TheExDeus
|
|
Reply #15 Posted on: December 29, 2013, 01:58:28 pm |
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1860
|
You still haven't explained why exactly evolution suggests positive mutations while real life can easily, blatantly display that is retarded and opposite what is fact. You aren't capable of defending your views, so you resorted to ignore the points I made about evolution and changed the subject to why you think religion is bull. I didn't do that because I said you misunderstand the theory of evolution. Because even now you say something about five legs for a goat, while that is in no way what evolution is all about. I have no choice but to do this. Please come up with an elaborate excuse as to why you supposedly disagree with this quote I'm reposting... It's hard to disagree with it as it makes almost no sense. You haven't actually made a point in it. You just say that a goad growing a 5th leg is somehow a "positive" mutation. There is no "positive" or "negative" mutations. It's the environment among a thousand different factors which in the end would determine if it's "positive" (even though no one calls it that). And mutations over a period of time is extremely small (that is why it takes millions of years). That microevolution you mentioned that you agree with, is in fact the same thing. A million microevolitions is a macroevolution. Also, evolution is not "guided" in any way and so evolutionary changes don't happen because of specific need. For example, we won't grow 4 arms just because it would make us more productive. For example - "The Peppered Moth": Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths (Biston betularia) had a light, mottled coloring which was a good camouflage against predators. Before the industrial revolution, a uniformly dark variant of the peppered moth made up 2% of the species. After the industrial revolution, 95% of peppered moths showed this dark coloration. The best explanation as to why this change in the species occurred is that the light moths lost their advantage of camouflage as light surfaces were darkened by pollution, and so light moths were eaten more frequently by birds. The peppered moth as an example of evolution has been attacked recently, usually as to the cause of the shift in coloration, but the example still stands as a major shift in a species caused by mutations leading to variation and natural selection. ( http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/) It might not be the best example, but it should demonstrate at least the idea. So it's not about what is "positive" or what is "negative". The color of the moth initially didn't matter and it was just a random chance that some, because of a mutation, would be black. When we started lighting up the place it was more advantageous to be black, so white were in a natural disadvantage and got eaten. This would increase the possibility the blacks would procreate and they - via natural selection - became to be the dominant ones. And that is what evolution is all about. It's not like moths became poisonous all of the sudden or grown new limbs. So I didn't try to be offensive before (and I sadly somehow offended you which was not my intention), but I am still adamant that you just misunderstand (or at least misunderstood) the whole idea. And it's nothing to be offended about. I don't call you stupid because you had a wrong impression. We all learn and I have made many such mistakes before. That is why I rarely give an "opinion" now, because I have learned that I need to be competent in the question to make a competent opinion. There are sadly many peoples on the internets (not you necessarily) who just talk and "discuss" about things they have no knowledge about - like you can find many videos on youtube about "free energy" and how "cold fusion works" and so on, but none of these people have any real understanding of physics, but they still have "strong" opinions that sadly end up spreading. That is why I also don't feel I should somehow teach evolution here (as I am not a biologist), but I do understand the basic idea and you must at least get the idea before trying to prove it wrong. I doubt it, as human being is not only a logical being, but he has got also an heart with feelings, and science will never talks directly to human heart. But it's not its goal, and this doesn't mean science isn't wonderful. But i hope that 'dogmatic' religions, who reject science facts, will loose more and and influence. Well that is what I mentioned before. I get that a person can be spiritual and believe something not proven (and usually in essence unprovable) by science, but I was referring to the religions which try to spread "truth" that clearly contradicts current scientific knowledge. And that is the current problem. Many religious people disregard evolution not because they have "evidence" against it or because of lack of evidence for it, but because a book says that it's wrong, and so it must be wrong. The same with many other questions. And it's not like they hold it to themselves like a spiritual person would, but they try to spread it (often times violently) to others. Also, some of the most brilliant scientists have been believers. You should be more careful on how you use the word "believers", because that is what usually implies God. But there is a large difference between being just spiritualistic and being religious or believing god. The greatest scientists for example mentioned in the book excerpt you posted: Einstein - Atheist. He even clarified it when people took some of his quotes out of context or just misunderstood them (because he did hold some spiritual beliefs). Heisenberg - believed God (but was not very religious). Schrödinger- Atheist. Louis de Broglie - non-religious. Max Planck - Deist. Wolfgang Pauli - Possibly spiritual, but not religious. Arthur Stanley Eddington - believed God. So many didn't and many new brilliant scientists still don't believe in God. God as in the sense any religion defines it. What they did believe (and some still do) are connected to spirituality. So you can be atheist and still be spiritual as well (as atheism is about not believing in god, not "life force" or something like that). Others were just deists who believed "personal god". edit: Also, egofree: But they don't what are exactly dark matter and dark energy !! What of joke ! The problem with many religious people is that they make a statement like this because it somehow "proves" god (I doubt it's meant like that in your case though). What I mean is that whenever a religious person find a single thing a scientist cannot precisely prove or explain, then that somehow becomes a reason to believe in god (also know as "god of the gaps" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps). And that is a way of thinking that should be stopped. Science is an iterative process, we know now a million times more about the universe than we did 200 years ago, and there is no reason to believe rate of scientific inquiry will slow down or stop. So saying "They don't even know! What a joke!" is just ignorant, as in 1,5,20 or 100 years they might know. And then you will not be the one saying "I was wrong", but the one saying "yeah, they got that one, but they still don't know X". So no offense to you as well, but you should be more rational about your statement.
