Belief in evolution is not a position of faith, but of understanding.
It's only sketchy to those who have sketchy knowledge of it.
this.
-p
Belief in evolution is not a position of faith, but of understanding.
It's only sketchy to those who have sketchy knowledge of it.
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.
As I was reading from Dr. William Lane Craig (who slaughtered Hitchens at Biola)
Funny, how all the creationists say Hitchens was 'slaughtered' in that debate.It's particularly all over youtube within the sponsored videos section and on videos with the comments disabled (commom creationist/christian practise on youtube, they pay to get their point across and then disable comments to censor any form of discussion on it).
I saw the same debate, and along with thousands of others i disagree that hitchens was slaughtered, William Lane Craig spewed the exact same crap he and countless other christians have been spewing for years.
A lack of willingness to think on or understand anything beyond what they already know.
In the end, we know the answer to the question- according to scientific naturalists, if we can't measure it scientifically, then it doesn't exist.
But how do they explain ideas?
a lack of willingness to think on or understand anything beyond what they already know
i fail to see the problem. we know enough about how our brain functions to explain thought (and ideas) and what we don't know yet (which is a lot when it comes to the brain), we don't know because we have trouble investigating the function of the brain without killing its owner, which is a technological limitation. if, on the other hand, you meant ideas in the sense of notions a set of people are aware of, sociology studies their formation, development etc. a naturalist wouldn't accept that ideas exist in the absence of people who are aware of them. there are problems with naturalism, but this isn't one of them.
-p
No, we don't know enough about how our brain functions to explain thought.
We see areas of the brain light up during certain activity. We have managed to connect physical regions of the brain to certain mental activities.
But I'm talking about thought itself. The qualia of a thought, not "how do I detect symptoms of thought activity".
Think of the difference of a mile's distance expressed mathematically versus actually experienced. The same distance, but vastly different qualitative experiences that science cannot even begin to fathom.
To the naturalist, qualia doesn't exist. Your brain might light up when sipping a cup of coffee, but the actual sensations- the flavor, the viscosity, the warmth- these things don't exist.
Which is what makes naturalism absurd.
I don't see how you can justify spending taxpayer money teaching something that isn't real. Should we be teaching kids about bloodletting or witch hunting, or how to use typewriters? No. Because science progresses and now we know better.
the vast majority of people on your side of the issue are defined by this quality. in fact, that's how 'believing' vs 'understanding/knowing' works. you, on the other hand, i'm confused about because you've staked out an agnostic position while claiming a theistic one. did you start out with the latter and then in your attempts to remain thoughtful, logical, reasonable and open-minded necessarily moved to the former? if so, our job is done
-p
Bones in the ground do not 100% prove that they existed.
And to Moxie - your examples of micro differences hardly show a macro potential - a leap from species to species.
Fine. We all agree. Now if they would only teach it honestly rather than implying that more is known than is. Students see drawings and skeletal models which themselves are built form a single femur, or skull, or finger and do not realize the skeletal model itself is speculative. This leads them to make conclusions based on scientific speculation, not evidence. Show them the true unadulterated evidence, then describe the theory and then let them know the 100% truth, not a truth guided by scientific speculation.
If I can prove any of this to myself I can shed all accountability in this world and live for myself without moral boundaries indulging as I see fit with only myself as the measure.
but seeing everyones fundamentalist views toward atheism and lack of willingness to engage in a discourse based on reason and logic - well it seems many of you are guilty of a log in your own eye rather than a speck in mine.
...well I guess jesus could have planted those bones just to test our faith, that sneaky little shit.
How would small changes over time NOT have a potential to create larger changes over a large time? When will changes stop and why?
Adding drops of black paint to white paint shows a potential for it turn grey and then black. Like I said before, there might be controversy over when to draw the line to label it gray, but the same is true when it comes to labeling species.
Biologists rarely use the words "microevolution" or "macroevolution" and there is no fine line between them. Species get labeled for identification purposes just like artists use terms for color. There is no agreed upon standard or fine line to what is "light gray", but people still understand that it is a transitional stage between white and black.
Wolves and dogs are different subspecies, but there was no overnight transition from one to the other.
All we have for some dinosaurs is a single tooth. The argument you are making would apply to not just most science, but to lots of history. Our understanding of Napoleon or George Washington is based on scribbles made on paper by people who died a long time ago. It's technically possible that they didn't exist, but should history teachers really have to point that out everyday? Maybe on the first day of class the teacher should talk about propaganda and how history is written by the victors, but it would be a waste of time for them to bring that up every day.
Why would you do that? Even the Pope has said that they aren't mutually exclusive.
An atheist like the Pope? Religion is not relevant to a scientific discussion of evolution. People here have given you plenty of logical discourse and linked you to plenty of others. Your only points seem to be that it can't be proven and that you think that changes can only go on for so long.
we don't know enough of the mechanics, but we do know what a network of neurons firing does and the rest can be described as an emergent property if we view the brain as a complex open system in terms of systems analysis.
as for your second argument, it's a red herring (or rather a classic example of a straw man fallacy). you first mischaracterize the naturalist viewpoint and then proceed to refute it in this erroneous form. our ability to quantify x is not a pre-requisite for x to exist in the naturalist viewpoint, nor is our ability to explain x. the things you list can be experienced and therefore are empirically proven to exist even though we may not be able to explain the mechanics of how they come to be experienced or quantify them at the present time. they are, in the naturalist viewpoint, part of our material multiverse.
-p
How so?
The quoted statement - I am perfectly will open my mind to opposing views because I have a vested interest in my current view. In fact you could easily say that my current view is much more difficult to maintain than any opposing view should I be convicned. As a result I am highly motivated to be convinced of an alternative view.
For those that fee they are so smart quoting my comment about an open mind - I have one. I simply fail to see the connections each of you are making.
While it appears by the fundamental knowledge that each of you show that I am not as smart as the rest, but seeing everyones fundamentalist views toward atheism and lack of willingness to engage in a discourse based on reason and logic - well it seems many of you are guilty of a log in your own eye rather than a speck in mine.
Guys quit debating with REIMktg on any subject. Nigga doesn't even understand basic economics and talks like he knows shit "price go up people make the money, price go down we buy things cheap, hurrrrr i figure it all out durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr"
You talk as if you know something others don't. As if other people haven't critically analyzed the ideas that they hold and you have. Truth is you just don't know shit, your talking out of your ass.
People present evidence and you dismiss it on the basis of "you can't know for sure." If your correct then I can use the same assumption on your ideas. Evolution is more accepted because it MAKES MORE SENSE. All your doing is try to find loopholes in peoples individual arguments, not presenting any actual evidence to counter the idea that you're opposing. In other words yo head is up yo ass.
How is it a mischaracterization?
The naturalist believes that everything can be explained naturalistically. But qualia cannot be explained naturalistically.
The other being that human beings of our intellectual and physical capacity can engineer mindboggling marvels but cannot even tie our shoelaces when it comes to connecting the simplest, most straightforward human experiences in their actuality to the naturalistic system within which all our scientific knowledge resides.
If we can accept the dichotomy of classical/quantum mechanics, why the hell are we so unwilling to accept the possibility of a similar paradigm elsewhere?
Oh, that's right.
Because Dawkins said so.