Do you believe Evolution basid on Faith? [Archive]

Prodigy54321

11-10-2006, 02:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I am curious to see how many people how accept the Theory of Evolution admit its on faith.

First group. Evolutionist told me evolution was true and/or I read books/material that said Evolution was true and I have faith the Evolutionist and/or Evolution book/material is correct.

Second group. I have personally constructed and or see first hand an experiment reproducing the exact conditions of early earth. I watched the elements in that closed environment come together by themselves and form life. I don't need faith Evolution is true, I have seen life create itself from non-life.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) we could have ZERO evidence that life can com from nonlife...and it still wouldn't mean that there is a more likely theory than evolutionary theory.

2) you don't need to have produced every peice of evidence for something first hand it order to hold a rational belief that it is very likely to be true.

you are equating two different meanings of the term "faith"...

the ay you are using it does constitute a rational belief....it is not the same as most religious "faith"

3) if you have a better theory, please introduce it

--your post shows a lack of understanding of evolutionary theory, as well as a lack of understanding of how reasonable conclusions are reached

EDIT: in conclusion I am in group #1...but "faith" does not mean what you think it means...and I have also seen evidence again evolutionary theory and have not found one that falsifies its claims...also, most of the books and people don't just "say it's true"...they evaluate the evidence

CaseS87

11-10-2006, 02:45 AM

if by faith you mean accepting the most probable way of explaining life, then yes.

arahant

11-10-2006, 02:51 AM

I've heard that having a complete lack of critical reasoning skills can be liberating. Is this true?

Carded

11-10-2006, 03:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am curious to see how many people how accept the Theory of Evolution admit its on faith.

First group. Evolutionist told me evolution was true and/or I read books/material that said Evolution was true and I have faith the Evolutionist and/or Evolution book/material is correct.

Second group. I have personally constructed and or see first hand an experiment reproducing the exact conditions of early earth. I watched the elements in that closed environment come together by themselves and form life. I don't need faith Evolution is true, I have seen life create itself from non-life.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) we could have ZERO evidence that life can com from nonlife...and it still wouldn't mean that there is a more likely theory than evolutionary theory.

2) you don't need to have produced every peice of evidence for something first hand it order to hold a rational belief that it is very likely to be true.

you are equating two different meanings of the term "faith"...

the ay you are using it does constitute a rational belief....it is not the same as most religious "faith"

3) if you have a better theory, please introduce it

--your post shows a lack of understanding of evolutionary theory, as well as a lack of understanding of how reasonable conclusions are reached

EDIT: in conclusion I am in group #1...but "faith" does not mean what you think it means...and I have also seen evidence again evolutionary theory and have not found one that falsifies its claims...also, most of the books and people don't just "say it's true"...they evaluate the evidence

[/ QUOTE ]

In short, You have stated, IF A is a part of B and A is True, Then B is also true. You are wrong and you failed t critical thinking in that respect. You do have to prove each individual point of evolution to prove evolution is true. Life coming from non-life is a key point, saying no evidence in that respect is 'acceptable' is absurd.

Turn Prophet

11-10-2006, 03:15 AM

You do not need to be able to simulate the conditions of early Earth to accept the Theory of Evolution as scientifically valid (plausible to a high degree of certainty).

Simply because we haven't created life from non-life does not invalidate the theory. We haven't reproduced the results, but we know how it plausibly might have occured.

On the other hand, we have various pieces of evidence:
1. The Fossil Record
2. Population Genetics
3. Molecular Genetics
4. The Model(s) of Natural Selection
5. The science of taxonomy
etc etc etc

In short, we have concrete, workable models for exactly when and how selection operates on different populations. This is not my definition of faith. Faith involves accepting something without evidence for any number of reasons. If any type of science were based on faith (different from the acceptable degree of axiomatization necessary for any scientific model), it wouldn't be very good science.

The origin of life is not usually an area of evolutionary theory that is of very great concern. It is far more concerned with species that actually exist and how they change at the micro- and macroscopic levels.

To the OP, I suggest you read some scientific literature on the subject. It seems to me you have some mistaken presumptions about the Theory of Evolution (actually a composite of multiple theories).

Carded

11-10-2006, 03:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
if by faith you mean accepting the most probable way of explaining life, then yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most probable way of explaining Life? Considering all the life we have witnessed on this earth was created by another living being before it. The most probable way of explaining something alive is that it follows the same partern we have always seen, life coming from life.

Why do you believe it is more reasonbable to think that non-life makes life when its never been witnessesed nor can be scientifically tested and observed?

CaseS87

11-10-2006, 03:46 AM

luckyme

11-10-2006, 03:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I am curious to see how many people how accept the Theory of Evolution admit its on faith.

First group. Evolutionist told me evolution was true and/or I read books/material that said Evolution was true and I have faith the Evolutionist and/or Evolution book/material is correct.

Second group. I have personally constructed and or see first hand an experiment reproducing the exact conditions of early earth. I watched the elements in that closed environment come together by themselves and form life. I don't need faith Evolution is true, I have seen life create itself from non-life.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's sad to see a country that has allowed it's education system to slip to this level. There was a time when an understanding of scientific theory and critical thinking was pretty common even in high school.
Now, a recent study revealed that 30% of high school grads are functionally illiterate. I worked with a literacy group that tries to correct the situation after the fact but that's a tough way to achieve a decent standard in the general population. If it keeps up, americans will be the source of cheap labor in the future and countries that maintain higher standards will be hiring the US grads to assemble the latest widget.

luckyme

FortunaMaximus

11-10-2006, 03:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if by faith you mean accepting the most probable way of explaining life, then yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most probable way of explaining Life? Considering all the life we have witnessed on this earth was created by another living being before it. The most probable way of explaining something alive is that it follows the same partern we have always seen, life coming from life.

Why do you believe it is more reasonbable to think that non-life makes life when its never been witnessesed nor can be scientifically tested and observed?

[/ QUOTE ]

so you think it is more reasonable that life just *poofed* into existence all of a sudden?

[/ QUOTE ]

Much like the Universe did?

MidGe

11-10-2006, 03:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard that having a complete lack of critical reasoning skills can be liberating. Is this true?

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Carded

11-10-2006, 04:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You do not need to be able to simulate the conditions of early Earth to accept the Theory of Evolution as scientifically valid (plausible to a high degree of certainty).

Simply because we haven't created life from non-life does not invalidate the theory. We haven't reproduced the results, but we know how it plausibly might have occured.

On the other hand, we have various pieces of evidence:
1. The Fossil Record
2. Population Genetics
3. Molecular Genetics
4. The Model(s) of Natural Selection
5. The science of taxonomy
etc etc etc

In short, we have concrete, workable models for exactly when and how selection operates on different populations. This is not my definition of faith. Faith involves accepting something without evidence for any number of reasons. If any type of science were based on faith (different from the acceptable degree of axiomatization necessary for any scientific model), it wouldn't be very good science.

The origin of life is not usually an area of evolutionary theory that is of very great concern. It is far more concerned with species that actually exist and how they change at the micro- and macroscopic levels.

To the OP, I suggest you read some scientific literature on the subject. It seems to me you have some mistaken presumptions about the Theory of Evolution (actually a composite of multiple theories).

[/ QUOTE ]

I must have gotten my "false presumptions" from the biology class I took in college and the textbook sitting right in front of me required by the course.

Perhaps you do not know science. Science is about showing hypotheses to be reasonable by creating accurate models in closed systems and subjugating them to experimentation to collect date. The experiment must be repeatable and done many times. The data is then analyzed to see if the results support the initial hypotheses. If the data given by the experiments supports the hypotheses strongly it becomes know as a Theory.

Yes, you must be able to create accurate models, test and collect data repeatedly for it to be considered science. Physics, Thermodynamics, Materials, Chemistry, Static, Dynamics, Fluids, Structures and Electronics none of these disciplines holds a single Theory that has not be tested to the above criteria, the scientific method.

Evolution is the only ‘theory’, which does not satisfy which every other discipline does. Surprising?

FortunaMaximus

11-10-2006, 04:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is the only "theory";, which does not satisfy which every other discipline does. Surprising?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe there's a better one in a later chapter? "How God wetfarted the Universe into being after a 6-day binge of soft tacos and pico gallo followed by mugfuls of mead and goat's milk."

MidGe

11-10-2006, 04:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I must have gotten my "false presumptions" from the biology class I took in college and the textbook sitting right in front of me required by the course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! What college was that and what is the textbook? Sounds really like a retard education to me.

luckyme

11-10-2006, 04:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I must have gotten my "false presumptions" from the biology class I took in college and the textbook sitting right in front of me required by the course.

Perhaps you do not know science.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're scaring me. Your people have the Bomb.
Please, please...tell my you failed the course.

Or that you are paraphrasing Tom Cruise's "Matt, you don't know the history of psychiatry." and you took your course the same place he did.

luckyme

MidGe

11-10-2006, 04:38 AM

I am hoping to be right in suspecting the education establishment, he called college, was a madrassah.

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Carded

11-10-2006, 04:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, we have various pieces of evidence:
1. The Fossil Record
2. Population Genetics
3. Molecular Genetics
4. The Model(s) of Natural Selection
5. The science of taxonomy
etc etc etc

[/ QUOTE ]
Funny, how the nazi’s used those same pieces of evidence to make claims of a long lost master race. A lost superior race that built the pyramids in Egypt, Stonehenge, the city of Atlantis, and even Tibet. The race was ‘proven’ to have ruled over the entire world.

Evidence is always subjugated to a person’s worldview

MidGe

11-10-2006, 04:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, we have various pieces of evidence:
1. The Fossil Record
2. Population Genetics
3. Molecular Genetics
4. The Model(s) of Natural Selection
5. The science of taxonomy
etc etc etc

[/ QUOTE ]
Funny, how the nazi’s used those same pieces of evidence to make claims of a long lost master race. A lost superior race that built the pyramids in Egypt, Stonehenge, the city of Atlantis, and even Tibet. The race was ‘proven’ to have ruled over the entire world.

Evidence is always subjugated to a person’s worldview

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, very funny, heh! Some people even use the bible as "evidence"! LOL

Turn Prophet

11-10-2006, 04:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, we have various pieces of evidence:
1. The Fossil Record
2. Population Genetics
3. Molecular Genetics
4. The Model(s) of Natural Selection
5. The science of taxonomy
etc etc etc

[/ QUOTE ]
Funny, how the nazi’s used those same pieces of evidence to make claims of a long lost master race. A lost superior race that built the pyramids in Egypt, Stonehenge, the city of Atlantis, and even Tibet. The race was ‘proven’ to have ruled over the entire world.

Evidence is always subjugated to a person’s worldview

[/ QUOTE ]
The fact that you're including that particularly absurd argument tells me you're more interested in trolling the forum than having a meaningful discussion.

Just for reference.

Theory of Evolution != Theory of Origin of Life
and
One college Biology class does not an expert make.

FortunaMaximus

11-10-2006, 04:49 AM

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/2622/00336841vk3.jpg

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/3764/yuhhhnm1.jpg

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/2660/monkeysernestclinemx7.jpg

When 3,000 words won't do.

arahant

11-10-2006, 04:50 AM

As a follow-up, I'd like to know how many people here who accept the theory of 'electricity is dangerous' can admit that it's based on faith.

First group. Electrician told me electricity was dangerous and/or I read books/material that said electricity was dangerous and I have faith the electrician and/or electricity book/material is correct.

Second Group. I have actually grabbed live electrical lines and determined that they are, in fact, dangerous.

I'm not sure whether or not to admire the folks who responded to this by providing the reasons why evolution is so widely accepted. I guess 'kudos for trying', but I don't think this is a question open to debate for this guy.

Not that I respect myself for providing these obvious analogies. It feels kind of dirty somehow. Fish in a barrel.

luckyme

11-10-2006, 05:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure whether or not to admire the folks who responded to this by providing the reasons why evolution is so widely accepted. I guess 'kudos for trying', but I don't think this is a question open to debate for this guy.

Not that I respect myself for providing these obvious analogies. It feels kind of dirty somehow. Fish in a barrel.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems such a shame in a 1st world country to realize that people are taking science courses at a college level without any understanding of basic scientific method. The same money spent to get somebody that far would see an entire class in the 3rd world through 12 years of education. Think of the value that would have.

If this keeps up we'll be wanting to encourage the Bushooligans to built a wall all around the country so nobody can get out!

luckyme

FortunaMaximus

11-10-2006, 05:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If this keeps up we'll be wanting to encourage the Bushooligans to built a wall all around the country so nobody can get out!

[/ QUOTE ]

This was a couple weeks ago...

[ QUOTE ]
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush signed a bill Thursday authorizing the construction of a fence along one-third of the 2,100-mile (3,360-kilometer) U.S. border with Mexico, but missing from the legislation is a means to pay for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your sense of irony is acute. The bolded statement is just priceless. Literally.

Nielsio

11-10-2006, 07:49 AM

Give me a scientific theory of god and then we'll talk.

Prodigy54321

11-10-2006, 08:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am curious to see how many people how accept the Theory of Evolution admit its on faith.

First group. Evolutionist told me evolution was true and/or I read books/material that said Evolution was true and I have faith the Evolutionist and/or Evolution book/material is correct.

Second group. I have personally constructed and or see first hand an experiment reproducing the exact conditions of early earth. I watched the elements in that closed environment come together by themselves and form life. I don't need faith Evolution is true, I have seen life create itself from non-life.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) we could have ZERO evidence that life can com from nonlife...and it still wouldn't mean that there is a more likely theory than evolutionary theory.

2) you don't need to have produced every peice of evidence for something first hand it order to hold a rational belief that it is very likely to be true.

you are equating two different meanings of the term "faith"...

the ay you are using it does constitute a rational belief....it is not the same as most religious "faith"

3) if you have a better theory, please introduce it

--your post shows a lack of understanding of evolutionary theory, as well as a lack of understanding of how reasonable conclusions are reached

EDIT: in conclusion I am in group #1...but "faith" does not mean what you think it means...and I have also seen evidence again evolutionary theory and have not found one that falsifies its claims...also, most of the books and people don't just "say it's true"...they evaluate the evidence

[/ QUOTE ]

In short, You have stated, IF A is a part of B and A is True, Then B is also true. You are wrong and you failed t critical thinking in that respect. You do have to prove each individual point of evolution to prove evolution is true. Life coming from non-life is a key point, saying no evidence in that respect is 'acceptable' is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said nothing of the sort..please try again

vhawk01

11-10-2006, 09:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if by faith you mean accepting the most probable way of explaining life, then yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most probable way of explaining Life? Considering all the life we have witnessed on this earth was created by another living being before it. The most probable way of explaining something alive is that it follows the same partern we have always seen, life coming from life.

Why do you believe it is more reasonbable to think that non-life makes life when its never been witnessesed nor can be scientifically tested and observed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. God created the universe, and life followed from that. There was just a hiatus, life didn't come from non-life it came from God, and the way it came from God was evolution. Happy?

I don't really believe any of that, but hey, who really cares? It COULD have happened that way, and as unparsimonius as it is, I don't specifically object. Can we end this ridiculous farce now? Your point was made, you don't understand the theory of evolution, but its ok, because I bent over backwards to accomodate you. God started it all, he acted via the mechanism of evolution, WE ALL WIN.

Bill Haywood

11-10-2006, 09:48 AM

You are just playing games with the definition of the word "faith." It does not mean acceptance of a mountain of evidence based on trust. Faith means accepting things on NO evidence.

Belief in evolution is faith only in the very strict sense that we really have eyes that receive light, ears that hear. I cannot prove that I have a corporeal body, and am not really just the daydream of a super-being. I accept on faith that I exist, and have senses that interpret data from an actual physical world. That assumption is faith, everything that comes after that is based on evidence.

Carl Sagan's _Contact_ acknowledges that at its foundation, materialism is a leap of faith. The big difference with religious faith is that beyond that initial assumption, all our beliefs are subject to modification based on new evidence. Religious faith however keeps making more and more leaps, all the way up to virgin birth, miracles, the effectiveness of prayer, etc.

Prodigy54321

11-10-2006, 11:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if by faith you mean accepting the most probable way of explaining life, then yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most probable way of explaining Life? Considering all the life we have witnessed on this earth was created by another living being before it. The most probable way of explaining something alive is that it follows the same partern we have always seen, life coming from life.

Why do you believe it is more reasonbable to think that non-life makes life when its never been witnessesed nor can be scientifically tested and observed?

[/ QUOTE ]

so you think it is more reasonable that life just *poofed* into existence all of a sudden?

[/ QUOTE ]

Much like the Universe didn't ?

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

and there is a difference between an actual "poof...as in..no process and suspending natural laws..and the "poof" of the big bang...

one is random speculation of an infinite number of possible supernatural explainations for an event....that is also not falsifiable

the other is at least a workable theory

and I personally don't know enough about the subject to say that I confidently believe the common idea of the "big bang" to be correct...but "poof" doesn't win by default

FortunaMaximus

11-10-2006, 11:20 AM

Dude, you're as bad as the Christians. Here, let me flip a FYP on ya, and see what I mean.

[ QUOTE ]
one is random speculation of an infinite number of possible natural explainations for an event....that is also not falsifiable

the other is at least a workable theory

[/ QUOTE ]

In that context, which one's which?

Prodigy54321

11-10-2006, 11:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, you're as bad as the Christians. Here, let me flip a FYP on ya, and see what I mean.

[ QUOTE ]
one is random speculation of an infinite number of possible natural explainations for an event....that is also not falsifiable

the other is at least a workable theory

[/ QUOTE ]

In that context, which one's which?

[/ QUOTE ]

the natural ones can be evaluated via the scientific method and are typically falsifiable

FortunaMaximus

11-10-2006, 11:26 AM

So has the concept of God been disproved by the scientific method?

Prodigy54321

11-10-2006, 11:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So has the concept of God been disproved by the scientific method?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, it can't be..

isn't that MY point? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

vhawk01

11-10-2006, 11:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So has the concept of God been disproved by the scientific method?

[/ QUOTE ]

Disproved is meaningless. Its not amenable to the scientific method, it isn't falsifiable. Thats like saying is chocolate disproved by L'Hopital's Rule.

FortunaMaximus

11-10-2006, 11:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So has the concept of God been disproved by the scientific method?

[/ QUOTE ]

Disproved is meaningless. Its not amenable to the scientific method, it isn't falsifiable. Thats like saying is chocolate disproved by L'Hopital's Rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not meaningless to consider we will develop the capability to construct a workable, logically consistent theory for either a proof or disproof of God, or in better terms, an ultimate observer.

Certainly, no, not in 2006, we don't have the means or enough established understanding of the Universe to do so.

To say that this is always going to be the case is fallacious. Whether or not you believe that we're coming up with newer and better methods of describing every natural axiom in the Universe, and we're merely composing what is inherent in the Universe and expanding our understanding as we expand in numbers and mass occupied...

There is insufficient understanding of the natural processes of the Universe, and the complete Principia Mathematica has yet to be written.

By today's standards, everything contains a degree of falsibility. And while it may be that we end up never removing this margin of probable error, to assume we have already done so should not be done.

Early 21st century h. sap. is not the pinnacle of understanding and knowledge. Some of you seem to place undue faith in your assessments of what is falsifable without recognizing this simple fact.

Carded

11-10-2006, 12:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As a follow-up, I'd like to know how many people here who accept the theory of 'electricity is dangerous' can admit that it's based on faith.

First group. Electrician told me electricity was dangerous and/or I read books/material that said electricity was dangerous and I have faith the electrician and/or electricity book/material is correct.

Second Group. I have actually grabbed live electrical lines and determined that they are, in fact, dangerous.

I'm not sure whether or not to admire the folks who responded to this by providing the reasons why evolution is so widely accepted. I guess 'kudos for trying', but I don't think this is a question open to debate for this guy.

Not that I respect myself for providing these obvious analogies. It feels kind of dirty somehow. Fish in a barrel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Firstly, there is no scientific theory is electricity dangerous. I have taken both electrical physics and electrical engineering classes and done experimentation for many of the theories taught in labs and have never heard of your supposed theory. The fact that you seem to think there is a scientific theory of electricity being shown as dangerous only shows your lack of education.

Speaking of grabbing electrical lines to prove a point. Tesla (an electrical genius) grabbed two electrical lines completing a circuit to light a bulb proving that electricity could be in some instances safely transmitted across the human body.

Your analogy is obviously false.

John21

11-10-2006, 01:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
By today's standards, everything contains a degree of falsibility. And while it may be that we end up never removing this margin of probable error, to assume we have already done so should not be done.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of my teachers used to end her lectures by saying:

"No matter how confused and befuddled you become... Remember the truth is out there."

vhawk01

11-10-2006, 02:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By today's standards, everything contains a degree of falsibility. And while it may be that we end up never removing this margin of probable error, to assume we have already done so should not be done.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of my teachers used to end her lectures by saying:

"No matter how confused and befuddled you become... Remember the truth is out there."

[/ QUOTE ]

Fox Mulder?

Hopey

11-10-2006, 02:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I must have gotten my "false presumptions" from the biology class I took in college and the textbook sitting right in front of me required by the course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! What college was that and what is the textbook? Sounds really like a retard education to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oral Roberts University would be my guess.

FortunaMaximus

11-10-2006, 02:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By today's standards, everything contains a degree of falsibility. And while it may be that we end up never removing this margin of probable error, to assume we have already done so should not be done.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of my teachers used to end her lectures by saying:

"No matter how confused and befuddled you become... Remember the truth is out there."

[/ QUOTE ]

Fox Mulder?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps. I have to admit I've been running pretty hot since I realized I was gonna marry an Okie redhead. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

But, yeah, that's just it. When I think of what we'll accomplish, even though I can only make reasonably accurate guesses at the nature of those accomplishments... Wow.

FortunaMaximus

11-10-2006, 02:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Give me a scientific theory of god and then we'll talk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting there, getting there.

AlexM

11-10-2006, 02:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am curious to see how many people how accept the Theory of Evolution admit its on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

I accept it based on Occam's Razor. I have no faith in it and am entirely willing to discard it if something better comes along. This is because I actually practice science rather than worshipping it. Most people worship it. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

vhawk01

11-10-2006, 02:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am curious to see how many people how accept the Theory of Evolution admit its on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

I accept it based on Occam's Razor. I have no faith in it and am entirely willing to discard it if something better comes along. This is because I actually practice science rather than worshipping it. Most people worship it. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean certain religious groups try to make it seem like most people worship it, right? My experience definitely doesn't support your observation.

