dawkins ftw

[guysmy]

They should teach science in world religion class.

When discussing the bit in Genesis where God creates the earth, teachers also need to touch on the big bang theory.

 

[Imhotep]

I was more referring to "Bones in the ground do not 100% prove that they existed", that is complete and utter foolishness.. bones of something not being proof... bones have DNA that have been tested. So by your logic if we dug up a dead person we could not prove he existed? You can quote all the sudo-intellect crap you want and be "technical" all you want but it merely convoluted the point that I was trying to make. And that point is that "technicalities" are not the issue when it comes to fact or fiction.

 

[schockergd]

Seems like they just want to de-fund religious schools.

I know in the US , private institutions that are non-religious or religious still get partial funding from the government.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

It must be stressed that a hypothesis is never shown to be true. Repeated experimentation which supports a hypothesis and develops the hypothesis further leads to the hypothesis being accepted as a theory. Often a well supported theory will be referred to as a law or principle. It should be noted that in reality it is still a theory, just one that has stood the test of time fairly well.

But no, because then you're dismissing the entire scientific method. Then you have to begin debating with yourself as to whether sunlight is actually real, or whether carbon dioxide actually consists of 1 carbon and 2 oxygen atoms, or if the earth actually revolves around the sun, or whether you've been breathing nitrogen or oxygen all your life, etc. After all, they're just a bunch of theories, right?

I'm curious, what makes people so petrified that they're willing to allow their minds to go to such depths? Rational folks who throw rationality completely out the window when it comes to religion.

 

[Moxie]

I was more referring to "Bones in the ground do not 100% prove that they existed", that is complete and utter foolishness.. bones of something not being proof... bones have DNA that have been tested. So by your logic if we dug up a dead person we could not prove he existed? You can quote all the sudo-intellect crap you want and be "technical" all you want but it merely convoluted the point that I was trying to make. And that point is that "technicalities" are not the issue when it comes to fact or fiction.

What passes as proof in a court of law is different than in science, and this thread was about science, which is all about technicalities.

Human bones would be evidence of a former human life, but no, they would not 100% scientifically prove it, and there is a reason for this. Proper science leaves things open for the tiny chance of other probabilities, but because of this there can always be another "side" to most science issues.

If we only teach science in school that everyone agrees on, then there wouldn't be much being taught. Some people think that dinosaur bones were placed there by the devil and some still think that the devil also is what causes disease. Both of those views cannot be disproved, but that doesn't mean that they should be taught in school, and that's sort of what I was pointing out.

But no, because then you're dismissing the entire scientific method. Then you have to begin debating with yourself as to whether sunlight is actually real,

No, there's differences between being 1%, 10%, 50%, 90%, or 99.99999999999999% sure of something.

I'm curious, what makes people so petrified that they're willing to allow their minds to go to such depths? Rational folks who throw rationality completely out the window when it comes to religion.

Not sure if this was directed at me, but are you aware that I quoted that paragraph off of a science site?

 

[REIMktg]

I wish everyone would simply be honest and lay their cards on the table.

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" source I see no claim of a creator here, simply that the simplest explanation would be that there is an intelligent explanation.

Evolutionists need to state that they believe in micro evolution and then, without proof, extrapolate out that this includes macro-evolution. They should also stop showing drawings and modeled skeletons of transitional ape to human forms when the speculation is based on a femur, or single skull, of whatever. Where's the honesty in that?

All the fake BS from evolutionists that is taught as pure fact is ridiculous.

Students should be told what we know, what we do not know, and the conclusions we have made. Not simply, this is what is, when in fact, it isn't.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php

 

[lukep]

Sweet jebus, I step away from this thread for a few hours and it's degraded into another sad you-can't-prove-evolution-exists thread. So. Very. Disappointing.

For the record, I now feel about people who can't fully grasp macroevolution like I do the idiot commentors on your average CNN story. The vast hordes of stupidity will always win out; but I had hoped that wickedfire would be one of the last great strongholds.

Fuck this thread, I'm outta here.

 

[emp]

@lukep
Best decision ever.

::emp::

 

[REIMktg]

For the record, I now feel about people who can't fully grasp macroevolution like I do the idiot commentors on your average CNN story. The vast hordes of stupidity will always win out; but I had hoped that wickedfire would be one of the last great strongholds.

Spoken like a person that has no idea how to explain his position. Unless you are sticking to your theory from another thread that I should accept macro evolution because there is observable micro evolution, therefore, given enough time, it must exist.

 

[craigmc]

Which came first. The Chicken or the Egg?

 

[Moxie]

Unless you are sticking to your theory from another thread that I should accept macro evolution because there is observable micro evolution, therefore, given enough time, it must exist.

Not "must" exist, but highly likely that it does.