|
|
« Last Edit: December 29, 2013, 02:16:06 pm by TheExDeus »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TheExDeus
|
|
Reply #17 Posted on: December 29, 2013, 04:45:20 pm |
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1860
|
Adolf Hitler - pretended to be religious, deluded enough that he may have actually thought he was, father was an atheist, mother was a devout religious believer, he was baptized and also an altar boy of the Roman Catholic Church, it was also Christian-Germans that he mainly represented when he came to power, he was also known as a "solider of christ", the Holocaust also grew out of Hitler's Christian teachings where Jews were inferior in Christian Austria and Germany, it is also known that Martin Luther (not the civil rights guy) had a livid hatred for the Jews and their religion because of his book titled "On the Jews and their Lies" Nazi's - Very religious, hated jews, official belt buckle read "God With Us", also pushed Christianity to be taught in schools to counter the jews Americans - Self-acclaimed saints and "guardians of the gates" of freedom, also known as god's country, invented and were the largest promoters of eugenics and ethnic cleansing which would later inspire the Nazi's http://hnn.us/article/1796 Joseph Stalin - Soviet Union head honcho, promoter of communism, raised as Russian Orthodox Catholic, stopped practicing religion, could be either religious or atheistic Mao Zedong - raised as a Buddhist, but abandoned it and became an atheist, he is the guy whose face hangs over Tianenmen Square where those 2000 students were massacred for trying to rebel against China I don't agree with this rant as in any way relevant. You can find both theists and atheists doing bad deeds and it's not like that will change. What I do believe is that religion just can be a reason for violence (as in "in the name of God"), while atheism technically cannot be (as it isn't anything. Atheism doesn't have like a book or code or anything. It's absence of belief in god. Just like me NOT being interested in rocks doesn't give me a "title" non-geologist.). For example Hitler (and Nazis) is not an example on why religion is bad, but it is an example on how being religious doesn't make you more moral. Just like Stalin was probably atheist during his communist reign, but that didn't make him a better person either. They both did what they did for other (mostly personal) reasons. And no god stopped them from doing it. There are some things you might call be done in "name of atheism" like religious persecutions in USSR, but it's hard to call them to be done "in the name of atheism", but more like "against the religion". Anyway, these things have stopped in most of the world. Some people call Atheism a religion. It's not, and you can think of it this way - If there was no religion, there would be no atheism (just like if there were no stars, there would not be astrologists or the example I gave in the previous paragraph), while religion would still exist even if there was no atheism. So one cannot exist without the other, while the other can exist alone. Maybe in 1000 years there will be no religion and at that point there no longer will be atheists either.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
egofree
|
|
Reply #18 Posted on: December 30, 2013, 03:03:08 am |
|
|
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 601
|
The only major world religion that is truly fundamentally different is Buddhism.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. I've been in several different Buddhist groups, and i heard the the same litany : 'If you don't follow our path, you will burn in hell'. In EVERY religion, you can find the same dogmatism. So saying "They don't even know! What a joke!" is just ignorant, as in 1,5,20 or 100 years they might know....