AlexM

11-10-2006, 02:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am curious to see how many people how accept the Theory of Evolution admit its on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

I accept it based on Occam's Razor. I have no faith in it and am entirely willing to discard it if something better comes along. This is because I actually practice science rather than worshipping it. Most people worship it. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean certain religious groups try to make it seem like most people worship it, right? My experience definitely doesn't support your observation.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I mean exactly what I said. For more information, see the debate on global warming. Not much science going on there. (on either side)

txag007

11-10-2006, 04:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You are just playing games with the definition of the word "faith." It does not mean acceptance of a mountain of evidence based on trust. Faith means accepting things on NO evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evidence
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/proof

Prodigy54321

11-10-2006, 04:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are just playing games with the definition of the word "faith." It does not mean acceptance of a mountain of evidence based on trust. Faith means accepting things on NO evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evidence
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/proof

[/ QUOTE ]

txag, I believe that you are missing the point...

wrongfully equating two definitions of a word is essentially the same thing as equating two different words with different meanings

EDIT: bill haywood,

you did a similar injustice by claiming that there is only one definition of the word "faith"

AlexM

11-10-2006, 04:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are just playing games with the definition of the word "faith." It does not mean acceptance of a mountain of evidence based on trust. Faith means accepting things on NO evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evidence
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/proof

[/ QUOTE ]

txag, I believe that you are missing the point...

wrongfully equating two definitions of a word is essentially the same thing as equating two different words with different meanings

EDIT: bill haywood,

you did a similar injustice by claiming that there is only one definition of the word "faith"

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you're missing the point. Txag was saying that using the word "evidence" instead of "proof" was incorrect in the statement "Faith means accepting things on NO evidence." And he was 100% correct to make this distinction.

In fact, this goes back to what I first said in this thread, "This is because I actually practice science rather than worshipping it. Most people worship it." Most non-religious people DO treat faith as lacking evidence instead of proof, so they see their own faith in their atheistic (or whatever) beliefs as not being faith because they have evidence supporting them. They do not have proof though, which makes their beliefs faith. AKA, worshipping science.

arahant

11-10-2006, 04:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As a follow-up, I'd like to know how many people here who accept the theory of 'electricity is dangerous' can admit that it's based on faith.

First group. Electrician told me electricity was dangerous and/or I read books/material that said electricity was dangerous and I have faith the electrician and/or electricity book/material is correct.

Second Group. I have actually grabbed live electrical lines and determined that they are, in fact, dangerous.

I'm not sure whether or not to admire the folks who responded to this by providing the reasons why evolution is so widely accepted. I guess 'kudos for trying', but I don't think this is a question open to debate for this guy.

Not that I respect myself for providing these obvious analogies. It feels kind of dirty somehow. Fish in a barrel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Firstly, there is no scientific theory is electricity dangerous. I have taken both electrical physics and electrical engineering classes and done experimentation for many of the theories taught in labs and have never heard of your supposed theory. The fact that you seem to think there is a scientific theory of electricity being shown as dangerous only shows your lack of education.

Speaking of grabbing electrical lines to prove a point. Tesla (an electrical genius) grabbed two electrical lines completing a circuit to light a bulb proving that electricity could be in some instances safely transmitted across the human body.

Your analogy is obviously false.

[/ QUOTE ]

ANALOGY

Heaven help us.
Actually, this really is starting to sound trollish.
Meh...you win. As soon as I shower, I'm going across the street to the local pentecostal church, where I plan to rededicate my life to the lord Jesus Christ, having finally realized that science is an empty shell, secular humanism is the brainchild of Satan, and...

Seriously though, I think you are full of it. I don't believe you've taken any E&M classes, much less done lab work. I think it's unlikely that someone intelligent enough to complete these classes would hold your views, and be so unable to think critically. I'm skeptical as to whether you actually have a biology textbook in front of you.

Where exactly did you say you went to school again? And what was the subject matter of this 'electrical physics' class?

bona fides, please.

AlexM

11-10-2006, 05:07 PM

To further elaborate what I was saying, there is no "proof" of evolution, it simply has the most evidence supporting it. The scientific and agnostic position is to treat this as the truth but to keep a very open mind towards other possibilities, such as creationism. Most supporters of evolution do not take the scientific approach. Most flat out believe that evolution is true. This is a faith based position because while there is plenty of evidence to support this belief, more evidence than supporting any other belief, there is no proof.

luckyme

11-10-2006, 05:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
To further elaborate what I was saying, there is no "proof" of evolution, it simply has the most evidence supporting it. The scientific and agnostic position is to treat this as the truth but to keep a very open mind towards other possibilities, such as creationism. Most supporters of evolution do not take the scientific approach. Most flat out believe that evolution is true. This is a faith based position because while there is plenty of evidence to support this belief, more evidence than supporting any other belief, there is no proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be just toying with the meanings of proof and evidence in a scientific sense. At a basic level no scientist believes anything 100% since all scientific positions are 'preponderance of evidence' conclusions, subject to change. That does not mean the overwhelming evidence for evolution still demands an open mind toward a counterclaim that has no evidence in support and goes contrary to what is available.
That's the "so openminded his brains fell out" stance. Rejecting silly claims does not equate with closed-minded, it still fits the 'preponderance of evidence' approach that science take. "robustness' has more scientific meaning than "proof" in many aspects of study.

luckyme

Mr. Now

11-10-2006, 05:36 PM

Carded offers the bait and it is swallowed hook, line and sinker.

Evolution itself ex the orgin of life argument is easy to defend in a debate. Carded knows that very well indeed, and frames this debate on evolution strictly in origin-of-life terms.

Game set and match to the OP: Carded.

Well done.

Hopey

11-10-2006, 05:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Carded offers the bait and it is swallowed hook, line and sinker.

Evolution itself ex the orgin of life argument is easy to defend in a debate. Carded knows that very well indeed, and frames this debate on evolution strictly in origin-of-life terms.

Game set and match to the OP: Carded.

Well done.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he wants to troll, there's always OOT and BBV.

Also, it's defitely not out of the realm of possibilities that the OP actually believes everything he's writing. I mean, look at txag...this is right out of his playbook.

bocablkr

11-10-2006, 05:41 PM

Prodigy54321

11-10-2006, 06:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are just playing games with the definition of the word "faith." It does not mean acceptance of a mountain of evidence based on trust. Faith means accepting things on NO evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evidence
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/proof

[/ QUOTE ]

txag, I believe that you are missing the point...

wrongfully equating two definitions of a word is essentially the same thing as equating two different words with different meanings

EDIT: bill haywood,

you did a similar injustice by claiming that there is only one definition of the word "faith"

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you're missing the point. Txag was saying that using the word "evidence" instead of "proof" was incorrect in the statement "Faith means accepting things on NO evidence." And he was 100% correct to make this distinction.

In fact, this goes back to what I first said in this thread, "This is because I actually practice science rather than worshipping it. Most people worship it." Most non-religious people DO treat faith as lacking evidence instead of proof, so they see their own faith in their atheistic (or whatever) beliefs as not being faith because they have evidence supporting them. They do not have proof though, which makes their beliefs faith. AKA, worshipping science.

[/ QUOTE ]

you too seem to be using definitions of faith that I wouldn't use in that context unless your aim is to equate the two meanings to give the appearance of a valid argument...there is a vast difference between saying that you have faith is something because it is supported by the evidence...and simply saying that you have faith is something...

you also do not need proof to hold rational beliefs..and sometimes pretty far from it to even make these beliefs actionable

the fact that I believe that the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly the most likely answer to the origin of our species as well as all others is not because I am "worshipping science" or have faith in any way...it is directly due to the evidence I am aware of.

beliefs of rational people are constructed due to the evidence...beliefs based on faith rather than evidence will never be as likely to be accurate in coming to the truth

Prodigy54321

11-10-2006, 06:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
To further elaborate what I was saying, there is no "proof" of evolution, it simply has the most evidence supporting it. The scientific and agnostic position is to treat this as the truth but to keep a very open mind towards other possibilities, such as creationism. Most supporters of evolution do not take the scientific approach. Most flat out believe that evolution is true. This is a faith based position because while there is plenty of evidence to support this belief, more evidence than supporting any other belief, there is no proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know of any atheists who "believe" in evolution in the sense that most theists "believe" in god..

I think it can be better described as "believe that it is the most likely explaination of (such and such)."

I think that when most people say "I believe in evolution"..they really mean what I just said...

the stipulation being that there is no reason that they would not change their opinion upon further evidence...

"belief" in the theistic sense..is not the same

brashbrother

11-10-2006, 07:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To further elaborate what I was saying, there is no "proof" of evolution, it simply has the most evidence supporting it. The scientific and agnostic position is to treat this as the truth but to keep a very open mind towards other possibilities, such as creationism. Most supporters of evolution do not take the scientific approach. Most flat out believe that evolution is true. This is a faith based position because while there is plenty of evidence to support this belief, more evidence than supporting any other belief, there is no proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know of no repected scientist that keeps an open mind to creationism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Respecetd by you? Not any, I would assume. But there are many holders of science degrees, who recognize that all of science can be true, while all of creationism can also be true. I happen to be one of them, but hopefully more impressive is that dozens of my professors and colleagues feel the same way. Still others do not particularly believe in Creation, but recognize that the possibilty is remotely there and has not been disproved.

They are not mutually exclusive.

Simple example: Mathematics tells us that flipping a coin 1000 times should yield 500 heads and 500 tails. Let's assume we are shown the results of that very experiment, and the numbers are clearly marked: 500 each. Shrug. That's what we expected. Now, another man comes along and says he knows why the numbers came up: one of the experimenters caught the coin each time, and placed it 500 times on heads, 500 on tails. So "divine intervention" caused the results you see, not random chance.

We are in a position now to observe RETROSPECTIVELY, so we cannot with certainty insist on the earth's origin or cause. Just because it was "expected" to occur by chance does not imply randomness without design MUST have occurred.

kurto

11-10-2006, 07:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Respecetd by you? Not any, I would assume. But there are many holders of science degrees, who recognize that all of science can be true, while all of creationism can also be true. I happen to be one of them, but hopefully more impressive is that dozens of my professors and colleagues feel the same way. Still others do not particularly believe in Creation, but recognize that the possibilty is remotely there and has not been disproved.

They are not mutually exclusive.

Simple example: Mathematics tells us that flipping a coin 1000 times should yield 500 heads and 500 tails. Let's assume we are shown the results of that very experiment, and the numbers are clearly marked: 500 each. Shrug. That's what we expected. Now, another man comes along and says he knows why the numbers came up: one of the experimenters caught the coin each time, and placed it 500 times on heads, 500 on tails. So "divine intervention" caused the results you see, not random chance.

We are in a position now to observe RETROSPECTIVELY, so we cannot with certainty insist on the earth's origin or cause. Just because it was "expected" to occur by chance does not imply randomness without design MUST have occurred.

[/ QUOTE ]

To summarize--

Scientists believe based on their observation that the coin was flipped 1000 times and came out about what you would expect based on probabilities.

Religious people decide that an invisible man is catching the coin and placing it heads up or down 500 times.

A perfect analogy for the religious.

Note- The same thing works for nearly all religions.

Scientists realize that weather is caused by a variety of factors in our atmosphere. With this knowledge, they have been able to predict weather.

Ancient man decided that weather was the actions of an invisible spirit. And by sacrificing virgins, they could bring good weather.

Sounds just like creationists today... only creationist should know better because they have information available to them that ancient man didn't.

One could argue that Christians today are MORE backward then ancient man blaming natural phenomenon on rascally Gods as the ancient man didn't have the same understanding of the world that we do today.

jogsxyz

11-10-2006, 07:34 PM

bathing suit in 1858
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/75/Bathing_suit_1858.png/200px-Bathing_suit_1858.png
present day bathing suit
http://www.calendars.com/images/032/3298/200600015630_fc.jpg

Proof of evolution.

FortunaMaximus

11-10-2006, 08:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Simple example: Mathematics tells us that flipping a coin 1000 times should yield 500 heads and 500 tails. Let's assume we are shown the results of that very experiment, and the numbers are clearly marked: 500 each. Shrug. That's what we expected. Now, another man comes along and says he knows why the numbers came up: one of the experimenters caught the coin each time, and placed it 500 times on heads, 500 on tails. So "divine intervention" caused the results you see, not random chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect. For it to be exactly 500/500 would be something I'd chalk up to divine intervention. Standard deviation.

No, Theron > ABB. Although those are rather nice thighs.

Well, anyway. Um, to further emphasize your improbable probabilistic assumptions...

[ QUOTE ]
Still others do not particularly believe in Creation, but recognize that the possibilty is remotely there and has not been disproved.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I can't prove from seeing the second picture that the lady doesn't have two vaginas and no anus. Because there are billions of female bodies that have a vagina and an anus, you can assume with 99.99999994% accuracy that Ana, indeed, does have both an vagina and an anus!

Now, for creationism to even be a viable model, it needs more than a fragment of a percent of probability for it to even be taken seriously by the scientific method.

Wave a satin cloth, poof, Earth! 31 flavors of ice cream, thankfully normal women with one of each. They also call magicians illusionists. Plastic surgeons are miracle workers.

Stand evolution v. creationism on pure mathematics alone, evolution is millions and millions of times more likely to be closer to the truth than creationism is.

thylacine

11-10-2006, 08:09 PM

"Carded" said:[ QUOTE ]
I am curious to see how many people how[sic] accept the Theory of Evolution admit its[sic] on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you are not! You are not curious about such a thing at all! It is completely obvious that you are blatantly lying!

There is extensive documentation (e.g. NCSE) of creationists repeatedly using the same deceitful ploys even when they have been thoroughly discreditted (and, yes, creationists had been `trolling' like this for decades before the internet existed). The level of dishonesty in the creationist movement is extreme.

luckyme

11-10-2006, 08:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But there are many holders of science degrees, who recognize that all of science can be true, while all of creationism can also be true. I happen to be one of them, but hopefully more impressive is that dozens of my professors and colleagues feel the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

"All of science...". Dozens of your science professors believe that the earth is 5 billion years old and 10,000 years old? or the milder .. That the laws of physics over the last 15,000 years caused the universe to be the way it is AND somebody ordered it that way.
wow. this forum is getting scarier and scarier. I only hope that your university is in the southern US and safely out of the mainstream of scientific thinking.

luckyme

luckyme

11-10-2006, 08:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]

No you are not! You are not curious about such a thing at all! It is completely obvious that you are blatantly lying!

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that he is lying doesn't automatically mean his question is worthless. Turns out it is because of equivocation, but had to read it to know he didn't have an interesting query. Still, you make a valid observation.

luckyme

madnak

11-10-2006, 09:54 PM

MidGe

11-10-2006, 09:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I only hope that your university is in the southern US and safely out of the mainstream of scientific thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wherever it is, he surely is not to proud of it! It must be an embarrassment!

brashbrother

11-10-2006, 09:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Respecetd by you? Not any, I would assume. But there are many holders of science degrees, who recognize that all of science can be true, while all of creationism can also be true. I happen to be one of them, but hopefully more impressive is that dozens of my professors and colleagues feel the same way. Still others do not particularly believe in Creation, but recognize that the possibilty is remotely there and has not been disproved.

They are not mutually exclusive.

Simple example: Mathematics tells us that flipping a coin 1000 times should yield 500 heads and 500 tails. Let's assume we are shown the results of that very experiment, and the numbers are clearly marked: 500 each. Shrug. That's what we expected. Now, another man comes along and says he knows why the numbers came up: one of the experimenters caught the coin each time, and placed it 500 times on heads, 500 on tails. So "divine intervention" caused the results you see, not random chance.

We are in a position now to observe RETROSPECTIVELY, so we cannot with certainty insist on the earth's origin or cause. Just because it was "expected" to occur by chance does not imply randomness without design MUST have occurred.

[/ QUOTE ]

To summarize--

Scientists believe based on their observation that the coin was flipped 1000 times and came out about what you would expect based on probabilities.

Religious people decide that an invisible man is catching the coin and placing it heads up or down 500 times.

A perfect analogy for the religious.

Note- The same thing works for nearly all religions.

Scientists realize that weather is caused by a variety of factors in our atmosphere. With this knowledge, they have been able to predict weather.

Ancient man decided that weather was the actions of an invisible spirit. And by sacrificing virgins, they could bring good weather.

Sounds just like creationists today... only creationist should know better because they have information available to them that ancient man didn't.

One could argue that Christians today are MORE backward then ancient man blaming natural phenomenon on rascally Gods as the ancient man didn't have the same understanding of the world that we do today.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think my point is lost in translation, so I will try again.

BTW, it's funny you chose to talk about weather to brag on science; easily one of the least predictable phenomena...

I am willing to concede that science has observed phenomena that could explain HOW the earth and universe was formed. That according to our observations, there was a Big Bang, that there were billions of years, that evolution (still) occurs. I am willing to concede that random chance explanations for these amazing occurrences do indeed exist, and that many of these scientific explanations hold up to considerable scientific scrutiny. None of the above is in direct conflict with the Intelligent Design/Creationist worldview.

I will ask you to concede that no scientist can say with certainty that random chance and ONLY random chance drove the mechanism that put all of this in motion. This DOES NOT mean you agree that God was the cause, only that you must see that noone can KNOW the cause.

I will grant you that according to our observations, Energy can neither be created or destroyed, that gravity accelerates uniformly, that there appears to be a Cambrian explosion in the fossil record.

I am simply asking you to concede that a supernatural entity could very well have set these things in motion, however unlikely that may be. I am asking you to concede that this cannot be tested scientifically, and therefore does not challenge anything that you scientifically have been taught.

madnak

11-10-2006, 10:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. For it to be exactly 500/500 would be something I'd chalk up to divine intervention. Standard deviation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you're joking and I'm being a nit, but this is the most likely outcome. No specific outcome is very likely at all, in fact every specific outcome is extremely unlikely.

For this reason, an unlikely outcome isn't evidence of divine intervention or anything else.

madnak

11-10-2006, 10:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, it's funny you chose to talk about weather to brag on science; easily one of the least predictable phenomena...

[/ QUOTE ]

Meteorologists are very good at predicting the specific probabilities of events. The problem is that if the weatherman says there's a 70% chance of rain, and it rains, that doesn't really validate him. On the other hand, it if doesn't rain it makes him look wrong (even though that's expected to happen 30% of the time). An evaluation of all the predictions together indicates a high degree of accuracy.

FortunaMaximus

11-10-2006, 10:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am simply asking you to concede that a supernatural entity could very well have set these things in motion, however unlikely that may be. I am asking you to concede that this cannot be tested scientifically, and therefore does not challenge anything that you scientifically have been taught.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such an entity needn't be supernatural, only more technologically capable. It's a small step from designing a garden to designing a planet with a 10-billion year plan.

Certainly it would be a nice experiment for an adolescent growing up in a civlization spanning a galaxy.

"Oh, look, a tame yellow star with a nice organic soup. Go ahead, Timmy, that'll be your high school biology final."

And I'm not being facetious or drawing on anything ridiculous here. Perception matters. And the entity certainly would seem supernatural to humans.

FWIW, the initial conditions could easily be intelligent design, but the growth processes would be evolutionary. Why not introduce an element of randomness into the experiment?

John21

11-10-2006, 10:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But there are many holders of science degrees, who recognize that all of science can be true, while all of creationism can also be true. I happen to be one of them, but hopefully more impressive is that dozens of my professors and colleagues feel the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

"All of science...". Dozens of your science professors believe that the earth is 5 billion years old and 10,000 years old? or the milder .. That the laws of physics over the last 15,000 years caused the universe to be the way it is AND somebody ordered it that way.
wow. this forum is getting scarier and scarier. I only hope that your university is in the southern US and safely out of the mainstream of scientific thinking.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

The following is by Vatican Observatory Director Jesuit Father George V. Coyne:

How are we to interpret the scientific picture of life’s origins in terms of religious belief. Do we need God to explain this? Very succinctly my answer is no. In fact, to need God would be a very denial of God. God is not the response to a need. One gets the impression from certain religious believers that they fondly hope for the durability of certain gaps in our scientific knowledge of evolution, so that they can fill them with God. This is the exact opposite of what human intelligence is all about. We should be seeking for the fullness of God in creation. We should not need God; we should accept her/him when he comes to us.

But the personal God I have described is also God, creator of the universe. It is unfortunate that, especially here in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God. The universe is not God and it cannot exist independently of God. Neither pantheism nor naturalism is true.

Link to full article:
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18504

With all respect, I think it would help some of the atheists on this board to have a better understanding of the terms they haphazzardly use.

When a theist uses the term 'creation' it doesn't necessarily imply some man form god throwing out lightning bolts and parting seas.

FortunaMaximus

11-10-2006, 10:40 PM

Coyne was retired (or replaced... heh) as the head in August, possibly because of controvesy over his adamant stand against intelligent design.

A fascinating man for a Jesuit though. Quote from his Wiki bio to clarify for the scientists here that he is indeed, a well-schooled one.

[ QUOTE ]
Coyne's research interests have been in polarimetric studies of various subjects including the interstellar medium, stars with extended atmospheres and Seyfert galaxies, which are a class of spiral galaxies with very small and unusually bright star-like centers. Polarimetry studies can reveal the properties of cosmic dust and synchrotron radiation regions in galaxies and other astronomical objects. Most recently he has been studying the polarization produced in cataclysmic variables, or interacting binary star systems that give off sudden bursts of intense energy, and dust about young stars. He also has a comet named for him.

He is an active member of the International Astronomical Union, the American Astronomical Society, the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, the American Physical Society and the Optical Society of America.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's good to know that Jesuits are still strong and well and truly a force still. Very nice find, by the way, John.

luckyme

11-10-2006, 10:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
When a theist uses the term 'creation' it doesn't necessarily imply some man form god throwing out lightning bolts and parting seas.

[/ QUOTE ]

au contraire, when the term 'creation' is used in a debate between theists and non-theists it is best to assume we are not referring to the main course at the newest french restaurant in NY. If the term is being used in a way that doesn't refer to the creation of the universe the onus is on the theist to clarify he's using it to refer to haute cuisine or some such.

You'll notice your guy is still giving his Dr Frankenstein the title " ...God, creator of the universe." If he means that in a way that god didn't create the universe then I'll stay away from the vatican also.

I prefer the literalist claims to the vaticans, seems more honest in a twisted way. The vatican wants to say " yes, he's the creator but he didn't really do it ..." or what?

luckyme

luckyme

11-10-2006, 11:01 PM

John21

11-10-2006, 11:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When a theist uses the term 'creation' it doesn't necessarily imply some man form god throwing out lightning bolts and parting seas.

[/ QUOTE ]

au contraire, when the term 'creation' is used in a debate between theists and non-theists it is best to assume we are not referring to the main course at the newest french restaurant in NY...

[/ QUOTE ]

But when the post you were referring to said: But there are many holders of science degrees, who recognize that all of science can be true, while all of creationism can also be true.

Maybe that should be a hint that he wasn't referring to the fast food variety.