Is it likely that people of different skin color are going to stop breeding with each other? Is it likely that humans will start to choose their mates at random? If not, then won't humans look different 100,000 years from now?

If we see the shape of mountains slowly change a little bit over time, then isn't the logical conclusion that they will change shape much more over a much larger period of time?

Which came first. The Chicken or the Egg?

Scientists solve chicken and egg riddle* - CNN

 

[REIMktg]

Not "must" exist, but highly likely that it does.

Then say that. Why is it so difficult for the teachers to say that it is "highly likely". For those that are going to lecture me on the the nuance of fact and theory and how evolution is both, then teach that also. Clearly define the terms to the students, something that is not currently taught. When a kid hears "fact" he is thinking, 100% proven true. He is not thinking "highly likely given current understanding, subject to revision later with further information". He is thinking "a fact, like 2+2=4, something not subject to revision"

Is it likely that people of different skin color are going to stop breeding with each other? Is it likely that humans will start to choose their mates at random? If not, then won't humans look different 100,000 years from now?

Yes. But if you ask is it possible that humans will evolve into, say, something totally different than what they are today. let's see, ape to human, so then, ask people if it is logical that in 100MM years humans will have an extra leg, extra arm, and a natural protective shell like an insect due to the change in the Earth's environment - but it will be a human, just evolved, not an evolved insect. Ask people how they feel about that because isn't that what you are asking me to believe?

If we see the shape of mountains slowly change a little bit over time, then isn't the logical conclusion that they will change shape much more over a much larger period of time?

As pointed out earlier, it is wrong to discuss living vs. non-living - at the same time I understand your point. It is reasonable to assume a mountain would transform, but is it likely the component parts would transform into something of increased organization, like would it transform into a pyramid with tunnels and chambers inside that have a clear design and purpose, all without outside intervention? I know, it falls apart because it is not living.

 

[Andrey]

Ever thought your life is just a dream? Everything is just an illusion.
In a dream you experience time, world, other people. Only upon awakening can you realize that everything in a dream was created by you. What if our life was the same and that we can only realize that it is all just a dream from a higher perspective, once we awaken out of it?

Everything just appears in front of you: world, people, your body, your mental activity, a sense of making decisions and choices. Who is the one observing all that? Who is the observer? Who are you? Can that die? Do you have a life or are you a life?

Investigating things like this makes evolution/creationism irrelevant. Go deeper...

Born and raised atheist here btw. In soviet russia, everyone is an atheist LOL.

 

[nickster]

Which came first. The Chicken or the Egg?

The egg

 

[Moxie]

Then say that. Why is it so difficult for the teachers to say that it is "highly likely".

As I was saying earlier, this is already understood to apply to most things in science. It would become a bit tedious if everyday a teacher had to be like, "Today I'm going to discuss dinosaurs. It's highly likely that these things existed in the manner in which I am going to describe them."

For those that are going to lecture me on the the nuance of fact and theory and how evolution is both, then teach that also. Clearly define the terms to the students, something that is not currently taught. When a kid hears "fact" he is thinking, 100% proven true.

There is the overall theory of evolution and then there are factual examples of evolution occurring. I assumed this is how it is taught in most places, but I could be wrong.

Yes. But if you ask is it possible that humans will evolve into, say, something totally different than what they are today. let's see, ape to human, so then, ask people if it is logical that in 100MM years humans will have an extra leg, extra arm, and a natural protective shell like an insect due to the change in the Earth's environment - but it will be a human, just evolved, not an evolved insect. Ask people how they feel about that because isn't that what you are asking me to believe?

If small change is possible among humans, then large changes have to be possible also. If you have a pure white "color" on a computer screen and add an ultra-micro bit of darkness to it every year, so small that the human eye doesn't notice any difference from year to year, eventually the screen will still turn to grey and then black. It would be hard to pick an exact year to draw the line as to label when it became grey (just like it would hard to pick an exact point at which humans became nonhuman), but still most people would acknowledge that grey and then black could be reached by doing that.

 

[Wattsy]

Yes. But if you ask is it possible that humans will evolve into, say, something totally different than what they are today. let's see, ape to human, so then, ask people if it is logical that in 100MM years humans will have an extra leg, extra arm, and a natural protective shell like an insect due to the change in the Earth's environment - but it will be a human, just evolved, not an evolved insect. Ask people how they feel about that because isn't that what you are asking me to believe?

You undermine your argument when you make ridiculous statements like this, no one is going to take you seriously.

Your views on Macro Evolution interest me though, can you point me to a peer reviewed article in a biology journal that supports it? Or does it come from someone with a religious motive?

 

[REIMktg]

You undermine your argument when you make ridiculous statements like this, no one is going to take you seriously.

Your views on Macro Evolution interest me though, can you point me to a peer reviewed article in a biology journal that supports it? Or does it come from someone with a religious motive?

