many religious people who oppose the ToE are under the impression that others, including scientists and science-minded people, "believe" in the same way that religious people "believe" in gods.

I would like those who reject the ToE to explain how they reconcile their rejection with the logical implications regarding scientists I have listed above.

You're making the same mistake: expecting them to reason the way you do.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 04-01-2007 9:06 AM nator has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6258
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 7 of 304 (392916)
04-02-2007 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
04-01-2007 9:06 AM


Re-ToE
I would like those who reject the ToE

Before I answer I need to know what your definition of the Theory of Evolution is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 04-01-2007 9:06 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by nator, posted 04-03-2007 8:28 AM ICANT has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 8 of 304 (393010)
04-03-2007 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by ICANT
04-02-2007 9:16 PM


Re: Re-ToE
quote:
Before I answer I need to know what your definition of the Theory of Evolution is.

The short versions:

Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

Put another way, it is descent with modification.

The slightly longer, somewhat more comprehensive version:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

The long, quite detailed and very comprehensive version:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

While I am happy to provide you with this information, ICANT, I am not sure why it is relevant to the questions in the OP.

If you rejected the Germ Theory of Disease and couldn't understand how anybody could believe in it, would the definition of the GToD really matter to a discussion of the competency of all of the scientists and medical doctors who have been working within the GToD for the last 150 years or so?

Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Edited by nator, : plelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ICANT, posted 04-02-2007 9:16 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Wounded King, posted 04-03-2007 8:33 AM nator has responded
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 04-03-2007 11:33 AM nator has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2381 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 9 of 304 (393012)
04-03-2007 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by nator
04-03-2007 8:28 AM


Re: Re-ToE
Put another way, it is decent with modification.

But its even better when it is descent with modification. :P

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nator, posted 04-03-2007 8:28 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by nator, posted 04-03-2007 8:35 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 10 of 304 (393013)
04-03-2007 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Wounded King
04-03-2007 8:33 AM


Re: Re-ToE
crap

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Wounded King, posted 04-03-2007 8:33 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6258
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 11 of 304 (393052)
04-03-2007 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by nator
04-03-2007 8:28 AM


Re: Re-ToE
nator writes:

I am not sure why it is relevant to the questions in the OP.


What is Evolution?
Copyright © 1993-1997 by Laurence Moran
[Last Update: January 22, 1993]
Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term. When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution. And when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have a clear definition in mind. What exactly do biologists mean when they say that they have observed evolution or that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor?

When I talk about the Theory of Evolution I begin with nothing. If you start somewhere else we have a problem.

If you start after life is found on the earth then you have to take everything before the point you begin by FAITH so then your ToE would be faith based not on fact. Other than the fact we are here so we must have evolved. Since we are here it had to happen as we believe it happened.

Sorry I don't buy into that theory.

I just needed to know what you are talking about because you left out the line that followed the statement you make reference to.

ICANT writes:

I do not see how anyone can believe in the Theory of evolution.

Hold on I did not say evolution, change over time is fact.


quote:
2) Do you really think that the hundreds of thousands of scientists who have been advancing our understanding Biology over the last 150 years at the most astonishing pace have all just been deluded? Since several of the main occupations of scientists are critically examining theory and trying to falsify hypotheses, are you also accusing all of those Biologists of being so poor at doing science that they have, to a person, missed the fact that the overarching, foundational theory that underpins all Biology is completely false?

If I believe in evolution and so stated in the next sentence, why the above accusation.
I believe that things change over time.
It is a proven fact that formas over a period of at least 66 million years produced at least 330 different species of formas. But as of today they are still formas.
So I do not believe that it can be proven that any one kind can become another kind. In fact the formas proved it does not happen.
I believe that Biological Science has done many wonderful things in the past 150 years.
I believe that Computer Science has done many wonderful things in the past 25 years.
I believe that many of the other Sciences have made great advances.

I know what I believe and why, you know what you believe and why. And they will never agree so lets leave it at that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nator, posted 04-03-2007 8:28 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Chiroptera, posted 04-03-2007 12:01 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2007 8:20 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 14 by nator, posted 04-03-2007 9:23 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 19 by StevieBoy, posted 04-04-2007 10:23 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6803
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 12 of 304 (393055)
04-03-2007 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ICANT
04-03-2007 11:33 AM


Re: Re-ToE
quote:
If you start after life is found on the earth then you have to take everything before the point you begin by FAITH so then your ToE would be faith based not on fact.

This is stupid. I have no idea how my ancestors arrived in North America. Yet I know that my family moved from Ohio to Kansas and then to Oregon. This history is confirmed by birth records, death records, and marriage records with the correct names at dates consistent with what we know about the trip.

By your reasoning, though, since we do not know the origin of my family, the journey of my family from Ohio to Oregon is faith not fact.


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 04-03-2007 11:33 AM ICANT has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 13 of 304 (393187)
04-03-2007 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ICANT
04-03-2007 11:33 AM


Re: Re-ToE
When I talk about the Theory of Evolution I begin with nothing. If you start somewhere else we have a problem.

If you start after life is found on the earth then you have to take everything before the point you begin by FAITH so ...

Evolution is the change in species over time, the change in the frequency of alleles in populations from generation to generation, descent with modification, a shift in the proportions of hereditary traits from one generation to the next, etcetera.

Without life you don't have the initial stage of this evaluation.