And then you determined: Dozens of your science professors believe that the earth is 5 billion years old and 10,000 years old? or the milder .. That the laws of physics over the last 15,000 years caused the universe to be the way it is AND somebody ordered it that way.

And the Catholic Church says this: Chance or Design

Did this happen by chance or by necessity in this evolving universe? Was it destined to happen? The first thing to be said is that the problem is not formulated correctly. It is not just a question of chance or necessity because, first of all, it is both. Furthermore, there is a third element here that is very important. It is what I call “fertility” or “opportunity.” What this means is that the universe is so prolific in offering the opportunity for the success of both chance and necessary processes that such a character of the universe must be included in the discussion. The universe is 13.7 billion years old, it contains about 100 billion galaxies each of which contains 100 billion stars of an immense variety.

Who's the one with the misunderstanding?

luckyme

11-10-2006, 11:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Who's the one with the misunderstanding?

[/ QUOTE ]

So far, I haven't noticed any misunderstanding even after your bringing some of the vaticans position of the subject. Their use of "..god, the creator of the universe" is going to be different than the west-talahasse undergrad I was responding to, but it still better refer to the creation of the universe or I'll have to learn latin. Specifically what their spin is on it doesn't matter, some in the vatican weave evolution into the mix, the talahassian view tends to differ, but it's a difference of detail rather than of substance.

Feel free to find a quote that expresses that god was just as surprised as the rest of us at what happened after he didn't create the universe when he created the universe.

luckyme

John21

11-11-2006, 12:57 AM

Luckyme,

In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître made one of the first modern proposition of the occurrence the Big Bang theory for the origin of the universe. He based his theory, published between 1927 and 1933, on the work of Einstein, among others, as well as ancient cosmological-philosophical traditions. Einstein, however, rejected the theory and believed in a steady-state model of the universe.

Does this prove anything? I think it does. Namely if Einstein had an error in his judgement, scientists like Richard Dawkins may be subject to the same falliblity.

I tend to believe in the theory of evolution and the big bang. But there are some serious questions that need to be answered before we can call the theories fact, and everyone who questions them fools.

luckyme

11-11-2006, 01:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to believe in the theory of evolution and the big bang. But there are some serious questions that need to be answered before we can call the theories fact, and everyone who questions them fools.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I may be your mirror image.
I don't believe in either one, they just seem the best explanation at present, evolution by a league and big bang next.

I doubt they can ever be called fact, in a sense that'd be a downgrade, but not really applicable in any meaningful way.

I'd call the people who question them scientists. I doubt there is a scientist out there who wouldn't love to come up with a better explanation. Plumbers in charlotte who believe they already have the answer I don't mind if somebody calls them fools although it seems a waste of time and not a necessary viewpoint to deal with.

luckyme

FortunaMaximus

11-11-2006, 01:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Nous sommes tous mortels, et chacun est pour soi - Moliere.

[/ QUOTE ]

luckyme

11-11-2006, 02:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nous sommes tous mortels, et chacun est pour soi - Moliere.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

That goes farther than I would, and seems counter to human nature.

luckyme

MidGe

11-11-2006, 02:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nous sommes tous mortels, et chacun est pour soi - Moliere.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Must be a quote from "Le Misanthrope"! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

FortunaMaximus

11-11-2006, 02:36 AM

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Seriously, though, why would anybody subscribe to that level of pessimism when they don't have to?

Hope is infinitely more valuable than faith or proof.

Bill Haywood

11-11-2006, 12:13 PM

wrongfully equating two definitions of a word is essentially the same thing as equating two different words with different meanings
you did a similar injustice by claiming that there is only one definition of the word "faith"

I carefully described two entirely different types of faith -- one religious, one Cartesian scientific.

The argument of the original post depends on faith being the same for scientists and theists. That isn't true, and the whole argument falls because it is fake, tricky use of definitions.

Neither the OP nor defenders have addressed this baseline flaw.

Prove to us that Cartesian faith (I think, therefore I am, with all science proceeding from that) is the same as theistic faith.

Scientists' only leap of faith is the single Cartesian step: that they are independent beings with senses directly affected by the outside world, and not daydreams of a super being. Theists make leaps of faith from here to Sunday.

madnak

11-11-2006, 12:45 PM

Scientists also form their beliefs based on parsimony. And they accept certain empirical assumptions. Hume pointed out that pure skepticism is the most rational course.

That's easiest to demonstrate with math. If I see the series (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32) I expect the next number to be 34. That is the most parsimonious assumption. Do I know that the next number is 34? No. Are there valid mathematical patterns that follow such a sequence in whic the next number isn't 34? There are. So in a sense I have "faith" that 34 is the next number in the sequence. If I predict that 34, 36, 38 will be the next three numbers, and they are, then I must still have "faith" to some degree in order to believe that 40 will be the next number.

Of course, calling that "faith" is a huge stretch, and there's no necessary indication of certainty, but it's important to understand that science isn't purely rational. Much of the basis of science is simply "this seems harmonious." In that it is very similar to spirituality. I think this similarity is more important than people on either side typically realize.

Truth and Beauty, Beauty and Truth.

vhawk01

11-11-2006, 01:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am curious to see how many people how accept the Theory of Evolution admit its on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

I accept it based on Occam's Razor. I have no faith in it and am entirely willing to discard it if something better comes along. This is because I actually practice science rather than worshipping it. Most people worship it. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean certain religious groups try to make it seem like most people worship it, right? My experience definitely doesn't support your observation.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I mean exactly what I said. For more information, see the debate on global warming. Not much science going on there. (on either side)

[/ QUOTE ]

The majority of the debate about global warming has nothing to with science, to be sure, but even less to do with a worship of or a reverence for science. Its politics, not worship.

vhawk01

11-11-2006, 01:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
To further elaborate what I was saying, there is no "proof" of evolution, it simply has the most evidence supporting it. The scientific and agnostic position is to treat this as the truth but to keep a very open mind towards other possibilities, such as creationism. Most supporters of evolution do not take the scientific approach. Most flat out believe that evolution is true. This is a faith based position because while there is plenty of evidence to support this belief, more evidence than supporting any other belief, there is no proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are making a lot of unwarranted assumptions. While perhaps most people can't verbalize how they approach 'proof' and 'truth' I think more than you give credit for take your approach. They get that nothing is absolutely proven, but since nothing CAN be absolutely proven they treat them as the same, for practical reasons. This doesn't mean they worship science, although it probably does make people as a whole a little too inflexible wrt accepting new theories. Which is as it should be, IMO.

txag007

11-11-2006, 02:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The argument of the original post depends on faith being the same for scientists and theists. That isn't true, and the whole argument falls because it is fake, tricky use of definitions...Neither the OP nor defenders have addressed this baseline flaw.

[/ QUOTE ]
See here. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=8005183&page=0&vc=1)

You defined (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=8000535&page=0&vc=1) faith (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith) as accepting things on no evidence. (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evidence ) This is an incorrect definition. Faith, rather, means accepting things on no proof. (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/proof )

So who is actually using a fake, tricky use of definitions?

In the Bible, Hebrews 11:1 says "faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we cannot see." Let's use that definition and apply it to both macro-evolution and say, the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. This definition is applicable in both cases, is it not?

Not let's take a definition of faith from Merriam-Webster Online (http://www.m-w.com). Definition 2b is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." This definition is also applicable in both cases, is it not?

What about definition 3? It says "something that is believed with especially strong conviction." Again, applicable in both cases, is it not?

There was no fake, tricky use of definitions...at least not on the part of the OP.

John21

11-11-2006, 02:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Neither the OP nor defenders have addressed this baseline flaw.

Prove to us that Cartesian faith (I think, therefore I am, with all science proceeding from that) is the same as theistic faith.

Scientists' only leap of faith is the single Cartesian step: that they are independent beings with senses directly affected by the outside world, and not daydreams of a super being. Theists make leaps of faith from here to Sunday.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure the leaps are quite as far as you suggest, or the viewpoints quite as divergent.

From the two camps:
Scientist - I think, therefore I exist.
Creationsist - Existence exists, therefore it was created.

The scientist infers existence, (something that occurs in space) from the process of thinking, (something that occurs in time).

Whereas the creationist infers the process (something that occurs in time) from existence (something that occurs in space).

The scientist begins with the axiom: I think. From this process, he then defines a state - existence.
The creationist begins with the axiom: I exist. From this state, he then defines a process - creation.

The scientist's axiom necessitates time in order to think.
The creationist's axiom necessitates space in order to exist.

Both sides grant existence. And when we break each side's relative position down, what we end up with are creationists trying to describe a process in time, and scientists trying to describe an occurrence in space. These views seem more compatible to me than confrontational.

So while we say, "I think, therefore I am," God says, "I AM, therefore I create." Neither statement precludes the other from being true.

jogsxyz

11-11-2006, 03:07 PM

You creationists lost in court in 1922.
Darrow beat Bryan in the Scopes' trial.

Assume god exists. He created the cosmos
with a big bang. Created man thru
evolution. God spoke to ancient man.
God explained big bang and evolution.
Would man believe him? God would
have at least told man the earth was
round. Man might have believed that.
Galileo was excommunicated for suggesting
that the earth revolved around the sun.

Assume god exists. Assume there is a
grand plan. Why should it include man?
It's the height of conceit and arrogance
for man to assume the plan revolves
around man.

Prodigy54321

11-11-2006, 03:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument of the original post depends on faith being the same for scientists and theists. That isn't true, and the whole argument falls because it is fake, tricky use of definitions...Neither the OP nor defenders have addressed this baseline flaw.

[/ QUOTE ]
See here. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=8005183&page=0&vc=1)

You defined (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=8000535&page=0&vc=1) faith (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith) as accepting things on no evidence. (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evidence ) This is an incorrect definition. Faith, rather, means accepting things on no proof. (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/proof )

So who is actually using a fake, tricky use of definitions?

In the Bible, Hebrews 11:1 says "faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we cannot see." Let's use that definition and apply it to both macro-evolution and say, the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. This definition is applicable in both cases, is it not?

Not let's take a definition of faith from Merriam-Webster Online (http://www.m-w.com). Definition 2b is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." This definition is also applicable in both cases, is it not?

What about definition 3? It says "something that is believed with especially strong conviction." Again, applicable in both cases, is it not?

There was no fake, tricky use of definitions...at least not on the part of the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

faith can also be used as believing in something with no evidence.

I think the real issue here is the word "belief"...in the scientific sense, we don't have "belief" like people do in the theistic sense...

our "belief" is only as strong as the likelihood that the conclusion is correct..based on the evidence

it is not a pure belief like the belief that some theists hold...where the evidence does not matter...

I would say that when the strength of a conviction is not proportional to the evidence for/against that conclusion, it is due to faith, and should not be considered as rational

Bill Haywood

11-11-2006, 03:42 PM

Txaq07 wrote:

You defined faith as accepting things on no evidence. This is an incorrect definition. Faith, rather, means accepting things on no proof. So who is actually using a fake, tricky use of definitions?

John21 wrote:
I'm not sure the leaps are quite as far as you suggest, or the viewpoints quite as divergent.

From the two camps:
Scientist - I think, therefore I exist.
Creationsist - Existence exists, therefore it was created.

Both these posts miss the point. In the first post, I acknowledge that yes, in one narrow sense (starting principles) there is a similarity in scientific and religious faith.

But they are very different in day-to-day working methods of thinking. Scientists' belief changes as new evidence emerges. Creationists' explanation is static -- God did it.

Scientists once thought HommoSapiens emerged directly from Neanderthal. DNA evidence came in and showed they were not sequential, they diverged from a common ancestor.

Creationists say God did it.

Scientists said fish evolved lungs and limbs when they had to move from drying-out pool to new pool. More recent evidence showed that limbs and lungs developed before animals walked on land. Now scientists say lungs and limbs developed earlier so that critters could slink about in a shallow, low oxygen swamp.

Creationists say God did it.

These are very different ways of thinking, hence it is word games to equate them. If you are not going to address this basic distinction between religious and scientific faith, then there's not much point in continuing.

(Good god, can you believe the first word in [censored] sapiens is censored??)

John21

11-11-2006, 03:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You creationists lost in court in 1922.
Darrow beat Bryan in the Scopes' trial.

[/ QUOTE ]

The creation theory you're referring to has been abandoned by modern creationists. Just like the theory of the luminiferous ether has been abandoned by modern physicists and the use of leaches to remove humors has been abandoned by modern medicine.

Rather than bringing up antiquated theories, why don't you just say you know nothing about modern creation theory, and/or you don't care to know about it.

I apologize for my tone, and I'm not trying to be derisive. But if you don't know what you're talking about there's nothing wrong with admitting it. We can't know everything about everything.

I completely understand the frustration when dealing with a religionist who touts scripture as proof and completely ignores logic, proven science, reason and common sense. But to lump all theists and creationists into the same camp hardly seems fair.

txag007

11-11-2006, 04:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
faith can also be used as believing in something with no evidence...[our belief] is not a pure belief like the belief that some theists hold...where the evidence does not matter...

[/ QUOTE ]
There is evidence that supports the beliefs that christians hold, so the use of that definition is not applicable to this situation. Secondly, there has never been an archaelogical nor historical find that contradicts the Bible, so to say that the evidence does not matter to our beliefs cannot be considered accurate.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the real issue here is the word "belief"...in the scientific sense, we don't have "belief" like people do in the theistic sense...our "belief" is only as strong as the likelihood that the conclusion is correct..based on the evidence

[/ QUOTE ]
A question for you then: Is macro-evolution a fact?

[ QUOTE ]
I would say that when the strength of a conviction is not proportional to the evidence for/against that conclusion, it is due to faith, and should not be considered as rational

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. This thread isn't about whether or not christians rely on faith - we do. This thread is about whether or not believers in macro-evolution rely on a similarly defined faith. I believe you do. What do you think?

thylacine

11-11-2006, 04:06 PM

CREATIONIST ARITHMETIC:

O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO1=1

0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999=0

CREATIONIST LOGIC:

Same as above with true=1 and false=0.

Bill Haywood

11-11-2006, 04:11 PM

You creationists lost in court in 1922.
Darrow beat Bryan in the Scopes' trial.

Actually, Scopes was convicted and had to pay a $100 fine.

Yet another example of creationism relying on religious authority, not evidence and reason.

Bill Haywood

11-11-2006, 04:23 PM

there has never been an archaelogical nor historical find that contradicts the Bible

That's a howler, and true only if you reject all findings you don't like. To take one of many: layers of arctic ice go down 40,000 years. There is massive evidence of the antiquity of the earth.

Creationists do not handle evidence the way scientists do. Scientists fit theories to the data, creationists fit the data to the theory, cherry picking like mad. Creationism has the same scientific method as big foot believers and 911 conspiracy nuts.

This thread is about whether or not believers in macro-evolution rely on a similarly defined faith. I believe you do. What do you think?

I think you are dodging the distinction that has been clearly and repeatedly explained by several posters in several ways.

Prodigy54321

11-11-2006, 04:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is evidence that supports the beliefs that christians hold, so the use of that definition is not applicable to this situation. Secondly, there has never been an archaelogical nor historical find that contradicts the Bible, so to say that the evidence does not matter to our beliefs cannot be considered accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that there wasn't...

it is the purposeful disregard for evidence that I find to be dangerous....interpretation of evidence is another matter

[ QUOTE ]
A question for you then: Is macro-evolution a fact?

[/ QUOTE ]

a 100% proven fact?....no....it is pretty close to 100% to be know to have happened..and not known to have happpened in any other way...

but, no, not 100% proven IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. This thread isn't about whether or not christians rely on faith - we do. This thread is about whether or not believers in macro-evolution rely on a similarly defined faith. I believe you do. What do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) no one specified MACRO evolution..as a matter of fact, the OP seemed to focus only on the "life from nonlife" queston

2) again, you'll have to define "belief" and "faith" in a specific way in order for me to answer.

vhawk01

11-11-2006, 04:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You creationists lost in court in 1922.
Darrow beat Bryan in the Scopes' trial.

[/ QUOTE ]

The creation theory you're referring to has been abandoned by modern creationists. Just like the theory of the luminiferous ether has been abandoned by modern physicists and the use of leaches to remove humors has been abandoned by modern medicine.

Rather than bringing up antiquated theories, why don't you just say you know nothing about modern creation theory, and/or you don't care to know about it.

I apologize for my tone, and I'm not trying to be derisive. But if you don't know what you're talking about there's nothing wrong with admitting it. We can't know everything about everything.

I completely understand the frustration when dealing with a religionist who touts scripture as proof and completely ignores logic, proven science, reason and common sense. But to lump all theists and creationists into the same camp hardly seems fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference being of course that the ether theory was abandoned becase new evidence and new and better theories came along, while the old Creationist theory was abandoned because it lost its effectiveness in terms of rhetoric and swaying public opinion. The better analogy is to McCarthyism, not to old-fashioned scientific theories. And the new Creationism is the same as the old, just as "You are unpatriotic!" is the same as "You are a communist!"

John21

11-11-2006, 05:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Both these posts miss the point. In the first post, I acknowledge that yes, in one narrow sense (starting principles) there is a similarity in scientific and religious faith.

But they are very different in day-to-day working methods of thinking. Scientists' belief changes as new evidence emerges. Creationists' explanation is static -- God did it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bill,

Of course creationists are going to say God did it - that's the whole theory.

There's a strong belief within creationism that there is an underlying duality in the phenomena of existence, and from a metaphysical standpoint, it's akin to the wave-particle duality in physics.

So to create an analogy: To ask a creationist to leave out the statement "God did it" is the same as asking a physicist to leave out "time" when describing the wave like nature of a particle. It's an essential process to the theory, without which the theory wouldn't exist.

When examining a theory, I understand a person's reluctance to accepting as a fundamental axiom the existence of God or a creator. So maybe truth and accuracy would be better served by calling it the creation hypothesis.

And contrary to popular belief, the Holy Grail for alot of creationists isn't God - it's Creation. The idea that at a single point in space-time - One existence emerged, in a sea of mere possibility.

Of course if that discovery occurs some will say it's random chance and others will call it volition, but at least God gave us something to talk about. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

txag007

11-11-2006, 05:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
there has never been an archaelogical nor historical find that contradicts the Bible

That's a howler, and true only if you reject all findings you don't like. To take one of many: layers of arctic ice go down 40,000 years. There is massive evidence of the antiquity of the earth.

[/ QUOTE ]
And exactly how does that contradict the Bible?

John21

11-11-2006, 05:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The difference being of course that the ether theory was abandoned becase new evidence and new and better theories came along, while the old Creationist theory was abandoned because it lost its effectiveness in terms of rhetoric and swaying public opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

vhawk and others,
Do you understand that it doesn't matter to creationist theory whether the universe was created in 6 days or 14 billion years, anymore than it would matter to a physicist whether gravity was caused by a graviton or some other force/element?

I seem completely inept at getting this distinction across. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

FortunaMaximus

11-11-2006, 05:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The difference being of course that the ether theory was abandoned becase new evidence and new and better theories came along, while the old Creationist theory was abandoned because it lost its effectiveness in terms of rhetoric and swaying public opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

vhawk and others,
Do you understand that it doesn't matter to creationist theory whether the universe was created in 6 days or 14 billion years, anymore than it would matter to a physicist whether gravity was caused by a graviton or some other force/element?

I seem completely inept at getting this distinction across. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be because their prior assumptions of what creationism implies is set in, um, stone.

Anyway, for me personally, it was great reading. I'm not surprised that there are certain Catholics that are able to use logic and science to improve the Church's positions. It's always been thus.

Question, though, how do you think the apparent contrast between intelligent design and creation science comes into play here? It would seem a God who takes the stand of "I am, therefore I create." would at least be guilty of some aspects of intelligently designing elements.

vhawk01

11-11-2006, 06:00 PM

Bill Haywood

11-11-2006, 06:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there has never been an archaelogical nor historical find that contradicts the Bible

That's a howler, and true only if you reject all findings you don't like. To take one of many: layers of arctic ice go down 40,000 years. There is massive evidence of the antiquity of the earth.

[/ QUOTE ]
And exactly how does that contradict the Bible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you playing games? Well for starters, it proves age greater than 4-6,000. Also, we've measured growth of mountains and it is very slow. Yet sea fossils can be found on mountain tops. 6k or 100k is not enough time to push the fossils that high above sea level. So the earth is far older than creationists claim. Massive fossil evidence shows transitions from one form to another, hence no special creation a la the Bible. Here's a biological fact: males are modified females. You start with a female, add the Y chromosome, and you get a modified female with a pecker. The Y chromosome carries no information unrelated to sex. Therefore, Eve was not created out of Adam's rib. If anything, it was the reverse. No conceivable wood vessel could hold all the land animals that survived the flood. Could go on and on. "No archeological evidence contradicts the Bible" sounds like a chant at a Ken Ham lecture.

And we're still waiting to hear how the scientific process resembles daily faith in revealed word.

FortunaMaximus

11-11-2006, 06:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And we're still waiting to hear how the scientific process resembles daily faith in revealed word.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, maybe the fact it forms testable hypotheses? And the litmus test is death?

David Sklansky

11-11-2006, 06:26 PM

"This thread isn't about whether or not christians rely on faith - we do. This thread is about whether or not believers in macro-evolution rely on a similarly defined faith. I believe you do. What do you think?"

Neither you nor I have the right to have an opinion on this matter. Except in the case of scientists who say that evolution is a fact. Or perhaps a trillion to one favorite. But as far as those who peg it at lets say 99%, you can't argue unless you are either more knowlegeable about anthropology, molecular biology, or the subject of translating evidence into percentages.

Said differently, your whole point goes out the window if scientists simply met your objections by declaring evolution to be 99% to be true. And therefore those who put creationism as (objectively speaking) more than one or two percent, are flat out stupid people. Not quite the goal you are trying to achieve.

John21

11-11-2006, 06:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It doesnt matter to what type of creationist? I guarantee you I can find several creationists who will directly and unequivocally disagree with your statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no doubt you could. But I would classify them more as religionists who use creation theory to promote their own agenda. Kind of like the psychic who uses Bell's Interconnectedness Theorem to prove ESP.

John21

11-11-2006, 07:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Question, though, how do you think the apparent contrast between intelligent design and creation science comes into play here? It would seem a God who takes the stand of "I am, therefore I create." would at least be guilty of some aspects of intelligently designing elements.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not familiar enough with the inner workings of id to say for sure. But I don't really see its relevance to creation ex nihilo, so I'm not sure what the hubbub is all about.

Right or wrong I just assumed it was an attempt to exploit the vulnerability of evolution in regards to randomness and chance.