The statement was ridiculous because I am thinking this is what people want me to believe. Yes it was overstated, but oftentimes I feel this is what the evolutionists want me to believe, that yes, if the Earth's environment warranted it, these changes are plausible given enough time.

The questions I have about macro evolution are not from a specific source, rather they are from 20 year old arguments I brought up in another thread that were never answered. I am honestly open to answers. Is there proof of macro evolution other than what I have said earlier, it is a presumptive end of observable micro-evolution?

 

[Ar Scion]

But no, that's not how the scientific method works. You start with a hypothesis, gather evidence through research & testing, then it turns into a theory.

You can't start at a theory, then tell everyone to prove you wrong. That's not how it works. And as of right now, there's huge consensus throughout the worldwide scientific community that there's not enough evidence to backup intelligent design and call it a plausible theory. If you want to believe in intelligent design, then the onus is on you to come up with the evidence to backup that claim. Not the other way around.

The argument behind it is not just scientific, it's philosophical.

If you understand the intersection of philosophy and science, you know that there are a number of fundamentally unproven hypotheses that we regardless take to be implicitly true, such as the notion that properties of our universe reflect order even in the absence of sufficient data points to demonstrate this assumption.

One of the problems with ID is that it falls at just such a position between science and philosophy.

One of the questions it asks is about the nature of information contained in DNA and how a non-intelligent process is capable of developing, utilizing and preserving information of the kind of complexity as exists within the cell.

You could resort to the burden of proof argument, but really, the other side also has a burden of proof to demonstrate that such a spontaneous evolutionary step is even possible, for which interpretation of fossil records and application of selectively binding theories across the varieties of life can be so arbitrarily assumed.

 

[Moxie]

The statement was ridiculous because I am thinking this is what people want me to believe. Yes it was overstated, but oftentimes I feel this is what the evolutionists want me to believe, that yes, if the Earth's environment warranted it, these changes are plausible given enough time.

If wolves can descend into great danes and chihuahuas over a relatively short amount of years, then why wouldn't it be plausible that humans could greatly change over millions of years?

The Wolf People: The Curse of the Hair - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

"This "curse of the hair" could be caused by a primeval gene stemming from our animal ancestors. Scientists believe that many of these primeval genes still lie dormant in the human genome, and that they have simply been switched off during the course of evolution. A mutation in the victims of hypertrichosis could have led to such a gene being awakened from its million-year slumber.

Doctors and biologists are familiar with a wide variety of such phenomena, known as atavisms. In rare instances, for example, children are born with additional nipples, which, like the rows of nipples normally found on mammals, run from the armpit to the pelvic region. Children are also occasionally born with a small tail-like protrusion at the base of the spine."

The questions I have about macro evolution are not from a specific source, rather they are from 20 year old arguments I brought up in another thread that were never answered. I am honestly open to answers. Is there proof of macro evolution other than what I have said earlier, it is a presumptive end of observable micro-evolution?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

Macroevolution: The Evidence

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6P91pk-Kec&"]Macroevolution: Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]

If you understand the intersection of philosophy and science, you know that there are a number of fundamentally unproven hypotheses that we regardless take to be implicitly true, such as the notion that properties of our universe reflect order even in the absence of sufficient data points to demonstrate this assumption.

One of the problems with ID is that it falls at just such a position between science and philosophy.

Physics has theories (not just hypotheses) about the properties of the universe and they are based on science and not an intersection of philosophy and science. Physicists like Michio Kaku might raise philosophical questions in interviews or in books, but their actual research is mostly going to be math formulas and such.

 

[emp]

The questions I have about macro evolution are not from a specific source, rather they are from 20 year old arguments I brought up in another thread that were never answered. I am honestly open to answers. Is there proof of macro evolution other than what I have said earlier, it is a presumptive end of observable micro-evolution?

You can come back after having read this:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

Really, there is no doubt about evolution any more. Fossils, DNA evidence (there is no denying this) and more all point to the correctness of the evolution hypothesis, elevating it to the status of a scientific theory.

Very few cases of "observable" macro evolution exist, if you insist on countng out bacteria (as a lot of religious types do, for whatever reason).

This is a strawman argument, simply because we are talking about processes that take a very, very long time.

But even though no one sees mountains form, plate tectonics are still valid.

To quote wikipedia on Theory (because it is early and I am too lazy to search for more right now)

Essential criteria
The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.
In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis, according to certain criteria:

• It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.
• It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.

Non-essential criteria
Additionally, a theory is generally only taken seriously if:

• It is tentative, correctable, and dynamic in allowing for changes as new facts are discovered, rather than asserting certainty.
• It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations—commonly referred to as passing the Occam's razor test.

(Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criteria, but some theories are much less economical than others.)
This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc. Theories considered scientific meet at least most, but ideally all, of these extra criteria.

::emp::