TheExDeus, you misunderstood me. First you should see that i've put a smiley next to the sentence. This means it should be taken with a 'grain of salt' My goal was not to prove that science is wrong or religion is right, but that we should have all have sense of humility. I am fed up to encounter people in every day life who think they know everything. (And this concerns religious people as well materialists, as well myself from time to time ). I was present in two public conferences with David Gross ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gross). He had a Nobel price in physics for his work on quarks. He was a fascinating speaker. What i loved, is that once he said in one of the conference : "We know nothing'. Of course it seems exaggerated, but for me it only shows his sense of humility. Also i am a big supporter of science, but i said 'What a joke', because it's kind of funny for me to see that we have so much to learn ! Another example which shows that we have still a lot to learn is the 'Fine-tuned universe' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe). I quote Wikipedia : The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood Some scientists will try to explain to the fine-tuned universe with multiple universe, but so far they have to prove these multiple universes exist ! So again this example does not prove that 'god' exists or not, but that universe is full of wonderful mysteries ! By the way, God is only a word that has multiple meanings for different people. Some people think 'God' is a a kind super-being , similar to an human being. This is not my view. I am more interested by mystics, like in the Zen philosophy, who talk about a consciousness, who transcends the material world. But i don't pretend to really know and to understand this consciousness. In the end, we should respect the opinion of everybody, including the ones who believe in a personal god, as long as they respect others opinions and don't try to impose theirs.
|
|
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 03:15:13 am by egofree »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
TheExDeus
|
|
Reply #19 Posted on: December 30, 2013, 06:42:55 am |
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1860
|
Harri you got it all wrong, read my last paragraph a second time, and you'll see why I mentioned the Nazi's, god fearing conservatives are just as bad as godless liberals. Even so, what I meant is that you cannot take a groups actions, add only their religious beliefs and then think it's 100% connected. It's connected only if they specifically say it's connected (like Taliban killing women who wish to go to school, as it is contrary to their beliefs). In other cases it just shows how their beliefs DOESN'T allow them to make a better decision like they often say ("we are more moral because we are christians"). 'If you don't follow our path, you will burn in hell' But that is not about disregarding god. In other religions you burn in hell mostly, because you "offend" god. Like "you will burn in hell because you don't believe our god". In Buddhism it's just "you will burn in hell if you are a bad person" as karma is the only thing saying who does and doesn't go to hell. A Naraka (Budism hell) differs from the hells of Abrahamic religions in two respects: firstly, beings are not sent to Naraka as the result of a divine judgment and punishment; secondly, the length of a being's stay in a Naraka is not eternal, though it is usually very long. First you should see that i've put a smiley next to the sentence. This means it should be taken with a 'grain of salt' That is why I added "(I doubt it's meant like that in your case though)". I am fed up to encounter people in every day life who think they know everything I am too. But those people rarely are scientists. The thing "We know nothing" or "We have a lot to discover" is said often by many scientists as humility (as in understanding you might be wrong, changing your thinking whenever you have proven wrong and so on) is also very important in science. But I just wanted to say how not knowing something doesn't justify believing in god or anything else supernatural. You can if you wish, of course, but going on TV saying how science is BS just because they cannot explain X on the other hand is ignorance. And that is what I am referring too. There are many in this world (even among scientists) who are spiritual or believe their own idea of God, but they don't interfere in matters of science and our acquisition of knowledge while others sadly do. And people (like TKG) sometimes misunderstand science or some specific theory and then also goes on "science bashing" spree even when they are actually the wrong ones. And that is what often distinguishes scientists from theologians. Very few scientists ever dabble in religion (as in trying to prove one religion is false or other truthful or anything else) and they just do their research in the field they know the best. On the other hand there are many theologians debate (often without enough knowledge in the specific subject) about scientific theories because these theories contradict their ideas. So while one doesn't usually care about the other (as religion cannot destroy science), the other often does (as science can destroy many foundations of many religions). edit: And I forgot: And "Deus" is Latin for God, so unless I missed a hidden meaning I think I know what your username means. Of course I do know that. My nickname comes from "Deus Ex Machina" (that is why I have Ex there as well). And it has really no connection to god.
|
|
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 06:50:22 am by TheExDeus »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
time-killer-games
|
|
Reply #20 Posted on: December 30, 2013, 07:59:46 pm |
|
|
"Guest"
|
You still haven't explained why exactly evolution suggests positive mutations while real life can easily, blatantly display that is retarded and opposite what is fact. You aren't capable of defending your views, so you resorted to ignore the points I made about evolution and changed the subject to why you think religion is bull. I didn't do that because I said you misunderstand the theory of evolution. Because even now you say something about five legs for a goat, while that is in no way what evolution is all about.