But I like this guys theory better:

"For all the recent advances in molecular biology, we still lack a convincing explanation of how self-organising and self-replicating entities originated. Stuart Kauffman enters this arena with a book that seeks to show that self-organising structures of great complexity can assemble themselves much more easily, and much more understandably, than previous intuition suggested . . . . Building on recent work in nonlinear mathematics, the idea at the heart of the book is truly important: even in vastly complicated interactive networks, a few simple rules can easily--if amazingly--lead to order and self-organised patterns and processes. This represents a major advance in understanding how the living world works." --Robert M. May, The Observer

Link to article (http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/zd-Ch.20.html)

Link to one of his books. Some good reviews and insight.
Stuart Kauffman amazon link (http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Order-Self-Organization-Selection-Evolution/dp/0195079515/sr=1-2/qid=1163285572/ref=sr_1_2/104-7611888-8348742?ie=UTF8&s=books)

jogsxyz

11-11-2006, 08:07 PM

The human brain is generally regarded as more capable of these higher order activities than that of any other known species.

In some other galaxy there may well be a species more capable than man. And their god will trump man's god.

MidGe

11-11-2006, 08:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
there has never been an archaelogical nor historical find that contradicts the Bible

[/ QUOTE ]

Another christian in denial! lol

vhawk01

11-11-2006, 09:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It doesnt matter to what type of creationist? I guarantee you I can find several creationists who will directly and unequivocally disagree with your statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no doubt you could. But I would classify them more as religionists who use creation theory to promote their own agenda. Kind of like the psychic who uses Bell's Interconnectedness Theorem to prove ESP.

[/ QUOTE ]

So then I guess my experienced is biased in the exact opposite way yours is, in that I don't know if I've met anyone who wasn't one of these 'religionists' or wasn't at least the victim of same. What other type of creationist is there? I'm defining creationism as being antithetical to evolution, because if our definitions are broad enough, I will just concede your point right now.

txag007

11-12-2006, 12:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Are you playing games?

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

[ QUOTE ]
Well for starters, it proves age greater than 4-6,000. Also, we've measured growth of mountains and it is very slow. Yet sea fossils can be found on mountain tops. 6k or 100k is not enough time to push the fossils that high above sea level. So the earth is far older than creationists claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Bible doesn't give the age of the Earth, so this is not a contradiction.

[ QUOTE ]
Massive fossil evidence shows transitions from one form to another, hence no special creation a la the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]
Massive? Really? Then let me ask you, Bill Haywood, the same question I asked Prodigy: Is macro-evolution a fact?

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a biological fact: males are modified females. You start with a female, add the Y chromosome, and you get a modified female with a pecker. The Y chromosome carries no information unrelated to sex. Therefore, Eve was not created out of Adam's rib. If anything, it was the reverse.

[/ QUOTE ]
If this is a proven contradiction to the Bible, then you should be able to answer the following question: How did chromosomes and DNA come into existence in the first place? And how did the modification from female to male take place? (And by the way, this is not evidence of an archaeological or historical find that contradicts the Bible.)

[ QUOTE ]
No conceivable wood vessel could hold all the land animals that survived the flood.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not evidence of an archaeological or historical find that contradicts the Bible.

[ QUOTE ]
Could go on and on. "No archeological evidence contradicts the Bible" sounds like a chant at a Ken Ham lecture.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm still waiting for the first example.

[ QUOTE ]
And we're still waiting to hear how the scientific process resembles daily faith in revealed word.

[/ QUOTE ]
I never said "the scientific process resembles daily faith in the revealed word." I'm specifically concerned with an individual's belief in how human life came into being: Is one's belief in macro-evolution based in the "faith" that what a scientist/the media/a professor/a textbook says is true or has that person personally investigated the evidence? And is a person's belief that the Bible is not true based on what a peer/the media/a professor/a book says or has that person personally investigated the evidence? I think one will find, if he strips away all of the preconceived notions and assumptions, that christianity is much more logical than most make it out to be.

txag007

11-12-2006, 01:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Neither you nor I have the right to have an opinion on this matter. Except in the case of scientists who say that evolution is a fact. Or perhaps a trillion to one favorite. But as far as those who peg it at lets say 99%, you can't argue unless you are either more knowlegeable about anthropology, molecular biology, or the subject of translating evidence into percentages.

[/ QUOTE ]
I see your point, so let me ask you this: How many people reading these boards are knowledgable enough in the subjects you mention to form an accurate opinion on the truth of macro-evolution? Or do many believe "on faith" that its true? So why then criticize christians for believing in the resurrection on a similarly defined faith?

txag007

11-12-2006, 01:17 AM

THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE BELIEFS THAT CHRISTIANS HOLD.

[ QUOTE ]
I never said that there wasn't...

[/ QUOTE ]
IS MACRO-EVOLUTION A FACT?

[ QUOTE ]
a 100% proven fact?....no....it is pretty close to 100% to be know to have happened..and not known to have happpened in any other way...but, no, not 100% proven IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
In other words, it's a theory.

So why demand proof of God's existence before choosing to believe in Him?

txag007

11-12-2006, 01:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there has never been an archaelogical nor historical find that contradicts the Bible

[/ QUOTE ]

Another christian in denial! lol

[/ QUOTE ]
Name one.

Lestat

11-12-2006, 01:22 AM

So why then criticize christians for believing in the resurrection on a similarly defined faith? 

I knew someone would bring this up. The answer (I think), is that while no one on here has the right to make assertive claims about the existence of god, we do have the statistical right to be opinionated about the existence of specific Gods and religions.

In other words, we can safely say it is considerably less than 50% that the Christian view of God (if a god exists), is correct.

FortunaMaximus

11-12-2006, 01:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE BELIEFS THAT CHRISTIANS HOLD.

[ QUOTE ]
I never said that there wasn't...

[/ QUOTE ]
IS MACRO-EVOLUTION A FACT?

[ QUOTE ]
a 100% proven fact?....no....it is pretty close to 100% to be know to have happened..and not known to have happpened in any other way...but, no, not 100% proven IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
In other words, it's a theory.

So why demand proof of God's existence before choosing to believe in Him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because there's methods and provable hypotheses when dealing with scientific theory.

As for God, that isn't testable by scientific rigor because the capability to do so is not there yet. There's a slight probability this will change later in our development.

If you were standing on a bridge, and someone told you they were cutting the hemp cords one by one, that it would be ok, that the stresses of a single cord can hold your weight until there's only one cord left, would you stand there and believe him or scamper for cover?

I'm actually interested in your answer to that question, because it does boil down to the same thing.

Lestat

11-12-2006, 01:41 AM

In other words, it's a theory. 

I hope we don't have to go through explaining "theories" again as they pertain to science. Scientific theories are not a pot luck guess. They are strong conjectures based on exceedingly reliable predictions and observations.

I've already conceded to you txag, that there is evidence for Christianity. But it is EXTREMELY weak evidence, because it is almost all based on ancient hearsay. There is nothing observable. There is nothing testable. There is nothing predictable about a theory of Christianity. It wouldn't last 30 seconds as a scientific theory.

Even if you did want to use (the very weak) evidence of things which are inexlicable such as self-awareness and first cause to posit the existence of a god, this does nothing to make the case for Christianity in particular.

Prodigy54321

11-12-2006, 02:02 AM

Prodigy54321

11-12-2006, 02:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Or do many believe "on faith" that its true? So why then criticize christians for believing in the resurrection on a similarly defined faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

how many times do we have to go over this...they are not the same types of "faith"

revots33

11-12-2006, 02:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This DOES NOT mean you agree that God was the cause, only that you must see that noone can KNOW the cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I didn't know better, I'd think a theist just admitted that noone can possibly know the ultimate cause of the universe.

Can we call off the holy war now?

FortunaMaximus

11-12-2006, 02:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or do many believe "on faith" that its true? So why then criticize christians for believing in the resurrection on a similarly defined faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

how many times do we have to go over this...they are not the same types of "faith"

[/ QUOTE ]

I always had this odd feeling a lot of Christians were stuck in a feedback loop. It's nice to confirm that, but... <groans>

Prodigy54321

11-12-2006, 02:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible doesn't give the age of the Earth, so this is not a contradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

depending on how you interpret it..it may be...

that's the beauty of the bible..whenever there is a discovery..like the discovery that the earth is much greater than 10,000 years old...

you can just interpret the bible in a different way...and "poof", no contradiction

[ QUOTE ]
I'm specifically concerned with an individual's belief in how human life came into being: Is one's belief in macro-evolution based in the "faith" that what a scientist/the media/a professor/a textbook says is true or has that person personally investigated the evidence? And is a person's belief that the Bible is not true based on what a peer/the media/a professor/a book says or has that person personally investigated the evidence? I think one will find, if he strips away all of the preconceived notions and assumptions, that christianity is much more logical than most make it out to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

dude, again...macroevolution does not contradict christianity...nothing can contradict christianity...it invokes the supernatural and is open to any interpretation

why be so afraid of evolution..you can just as easily twist your religion around it..as with all things that may contradict your religion

siegfriedandroy

11-12-2006, 06:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nous sommes tous mortels, et chacun est pour soi - Moliere.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

is this from the breakfast club?

Carded

11-12-2006, 06:55 AM

A few of you seem uncertain of what faith means with respect to Christianity. Christian faiths stems from the knowledge that Jesus Christ is God, therefore we accept his teachings without requiring Him to prove them to us to be true. We trust in his divine nature so we have faith in the truth of His teachings even if we are unable to understand them entirely. Teachings such as Love your enemy and bless those who wrongfully treat and misuse you, are counterintuitive responses and require faith to execute. Christian faith is based on the credibility of Jesus.

When I say, do you belief Evolution based on faith I mean it in a similar fashion. Have you accepted that Evolutionist are credible and therefore believe in faith that what they tell you is true?

MidGe

11-12-2006, 07:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
... Christian faiths stems from the knowledge that Jesus Christ is God...,

[/ QUOTE ]

No such thing.. replace with delusion!

siegfriedandroy

11-12-2006, 08:46 AM

you mean well, brother (kingpin), but you are conceding far too much. 'random chance explanations' do not suffice. none of these 'brains' show otherwise. it is laughable how foolish most of you are. none of you can think better than my friends 5yr old kid. peace

txag007

11-12-2006, 09:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or do many believe "on faith" that its true? So why then criticize christians for believing in the resurrection on a similarly defined faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

how many times do we have to go over this...they are not the same types of "faith"

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought we'd cleared (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=8014066&page=0&vc=1) that up. That's why I was careful to say "similarly defined" faith.

MidGe

11-12-2006, 09:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I thought we'd cleared that up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought we'd cleared up the inaccuracies in the bible too, with plenty of examples... See the
Skeptic Annoted Bible - Contradictions (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html)
Skeptic Annoted Bible - Interpretations Issues (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/by_book.html)
Skeptics Annoted Bible - Science (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html)

siegfriedandroy

11-12-2006, 09:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought we'd cleared that up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought we'd cleared up the inaccuracies in the bible too, with plenty of examples... See the
Skeptic Annoted Bible - Contradictions (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html)
Skeptic Annoted Bible - Interpretations Issues (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/by_book.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

hey clicked on the link, and read the one about God wanting some to go to heaven/hell. He wants all to be saved, but some He gave over to their wicked desires. there is no contradiction there. i am confused, have doubt, etc, etc, but God makes far more sense to me than no god

txag007

11-12-2006, 09:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, it's a theory. 

I hope we don't have to go through explaining "theories" again as they pertain to science. Scientific theories are not a pot luck guess. They are strong conjectures based on exceedingly reliable predictions and observations.

I've already conceded to you txag, that there is evidence for Christianity. But it is EXTREMELY weak evidence, because it is almost all based on ancient hearsay. There is nothing observable. There is nothing testable. There is nothing predictable about a theory of Christianity. It wouldn't last 30 seconds as a scientific theory.

Even if you did want to use (the very weak) evidence of things which are inexlicable such as self-awareness and first cause to posit the existence of a god, this does nothing to make the case for Christianity in particular.

[/ QUOTE ]
Go back to the OP. This thread isn't about christianity. It's about whether or not believers in evolution (macro - as it pertains to how we got here) are basing their beliefs in fact or in "faith".

txag007

11-12-2006, 09:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought we'd cleared that up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought we'd cleared up the inaccuracies in the bible too, with plenty of examples... See the
Skeptic Annoted Bible - Contradictions (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html)
Skeptic Annoted Bible - Interpretations Issues (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/by_book.html)
Skeptics Annoted Bible - Science (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html)

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to do a URL war. Pick one out, analyze it yourself, and then we can discuss it.

MidGe

11-12-2006, 09:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to do a URL war. Pick one out, analyze it yourself, and then we can discuss it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't expect you to. It would be like me quoting from the bible exclusively (hope you get the funny side of this). I just want to give as many people, as I can, an opportunity to read something that contradicts your statements about truth and bible interpretation, without having to repeat statements that you did not answer in any satisfactory manner.

siegfriedandroy

11-12-2006, 09:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"This thread isn't about whether or not christians rely on faith - we do. This thread is about whether or not believers in macro-evolution rely on a similarly defined faith. I believe you do. What do you think?"

Neither you nor I have the right to have an opinion on this matter. Except in the case of scientists who say that evolution is a fact. Or perhaps a trillion to one favorite. But as far as those who peg it at lets say 99%, you can't argue unless you are either more knowlegeable about anthropology, molecular biology, or the subject of translating evidence into percentages.

Said differently, your whole point goes out the window if scientists simply met your objections by declaring evolution to be 99% to be true. And therefore those who put creationism as (objectively speaking) more than one or two percent, are flat out stupid people. Not quite the goal you are trying to achieve.

[/ QUOTE ]

sklanksy hearts 'scientists'. i heart augustine and morphy. the 'scientists' were once dumb kids eventually inducted into a prevailing philosophy. thus we should defer all our God-given reason to their every whim and word. joke

FortunaMaximus

11-12-2006, 01:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nous sommes tous mortels, et chacun est pour soi - Moliere.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

is this from the breakfast club?

[/ QUOTE ]

Naw, just a dead Frenchman. This is from his "The School for Wives."

An English translation would go like, "for we are all mortal, and we live for ourselves."

Prodigy54321

11-12-2006, 01:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
A few of you seem uncertain of what faith means with respect to Christianity. Christian faiths stems from the knowledge that Jesus Christ is God, therefore we accept his teachings without requiring Him to prove them to us to be true. We trust in his divine nature so we have faith in the truth of His teachings even if we are unable to understand them entirely. Teachings such as Love your enemy and bless those who wrongfully treat and misuse you, are counterintuitive responses and require faith to execute. Christian faith is based on the credibility of Jesus.

[/ QUOTE ]

when I tell a christian that their belief is not sufficiently supported by evidence...they often admit that it is true..but say that it is a matter of faith...and they have faith that it is true...

this type of faith is not the same as the one used to come to the conclusion that evolution is very likely to be true.

ours is faith based on evidence that the experts and books are to be trusted..this evidence includes the fact that they are constantly checked by eachother as well as independent bodies..which mean that what they say is usually truthful..otherwise, there is an overwhelming chance that it will be caught by someone else...

the faith that christians use flies in the face of evidence..it is the purposeful ignorance of evidence that goes against their beliefs...

I'm sure christians also use the type of faith that we use in some ways...if you want to define faith that way..then fine..I agree that we use a similar type of faith is coming to our conclusions...and it is perfectly rational..

but don't just ignore the fact that christians also use a different kind of faith..this kind is NOT the kind that I use for coming to conclusions..and is it a dangerous way of coming to conclusions.

[ QUOTE ]
When I say, do you belief Evolution based on faith I mean it in a similar fashion. Have you accepted that Evolutionist are credible and therefore believe in faith that what they tell you is true?

[/ QUOTE ]

as I said above, if using the definition of just one of the types of faith that christians use, yes.

Prodigy54321

11-12-2006, 01:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or do many believe "on faith" that its true? So why then criticize christians for believing in the resurrection on a similarly defined faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

how many times do we have to go over this...they are not the same types of "faith"

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought we'd cleared (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=8014066&page=0&vc=1) that up. That's why I was careful to say "similarly defined" faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

"similarly" is a stretch..they don't share much in common for our purposes.

CityFan

11-12-2006, 01:31 PM

Third group: I understand the principle of evolution and it offers me a sensible explanation of the world I see around me. I do not take it on FAITH, but based on my own reasoning. Even so, while it is the best explanation available, and a very convincing one, I accept that it MAY be flawed.

Where does this idea come from that you have to believe something either just because you were told it as fact (faith) or as the result of some rigorous scientific experiment? Is there no room for using our BRAINS to make decisions?

vhawk01

11-12-2006, 01:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Third group: I understand the principle of evolution and it offers me a sensible explanation of the world I see around me. I do not take it on FAITH, but based on my own reasoning. Even so, while it is the best explanation available, and a very convincing one, I accept that it MAY be flawed.

Where does this idea come from that you have to believe something either just because you were told it as fact (faith) or as the result of some rigorous scientific experiment? Is there no room for using our BRAINS to make decisions?

[/ QUOTE ]

It comes from dishonest people who like to use false dichotomies as a rhetorical tool to bludgeon people with.

txag007

11-12-2006, 02:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I just want to give as many people, as I can, an opportunity to read something that contradicts your statements about truth and bible interpretation

[/ QUOTE ]
Every one of those "contradictions" can be easily explained by anyone truly searching (http://www.google.com) for the truth.

CityFan

11-12-2006, 02:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
the 'scientists' were once dumb kids eventually inducted into a prevailing philosophy. thus we should defer all our God-given reason to their every whim and word. joke

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the scientists were the smart kids. The dumb kids could never discern between a logical argument and load of old stories.

txag007

11-12-2006, 02:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
when I tell a christian that their belief is not sufficiently supported by evidence...the faith that christians use flies in the face of evidence...it is the purposeful ignorance of evidence that goes against their beliefs...

[/ QUOTE ]
Of what evidence that goes against out beliefs are we ignoring? Please, by all means, share it.

txag007

11-12-2006, 02:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Third group: I understand the principle of evolution and it offers me a sensible explanation of the world I see around me. I do not take it on FAITH, but based on my own reasoning. Even so, while it is the best explanation available, and a very convincing one, I accept that it MAY be flawed.

Where does this idea come from that you have to believe something either just because you were told it as fact (faith) or as the result of some rigorous scientific experiment? Is there no room for using our BRAINS to make decisions?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you are not doing the experiments and calculations yourself, your reasoning at some level is based on trust, is it not? That's what the OP is talking about.

vhawk01

11-12-2006, 02:42 PM

Prodigy54321

11-12-2006, 02:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when I tell a christian that their belief is not sufficiently supported by evidence...the faith that christians use flies in the face of evidence...it is the purposeful ignorance of evidence that goes against their beliefs...

[/ QUOTE ]
Of what evidence that goes against out beliefs are we ignoring? Please, by all means, share it.

[/ QUOTE ]

all evidence for opposing religions..the errors in the bible, the logical imcompatibilities, etc...

but that is not the point...all of the above wouldn't be accepted by you as "going against christianity".....there really is no evidence that can go against such a flexible belief...any piece of evidence that I introduce can be "explained" as supporting christianity...just as it can with many other religions...

beliefs are had because of evidence FOR that belief..not lack of evidence against it..especially when there can be no evidence against it.

and as I said before, it is not the interpretation of evidence that the problem....it is the PURPOSEFUL ignorance of evidence...

evidence does not suggest that god heals people when they pray to him...yet many people have "faith" anyway...

now you would say that there is no way to prove that god doesn't heal people..but the evidence does not suggest it...whereas it does suggest other ways that people are healed...it is type of faith that makes people pray when they are ill that is NOT the one that I use to come to the conclusion that evolution is overwhelmingly likely to be correct.

and I'll say it again..it is no surprise that an unfalsifiable theory is not falsified..

you seem to think that the fact that your theory is not shown to be false increases its strength...but this is only true of falsifiable theories.

txag007

11-12-2006, 03:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when I tell a christian that their belief is not sufficiently supported by evidence...the faith that christians use flies in the face of evidence...it is the purposeful ignorance of evidence that goes against their beliefs...

[/ QUOTE ]
Of what evidence that goes against out beliefs are we ignoring? Please, by all means, share it.

[/ QUOTE ]

all evidence for opposing religions..the errors in the bible, the logical imcompatibilities, etc...

[/ QUOTE ]
Please, Prodigy, be more specific. Exactly what evidence are we ignoring? I'm starting to get the strange feeling that you haven't looked at the evidence all too closely...

[ QUOTE ]
but that is not the point...

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure it is. Did you not just say, "it is the purposeful ignorance of evidence that goes against their beliefs..."?
What evidence are we ignoring?

[ QUOTE ]
all of the above wouldn't be accepted by you as "going against christianity".....there really is no evidence that can go against such a flexible belief...any piece of evidence that I introduce can be "explained" as supporting christianity...

[/ QUOTE ]
You won't find many critics these days accusing christians of being too flexible in their beliefs! As a christian, prodigy, I believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, born of a virgin, who died for my sins and the sins of mankind, rose again on the third day after his crucifixion, appeared alive many times and to over 500 people at once, and ascended into heaven. These are the core beliefs of christianity. If any of these beliefs can be proven false, christianity falls. What evidence am I ignoring?

[ QUOTE ]
beliefs are had because of evidence FOR that belief..not lack of evidence against it..especially when there can be no evidence against it.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is plenty of evidence for each of the beliefs I just described.

[ QUOTE ]
you seem to think that the fact that your theory is not shown to be false increases its strength...

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you agree with the following statement:

[ QUOTE ]
In other words I agree that to pronounce the Bible false one must believe a MASSIVE amount of "cooperation" over centuries took place. An amount FAR IN EXCESS of any other fudging of data known to man.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes or no?

Prodigy54321

11-12-2006, 03:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Please, Prodigy, be more specific. Exactly what evidence are we ignoring? I'm starting to get the strange feeling that you haven't looked at the evidence all too closely...

[/ QUOTE ]

start with the story of when and how the universe was created...

the evidence points to......no

[ QUOTE ]
You won't find many critics these days accusing christians of being too flexible in their beliefs! As a christian, prodigy, I believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, born of a virgin, who died for my sins and the sins of mankind, rose again on the third day after his crucifixion, appeared alive many times and to over 500 people at once, and ascended into heaven. These are the core beliefs of christianity. If any of these beliefs can be proven false, christianity falls. What evidence am I ignoring?

[/ QUOTE ]

christianity isn't flexible??? the equality of men and women...slavery...the interpretation of genesis, among others...the dismissal of the rules of the old testament..the fact that recommended punishments for certain deeds are ignored..

and so on and so on.

why isn't the story of genesis's accuracy in your list??? I would say that it because of your flexibility...it would have been considered as truth before the age of the earth was pretty conclusively shown to be much older and developed differently than the bible suggests.

or the fact that humans were not made independently of other animals..but rather slowly evolved from lower species..