Abiogenesis is the science that studies origins.

Before the point where life originates the answer currently is "we don't know" -- that is not faith, it is uncertainty, scientific uncertainty.

It is a proven fact that formas over a period of at least 66 million years produced at least 330 different species of formas. But as of today they are still formas.

Which just confirms common descent. You do realize that common descent is one of the theories of biological evolution yes? Everything descended from {X} would still be a descendent of {X} no matter WHAT {X} was.

When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution.

A point I have made is that the term "evolution" applies to

(a) the science that studies evolution in the past and the present
(b) a theory involving one or more mechanisms that produce the results we see and
(c) the factual evidence we have that change in species over time has occurred.

I know what I believe and why, you know what you believe and why. And they will never agree so lets leave it at that.

I believe in following the evidence to see where it leads. If you do not agree with that then you are correct.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 04-03-2007 11:33 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by riVeRraT, posted 05-02-2007 10:13 AM RAZD has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 14 of 304 (393199)
04-03-2007 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ICANT
04-03-2007 11:33 AM


Re: Re-ToE
quote:
When I talk about the Theory of Evolution I begin with nothing. If you start somewhere else we have a problem.

Well then your difficulty is with Biochemistry, not Evolutionary Biology.

The ToE applies to the first life once it got here. The various therories of Abiogenesis (which is Chemistry) deal with the formation of the first life from non-life.

So, you are very much in error to lump Abiogenesis theories into the ToE.

quote:
If you start after life is found on the earth then you have to take everything before the point you begin by FAITH so then your ToE would be faith based not on fact.

That's crap, as others have explained to you.

Where the first life came from has no bearing on the ToE at all.

God could have poofed the first life into existence and it would not change the ToE one iota.

quote:
If I believe in evolution and so stated in the next sentence, why the above accusation.

Because you misunderstand how science in general works and in particular what Evolutionary Biology is.

quote:
I believe that things change over time.
It is a proven fact that formas over a period of at least 66 million years produced at least 330 different species of formas. But as of today they are still formas.

What are "formas"? That's not a taxonomical term, so I don't understand what you mean.

quote:
So I do not believe that it can be proven that any one kind can become another kind. In fact the formas proved it does not happen.

What is the definition of "kind"? In specific, by what method is it determined that "kind" an organism is?

For example, is my housecat and a Bengal Tiger the same "kind"?

Are homo Sapiens and Bonobo Chimpanzees the same "kind"?

quote:
I know what I believe and why, you know what you believe and why. And they will never agree so lets leave it at that.

You believe what you do about science out of ignorance.

It's a shame that you wish to remain ignorant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 04-03-2007 11:33 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6258
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 15 of 304 (393226)
04-04-2007 12:05 AM


Re-ToE
Chiroptera writes:

This is stupid. I have no idea how my ancestors arrived in North America.


But they did exist.
nator writes:

So, you are very much in error to lump Abiogenesis theories into the ToE.


That being the case:
nator writes:

The various therories of Abiogenesis


nator writes:

Well then your difficulty is with Biochemistry


I don't have a problem with either of them, you do.
RAZD writes:

Before the point where life originates the answer currently is "we don't know" -- that is not faith, it is uncertainty, scientific uncertainty.


Since these sciences can only tell you they don't know you call it scientific uncertainty.
Can I have the same privilege because I can't show you God and just call it religious uncertainty.
nator writes:

Where the first life came from has no bearing on the ToE at all.


It does if life did not evolve from nothing.
nator writes:

God could have poofed the first life into existence and it would not change the ToE one iota.


It would if God made a full grown man and woman, full grown animals, birds and fishes.
nator writes:

What are "formas"?

quote:
Since the foram record extends through a major extinction event (some of the samples date back nearly 100 million years), it represents the first, grand template against which a flock of pet theories on the beginnings of evolution may now be effectively measured, he said.

...www.gly.fsu.edu....


nator writes:

For example, is my housecat and a Bengal Tiger the same "kind"?
Are homo Sapiens and Bonobo Chimpanzees the same "kind"?


Yes

No

nator writes:

You believe what you do about science out of ignorance.
It's a shame that you wish to remain ignorant.


I plead guilty to ignorance of science.
If I wanted to remain that way I would not put up with the snide posts, uncalled for sarcasm, and downright bigotry on this forum.

I truly appreciate RAZD he has been helpful and pointed out many things in a civil way.
But some are not here to learn or share knowledge just spout their particular beliefs and some in very arrogant ways.

I still conclude:
I take God on faith.
Evolutionist take what you hope these sciences will prove at a future date on faith, what if they fail to ever give the answer and many have said they never will.
I will quote RAZD on this one:

RAZD writes:

There is about a billion years from the formation of the earth and the first evidence of life noted above. Where did it come from is a question we don't know - and likely can't know - the answer to due to the problem of destruction of the evidence. What caused it is also anyone's guess at this point - we don't have any evidence of how if formed so it is not possible to define the causes (with evidence). ( Where do Creationists think the Theory of Evolution comes from? Msg 106)

Edited by AdminAsgara, : fixed url


Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 04-04-2007 9:17 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 17 by nator, posted 04-04-2007 9:49 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 04-04-2007 10:12 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Chiroptera, posted 04-04-2007 10:28 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 27 by Modulous, posted 04-05-2007 7:16 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019