Please understand, there are two concepts. Evolution and Devolution. Devolution is for a species to "move backwards" or react with adapting in a way that is potentially negative and in most cases causes a species to become a species it formerly evolved from. Evolution is the opposite, it is a process of gradual mutation and adapting to environments in a way that is positive and generally beneficial. My point clearly was, yes I know a five legged animal isn't evolution - that is my point exactly. Mutation is never positive and is almost never hereditary. Are we on the same page? You are so determined to say that evolution is true science. Why? Are you really that desperate to make everyone agree with you that you go to such great lengths as to pretend evolution is undeniable fact? Would it be any better than if a creationist called their views fact and rubbed it in your face? Oops I disagree with you. What if I turned the tables - I saw Jesus decend down from heaven and he said you are going to hell - an obvious joke - but if I was serious it'd be nothing better or worse that what you are doing quite honestly. I'm not saying evolution is a fact, I'm not saying Christianity is fact. I am not saying neither of them aren't fact. But you aren't seeing that you are acting like evolution is undeniably real, for no reason other than you have not a fraction of understanding as to why us creationist believe what we do. Maybe if you could grasp that and actually hear and understand the evidences we have - maybe then if I'm lucky you'd notice that there is a real possibility that you could be wrong. That posibility is just as real with me and my perspective as it is with you and your perspective. Again, all of humanity other than a microscopic fraction, they all have the immature mindset they are always right no matter what. You are displaying a classic and predictable demonstration of this.
|
|
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 08:30:39 pm by time-killer-games »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
time-killer-games
|
|
Reply #21 Posted on: December 31, 2013, 11:34:46 pm |
|
|
"Guest"
|
I understand where you are coming from Robert but the common cold isn't instant proof of evolution. if it was we'd see that on TV and in the newspapers "guy discovers solid proof of evolution" - we all know the media would rub this in creationists' faces. I don't know what kind of virus causes the common cold but I do know a virus technically isn't a living thing therefore can't evolve. If this is a special case that is in fact a life form I'm very certain it's ability to adapt isn't directly connected to evolution. Again, for a species to evolve this takes billions of years - not seconds. Adapting is much different from evolving. Evolving involves a transition from one species to the next. Technically anything that has a brain or a more simplified means to make desisions, triggers, etc can adapt. I can put on a coat when it's cold - that doesn't mean I'm evolving into the deer skin I'm wearing so to speak. Everything that lives has a mind of its own whether smart or simple, whether advanced or simply running on instinct, even microscopic organisms know how to avoid potential threats - which could just be a scientific trigger they can't help, but you get what I'm saying, right? I don't care if you agree with me I actually think this conversation is giving some insight. =) whether evolution is or isn't the case it's quite interesting to learn about. =)
PS I wish I had four nipples that would be dead awesome I'd look like a sexy freak.
|
|
« Last Edit: December 31, 2013, 11:38:36 pm by time-killer-games »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
egofree
|
|
Reply #22 Posted on: January 02, 2014, 04:42:08 am |
|
|
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 601
|
It seems that sometimes religions can evolve too. The new pope Francis is speaking : Through humility, soul searching, and prayerful contemplation we have gained a new understanding of certain dogmas. The church no longer believes in a literal hell where people suffer. This doctrine is incompatible with the infinite love of God. God is not a judge but a friend and a lover of humanity. God seeks not to condemn but only to embrace. Like the fable of Adam and Eve, we see hell as a literary device. Hell is merely a metaphor for the isolated soul, which like all souls ultimately will be united in love with God” Pope Francis declared.