[ QUOTE ]
There is plenty of evidence for each of the beliefs I just described.

[/ QUOTE ]

there can be no evidence against them

[ QUOTE ]
Do you agree with the following statement:

[ QUOTE ]
In other words I agree that to pronounce the Bible false one must believe a MASSIVE amount of "cooperation" over centuries took place. An amount FAR IN EXCESS of any other fudging of data known to man.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

no...if it is possible for other religions..it is possible for yours as well...you can't have it both ways

FortunaMaximus

11-12-2006, 04:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you were standing on a bridge, and someone told you they were cutting the hemp cords one by one, that it would be ok, that the stresses of a single cord can hold your weight until there's only one cord left, would you stand there and believe him or scamper for cover?

I'm actually interested in your answer to that question, because it does boil down to the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come now, txag. Man up to the bar, don't dodge this simplistic example. I'd be very disappointed in hypocrisy. You have the strength in your faith to stand and stare at the fella placidly? I'm hopin' you do and it isn't out of fanaticism. You stick by your beliefs as well as any man I've known. How about it?

Turn Prophet

11-12-2006, 08:32 PM

One thing I think people are getting hung up on is the semantic interpretation of "faith." I would say that there is a difference, perhaps only of degree, in having "faith" the sun will rise tomorrow, and in having "faith" that there is an omniscient, omnipotent, moral God who causes miracles and the like. Likewise, there is a definite difference (again, perhaps only a difference of degree) in trusting the information of a biologist who says, "evolution is a scientific fact (so near as can be such a thing), and I can show you concrete evidence for it; I can reproduce experiments of biology and genetics that make it a near certainty" versus trusting the information of a pastor who says, "I know there is a God, and I know what that God is like because this book told me. It was written by a small number of people who cannot prove or recreate their observations. You must take it entirely on faith."

Also, I'd like to remind people that the inference of a Creator-God has nothing to say about the nature of that God. Even if you assume there is strong evidence that there was a Creator, why do you assume it to be the Christian God, and not any of the thousands manifestations of deities that mankind has believed in throughout the ages?

Thirdly, there was, a while back, a number of arguments proceeding from the fallacy, "the cause of X must be X-like." Ie, the cause of life must be life-like; it could not be non-life. Or, the cause of intelligence must be intelligent; ie God. But this is not logically true. The "cause" of green paint is blue paint mixed with yellow paint, neither of which are "green-like". Animal manure causes fruit trees to grow better--fruit is sometimes delicious, but animal manure certainly is not! (Shermer)

jogsxyz

11-12-2006, 09:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Or do many believe "on faith" that its true? So why then criticize christians for believing in the resurrection on a similarly defined faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt the resurrection. Weren't many buried alive 2000 years ago? The doctors of that period didn't know if a person was dead or alive. Jesus was likely to have never been dead.

Carded

11-13-2006, 12:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The "cause" of green paint is blue paint mixed with yellow paint, neither of which are "green-like". Animal manure causes fruit trees to grow better--fruit is sometimes delicious, but animal manure certainly is not! (Shermer)

[/ QUOTE ]
I am pretty amused by the arguments.

The claim that neither blue paint nor yellow paint are green like is quite odd to me. Frankly, the man who stated this sounds a bit uneducated in Science. Firstly, the appearance of color is due to the reflection of a specific wavelength of white light. So the appearance of Yellow in paint is because the properties in paint reflect light with the wavelength of around 560 nanometers. For the appearance of blue the properties of the paint reflect light at a wavelength around 440 nanometers. It doesn’t take a genius to guess what is going to happen if you mix two such substances together. Yep, the properties in the paint that reflect the wavelength of light goes to a wavelength between the two paints like 500 nanometers pending on the ratio of the two, which is of course the wavelength for green. So basically, his arguments boils down to reflected 560 nanometers wave lengths and reflected 440 nanometer waves lengths are not like reflect 500 nanometer wavelengths. His argument is ridicules.

As far as his fruit tree and manure argument is way off any reasonable basis for comparisons. Trees do not require manure to make fruit. Many other factors are involved in the resulting of good fruit such as, water, light, and minerals... Nor has he shown that the specific compound that creates distaste in manure is utilized in the fruit process.

Turn Prophet

11-13-2006, 12:25 AM

The paint example has nothing to do with numbers. It is merely a qualitative description--blue and yellow make green BECAUSE of the properties of light (very good), but neither of them are "green-like," which would be a meaningless statement.

The manure example does not say that manure causes fruit. It's an analogy to point out the absurdity of certain types of causal arguments.

Rather than trying to pick apart the semantics of very rudimentary analogies, give me one reason why "the cause of X must be X-like" is not a fallacy?

luckyme

11-13-2006, 12:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The "cause" of green paint is blue paint mixed with yellow paint, neither of which are "green-like". Animal manure causes fruit trees to grow better--fruit is sometimes delicious, but animal manure certainly is not! (Shermer)

[/ QUOTE ]
I am pretty amused by the arguments.

The claim that neither blue paint nor yellow paint are green like is quite odd to me. Frankly, the man who stated this sounds a bit uneducated in Science. Firstly, the appearance of color is due to the reflection of a specific wavelength of white light. So the appearance of Yellow in paint is because the properties in paint reflect light with the wavelength of around 560 nanometers. For the appearance of blue the properties of the paint reflect light at a wavelength around 440 nanometers. It doesn’t take a genius to guess what is going to happen if you mix two such substances together. Yep, the properties in the paint that reflect the wavelength of light goes to a wavelength between the two paints like 500 nanometers pending on the ratio of the two, which is of course the wavelength for green. So basically, his arguments boils down to reflected 560 nanometers wave lengths and reflected 440 nanometer waves lengths are not like reflect 500 nanometer wavelengths. His argument is ridicules.

As far as his fruit tree and manure argument is way off any reasonable basis for comparisons. Trees do not require manure to make fruit. Many other factors are involved in the resulting of good fruit such as, water, light, and minerals... Nor has he shown that the specific compound that creates distaste in manure is utilized in the fruit process.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to transfer this to the thread on analogies and examples, it's captures a good part of what I was trying point to.

luckyme

Carded

11-13-2006, 01:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The paint example has nothing to do with numbers. It is merely a qualitative description--blue and yellow make green BECAUSE of the properties of light (very good), but neither of them are "green-like," which would be a meaningless statement.

The manure example does not say that manure causes fruit. It's an analogy to point out the absurdity of certain types of causal arguments.

Rather than trying to pick apart the semantics of very rudimentary analogies, give me one reason why "the cause of X must be X-like" is not a fallacy?

[/ QUOTE ]

The arguments are terrible. Whatever mysterious idea “green like” is nonsense. Green is reflected wavelength, so is ever other color a reflected wavelength of light. Perceived color is nothing more than a specific wavelength reflection of white light, green, blue and yellow whatever other color are all the same in likeness. Perhaps your own human perception of sight fools you into thinking they are not a like, well too bad.

As far as the form the cause of X must be like X. I am not saying it’s not a fallacy. I am just stating, those arguments are poor. Not to mention providing such a statement would require showing that it’s true for all cases.

Sephus

11-13-2006, 01:52 AM

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7581/06iy8.gif

CityFan

11-13-2006, 10:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Third group: I understand the principle of evolution and it offers me a sensible explanation of the world I see around me. I do not take it on FAITH, but based on my own reasoning. Even so, while it is the best explanation available, and a very convincing one, I accept that it MAY be flawed.

Where does this idea come from that you have to believe something either just because you were told it as fact (faith) or as the result of some rigorous scientific experiment? Is there no room for using our BRAINS to make decisions?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you are not doing the experiments and calculations yourself, your reasoning at some level is based on trust, is it not? That's what the OP is talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, okay, I have never looked at a DNA molecule under an electron microscope. On that basis, I have to have a certain amount of faith that I am not just being LIED to.

You can't invent the whole of modern science for yourself from scratch though; it is the result of centuries of intelligent inquiry. Even the greatest scientists only work in their own narrow areas. You have to accept and trust summaries of other people's work, and yes there is a certain kind of faith in that, but in my opinion it's not the same faith that the OP describes.

As for evolution: it doesn't exactly rely on a load of detailed calculations that could be buried in a journal. Darwin described a possible mechanism for the development of species, and it is up to the individual to think about the mechanism and decide whether it makes sense.

Having read Darwin's ideas, I no longer need faith in the man to pass judgement on his theory. I have all the information available that he had, and I can make my own mind up.

bocablkr

11-13-2006, 12:39 PM

I believe in evolution based on:

- Evidence from comparative anatomy
- Evidence from comparative embryology
- Evidence from geographical distribution
- Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
- Evidence from Immunology and Pesticide Resistence
- Evidence from studies of complex iteration
- Evidence from speciation

Carded

11-13-2006, 03:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I believe in evolution based on:

- Evidence from comparative anatomy
- Evidence from comparative embryology
- Evidence from geographical distribution
- Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
- Evidence from Immunology and Pesticide Resistence
- Evidence from studies of complex iteration
- Evidence from speciation

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like you have really been busy. Share with us one your first hand findings you made in one of those subjects.

vhawk01

11-13-2006, 05:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe in evolution based on:

- Evidence from comparative anatomy
- Evidence from comparative embryology
- Evidence from geographical distribution
- Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
- Evidence from Immunology and Pesticide Resistence
- Evidence from studies of complex iteration
- Evidence from speciation

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like you have really been busy. Share with us one your first hand findings you made in one of those subjects.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm...you really are opening a can of worms, don't you think? Care to share with us any first-hand experience of ANYTHING you have EVER had? I mean, you are just trusting your cones and rods to be accurately reporting what they receive (something they have been known to lie about) aren't you?

And of course its absurd. We needn't 'trust' scientists in any real way. We need simply weigh the likelihood of an entire group of scientists publishing reams of articles in an effort to support a particular theory, risking the potential discredidation from anyone who didn't share their agenda, and assign it a probability. If we are unsure of exactly how high to assign this probability, we can, if we wish, randomly select some paper and attempt to recreate or reproduce the results. If we find it impossible to do, continuing in this vein will lead to a huge increase in the probability of the fraud hypothesis. I feel comfortable assigning a fairly low probability to the fraud hypothesis as applied to many rigorous scientific theories (i.e. ToE), at the very least orders of magnitude lower than the probability of it being an accurate theory of reality. If you disagree with my probabilities you are more than welcome to formulate your own.

Which of the papers, experiments or articles have you shown to be shams, I must ask?

bocablkr

11-13-2006, 05:48 PM

vhawk01

11-13-2006, 05:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe in evolution based on:

- Evidence from comparative anatomy
- Evidence from comparative embryology
- Evidence from geographical distribution
- Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
- Evidence from Immunology and Pesticide Resistence
- Evidence from studies of complex iteration
- Evidence from speciation

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like you have really been busy. Share with us one your first hand findings you made in one of those subjects.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are implying that I just picked these topics out of a website without actually researching them you are mistaken. I have been a interested in science since I was a little boy. I have taken many, many science courses in college (mostly A's) and continue to constantly read scientific literature and keep up with the latest news. I have read examples of all of the above topics pertaining to evolution and find them very compelling. My knowledge of general chemistry, organic chemistry, biology, physics and genetics gives me greater understanding to those arguments.

Feel free to research them yourself and present us with any of the evidence you find hard to understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats obviously not enough, because its only a matter of degree more than what I have done, and thats only a matter of degree more than what any random person has done, and therefore, since a random person is only accepting evolution based on faith, so are you, boca, only to a lesser degree. Until you have replicated and observed all of the results and outcomes that currently support the Theory of Evolution you might as well get out your prayer mat to the Great Lord Darwin.

thylacine

11-13-2006, 06:32 PM

jogsxyz said: [ QUOTE ]

I doubt the resurrection. Weren't many buried alive 2000 years ago? The doctors of that period didn't know if a person was dead or alive. Jesus was likely to have never been dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus was likely to have never been ALIVE in the first place .

[/ QUOTE ]

bocablkr

11-13-2006, 06:38 PM

I would argue my college and post college education is far greater than the 'average' joe. However, based on your definition almost everything has to be taken as faith seeing how much of it is untested or replicated by the average man.

I truly doubt that your 'education' level or understanding is just degrees less than mine. If that was so I find it hard to believe that you would question any of the items in my list. They are quite convincing in their own right and when taken in total quite compelling. Note this is not a knock on your intelligence - just questioning your knowledge in the basic sciences that are required to understand evolution properly.

CityFan

11-13-2006, 06:46 PM

I think vhawk's post was tongue-in-cheek

thylacine

11-13-2006, 06:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think vhawk's post was tongue-in-cheek

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is. Hey bocablkr, I'm sure vhawk01 is 100% with you on this. Reread his post with sarcasm detector on full alert. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

bocablkr

11-13-2006, 07:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think vhawk's post was tongue-in-cheek

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is. Hey bocablkr, I'm sure vhawk01 is 100% with you on this. Reread his post with sarcasm detector on full alert. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I apologize - I am doing 10 things at once and not reading as carefully as I should be - thanks.

thylacine

11-13-2006, 07:11 PM

thylacine SAID:[ QUOTE ]
CREATIONIST ARITHMETIC:

O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO1=1

0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999=0

CREATIONIST LOGIC:

Same as above with true=1 and false=0.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey OP="Carded"! You know perfectly well I've totally figured you out with what I am saying here. It is very easy to see through you creationists' ridiculous ploys. But you keep doing them anyway.

What have you got to say for yourself "Carded". You owe an explanation.

txag007

11-13-2006, 07:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
jogsxyz said: [ QUOTE ]

I doubt the resurrection. Weren't many buried alive 2000 years ago? The doctors of that period didn't know if a person was dead or alive. Jesus was likely to have never been dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus was likely to have never been ALIVE in the first place .

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Just a few non-biblical writers and historians who reference Jesus in their writings:

Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (born 52-54 A.D.)

Lucian of Samosata (lived in 2nd century)

Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born 37 A.D.)

Gentile writer Thallus (writing in 52 A.D.)

Phlegon (first century historian)

Justin Martyr (writing in 150 A.D.)

Tubes

11-13-2006, 07:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
even trust is essentially a weighting of the probabilities

[/ QUOTE ]

Faith is what you know without weighting. Don't leave home without it.

arahant

11-13-2006, 07:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Every one of those "contradictions" can be easily explained by anyone truly searching for the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously?
I've read the bible, but not with an eye toward picking out contradictions. I found this list surprising, but as near as i can tell, almost wholly accurate.

The link to google was useful. I hadn't heard of google before. Unfortunately, it didn't help me find the explanation for any of the first 5 contradictions. I mean, let's just start with #1...what's the deal? 300 or 800? Is the 'explanation' that whenever there is a contradiction, one statement is wrong? If so, exactly how am I to have belief in the bible as a whole? How do i decide which statements to believe in?

FortunaMaximus

11-13-2006, 09:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (born 52-54 A.D.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Good enough for me.

Even if he was a Cornelian.

txag007

11-13-2006, 11:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every one of those "contradictions" can be easily explained by anyone truly searching for the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously?
I've read the bible, but not with an eye toward picking out contradictions. I found this list surprising, but as near as i can tell, almost wholly accurate.

The link to google was useful. I hadn't heard of google before. Unfortunately, it didn't help me find the explanation for any of the first 5 contradictions. I mean, let's just start with #1...what's the deal? 300 or 800? Is the 'explanation' that whenever there is a contradiction, one statement is wrong? If so, exactly how am I to have belief in the bible as a whole? How do i decide which statements to believe in?

[/ QUOTE ]
Many a potential explanation can be found for #1 can be found here. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q="1+Chronicles+11%3A11""2+Samuel+23%3A8")

Prodigy54321

11-13-2006, 11:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every one of those "contradictions" can be easily explained by anyone truly searching for the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously?
I've read the bible, but not with an eye toward picking out contradictions. I found this list surprising, but as near as i can tell, almost wholly accurate.

The link to google was useful. I hadn't heard of google before. Unfortunately, it didn't help me find the explanation for any of the first 5 contradictions. I mean, let's just start with #1...what's the deal? 300 or 800? Is the 'explanation' that whenever there is a contradiction, one statement is wrong? If so, exactly how am I to have belief in the bible as a whole? How do i decide which statements to believe in?

[/ QUOTE ]
Many a potential explanation can be found for #1 can be found here. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q="1+Chronicles+11%3A11""2+Samuel+23%3A8")

[/ QUOTE ]

to everyone in this conversation

I will be starting a thread on friday I think..for supposed contradictions, errors, etc. in the bible, qur'an, and any other holy book you like...

FWIW..many of the supposed contradictions and errors on the skeptics annotated bible site have good explainations..

they have links to christian rebuttal's on the site..which is very respectable IMO

these explainations do not mean that they are definitely correct...

also, some of the reasons are just postulation... such as explaination of why genesis is not accurate of the truth...these types of things really can't be evaluated as true or false..and christianity can really make this so of any contradiction or error...

but overall, many of the biblical contradictions and errors I have looked at have very reasonable, and IMO likely correct explainations.

Carded

11-14-2006, 05:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I would argue my college and post college education is far greater than the 'average' joe. However, based on your definition almost everything has to be taken as faith seeing how much of it is untested or replicated by the average man.

I truly doubt that your 'education' level or understanding is just degrees less than mine. If that was so I find it hard to believe that you would question any of the items in my list. They are quite convincing in their own right and when taken in total quite compelling. Note this is not a knock on your intelligence - just questioning your knowledge in the basic sciences that are required to understand evolution properly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Appealing to authority is a fallacy. The fact you are doing so shows your inability or unwillingness to apply simple critical thinking skills in discussion. So whatever education you may or may not have it does no good if you are unable or unwilling to apply it.

Frankly, I doubt the ability of biologist/evolutionist to comprehend science or reason analytically. The evolutionary arguments I have encountered are all the same, in short it follows the pattern we have so much proof, trust me.

The closest thing to an argument I got from a professor concerning the dating of a fossil was this: Pointing to a picture of a fossil, this fossil is 2 million years old. How do you know the fossil’s age? Well we found another fossil in the soil near it that is 2 million years old. Well how did you know that one is 2 million years old? Well, we know cause that specious only lived 2 million years ago based on our evolutionary tree. Okay, then your basis for dating the fossil is on the assumption that your evolutionary tree is correct. How do you know your tree is accurate? Well, we have this fossil here is dated at 2 million years. Yeah, but that’s circular reasoning, you could arbitrarily put in number of years of age using that method. Silence.

bunny

11-14-2006, 05:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The closest thing to an argument I got from a professor concerning the dating of a fossil was this: Pointing to a picture of a fossil, this fossil is 2 million years old. How do you know the fossil’s age? Well we found another fossil in the soil near it that is 2 million years old. Well how did you know that one is 2 million years old? Well, we know cause that specious only lived 2 million years ago based on our evolutionary tree. Okay, then your basis for dating the fossil is on the assumption that your evolutionary tree is correct. How do you know your tree is accurate? Well, we have this fossil here is dated at 2 million years. Yeah, but that’s circular reasoning, you could arbitrarily put in number of years of age using that method. Silence.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised this argument silenced a professor.

You couldnt put in any age (100 years wouldnt work for example, since geologists' theories of landscape formation or the results of carbon dating wouldnt match up).

The point is it all hangs together with other theories which were developed separately - ie carbon dating of the soil the fossils were found in, geological theories as to formation of the area and how long it all took. These werent cobbled together to support the fossil's claimed age - they were independantly arrived at because they fitted facts in disparate fields and then, lo and behold, they also fit with the age of the fossils arrived at through genealogical theories. These theories all agree, even though they were arrived at largely independantly.

CityFan

11-14-2006, 06:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, I doubt the ability of biologist/evolutionist to comprehend science or reason analytically. The evolutionary arguments I have encountered are all the same, in short it follows the pattern we have so much proof, trust me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you for real? Have you actually thought about the theory of evolution? Does it not sound to you like a plausible explanation for the development of species? Can you not make a judgement based on the evidence of your eyes?

It is a theory after all, but since no-one has suggested a better one...

PS there are lots of ways to date a fossil too. Carbon dating being one example.

Magic_Man

11-14-2006, 09:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would argue my college and post college education is far greater than the 'average' joe. However, based on your definition almost everything has to be taken as faith seeing how much of it is untested or replicated by the average man.

I truly doubt that your 'education' level or understanding is just degrees less than mine. If that was so I find it hard to believe that you would question any of the items in my list. They are quite convincing in their own right and when taken in total quite compelling. Note this is not a knock on your intelligence - just questioning your knowledge in the basic sciences that are required to understand evolution properly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Appealing to authority is a fallacy. The fact you are doing so shows your inability or unwillingness to apply simple critical thinking skills in discussion. So whatever education you may or may not have it does no good if you are unable or unwilling to apply it.

Frankly, I doubt the ability of biologist/evolutionist to comprehend science or reason analytically. The evolutionary arguments I have encountered are all the same, in short it follows the pattern we have so much proof, trust me.

The closest thing to an argument I got from a professor concerning the dating of a fossil was this: Pointing to a picture of a fossil, this fossil is 2 million years old. How do you know the fossil’s age? Well we found another fossil in the soil near it that is 2 million years old. Well how did you know that one is 2 million years old? Well, we know cause that specious only lived 2 million years ago based on our evolutionary tree. Okay, then your basis for dating the fossil is on the assumption that your evolutionary tree is correct. How do you know your tree is accurate? Well, we have this fossil here is dated at 2 million years. Yeah, but that’s circular reasoning, you could arbitrarily put in number of years of age using that method. Silence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Silence. Are you serious? Maybe it's because he was taking a deep breath and calming himself so as not to offend you when he started laughing out loud in your face. There are many, many ways to date a fossil. Carbon dating, tree rings, potassium-argon dating, stratigraphy, fission-track dating, alpha-recoil, obsidian hydration, thermoluminescence, analyzing magnetic fields, racemization. There are more. Scientists use multiple methods and cross-check the results against each other.

If you'd actually like to learn something about it, rather than spout silly anecdotes about how you completely confounded a scientist by showing how his assumptions are circular, check out this primer on dating methods (http://archaeology.about.com/cs/datingtechniques/a/timing.htm), or search google for "absolute dating methods."

~MagicMan

bocablkr

11-14-2006, 10:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There are many, many ways to date a fossil. Carbon dating, tree rings, potassium-argon dating, stratigraphy, fission-track dating, alpha-recoil, obsidian hydration, thermoluminescence, analyzing magnetic fields, racemization. There are more. Scientists use multiple methods and cross-check the results against each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice job Magic,

There are actually a few methods mentioned there that I am unfamiliar with - guess it time for a little more research.

madnak

11-14-2006, 12:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would argue my college and post college education is far greater than the 'average' joe. However, based on your definition almost everything has to be taken as faith seeing how much of it is untested or replicated by the average man.

I truly doubt that your 'education' level or understanding is just degrees less than mine. If that was so I find it hard to believe that you would question any of the items in my list. They are quite convincing in their own right and when taken in total quite compelling. Note this is not a knock on your intelligence - just questioning your knowledge in the basic sciences that are required to understand evolution properly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Appealing to authority is a fallacy. The fact you are doing so shows your inability or unwillingness to apply simple critical thinking skills in discussion. So whatever education you may or may not have it does no good if you are unable or unwilling to apply it.

Frankly, I doubt the ability of biologist/evolutionist to comprehend science or reason analytically. The evolutionary arguments I have encountered are all the same, in short it follows the pattern we have so much proof, trust me.

The closest thing to an argument I got from a professor concerning the dating of a fossil was this: Pointing to a picture of a fossil, this fossil is 2 million years old. How do you know the fossil&#8217;s age? Well we found another fossil in the soil near it that is 2 million years old. Well how did you know that one is 2 million years old? Well, we know cause that specious only lived 2 million years ago based on our evolutionary tree. Okay, then your basis for dating the fossil is on the assumption that your evolutionary tree is correct. How do you know your tree is accurate? Well, we have this fossil here is dated at 2 million years. Yeah, but that&#8217;s circular reasoning, you could arbitrarily put in number of years of age using that method. Silence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gape.

You have to be a gimmick account.

luckyme

11-14-2006, 12:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The closest thing to an argument I got from a professor concerning the dating of a fossil was this: Pointing to a picture of a fossil, this fossil is 2 million years old. How do you know the fossil&#8217;s age? Well we found another fossil in the soil near it that is 2 million years old. Well how did you know that one is 2 million years old? Well, we know cause that specious only lived 2 million years ago based on our evolutionary tree. Okay, then your basis for dating the fossil is on the assumption that your evolutionary tree is correct. How do you know your tree is accurate? Well, we have this fossil here is dated at 2 million years. Yeah, but that&#8217;s circular reasoning, you could arbitrarily put in number of years of age using that method. Silence.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Gape.

You have to be a gimmick account.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been trying to figure out if it's Txg, NR, Sar, etc, I don't have one of those phrase useage comparison programs, so just going on the type of 'argument' used. Seems like on of the fundies wanting to try a non-religious attack on logic and their science background seems about as weak.

luckyme

Magic_Man

11-14-2006, 12:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
... personally constructed and or see first hand an experiment reproducing the exact conditions of early earth. I watched the elements in that closed environment come together by themselves and form life. I don't need faith Evolution is true, I have seen life create itself from non-life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have only thoroughly read about half the replies so far, so maybe someone covered this already. What you describe has little/nothing to do with the classic "Theory of Evolution." Evolution describes the process of species changing over time to become better adapted to their environment. It makes several predictions which have been observed. Also, it makes sense. Can you honestly not see how a more fit individual is more likely to survive and thus produce more fit individuals?

What you describe, that is, the creation of life from non-life, is called "abiogenesis." If you retitled this thread to be "Do you believe abiogenesis basid on faith?", then you would probably receive more interesting replies. Scientists have many ideas about how abiogenesis may have occurred, but as far as I know, there is no theory about it that is as strong or universally accepted as evolution. If you seriously want to know some of their ideas, try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

~MagicMan

vhawk01

11-14-2006, 01:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... personally constructed and or see first hand an experiment reproducing the exact conditions of early earth. I watched the elements in that closed environment come together by themselves and form life. I don't need faith Evolution is true, I have seen life create itself from non-life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have only thoroughly read about half the replies so far, so maybe someone covered this already. What you describe has little/nothing to do with the classic "Theory of Evolution." Evolution describes the process of species changing over time to become better adapted to their environment. It makes several predictions which have been observed. Also, it makes sense. Can you honestly not see how a more fit individual is more likely to survive and thus produce more fit individuals?

What you describe, that is, the creation of life from non-life, is called "abiogenesis." If you retitled this thread to be "Do you believe abiogenesis basid on faith?", then you would probably receive more interesting replies. Scientists have many ideas about how abiogenesis may have occurred, but as far as I know, there is no theory about it that is as strong or universally accepted as evolution. If you seriously want to know some of their ideas, try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

It wouldnt suit his purposes though, because, since abiogenesis has many competing theories, none of which are greatly substantiated, everyone would have just said "Nope, I don't believe in it at all, I'm awaiting the data." He just thought he could trick people with ToE because people really do, to use HIS word, believe it, and so he thought he could definition-swap midway through and we'd be none the wiser.

jogsxyz

11-14-2006, 02:44 PM

Believing in evolution is not an example of faith.
Believing Bush/Rumsfeld pursued the best course in Iraq, that is faith.

MaxWeiss

11-14-2006, 05:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Said differently, your whole point goes out the window if scientists simply met your objections by declaring evolution to be 99% to be true. And therefore those who put creationism as (objectively speaking) more than one or two percent, are flat out stupid people. Not quite the goal you are trying to achieve.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think assigning 1% is small enough? I'd be inclined to put at least a hundred more decimal places in front of that 1 before I'd be remotely close to satisfied with the figure.

Carded

11-14-2006, 08:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would argue my college and post college education is far greater than the 'average' joe. However, based on your definition almost everything has to be taken as faith seeing how much of it is untested or replicated by the average man.

I truly doubt that your 'education' level or understanding is just degrees less than mine. If that was so I find it hard to believe that you would question any of the items in my list. They are quite convincing in their own right and when taken in total quite compelling. Note this is not a knock on your intelligence - just questioning your knowledge in the basic sciences that are required to understand evolution properly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Appealing to authority is a fallacy. The fact you are doing so shows your inability or unwillingness to apply simple critical thinking skills in discussion. So whatever education you may or may not have it does no good if you are unable or unwilling to apply it.

Frankly, I doubt the ability of biologist/evolutionist to comprehend science or reason analytically. The evolutionary arguments I have encountered are all the same, in short it follows the pattern we have so much proof, trust me.

The closest thing to an argument I got from a professor concerning the dating of a fossil was this: Pointing to a picture of a fossil, this fossil is 2 million years old. How do you know the fossil’s age? Well we found another fossil in the soil near it that is 2 million years old. Well how did you know that one is 2 million years old? Well, we know cause that specious only lived 2 million years ago based on our evolutionary tree. Okay, then your basis for dating the fossil is on the assumption that your evolutionary tree is correct. How do you know your tree is accurate? Well, we have this fossil here is dated at 2 million years. Yeah, but that’s circular reasoning, you could arbitrarily put in number of years of age using that method. Silence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Silence. Are you serious? Maybe it's because he was taking a deep breath and calming himself so as not to offend you when he started laughing out loud in your face. There are many, many ways to date a fossil. Carbon dating, tree rings, potassium-argon dating, stratigraphy, fission-track dating, alpha-recoil, obsidian hydration, thermoluminescence, analyzing magnetic fields, racemization. There are more. Scientists use multiple methods and cross-check the results against each other.

If you'd actually like to learn something about it, rather than spout silly anecdotes about how you completely confounded a scientist by showing how his assumptions are circular, check out this primer on dating methods (http://archaeology.about.com/cs/datingtechniques/a/timing.htm), or search google for "absolute dating methods."

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

However convincing saying so “many, many, ways to date fossils” may be to you its not convincing at all to me. Do you even know how many of the methods you put forth are even possibly applicable to a fossil supposedly 2 million years old? Are you even at all familiar with the assumptions (guesses) that must be made in order to even begin a possible calculation for age using whatever particular method you choose? What evidence can be produced during the last 2 million years no single contaminate entered the sample that would throw off calculations even if the initial assumption was fortune even to be correct in the first place? Such regression is calculation is dependent on the assumption that the functions used are continuous from here to 2 million years ago. How can you conclusively prove that continuity?

Evolution is no more than an interesting demonstration of “group thinking effect” which psychologist will list as an example in the future and all the kids in class will laugh at roll their eyes at how foolish their grandparents were.

luckyme

11-14-2006, 08:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
However convincing saying so “many, many, ways to date fossils” may be to you its not convincing at all to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't that go without saying?
For some it's the wine not testing as blood, but it is blood, old blood, real blood, and no test can prove it's not to them.

luckyme

FortunaMaximus

11-14-2006, 08:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However convincing saying so &#8220;many, many, ways to date fossils&#8221; may be to you its not convincing at all to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't that go without saying?
For some it's the wine not testing as blood, but it is blood, old blood, real blood, and no test can prove it's not to them.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/1681/mariuscarthagegd4.jpg

Marius at Carthage.

Seemed apropros. Carry on.

Magic_Man

11-14-2006, 08:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would argue my college and post college education is far greater than the 'average' joe. However, based on your definition almost everything has to be taken as faith seeing how much of it is untested or replicated by the average man.

I truly doubt that your 'education' level or understanding is just degrees less than mine. If that was so I find it hard to believe that you would question any of the items in my list. They are quite convincing in their own right and when taken in total quite compelling. Note this is not a knock on your intelligence - just questioning your knowledge in the basic sciences that are required to understand evolution properly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Appealing to authority is a fallacy. The fact you are doing so shows your inability or unwillingness to apply simple critical thinking skills in discussion. So whatever education you may or may not have it does no good if you are unable or unwilling to apply it.

Frankly, I doubt the ability of biologist/evolutionist to comprehend science or reason analytically. The evolutionary arguments I have encountered are all the same, in short it follows the pattern we have so much proof, trust me.

The closest thing to an argument I got from a professor concerning the dating of a fossil was this: Pointing to a picture of a fossil, this fossil is 2 million years old. How do you know the fossil’s age? Well we found another fossil in the soil near it that is 2 million years old. Well how did you know that one is 2 million years old? Well, we know cause that specious only lived 2 million years ago based on our evolutionary tree. Okay, then your basis for dating the fossil is on the assumption that your evolutionary tree is correct. How do you know your tree is accurate? Well, we have this fossil here is dated at 2 million years. Yeah, but that’s circular reasoning, you could arbitrarily put in number of years of age using that method. Silence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Silence. Are you serious? Maybe it's because he was taking a deep breath and calming himself so as not to offend you when he started laughing out loud in your face. There are many, many ways to date a fossil. Carbon dating, tree rings, potassium-argon dating, stratigraphy, fission-track dating, alpha-recoil, obsidian hydration, thermoluminescence, analyzing magnetic fields, racemization. There are more. Scientists use multiple methods and cross-check the results against each other.

If you'd actually like to learn something about it, rather than spout silly anecdotes about how you completely confounded a scientist by showing how his assumptions are circular, check out this primer on dating methods (http://archaeology.about.com/cs/datingtechniques/a/timing.htm), or search google for "absolute dating methods."

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

However convincing saying so “many, many, ways to date fossils” may be to you its not convincing at all to me. Do you even know how many of the methods you put forth are even possibly applicable to a fossil supposedly 2 million years old? Are you even at all familiar with the assumptions (guesses) that must be made in order to even begin a possible calculation for age using whatever particular method you choose? What evidence can be produced during the last 2 million years no single contaminate entered the sample that would throw off calculations even if the initial assumption was fortune even to be correct in the first place? Such regression is calculation is dependent on the assumption that the functions used are continuous from here to 2 million years ago. How can you conclusively prove that continuity?

Evolution is no more than an interesting demonstration of “group thinking effect” which psychologist will list as an example in the future and all the kids in class will laugh at roll their eyes at how foolish their grandparents were.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why scientists use multiple independent dating methods. They may check various levels of soil around a sample and carbon date them all. They check that each layer shows a progression, getting older as you go deeper. If there was a contaminant along the way, this progression would not be seen. Potassium-argon dating gives another test. These tests can all be calibrated against tree rings and other data. What are the odds that every single test gives the same time period, and yet they are all wrong?

~MagicMan

Hopey

11-14-2006, 09:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
However convincing saying so “many, many, ways to date fossils” may be to you its not convincing at all to me. Do you even know how many of the methods you put forth are even possibly applicable to a fossil supposedly 2 million years old? Are you even at all familiar with the assumptions (guesses) that must be made in order to even begin a possible calculation for age using whatever particular method you choose? What evidence can be produced during the last 2 million years no single contaminate entered the sample that would throw off calculations even if the initial assumption was fortune even to be correct in the first place? Such regression is calculation is dependent on the assumption that the functions used are continuous from here to 2 million years ago. How can you conclusively prove that continuity?

[/ QUOTE ]

This has to be Sharkey.

Carded

11-14-2006, 10:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would argue my college and post college education is far greater than the 'average' joe. However, based on your definition almost everything has to be taken as faith seeing how much of it is untested or replicated by the average man.

I truly doubt that your 'education' level or understanding is just degrees less than mine. If that was so I find it hard to believe that you would question any of the items in my list. They are quite convincing in their own right and when taken in total quite compelling. Note this is not a knock on your intelligence - just questioning your knowledge in the basic sciences that are required to understand evolution properly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Appealing to authority is a fallacy. The fact you are doing so shows your inability or unwillingness to apply simple critical thinking skills in discussion. So whatever education you may or may not have it does no good if you are unable or unwilling to apply it.

Frankly, I doubt the ability of biologist/evolutionist to comprehend science or reason analytically. The evolutionary arguments I have encountered are all the same, in short it follows the pattern we have so much proof, trust me.

The closest thing to an argument I got from a professor concerning the dating of a fossil was this: Pointing to a picture of a fossil, this fossil is 2 million years old. How do you know the fossil’s age? Well we found another fossil in the soil near it that is 2 million years old. Well how did you know that one is 2 million years old? Well, we know cause that specious only lived 2 million years ago based on our evolutionary tree. Okay, then your basis for dating the fossil is on the assumption that your evolutionary tree is correct. How do you know your tree is accurate? Well, we have this fossil here is dated at 2 million years. Yeah, but that’s circular reasoning, you could arbitrarily put in number of years of age using that method. Silence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Silence. Are you serious? Maybe it's because he was taking a deep breath and calming himself so as not to offend you when he started laughing out loud in your face. There are many, many ways to date a fossil. Carbon dating, tree rings, potassium-argon dating, stratigraphy, fission-track dating, alpha-recoil, obsidian hydration, thermoluminescence, analyzing magnetic fields, racemization. There are more. Scientists use multiple methods and cross-check the results against each other.

If you'd actually like to learn something about it, rather than spout silly anecdotes about how you completely confounded a scientist by showing how his assumptions are circular, check out this primer on dating methods (http://archaeology.about.com/cs/datingtechniques/a/timing.htm), or search google for "absolute dating methods."

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

However convincing saying so “many, many, ways to date fossils” may be to you its not convincing at all to me. Do you even know how many of the methods you put forth are even possibly applicable to a fossil supposedly 2 million years old? Are you even at all familiar with the assumptions (guesses) that must be made in order to even begin a possible calculation for age using whatever particular method you choose? What evidence can be produced during the last 2 million years no single contaminate entered the sample that would throw off calculations even if the initial assumption was fortune even to be correct in the first place? Such regression is calculation is dependent on the assumption that the functions used are continuous from here to 2 million years ago. How can you conclusively prove that continuity?

Evolution is no more than an interesting demonstration of “group thinking effect” which psychologist will list as an example in the future and all the kids in class will laugh at roll their eyes at how foolish their grandparents were.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why scientists use multiple independent dating methods. They may check various levels of soil around a sample and carbon date them all. They check that each layer shows a progression, getting older as you go deeper. If there was a contaminant along the way, this progression would not be seen. Potassium-argon dating gives another test. These tests can all be calibrated against tree rings and other data. What are the odds that every single test gives the same time period, and yet they are all wrong?

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

You should have just admitted you have no idea. Your post only proves your ignorance.

You cannot Carbon Date them all. Carbon dating has limited range, in which you have shown yourself to be ignorant. Carbon dating doesn’t go back 2 millions years. All calibrated again tree rings? Are you kidding me, how many trees do you know that lived for 2 million years?

Carbon dating is dependent on knowing the initial amount of carbon present. How do you know how much carbon was in the first item being dated? In short, you don’t so you guess. How do you know carbon was not added or removed by outside sources to the specimen during the years you were not present to observe the specimen? Well, you don’t. How can you reasonable exclude the possible difference in ambient conditions or the introduction of a catalyst during the thousands of year you were not present to observe the specimen? Well, you cannot.

I understand this may be confusing to may people who lack the mathematical background. Basically, what I am pointing out is generating a function for age regression is meaningless without having accurate initial boundary conditions. Secondly the continuity of resulting equation is dependent on knowing the ambient conditions at all times during the regression.

vhawk01

11-14-2006, 10:42 PM

Condescending, insulting and patronizing all in one post. How Christian.

Magic_Man

11-14-2006, 10:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You should have just admitted you have no idea. Your post only proves your ignorance.

You cannot Carbon Date them all. Carbon dating has limited range, in which you have shown yourself to be ignorant. Carbon dating doesn’t go back 2 millions years. All calibrated again tree rings? Are you kidding me, how many trees do you know that lived for 2 million years?

Carbon dating is dependent on knowing the initial amount of carbon present. How do you know how much carbon was in the first item being dated? In short, you don’t so you guess. How do you know carbon was not added or removed by outside sources to the specimen during the years you were not present to observe the specimen? Well, you don’t. How can you reasonable exclude the possible difference in ambient conditions or the introduction of a catalyst during the thousands of year you were not present to observe the specimen? Well, you cannot.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to get snippy, we can talk about how your original post showed your own complete ignorance of the "Theory of Evolution." I am perfectly aware that carbon-dating has age limits of about 60,000 years. However, I also mentioned that there were other methods. Uranium-Lead dating, for example, is perfectly suited to a 2-million year old fossil. It also has built-in failsafes to check its calculations, since there are two different isotypes being measured. Potassium-argon dating, which I did mention, can go back even further. My point in the post above was to state that they are doing simultaneous independent tests to determine the age of fossils. Yes, some are based on their evolutionary tree. Some are based on the surrounding area. Some are based on isotypes of various elements found in the fossil itself. Carbon dating might be used for a much higher soil layer, until the age limit is reached. Then they would switch to a different method, and at the overlaps they would have multiple checks to determine a fossil's age. When these are all consistent, the age can be known. There is no magic or circular logic to it. But then again:
[ QUOTE ]
I understand this may be confusing to may people who lack the mathematical background.

[/ QUOTE ]

~MagicMan

Hopey

11-14-2006, 11:21 PM

I'm curious, Carded...how old do you believe the Earth to be?

Hopey

11-14-2006, 11:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Condescending, insulting and patronizing all in one post. How Sharkey.

[/ QUOTE ]

Carded

11-14-2006, 11:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You should have just admitted you have no idea. Your post only proves your ignorance.

You cannot Carbon Date them all. Carbon dating has limited range, in which you have shown yourself to be ignorant. Carbon dating doesn’t go back 2 millions years. All calibrated again tree rings? Are you kidding me, how many trees do you know that lived for 2 million years?

Carbon dating is dependent on knowing the initial amount of carbon present. How do you know how much carbon was in the first item being dated? In short, you don’t so you guess. How do you know carbon was not added or removed by outside sources to the specimen during the years you were not present to observe the specimen? Well, you don’t. How can you reasonable exclude the possible difference in ambient conditions or the introduction of a catalyst during the thousands of year you were not present to observe the specimen? Well, you cannot.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to get snippy, we can talk about how your original post showed your own complete ignorance of the "Theory of Evolution." I am perfectly aware that carbon-dating has age limits of about 60,000 years. However, I also mentioned that there were other methods. Uranium-Lead dating, for example, is perfectly suited to a 2-million year old fossil. It also has built-in failsafes to check its calculations, since there are two different isotypes being measured. Potassium-argon dating, which I did mention, can go back even further. My point in the post above was to state that they are doing simultaneous independent tests to determine the age of fossils. Yes, some are based on their evolutionary tree. Some are based on the surrounding area. Some are based on isotypes of various elements found in the fossil itself. Carbon dating might be used for a much higher soil layer, until the age limit is reached. Then they would switch to a different method, and at the overlaps they would have multiple checks to determine a fossil's age. When these are all consistent, the age can be known. There is no magic or circular logic to it. But then again:
[ QUOTE ]
I understand this may be confusing to may people who lack the mathematical background.

[/ QUOTE ]

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again to fail to realized the meaningless of all dating methods without knowing the initial conditions of the specimen and ambient conditions during the time of regression. Values which are contrived by conjecture and prejudice.

Magic_Man

11-14-2006, 11:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You should have just admitted you have no idea. Your post only proves your ignorance.

You cannot Carbon Date them all. Carbon dating has limited range, in which you have shown yourself to be ignorant. Carbon dating doesn’t go back 2 millions years. All calibrated again tree rings? Are you kidding me, how many trees do you know that lived for 2 million years?

Carbon dating is dependent on knowing the initial amount of carbon present. How do you know how much carbon was in the first item being dated? In short, you don’t so you guess. How do you know carbon was not added or removed by outside sources to the specimen during the years you were not present to observe the specimen? Well, you don’t. How can you reasonable exclude the possible difference in ambient conditions or the introduction of a catalyst during the thousands of year you were not present to observe the specimen? Well, you cannot.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to get snippy, we can talk about how your original post showed your own complete ignorance of the "Theory of Evolution." I am perfectly aware that carbon-dating has age limits of about 60,000 years. However, I also mentioned that there were other methods. Uranium-Lead dating, for example, is perfectly suited to a 2-million year old fossil. It also has built-in failsafes to check its calculations, since there are two different isotypes being measured. Potassium-argon dating, which I did mention, can go back even further. My point in the post above was to state that they are doing simultaneous independent tests to determine the age of fossils. Yes, some are based on their evolutionary tree. Some are based on the surrounding area. Some are based on isotypes of various elements found in the fossil itself. Carbon dating might be used for a much higher soil layer, until the age limit is reached. Then they would switch to a different method, and at the overlaps they would have multiple checks to determine a fossil's age. When these are all consistent, the age can be known. There is no magic or circular logic to it. But then again:
[ QUOTE ]
I understand this may be confusing to may people who lack the mathematical background.

[/ QUOTE ]

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again to fail to realized the meaningless of all dating methods without knowing the initial conditions of the specimen and ambient conditions during the time of regression. Values which are contrived by conjecture and prejudice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again failed to realize the importance of multiple, simultaneous, independent calibration curves. Values which are measured with many different methods and samples, and which all must agree within a certain range for an age analysis to be accepted.

~MagicMan

Carded

11-15-2006, 12:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious, Carded...how old do you believe the Earth to be?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t have a set belief on the age of the earth nor was this thread intended to be argumentation against evolution when I first wrote it.

My point was though its gotten skewed a bit in the thread, most people who claim to belief in Evolution do it on faith that the evolutionist who told them to believe it are correct.