In a speech that shocked many, the Pope claimed “All religions are true, because they are true in the hearts of all those who believe in them. What other kind of truth is there? In the past, the church has been harsh on those it deemed morally wrong or sinful. Today, we no longer judge. Like a loving father, we never condemn our children. Our church is big enough for heterosexuals and homosexuals, for the pro-life and the pro-choice! For conservatives and liberals, even communists are welcome and have joined us. We all love and worship the same God. http://www.spyghana.com/hell-real-pope-francis/
|
|
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 09:01:57 am by egofree »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
TheExDeus
|
|
Reply #23 Posted on: January 02, 2014, 02:54:28 pm |
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1860
|
Please understand, there are two concepts. Evolution and Devolution. You please understand that there is a difference between the word "evolution" and the "evolution theory" as in biology. In biology there is no such thing as devolution (at least since 19th century - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_%28biology%29). There is only evolution. My point clearly was, yes I know a five legged animal isn't evolution - that is my point exactly. Mutation is never positive and is almost never hereditary. Are we on the same page? Why aren't mutations positive? And something as drastic as five legs is not yet evolution because evolution would also mean that this trait is given to its children as well. "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations". Evolution is also not about evolving an individual, but about evolving a population (as in the previous definition). Another good quote: A subtle point worth noting is that individual organisms do not evolve, not even if a particular organism is the one possessing a beneficial mutation that later spreads throughout the population. Populations evolve; individuals do not. So while the mutation is the one giving the goat five legs, it will not be beneficial and it will probably not pass it to its children (either because of natural selection (as in it won't have any children) or because the mutation will just not carry over. Not all mutations transfer from parents to children). ou are so determined to say that evolution is true science. Why? Because it is. It is not way less "true science" than physics (any kind of physics, even the ones giving you IPhone) or biology in general (where evolution is an extremely important part). I guess I will give you definition of science as well. One definition: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. And this all applies to evolution. I already told you before - science is not about jumping and then saying that there is gravity. Science is about why there is gravity, how to perform tests that would try break our theory of gravity (falsifications) or confirm the theory. In gravities case we now have theory of general relativity. It states that gravity is tied to mass and mass is tied to time. So gravity can impact time. To test this scientists have launched satellites in space and have noticed time drifts because of gravity. They have also just done that with two atomic clocks at different altitudes and noticed time dilatation. And that is science - scientists didn't stop with "We fall, ergo there's gravity". "guy discovers solid proof of evolution" You will never see that in media because evolution is already a scientific fact in the scientific world. No one writes academic papers with titles like "proof of evolution", but instead they write "evolution in species X". Even when in computer science they talk about genetic algorithms they don't start with "This is based on an unproven theory about evolution", but instead you hear "This works great, as it uses the same principle as nature". So it doesn't matter that evolution is not a "fact" for you. No one really cares, as science doesn't hold its progress so "that guy" would get it. They "evolve" (pun intended) while some sit still. And of course there could be a totally different process at play, as one of the pillars (again I mentioned this about 15 times now) of science is falsifiability. That means it can be proven wrong (unlike many made up stuff like religion). On the other hand science also works with facts, so proving it wrong is extremely hard (and rarely happens). Especially with theories with so large amount of scientific evidence. It seems that sometimes religions can evolve too. That is something touched previously a little. I have also noticed that some religious organizations like in Vatican not longer try to say that their book or ideas are fact. They stand away from science and agree with everything that comes out of it. And I believe they are doing the right thing. That will allow them to at least keep their religion together for a little while longer. On the other hand groups that don't do that will have less and less believers in them as people get more and more educated. Vatican has no problems with aliens, evolution, homosexuals or anything else right now. And as these ideas transcend to their adherents as well, then you could indeed call it a sort of evolution. edit: Also check this: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/what-evolution-is-and-what-it-isnt/ (a long read, but has many explanations about the things you are misunderstanding). Also this: http://www.evolutionfaq.com/ (It's a FAQ style guide on evolution. If you have a specific question you are not getting, then try searching for it there. It has the 99% of the questions creationists usually ask (for 50 years straight)). edit2: Also, as Robert pointed out - Evolution in humans have almost stopped. At least natural selection has stopped and so is evolution is more "chaotic". As anyone now, even with terminal genetic condition, can usually survive while in not so distant past they couldn't. So of course we still evolve, but it is no longer for some kind of fitness.
|
|
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 04:24:48 pm by TheExDeus »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
time-killer-games
|
|
Reply #24 Posted on: January 02, 2014, 06:34:03 pm |
|
|
"Guest"
|
ExDeus - you still don't see my point. You are so wrapped up in your opinion you don't realize that almost everyone who buys this evolution crap was brainwashed by public school or by the influence of irresponsible parents.