Take the side babble about fossil dating. No here was even able to demonstrate having enough knowledge to understand the guesswork involved in dating a fossil let alone having the skill set to date a fossil on their own if given a fossil sample.

I grow weary of hearing someone state I know evolution is a fact when he/she has done not only done zero field work on their own in gathering ‘evidence’ but also does not even having the basic skills required to analyze ‘evidence’ even if they managed to acquire it.

People of this nature are same type who would absolutely know they decedents from master race that once ruled the entire world and build every significant wonder of the world based on all the irrefutable archeological evidence gathered by the German scientists if they lived in Germany during WWII.

David Sklansky

11-15-2006, 12:24 AM

"My point was though its gotten skewed a bit in the thread, most people who claim to belief in Evolution do it on faith that the evolutionist who told them to believe it are correct."

That's obviously true. Therefore what?

She

11-15-2006, 12:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that you're including that particularly absurd argument tells me you're more interested in trolling the forum than having a meaningful discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]
I gathered that he was saying that evidence is subject to interpretation. Apparently I missed the absurdity of that agreement? Care to explain it to me?

Carded

11-15-2006, 12:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You should have just admitted you have no idea. Your post only proves your ignorance.

You cannot Carbon Date them all. Carbon dating has limited range, in which you have shown yourself to be ignorant. Carbon dating doesn’t go back 2 millions years. All calibrated again tree rings? Are you kidding me, how many trees do you know that lived for 2 million years?

Carbon dating is dependent on knowing the initial amount of carbon present. How do you know how much carbon was in the first item being dated? In short, you don’t so you guess. How do you know carbon was not added or removed by outside sources to the specimen during the years you were not present to observe the specimen? Well, you don’t. How can you reasonable exclude the possible difference in ambient conditions or the introduction of a catalyst during the thousands of year you were not present to observe the specimen? Well, you cannot.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to get snippy, we can talk about how your original post showed your own complete ignorance of the "Theory of Evolution." I am perfectly aware that carbon-dating has age limits of about 60,000 years. However, I also mentioned that there were other methods. Uranium-Lead dating, for example, is perfectly suited to a 2-million year old fossil. It also has built-in failsafes to check its calculations, since there are two different isotypes being measured. Potassium-argon dating, which I did mention, can go back even further. My point in the post above was to state that they are doing simultaneous independent tests to determine the age of fossils. Yes, some are based on their evolutionary tree. Some are based on the surrounding area. Some are based on isotypes of various elements found in the fossil itself. Carbon dating might be used for a much higher soil layer, until the age limit is reached. Then they would switch to a different method, and at the overlaps they would have multiple checks to determine a fossil's age. When these are all consistent, the age can be known. There is no magic or circular logic to it. But then again:
[ QUOTE ]
I understand this may be confusing to may people who lack the mathematical background.

[/ QUOTE ]

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again to fail to realized the meaningless of all dating methods without knowing the initial conditions of the specimen and ambient conditions during the time of regression. Values which are contrived by conjecture and prejudice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again failed to realize the importance of multiple, simultaneous, independent calibration curves. Values which are measured with many different methods and samples, and which all must agree within a certain range for an age analysis to be accepted.

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]
Hardly, considering I have personally used such methods in coursework. However, you still fail to understand the importance of the initial conditions of the specimen and the necessity of knowing ambient condition during the regression year. Two methods to two million methods in cross-referencing will not solve the problem on being forced to guess at initial conditions nor does it prove having a closed system during the time of regression.

Hopey

11-15-2006, 12:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that you're including that particularly absurd argument tells me you're more interested in trolling the forum than having a meaningful discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]
I gathered that he was saying that evidence is subject to interpretation. Apparently I missed the absurdity of that agreement? Care to explain it to me?

[/ QUOTE ]

You must have missed the part where he compared those who believe in evolution to Nazis.

Turn Prophet

11-15-2006, 12:40 AM

I realize Carded is not going to be persuaded by this, but I thought I should clarify for some others how readiometric dating works.

1. Carbon dating is not commonly used, and when it is, it is usually for relatively recent archaeological and anthropological finds due to C-14's relatively short half-life. To date older rocks and fossils, common methods include Potassium-Argon dating (K-Ar dating).

2. K-Ar dating works like this: during certain geological events, like volcanic eruptions, which we can observe, new rocks form with an amount of potassium (K) in them, and a small, yet constant fraction of this potassium is in the form of a rare isotope, K-40, that decays at a predictable rate into Ar-40. In a known amount of time, half of the K-40 will be converted to Ar-40... this number is called the half-life as many know.

3. Therefore, when we find rocks that contain potassium we can check the ratio between K-40 and Ar-40 to determine how old that rock is.

4. Obviously, this is not the only dating technique. There is also Rb-Sr, U-Pb, and several other types of radiometric dating. All of these figures can be established independently.

To Mr. Sklansky: I think the point Carded is trying to establish is that if someone believes science via faith, then science can't be any better than religion, since both rely on faith. However, as I said earlier, even if this is true, if you trust scientists to be credible, they can back up their statements and show you the evidence they have to offer empirically. Religious authorities, by contrast, can offer only theological arguments or religious texts to back up their points.

Carded

11-15-2006, 01:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I realize Carded is not going to be persuaded by this, but I thought I should clarify for some others how readiometric dating works.

1. Carbon dating is not commonly used, and when it is, it is usually for relatively recent archaeological and anthropological finds due to C-14's relatively short half-life. To date older rocks and fossils, common methods include Potassium-Argon dating (K-Ar dating).

2. K-Ar dating works like this: during certain geological events, like volcanic eruptions, which we can observe, new rocks form with an amount of potassium (K) in them, and a small, yet constant fraction of this potassium is in the form of a rare isotope, K-40, that decays at a predictable rate into Ar-40. In a known amount of time, half of the K-40 will be converted to Ar-40... this number is called the half-life as many know.

3. Therefore, when we find rocks that contain potassium we can check the ratio between K-40 and Ar-40 to determine how old that rock is.

4. Obviously, this is not the only dating technique. There is also Rb-Sr, U-Pb, and several other types of radiometric dating. All of these figures can be established independently.

To Mr. Sklansky: I think the point Carded is trying to establish is that if someone believes science via faith, then science can't be any better than religion, since both rely on faith. However, as I said earlier, even if this is true, if you trust scientists to be credible, they can back up their statements and show you the evidence they have to offer empirically. Religious authorities, by contrast, can offer only theological arguments or religious texts to back up their points.

[/ QUOTE ]

As nice of a theory that sounds for dating rocks. What about claims like:

"The new lava dome (dacite) from the at Mount St. Helens was formed in 1986. In 1997 five specimens were taken from this dome at five different locations and subjected to conventional Potassium-Argon dating. The results indicated ages of less than one half to almost three million years old, all from eleven year old rock."

"Indeed, there are a number of conditions on the reliability of radiometric dating. For example, for K-Ar dating, we have the following requirements:

For this system to work as a clock, the following 4 criteria must be fulfilled:

1. The decay constant and the abundance of K40 must be known accurately.

2. There must have been no incorporation of Ar40 into the mineral at the time of crystallization or a leak of Ar40 from the mineral following crystallization.

3. The system must have remained closed for both K40 and Ar40 since the time of crystallization.

4. The relationship between the data obtained and a specific event must be known. "The answer is that these methods, are far from infallible and are based on three arbitrary assumptions (a constant rate of decay, an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost, and a known amount of the daughter element present initially)."

luckyme

11-15-2006, 02:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"The new lava dome (dacite) from the at Mount St. Helens was formed in 1986. In 1997 five specimens were taken from this dome at five different locations and subjected to conventional Potassium-Argon dating. The results indicated ages of less than one half to almost three million years old, all from eleven year old rock."

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a response I found, if the facts are as given then we have new insight into people who use such examples -

"Radiometric dating is extremely reliable when it is used correctly. Anti-science propagandists like to pick out the few examples where the technique was misused in order to give the impression that the technique itself is flawed (their favorites are carbon-dating mistakes where the user didn't consider - or was actually testing - the 'reservoir effect'). This example however, is worse, as it is a case of deliberate misuse of the technique by a Creation 'scientist'.

Yes, it is true that the rocks produced such 'ages'. HOWEVER, dacite is a porphyritic rock - it contains xenocrysts of older crystals. But more importantly, Steven A. Austin (I'll name and shame) sent the samples to a lab which clearly states that their Potassium-Argon equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old!! Hence he deliberately mis-used the technique for propaganda and deception value. Disgraceful.

As well as the excellent links given above, it is worth emphasizing that there are dozens of different isotopes, with different half-lives, that can be used in radiometric dating. The different decay curves always converge on the same ages (when used as they are supposed to be used), a mathematical impossibility if there was a problem with the method. "

ah, if the geologist is correct, it makes sense now. You have to use the tools you have correctly to get an answer with meaning. It helps to be honest also.

luckyme

luckyme

11-15-2006, 02:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"... most people who claim to belief in Evolution do it on faith that the evolutionist who told them to believe it are correct."

That's obviously true. Therefore what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it obviously false.

The judge in the ID case didn't throw it out because some evolutionist told him to. He threw it out because he listened to the evidence and drew conclusions based on his total knowledge and ability to weigh evidence ( rational thought is not field dependant).

DS, do you believe that the artic circle is north of edmonton because some cartographer told you to? ( assuming you haven't actually done the on-site measurements as Carter claims one must).
Or do you believe it for the same reason the judge was able to come to a decision in a field he has no training in? Listen to the evidence, hear the arguments, make a decision.

Heck, most people on here know a heck of a lot more science than Darwin did yet we give him credit for understanding evolution. Darwin isn't my daddy, I didn't believe squat because HE told me to, I believed it for the same reason I believe water runs down hill, it fits the evidence and it makes sense. Darwin-Smarwin.

Cultist think that since they believe something because they are told to, that that's how others reach their decisions, when in fact most atheists have a tendency to not believe what somebody claims ( that's one reason they ended up atheists).

Carders claim would just be silly if it wasn't so sad.

luckyme

Turn Prophet

11-15-2006, 02:58 AM

Precisely on the geology, luckyme.

Not every type of rock can be dated accurately by the same methods. Do you really think so much of the scientific community would accept dating methods if it produced gross inaccuracies or anamolies all the time?

Also, radiometric dating on a very young rock is not liable to give you very good results because those types of clocks are set over millions of years. On anything younger than that, it's best to use a different dating method.

David Sklansky

11-15-2006, 05:06 AM

"DS, do you believe that the artic circle is north of edmonton because some cartographer told you to? ( assuming you haven't actually done the on-site measurements as Carter claims one must).
Or do you believe it for the same reason the judge was able to come to a decision in a field he has no training in? Listen to the evidence, hear the arguments, make a decision"

The first reason and its not close. Very few judges could be trusted to make a decision about complex scientific debates if the "wrong" side was represented by a persusive arguer and the other side was not as glib.

Carded

11-15-2006, 05:24 AM

You seemed to have missed the point. Cleary, dating methods are determinate on whether or not the model of study is in a closed system as in the previous example it obviously was not and the results in dating reflected the imperfections of the system. None doubts conceptual idea of the dating practice; the question is whether or not it can be known if a closed system exists for a rock during its creation such that the conceptual model can be accurately applied.

Consider this experiment: “In the first published paper (Karpinskaya TB, Ostrovshiy IA, Shanin LL: Synthetic introduction of argon into mica at high pressures and temperatures. Isv Akad Nauk S. S. S. R Geol Ser 1961; 8:87-9) muscovite was heated to high temperatures (740 to 860 C) under high Argon pressures (2,800 to 5000 atmospheres) for 3 to 10.5 hours. What they found was that the muscovite absorbed large quantities of Argon. When these muscovite samples were then dated via normal K-Ar dating techniques, they were measured to have an age of up to 5 billion years since the clock was reset.”

In short the pressure gradient during the formation of the rock is determines whether all the argon flows out of the rock and rests its clock or whether it does not. Accurate dating is based on the assumption that the rock has zero argon in it at its beginning, which of course would require a favorable pressure gradient at its formation. So the question is: How do you know which rocks were or were not form in the proper pressure gradient to produce accurate results?

Consider this: Two different papers (Dalrymple GB, Moore JG: Science 1968;161:1132-5) (Noble CS, Naughton JJ: Science 1968;162:265-7) show that lava flows in the ocean, show excess ages. The deeper the lava goes in depth into the ocean, the older the K/Ar date.

Here we have an example of how an adverse pressure gradient cause by the hydrostatic forces creates excessive age dating. So the point is, unless you know the conditions the rock was formed under you can’t use dating methods with certainty.

Rocks formed in environments where they are subjugated to adverse pressure gradients produce excessive age in dating. Who can tell which rocks were formed underwater or underground where they would be under pressure from the ones that were not?

Perhaps the whole earth was once covered underwater during the formation of most rocks resulting in Hugh inaccurate. Considering sedimentary rock is found on top of Mount Everest that may have been the case.

*****
edited by mod to add source, don't plagiarize please!
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/
*****

Turn Prophet

11-15-2006, 06:16 AM

I'm sure you have a point, but you're not getting to it.

1. Either you are a scientist trying to expose everyone's ignorance for a reason I've yet to discern,
-or-
2. You're opposed to the Theory of Evolution and rather than posing any substantive arguments, you're nitpicking at perceived weaknesses hoping that to stump other people. But I guarantee that all of these objections have been brought up and dealt with before.

Either way, this is obviously a waste of time.

bocablkr

11-15-2006, 12:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is no more than an interesting demonstration of “group thinking effect” which psychologist will list as an example in the future and all the kids in class will laugh at roll their eyes at how foolish their grandparents were.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no greater example of 'group thinking effect' than organized religion.

luckyme

11-15-2006, 12:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"DS, do you believe that the artic circle is north of edmonton because some cartographer told you to? ( assuming you haven't actually done the on-site measurements as Carter claims one must).
Or do you believe it for the same reason the judge was able to come to a decision in a field he has no training in? Listen to the evidence, hear the arguments, make a decision"

The first reason and its not close. Very few judges could be trusted to make a decision about complex scientific debates if the "wrong" side was represented by a persusive arguer and the other side was not as glib.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not answering the question I asked or the claim stated by Carder. The issue isn't whether what you've ( or the judge or me) decided is True, it's about HOW the decision was arrived at.

Carders - [ QUOTE ]
My point was though its gotten skewed a bit in the thread, most people who claim to belief in Evolution do it on faith that the evolutionist who told them to believe it are correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

He ( and you) states that if an 'expert' tells you something you'll believe it because the expert tells you to believe. I'm claiming that if the worlds most famous cartographer sent you a signed statement and said 'believe this DS' - Edmonton is south of Mexico City - you WOULDN'T believe it even though you're not a cartographer.

Sure the judge might have been swayed by a fast-talking lawyer but he made his decision on the facts and evidence as he understood them.

Heck, I don't believe the play suggestions in your books just because it's signed DS, I think about everything I know about poker ( however minimal), people, psychology, game theory, math and - modified for specific cases - your suggestions are usually agreed to be worthwhile. ( remember it doesn't matter if I'm right) DS-PS.

I read Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" so I could form an opinion on the Dawkins-Gould punctuated equilibrium debate and the species-level evolution question. Since I think both sides are experts, I'd have no way of forming an opinion according to your method of designating an authority and then blindly believing them.
So, I've formed an opinion, but it isn't because of what Dawkins 'told me to believe' or because of what Gould 'told me to believe'. Partly because neither told me to believe anything. They've each given their evidence, presented their arguments and stated their conclusions ( some tentatively). I read, I think, then I reach some tentative conclusions of my own.
If you're going thru life believing everything some 'expert' tells you to believe simply because they tell you to believe it ( the Carder claim and cultist method) then you're, you're ...you're . hmmmm, I can't say it, because I see you on here making all kinds of comments on fields you're not an expert in.
Where is the real DS?

luckyme

David Sklansky

11-15-2006, 05:05 PM

First of all I shouldn't have agreed that most people accept evolution because "evolutionists" say its so. Rather I should have said because biologists and chemists say it is so. But once the vast majority of them do say it, anyone without their expertise should have no toruble assuming they are almost definitely right.

If you want to go off on your own to try to verify their arguments, fine. But you are WRONG to say that it is your verification that should convince you. Because that implies that if you came to a different conclusion you should feel the opposite. In spite of the agreement of 99% of the scientists. Acceptable if you have a Phd from Stanford in molecular biology. But if you don't, you are simply doing the same thing as Carded.

Carded

11-15-2006, 05:35 PM

In spite of not being able to offer any proof.

[ QUOTE ]
. I guarantee that all of these objections have been brought up and dealt with before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spoken like a true believer. Well done!

Hopey

11-15-2006, 05:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]

In spite of not being able to offer any proof.

[ QUOTE ]
. I guarantee that all of these objections have been brought up and dealt with before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spoken like a true believer. Well done!

[/ QUOTE ]

You were offered plenty of proof when you used to post as Sharkey. Now you have come back as Carded and expect everyone to regurgitate it for you. Either sign back in using your other account, or do a search for "Sharkey" and you'll find plenty of the evidence that has been mentioned.

Of course, none of the "evidence" will satisfy you. You're just that kind of guy.

Skidoo

11-15-2006, 06:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am curious to see how many people how accept the Theory of Evolution admit its on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many people are willing and able to form their own conclusions without faith in authority figures?

Very few. This is true in all areas.

arahant

11-15-2006, 07:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]

In spite of not being able to offer any proof.

[ QUOTE ]
. I guarantee that all of these objections have been brought up and dealt with before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spoken like a true believer. Well done!

[/ QUOTE ]

First, in response to the earlier poster wondering whether Carded is a scientist...he is not. The information he is presenting is cut and paste, mostly from http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/ . As I stated before, his science background is limited. Those of you here (seems like a good number of you) who actually have scientific training should be able to see this just from the way he obliquely relates his background of 'science courses'. He just doesn't speak the lingo.

I could refute all these arguments, Carded. I could do it in a formal debate with an impartial scorer. But the fact is, most non-creationists have given up on genuinely trying to convince people like you. If you could reason critically in the first place, we wouldn't need to explain these things to you. Most of us responding to you are really fulfilling our own psychological need to communicate our knowledge and get a high dudgeon going. I don't think anyone here seriously believed, after reading your first post, that any amount of evidence would convince you of even the most obvious fact if it conflicted with your prior beliefs.

Part of the problem is, the body of evidence in support of science's view of the world is massive beyond comprehension. There are 10's of thousands of papers on radioactive dating alone, and earth science, biology, etc...basically, since EVERY field of scientific endeavor corroborates the theory of evolution, creationists can pick and choose from among 100's of thousands of results, so the 'debate' is endless.

You, and any creationist i have ever spoken with, simply refuse to acknowledge when they are wrong. The very premise of your question (the false dichotomy and the misuse of the word faith) was shown to be in error, and you simply refuse to acknowledge this, instead shifting to other points.

I understand your mindset. You have a belief, and you are no longer interested in learning about the subject. And I have to say, i've gotten some pleasure from venting about the subject myself. But when it comes down to it, your lack of intelligence and your belief system make this a fruitless argument. You either can't or won't understand.

I'm sorry that that's the way it is. I think it is unfortunate that there are so many people who can't understand how the world works, and can't debate these issues. But when it comes down to it, I'm sure you are as happy in your ignorance as we are in our knowledge. I certainly know many people with non-sensical beliefs who are quite a bit happier than I.

So yes, this is just the way the world is. This is human culture. It's ok that you don't understand. Maybe someday you (or others) will, but if you don't, really...that's ok too.

In a way, I wish these debates would just stop. We engage in them simply to argue. Arguing fills a hole in many peoples lives, but perhaps we'd all be happier if we could just accept that everything in this world, including the bizarre beliefs of christians and their sometimes socially damaging consequences, is ok...just as it is.

As a practical matter, I think the one thing everyone on this board can ask is that when you are given antibiotics, you take the entire course, even though you don't understand why.

John Feeney

11-15-2006, 08:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The information he is presenting is cut and paste, mostly from http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/ .

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read much of this thread, and don't expect to. But I clicked and saw the post I'm replying to. Are you saying he's been plagiarizing? (A quick scan of a few of his posts reveals no attribution, no quotation marks...) I ask because I recently saw an entire paragraph in another thread which was cut-pasted from a site with no attribution. Pure plagiarism. I'm wondering how common this is becoming here.

If there is no evidence of plagiarism, my apologies to the OP. I don't mean to cast suspicion on you if you did nothing. That, despite you're being misguided about evolution. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

arahant

11-15-2006, 08:49 PM

I dunno...I guess. I don't really care, and I'm sure the original author enjoys having his views espoused. I didn't mean to say 'He's plagiarizing'...I just meant to point out that he is presenting himself as the informed scientist, and thought people should realize where this is coming from.

I wouldn't say this kind of thing is common, but i've seen it before. When people post things that are clearly not consistent with their style or level of knowledge, I tend to google large phrases, which generally reveals the source pretty quickly.

I guess attribution would be the ideal, but I don't attribute the failure to cite original authors to any malevolence...I didn't check to see how 'wholesale' it was, i just checked a few obvious instances...i have no interest in busting people for plagiarism...

vhawk01

11-15-2006, 09:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In spite of not being able to offer any proof.

[ QUOTE ]
. I guarantee that all of these objections have been brought up and dealt with before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spoken like a true believer. Well done!

[/ QUOTE ]

First, in response to the earlier poster wondering whether Carded is a scientist...he is not. The information he is presenting is cut and paste, mostly from http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/ . As I stated before, his science background is limited. Those of you here (seems like a good number of you) who actually have scientific training should be able to see this just from the way he obliquely relates his background of 'science courses'. He just doesn't speak the lingo.

I could refute all these arguments, Carded. I could do it in a formal debate with an impartial scorer. But the fact is, most non-creationists have given up on genuinely trying to convince people like you. If you could reason critically in the first place, we wouldn't need to explain these things to you. Most of us responding to you are really fulfilling our own psychological need to communicate our knowledge and get a high dudgeon going. I don't think anyone here seriously believed, after reading your first post, that any amount of evidence would convince you of even the most obvious fact if it conflicted with your prior beliefs.

Part of the problem is, the body of evidence in support of science's view of the world is massive beyond comprehension. There are 10's of thousands of papers on radioactive dating alone, and earth science, biology, etc...basically, since EVERY field of scientific endeavor corroborates the theory of evolution, creationists can pick and choose from among 100's of thousands of results, so the 'debate' is endless.

You, and any creationist i have ever spoken with, simply refuse to acknowledge when they are wrong. The very premise of your question (the false dichotomy and the misuse of the word faith) was shown to be in error, and you simply refuse to acknowledge this, instead shifting to other points.