If you can't see evolution take place, then even if it was true, you still can't call it science. It went in your ear and teleported to the other side of your head and out your other ear.I will say this again, and you won't have anything to back up your views in response. Even if evolution were true you can't at all observe it. Yes, I can wear a fur coat because I'm cold. Let's say we have another ice age, generations will go by numerous lifetimes have passed - we could all be wearing fur coats the entire time, yet none of us would grow fur. If that did eventually happen we can't prove it in anyway without living beyond what any human could possibly live - millions of years.
Yes, we have to guess sometimes in true science, but it technically can't be called science until it can be tested and proven through visual evidense. Science is something we learn and can see. Science gets discovered through guesswork and can be proven by testing a hypothesis and the test is passed.Theory is guesswork that has never been proven because it can never be tested.
What all evolutionists fail to see - you couldn't admit this even if it would kill you if you didn't, you can't see a species transition into another. Not possible - I'm repeating myself for the fourth time and you won't listen and you aren't capable of backing yourself up and you aren't recognizing that.If you can't see that transition between species - you can't live beyond roughly 80 but to prove evolution you need to live far beyond thousands.
Yes animals fight for survival - yes animals adapt to their surroundings - I can wear a sweater when cold and my descendants can too there's no way to prove we'll grow fur and become a different species just because I'm not an idiot - I know to do things that will keep me warm or comfortable - that's common sense -it doesn't mean my species will evolve a million years later if we all wear sweatshirts and there's another ice age. if that was the case it still can't be proven. Are you seriously reading any of this?
Guess what? The moon is made out of cheese that is real science - the moon looks like cheese therefore it is cheese and that is less rediculous than what you are doing - you are making statement evolution is science. I'm sorry but that is a joke, if you say you think personally that it could be true is one thing but to act like I'm not living reality because I don't believe in the weird things you do is just rude and illogical. To think it might be right and to admit it might be wrong I have no problem with, but to say you know something that blatantly can't be proven or tested in any way, that is very ludicrous.
Can you stop pretending? Who are you trying to kid here? We aren't playing make believe here - it's not rocket science - please connect some dots.
|
|
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 06:39:45 pm by time-killer-games »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
time-killer-games
|
|
Reply #25 Posted on: January 02, 2014, 11:14:49 pm |
|
|
"Guest"
|
Again I will say this, but I can't guarantee this will be the last time I'll have to say it - reproducing, multiplying, and adapting are not the same thing as evolution, I read the article you linked to and watched the five second video - the microscopic organisms in the video multiplied, none of them changed in appearance, they merely reproduced asexually. That doesn't prove anything. If you really want to convince me, please show me a video that shows a real transition between species.
Also please consider if a microscopic organism changes in appearance, I wouldn't consider that as evolution either, where as a catepiller changes, tadpoles do, yet it's all a part of a life cycle that continually produces the same visual changes each generation. Microscopic organisms I'm very certain can go through such cycles. It doesn't surprise me. Also, God created all animals at once, and I'm very certain that didn't include microscopic organisms. Please understand microscopic organisms are nothing like us so even if they do evolve that doesn't mean we do or that creationism is irrational.
|
|
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 11:16:42 pm by time-killer-games »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
time-killer-games
|
|
Reply #26 Posted on: January 03, 2014, 11:51:18 am |
|
|
"Guest"
|
If you know of a flaw in evolution that I don't Robert, I'm all ears. Also whether evolution is real or not you very smart I'm blown away by how much you know about programming, evolution, your vocabulary, and pretty much everything. I honestly wish I knew nearly as much about Christianity and evolution combined compared to how much you seem to know about evolution by itself. You should be proud of yourself. =) I'm also tempted to think you might know more about Christianity than I do, I must confess though I love to pray and worship at church, though I love hearing the messages, it's very rare that I pick up a Bible and read it on my own. Idk it feels like a chore to read the Bible and since as a Christian, God is supposed to be the first and foremost priority in my life, so yeah I'm a hypocrite I think I need to learn more about both what I believe and follow it as well as learn more about evolution than what I know, because without hardly enough research on both ends I can't easily argue for or against evolution or Christianity.
|
|
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 11:59:30 am by time-killer-games »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
TheExDeus
|
|
Reply #27 Posted on: January 03, 2014, 12:37:29 pm |
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1860
|
through visual evidense. Science HAS NOTHING to do with "visual" evidence. I already gave you numerous examples and even the freaking definition of science. You cannot come here and tell me what is and what isn't science, because it is NOT up to you. Science is rigidly defined and it's NOT what you think it is. It cannot even, by definition, be debated. Because IT HAS A DEFINITION already. It's like you trying to tell me that regular car wheels are rectangular just because you want them to be. Science (in this case it's more about linguistics) is NOT wishful thinking. Theory is guesswork that has never been proven because it can never be tested. I already gave you the definition of scientific theory. It has nothing to do with "guesswork". A scientific theory and fact is the same thing. Just like scientific theory and scientific law is almost same thing (only in law's case it is mathematically written). What all evolutionists fail to see What you fail to see and I have been telling you this for 3 freaking forum pages now - YOU DON'T HAVE TO SEE MACRO EVOLUTION IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES TO ACTUALLY CONSIDER IT A FACT! Like you cannot see the rotation of constellations in one human life time either. Science is not about seeing things in one human lifetime. - yes animals adapt to their surroundings - But that IS NOT evolution. This kind of adaption means that the animal makes specific steps forward that goal. Like you wearing a sweater is your choice and it's nothing to do with evolution. Something like evolution in this case would mean that a mutation would make you really hairy and that would allow you survive an ice age while others would not. That would still not be evolution because, as I stated, evolution is not about one guy having a mutation. It's about a community - over a VERY long time - having many mutations that go to the next generation. Are you seriously reading any of this? Sadly I am. Your understanding of science and evolution is non-existent. And it just hurts me that after all the explanations I gave you, you still misunderstand it. We aren't playing make believe here - it's not rocket science - please connect some dots. I am connecting the dots very clearly, while you continue ignore the two suggestions I make for you - Learn what is science (very important in a debate about science) and learn what is evolution (very important in a debate about evolution). And you will again cry that I somehow offended you but, I didn't. I gave you two solid suggestions. I gave you A LOT of links. A LOT of definitions. A LOT of examples. And yet all you talk about is five legged goats and you wearing a sweater. Both of which are irrelevant to evolution. And I really do find it very ironic that you don't believe evolution just because you cannot see it in one human lifetime (which is the only "reason", ignorant as it may be, you have given in your posts) and yet you believe in god which you cannot see ever. P.s. And I do try to give answers to all your questions, so I am in no way dodging some kind of question. Then only thing you still find a reason to not believe in evolution (or call it science) is that you cannot see it your lifetime. But that just stems from your misunderstanding about science. And I tried to rectify that many times in this topic. There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. -H. J. Muller Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong. -National Academy of Science (U.S.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
|
|
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 12:57:38 pm by TheExDeus »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
time-killer-games
|
|
Reply #28 Posted on: January 03, 2014, 05:59:26 pm |
|
|
"Guest"
|
The sweater thing was a broad example to make a point I wasn't being literal. You can't tell me what science is broha, it isn't up to you. It's up to me. Your definition of science is non-existant. I can just as easily tell you the same things. ExDeus, you've repeatedly mentioned creatures adapting to back up evolution, so if evolution has nothing to do with that, you are contradicting yourself. Make up your mind. I know what science is. But to ensure that I am right, here's what I found on google and it's exactly what I expected. science systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scienceWhat was this shit you were saying about science not based on visual evidense? Must I go through the trouble of defining observation? And science doesn't need to be tested in order to be declared science? XD That's like saying you can imagine what an elephant looks like even though being born blind, with literally no means to test or observe anything. Okay. Obviously blind people can learn to talk and mostly function like any other human, but technically, not nessisarily through sight, either way you need to test in a way that can be picked up by the senses, sight, sound, hearing, feeling etc. You can't see, hear, feel, or do anything in your power to determine evolution is science for as long as evolution will take millions of years to make a noticeable, though obviously gradual, transition in species. and evolution Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionMutations have never been proven to cause anything positive or hereditary such as a species becoming dominant or survive longer than other species. Natural Selection is a form of adapting. In order for us to be certain mutations can be beneficial, we need to have an existing means of observing that. Mutations can never be passed on to the next generation, so who are you fooling here? If evolution didn't have the word "mutation" in it's definition as much as the theory doesn't line up with reality by itself, that word in there makes it even less convincing. You are right, I didn't know what science or what evolution is and I can't even back up what I think they are because I'm so stupid and can't read. Well guess what pal, don't mean to rub it in, but there's no surprise here. I was right, and I could care less who's right, but the fact you are so determined to be right and to think evolution is undeniably fact that's where I begin to have the giggles. This all goes back why I posted this topic, because "Everyone is always right"
|
|
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 06:49:40 pm by time-killer-games »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
egofree
|
|
Reply #29 Posted on: January 04, 2014, 12:12:19 pm |
|
|
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 601
|
In science, there IS NOT DIFFERENCE between theory and fact.
TheExDeus , a theory TRIES to explain some facts. It's just an imperfect representation of reality, and it will always be. As everybody can see science is always evolving and new theories are replacing older. So scientific knowledge is neither absolute or perfect. A famous example is with gravity. We had before the Newton theory, which were replaced by general relativity. Newton theory was not wrong but just incomplete. That's doesn't mean science is 'bogus', it's just knowledge is always incomplete and theories will never explain 100% the facts, because we always discover new facts. So i think it's a little bold to say there is no difference between theory and facts. Also, Atheists think they don't believe in god, because they don't like this word , but they are just not aware that they believe in their god : The rational god ! In this religion, Reason rules and explains everything, and everybody who doesn't believe in this is just an obscurantist ! (Ok, that's better than burning in hell ) Also science is made by scientists, who are human beings like others. Not worse, but not better, with their weakness too. They fight also for power, career and fame. As i am interested by science, i read some books about history of science, and you can see how scientists very often belong to 'clans', with their 'dogmas'. Almost every time a scientist find new facts and propose a revolutionary new theory, you will find a lot colleagues who will try to ridicule not only the theory but also the 'messenger'. Why ? Because they made their career with a theory, and they just don't want anybody proposing a new theory, which would weaken their power. That's why i am so admiring big scientists, who spent their life fighting to impose new revolutionaries theories. Let's not forget the sentence of Max Planck : A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. So true ! Concerning evolution, i take it as granted, but i am sure we have a lot of things to learn. The problem with this subject is that every time you say neo-Darwinism is not explaining everything, you will be labeled as creationist. I think mutations can explains micro-evolution, as we can see everyday with the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics, but it doesn't explain creation of whole new species (macro-evolution). I don't say it's god, as anyway this doesn't explain anything, but there is a process, which has to be discovered which leads evolution, and this is not only natural selection. And when i am speaking about a process, i think mainly of a physical process. There was a recognized scientist, Stephen Jay Gould ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould), who was famous for his theory of 'Punctuated equilibrium' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium). This theory proposes that evolution of species seem most of the time non existing, and from time to time you have very rapid evolution. That's exciting, and nobody can really explain these facts (Neither creationists nor Darwinists). Of course you will find 'zealots', like Richard Dawkins who say darwinism can explain everything and Gould theory is not important. But i am not interested by 'zealots' Also the problem with evolution is that the media want us to believe that it's a black and white problem. Either you believe in the 100% bible or either you believe 100% in the Darwin theory. I don't accept this choice ! I believe in a supreme intelligence and i believe in evolution ! For example, i read a very interesting article about 'The mystery of evolution'. They speak about 12 different theories about evolution : 1. The Neo-Darwinists (Dawkins, Gould, Dennet, E.O. Wilson) 2. The Progressive Darwinists (Carrol, Jablonka, Lamb) 3. The Collectivists (Bloom, Lynn Margulis, David Sloan Wilson) 4. The Complexity Theorists (Goodwin, Kaufman, Laszlo) 5. The Directionalists (Conway Morris, Gardner, Wright) 6. The Transhumanists (Ettinger, Gibson, Kurzweil) 7. The Intelligent Designers (Behe, Dembski, Johnson) 8. The Theistic Evolutionists (Miller, Peacocke, Polkinghorne) 9. The Esoteric Evolutionists (Blavatsky, Steiner, C. Wilson, Tarnas) 10. The Process Philosophers (Whitehead, Hartshorne, Griffin) 11. The Conscious Evolutionists (Teilhard de Chardin, Dowd, Marx Hubbard) 12. The Integralists (Aurobindo, Gebser, Wilber, Combs) So far for the two theories of evolution ! Fortunately, you can still read the article here : http://www.mcs-international.org/downloads/102_the_real_evolution_debate.pdf (Be careful, Atheists ! This article was first published in a magazine which was speaking about spirituality ! )
|
|
« Last Edit: January 04, 2014, 12:49:05 pm by egofree »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|