I understand your mindset. You have a belief, and you are no longer interested in learning about the subject. And I have to say, i've gotten some pleasure from venting about the subject myself. But when it comes down to it, your lack of intelligence and your belief system make this a fruitless argument. You either can't or won't understand.

I'm sorry that that's the way it is. I think it is unfortunate that there are so many people who can't understand how the world works, and can't debate these issues. But when it comes down to it, I'm sure you are as happy in your ignorance as we are in our knowledge. I certainly know many people with non-sensical beliefs who are quite a bit happier than I.

So yes, this is just the way the world is. This is human culture. It's ok that you don't understand. Maybe someday you (or others) will, but if you don't, really...that's ok too.

In a way, I wish these debates would just stop. We engage in them simply to argue. Arguing fills a hole in many peoples lives, but perhaps we'd all be happier if we could just accept that everything in this world, including the bizarre beliefs of christians and their sometimes socially damaging consequences, is ok...just as it is.

As a practical matter, I think the one thing everyone on this board can ask is that when you are given antibiotics, you take the entire course, even though you don't understand why.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I take the entire course, and I DO understand why.

arahant

11-15-2006, 09:18 PM

I don't get it vhawk...you're on the evolution side of this 'debate', right?
That was addressed to those who don't believe evolution occurs. Carded, specifically.
Perhaps though I haven't read your posts carefully enough...

John Feeney

11-15-2006, 09:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
but I don't attribute the failure to cite original authors to any malevolence...I didn't check to see how 'wholesale' it was, i just checked a few obvious instances...i have no interest in busting people for plagiarism...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if you know of any specific instances of, say, whole sentences lifted directly without attribution, you should point them out. You should care about plagiarism and should not hesitate to bust people for it. It's wrong.

Before writing this post I checked a number of the OP's sentences and found no problem. But again, if you know differently, you should point out the instances. Otherwise, it would be better, perhaps, not to say they were "cut and paste" from another source. He may be essentially parroting stuff (paraphrasing, not verbatim...) he read on that site. I don't know. But that's different.

Lestat

11-15-2006, 09:35 PM

That is an excellent post arahant.

Lestat

11-15-2006, 09:37 PM

Pretty sure it was a joke (at least I laughed).

vhawk01

11-15-2006, 09:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get it vhawk...you're on the evolution side of this 'debate', right?
That was addressed to those who don't believe evolution occurs. Carded, specifically.
Perhaps though I haven't read your posts carefully enough...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm on your side. I was just joking. As a general rule, if my post is one line long, its usually some smart-ass response, if not entirely sarcastic and meaningless. Sorry, I should have used a smirky face or something.

arahant

11-15-2006, 10:03 PM

Geez...i don't want to get too far into this, but i guess i should defend myself.

First, I meant 'cut-and-paste' in a more generic sense. I think much of it is paraphrased. Exact matches exist for some things (those that contain actual informat"ion /images/graemlins/smile.gif).

"Two different papers (Dalrymple GB, Moore JG: Science 1968;161:1132-5) (Noble CS, Naughton JJ: Science 1968;162:265-7) show that lava flows in the ocean, show excess ages. The deeper the lava goes in depth into the ocean, the older the K/Ar date."

Is a direct quote, including spacing.

The first 'consider this experiment...' is also directly quoted, though with quotes at least.

I really don't consider this plagiarism...maybe I should. I assume his motivation for not providing attribution was that the source is so...silly.

John Feeney

11-15-2006, 10:52 PM

arahant,

There is really no need to be reticent about this. It appears, you have found at least one instance of plagiarism in the OP's posts. Good work. (I didn't look thoroughly enough to spot it.) Yes, those sentences which begin, "Two different papers..." are lifted verbatim from the site you mentioned. And that, as far as I know, qualifies as plagiarism. Yes, he probably avoided attribution because he knew it was a dumb site. I've seen that quite a bit here on the part of "skeptics" in debates on climate change. But when he copy-pastes whole sentences, that's no excuse.

We might give him the benefit of the doubt and figure he simply forgot to put it in quotes in this case. Yet given the other instance you point to, he is at lease guilty of repeatedly failing to supply attribution. He may simply not know what is correct form. In any event, I think the cut-pasted sentence should be dealt with by deleting at least that sentence, if not the post containing it. I will notify a moderator, and will make a post about this kind of thing on the "About the Forums" forum.

FWIW, my impression is that plagiarism is common on the Web. We tend, therefore, to become a bit inured to it. But we really shouldn't tolerate it any more than we do in books or anywhere else.

Lestat

11-15-2006, 11:09 PM

I know little about it, but aren't books copywrited? Are web pages copywrited? You mean if someone lifts something I post on here and re-posts it as their own somewhere else, I've been plagiarized?

Short hi-jack:

In other news, why have you completley disappeared from the poker scene? I consider your book and articles to be among the best stuff I've ever read. I wouldn't be nearly as successful as I am if it weren't for reading anything I could get my hands on from you. So what happened? I have a saying when someone disappears that no one ever stops playing because they made too much money (I don't think that's plagiarized)... But in your case, I'd have to believe just that.

We could also really use your eloquence on this forum. Won't you please consider spending a little time here? I'd love to hear your take on current science and some of the other matters that pop up on here.

Sorry for the hijack.

wacki

11-15-2006, 11:15 PM

I've only read 3 responses in this thread so far....

[ QUOTE ]

Why do you believe it is more reasonbable to think that non-life makes life when its never been witnessesed nor can be scientifically tested and observed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe viruses and bacteria are alive? If the answer is yes, then I've created life from non-life.

John Feeney is right about the plagiarism but I will have to talk to others about how to deal with it. In the mean time I suggest others provide the source if they are going to copy and paste. Carded, and that website, is also very misguided about the accuracy of rock dating. The wikipedia page is a more accurate source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_dating#Limitation_of_techniques

There are lots of ways you can radiodate something:

* argon-argon (Ar-Ar)
* fission track dating
* helium (He-He)
* iodine-xenon (I-Xe)
* lanthanum-barium (La-Ba)
* lead-lead (Pb-Pb)
* lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf)
* neon-neon (Ne-Ne)
* optically stimulated luminescence dating
* potassium-argon (K-Ar)
* radiocarbon dating
* rhenium-osmium (Re-Os)
* rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr)
* samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd)
* uranium-lead (U-Pb)
* uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He)
* uranium-thorium (U-Th)
* uranium-uranium (U-U)

So there are lots of ways you can double check the results. Some of which are radiometric dating, and some of them (like counting yearly snow rings in Antarctica's ice cores) aren't.

John Feeney

11-15-2006, 11:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I know little about it, but aren't books copywrited? Are web pages copywrited? You mean if someone lifts something I post on here and re-posts it as their own somewhere else, I've been plagiarized?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, absolutely.

[ QUOTE ]
In other news, why have you completley disappeared from the poker scene? I consider your book and articles to be among the best stuff I've ever read. I wouldn't be nearly as successful as I am if it weren't for reading anything I could get my hands on from you. So what happened? I have a saying when someone disappears that no one ever stops playing because they made too much money (I don't think that's plagiarized)... But in your case, I'd have to believe just that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the kind words. I stopped playing a few years ago for a combination of reasons. Basically, when I get serious about something, I tend to go all out with it, to the exclusion of lots of other things, and certainly to the exclusion of other professions, hobbies, or what have you. I enjoyed poker, was certainly successful at it, but eventually developed a desire to pursue some other interests and to try to do some things which might make a bit more of a contribution to the world. This came about, in large part, as a result of having kids, and thinking about the current state of the world, and feeling downright guilty if I didn't try to do something to improve that state for them a little before I die. Certainly, it was also a function of hitting mid-life and realizing the second half of this thing was going to be a lot shorter than the first. I couldn't really make that shift of priorities while actively playing poker. (Feel free to PM me if you want more detail.)

[ QUOTE ]
We could also really use your eloquence on this forum. Won't you please consider spending a little time here? I'd love to hear your take on current science and some of the other matters that pop up on here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, thanks again. I do scan this forum fairly often, and have enjoyed many of your posts, btw. But I know posting can take up a lot of time. So, to keep from swamping myself with posting, I tend to limit my participation to a couple of topics I think are of profound importance right now (i.e., the politics of climate change and population growth), and to occasional posts about more fun stuff like music or what have you.

I've read bits of some of the religion threads, but feel I lack the thoroughly articulated arguments to add much. It seems clear to me that the traditional theist arguments David fights off are without merit, and I heard an interview with Dawkins recently on NPR which I thought was great. But if I'm going to invest my time in debating people invested in irrational beliefs I'm currently choosing to take on the global warming deniers and the "cornucopians" who claim population growth should be encouraged. (Granted, they may not be quite as irrational as creationists or evangelicals, but the issues they're arguing have major importance for the next century. Less for eternity, I'm sure. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif) Still, I may jump in here from time to time. I can't predict such things. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

vhawk01

11-16-2006, 12:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I know little about it, but aren't books copywrited? Are web pages copywrited? You mean if someone lifts something I post on here and re-posts it as their own somewhere else, I've been plagiarized?

Short hi-jack:

In other news, why have you completley disappeared from the poker scene? I consider your book and articles to be among the best stuff I've ever read. I wouldn't be nearly as successful as I am if it weren't for reading anything I could get my hands on from you. So what happened? I have a saying when someone disappears that no one ever stops playing because they made too much money (I don't think that's plagiarized)... But in your case, I'd have to believe just that.

We could also really use your eloquence on this forum. Won't you please consider spending a little time here? I'd love to hear your take on current science and some of the other matters that pop up on here.

Sorry for the hijack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Plagiarism is more about academic and intellectual integrity than it is about legal issues. You probably couldn't sue me for copying something you posted on this forum, but if I copy it and pretend it is my own (or even allow other people to THINK it is my own) then it is plagiarism no matter what form I found the material in. Copyrights have nothing to do with it. If you and I have a discussion in person, and I then pass of your own arguments, IN THE SAME WAY YOU FORMED THEM, as my own, its just as bad.

The gray area comes when we consider that very little of what I can say is TRULY original. It all comes from somewhere, something I've heard or read before, etc. But my own particular synthesis and my own particular rhetoric ARE original. And thats the point. Its hard to guard yourself against, and often you dont even know you are doing it, especially not subtle forms. Many scientific authors are irresponsibly plagiarising themselves and their colleagues, simply because they don't remember that they ever read it or published it prior. There is a TON of innocent/ignorant plagiarism. Recreating, word-for-word, the diatribe posted on a website that you are very likely to have been to is NOT an innocent/ignorant form of plagiarism. It is intentional and dishonest. Does Carded care? Probably not, he's not going to get his tenure pulled nor his posting priviledges revoked. But its something we should watch out for, certainly. Shame and fear of being ridiculed are pretty strong motivators for ensuring integrity and honesty...for some.

Lestat

11-16-2006, 01:07 AM

Interesting stuff. I've never given much thought to plagiarism. Certainly not about anything I write. I'd probably feel honored that someone thought enough about it to use it -lol.

I suppose I'm guilty of tranlating ideas or stuff I've read elsewhere. Not verbatim, but after mulling it around in my mind and spewing it back out in my own way. Hopefully, I'll have added something in the process. I'm pretty heavily influenced by people like Steven Pinker and Dawkins and I've made attempts to explain some of their stuff on here. Of course, it's in regurgitated format. I'm just spitting out what I think I've learned and trying to pass it along to others.

I even re-use ideas that some of YOU guys come up with, trying to expand on them, or make the same point in a more eloquent and or striking way to drive it home to those who are having trouble getting it. Maybe I shouldn't be doing these things?

I'll usually go on to recommend one of Steven Pinker's books, or state something like, "vhawk made a good point", etc. But I don't always credit someone else's idea or argument. So am I a plagiarist?

Interesting stuff. I've never thought about this before.

vhawk01

11-16-2006, 01:42 AM

The point is to make sure that its obvious which ideas are yours and which ideas were taken directly from someone else. Think about it this way: You've heard someone say something really smart. You thought it was clever, or funny or whatever. You are now in a group of people who haven't heard it before. If you would be embarassed if the person who told you it was listening...you are probably plagiarizing. If you change it or add new info or simply credit the first person, you are fine.

An internet forum is a very unique medium. Its not quite a conversation, where things like plagiarism are practically accepted and impossible to really police. But its not an article or book or publication either, where you are subjected to much stricter guidelines. People dont necessarily believe everything you write on here is your own work, and therefore you have less responsibility. In an article they DO expect that. So restating some brilliant, insightful thing that I've said (hehe) is probably ok, and if you feel like giving credit, go ahead. But copying a paragraph or two from some website in order to make yourself or your opinions seem weightier is obviously wrong. It ruins the level of discourse.

FortunaMaximus

11-16-2006, 02:04 AM

My extrapolations seem to come out of nowhere, and if I do research, it's to double-check standard thoughts and theory.

When I do quote something, it's generally to bring up a discussion point I think has merit.

And the nature of my memory is that I literally store a huge archive of information in my head, but don't know where exactly it came from in the first place.

Are there flaws to this approach that should be discontinued or tamped down? And there is cross-pollination of threads here, especially over a few days, and sometimes I absorb an concept from another poster I respect and use it to expand an argument.

I guess I do make the assumption that this kind of mutability is ok in this forum, but I would rather not offend or insult if this crosses an ethical line.

I believe in a free flow of information, and don't set out to plagairize, and if I do, it is not intentional. I'm speaking of concepts and ideas. The words I write are my own. Always. And I'd be astonished and really not worry too much if anything I had was plagiarized, as to me, eh, they're just ideas.

Just a line check.

vhawk01

11-16-2006, 02:06 AM

FM,

Don't worry, NO ONE would ever accuse you of plagiarism. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

FortunaMaximus

11-16-2006, 02:10 AM

<laughs> Good.

John Feeney

11-16-2006, 02:21 AM

Fortuna -- It doesn't sound to me like you're plagiarizing. (Same with Lestat)

As vhawk mentioned, it can get into gray areas on the Web (more black and white in something like an academic journal) when someone is using his own words but passing off someone else's ideas as his own. But the best course is definitely to give attribution whenever it makes sense. vhawk's example of "would you be embarrassed..." is excellent. If you're doing a lot of posting, occasionally losing track of where you got an idea is probably a forgivable sin. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

That said, copy-pasting stuff verbatim, without attribution, is clearly wrong. (An exception could of course be something like a short, generic kind of sentence: "This is important." Note the difference between that and the complex sentences the OP pasted in this thread.)

Carded

11-16-2006, 02:30 AM

Whatever, Info I copied I put in “” quotes. Yeah, I missed it on the second paragraph but if you look at it you can tell I followed the same form as the first and I was intending to do so, not to mention the orginal source is also listed in the paragraph anways. As far as referencing a referencing to a referencing is that required by MLA? I don’t know. The first source is list in the sentence itself, that’s a bit anal to calling it plagiarism considering this is only an Internet message board and I don’t intent to publish or receive a grade for any of my posts.

As far as arahant’s long-winded claims, about how he could do this and that and whatever. I suggest you calm down before you lose your voice crowing.

John Feeney

11-16-2006, 02:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever, Info I copied I put in “” quotes. Yeah, I missed it on the second paragraph but if you look at it you can tell I followed the same form as the first and I was intending to do so. As far as referencing a referencing to a referencing is that required by MLA? I don’t know. The first source is list in the sentence itself, that’s a bit anal to calling it plagiarism considering this is only an Internet message board and I don’t intent to publish or receive a grade for any of my posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't supply attribution for where you lifted those quotes. And in the one instance there was no indication from you that the fragment itself wasn't your own writing.

Carded

11-16-2006, 03:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever, Info I copied I put in “” quotes. Yeah, I missed it on the second paragraph but if you look at it you can tell I followed the same form as the first and I was intending to do so. As far as referencing a referencing to a referencing is that required by MLA? I don’t know. The first source is list in the sentence itself, that’s a bit anal to calling it plagiarism considering this is only an Internet message board and I don’t intent to publish or receive a grade for any of my posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't supply attribution. And in the one instance there was no indication from you that it wasn't your own writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, (Karpinskaya TB, Ostrovshiy IA, Shanin LL: Synthetic) and (Dalrymple GB, Moore JG: Science 1968;161:1132-5) (Noble CS, Naughton JJ: Science 1968;162:265-7) seemed like attributation to me.

As far as missing the second set of quotation marks, I will go yell at my editor for not catching it.

John Feeney

11-16-2006, 03:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Well, (Karpinskaya TB, Ostrovshiy IA, Shanin LL: Synthetic) and (Dalrymple GB, Moore JG: Science 1968;161:1132-5) (Noble CS, Naughton JJ: Science 1968;162:265-7) seemed like attributation to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't. This entire quote...

[ QUOTE ]
“In the first published paper (Karpinskaya TB, Ostrovshiy IA, Shanin LL: Synthetic introduction of argon into mica at high pressures and temperatures. Isv Akad Nauk S. S. S. R Geol Ser 1961; 8:87-9) muscovite was heated to high temperatures (740 to 860 C) under high Argon pressures (2,800 to 5000 atmospheres) for 3 to 10.5 hours. What they found was that the muscovite absorbed large quantities of Argon. When these muscovite samples were then dated via normal K-Ar dating techniques, they were measured to have an age of up to 5 billion years since the clock was reset.”

[/ QUOTE ]

...was from this site:

http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/K-Ar-dating.htm

You didn't attribute it as such. No link, no mention of the site, nothing.

The other piece you lifted from there...

[ QUOTE ]
Two different papers (Dalrymple GB, Moore JG: Science 1968;161:1132-5) (Noble CS, Naughton JJ: Science 1968;162:265-7) show that lava flows in the ocean, show excess ages. The deeper the lava goes in depth into the ocean, the older the K/Ar date.

[/ QUOTE ]

...was not in quotes OR attributed to its source.

This is pretty basic.

Edit: I kind of don't like singling you out for this. I don't want to suggest you committed a huge act of plagiarism; it was a relatively small one. I've seen worse. It was probably just unfamiliarity with proper attribution or a hesitancy to reveal the source if you thought it would weaken your argument. It just happened to come at a time when I'd been growing concerned that this was becoming more prevalent.

moneyfaucet

11-16-2006, 03:24 AM

I believe in evolution based on science and experience.

Carded

11-16-2006, 03:29 AM

Okay, fine I admit I was sloppy on using strict referencing form. I wasn't trying to steal anyones work though.

John Feeney

11-16-2006, 03:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, fine I admit I was sloppy on using strict referencing form. I wasn't trying to steal anyones work though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good enough for me.

MidGe

11-16-2006, 03:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, fine I admit I was sloppy on using strict referencing form. I wasn't trying to steal anyones work though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good enough for me too. /images/graemlins/smile.gif You were just trying to appear more intelligent than you are, or at least more eloquent, although the authors you quoted aren't all that smart either. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

ojc02

11-16-2006, 03:46 AM

Just perusing the thread, hadn't checked it out 'til now, and I found this...

[ QUOTE ]
“group thinking effect”

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, I love that the fundie brought up the group think effect - so deliciously ironic.

My 2 cents (though this thread is probably kinda dead now):
I believe scientific research and papers because the scientists doing the research are using the Scientific Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method). I believe this to be the best method we have available to determine the nature our universe. Yes, scientists can get things wrong but by using the scientific method they are more likely to get things right than anybody using any other method. And that certainly includes some imaginative authors from thousands of years ago.

Carded

11-16-2006, 04:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, fine I admit I was sloppy on using strict referencing form. I wasn't trying to steal anyones work though.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good enough for me too. /images/graemlins/smile.gif You were just trying to appear more intelligent than you are, or at least more eloquent, although the authors you quoted aren't all that smart either. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

That may or not be true, nevertheless the validly of an argument is not dependent on the intelligence of the one who presents it. Moreover, showing an explanation of a phenomenon is not mutually exclusive is enough.

CORed

11-18-2006, 06:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am curious to see how many people how accept the Theory of Evolution admit its on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your bias is showing. Also, your misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, and scientific thinking in general. The origin of life, strictly speaking, is not even part of the theory of evolution. The origin of life is a question to which science has not found a satisfactory answer, and may not any time soon, given that there is only one place that we know for sure has life and that the origin apparently took place a few billion years ago.

The theroy of evolution explains how simple single-celled organisms evolved over time into more complex organisms, and how living organisms change over time in response to environmental change. It is based on observable processes in living organisms and on the fossil record. It provides a logically consistent explanation for what we see in living organisms now, and in the fossil record. Because of the time scale involved, many of the processes posutlated by the theory of evolution are not directly observable. However, they are inferred from, and checked against, obsrvable information. If you don't understand how this differs from faith, you are beyond help.

CORed

11-18-2006, 07:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you believe it is more reasonbable to think that non-life makes life when its never been witnessesed nor can be scientifically tested and observed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this is a reasonalbe question. If one were to look at life in isolation from the rest of the universe, it would not be unreasonable to assume the life has always existed and has no origin. However, physicists and cosmologists seem pretty certain that the univers had a beginning. I woun't claim to understand physics and cosmology as well as I understand evolution, but if the universe is not infinite backward in time, life had to begin some time. Even if the cosmologists are wrong about the big bang, it's pretty clear stars don't last forever. The sun has a finite amount of fuel, it was born at some time in the past and will die some time in the future when it runs out of fuel. Current theory holds that the sun is just about in the middle of its lifetime. So, even if you postulate a universe that has existed forever, either life had to originate from non-life, or it had to cross interstellar space by some means. Possibly an extra-terrestrial interstellar astronaut took a dump on earth 3 billion years ago, but I think it's more likely that life somehow developed from non-living matter.

CORed

11-18-2006, 07:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you do not know science. Science is about showing hypotheses to be reasonable by creating accurate models in closed systems and subjugating them to experimentation to collect date. The experiment must be repeatable and done many times. The data is then analyzed to see if the results support the initial hypotheses. If the data given by the experiments supports the hypotheses strongly it becomes know as a Theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct, but incomplete. Controlled experiments are best for many purposes. However, they are not always possible. Do you think you could create a hurricaine in a laboratory? Does that mean that scientific hypotheses about how hurricaines form and move are worthless? Sometimes science works by testing hypotheses against real-world data.

CORed

11-18-2006, 07:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
bathing suit in 1858
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/75/Bathing_suit_1858.png/200px-Bathing_suit_1858.png
present day bathing suit
http://www.calendars.com/images/032/3298/200600015630_fc.jpg

Proof of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the woman in the first picture drowned.

CORed

11-18-2006, 07:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You creationists lost in court in 1922.
Darrow beat Bryan in the Scopes' trial.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, Scopes was convicted. Bryan won the case (but not the argument).

CORed

11-18-2006, 08:21 PM

Creationists have invented the macro-evolution vs. micro-evolution duality to deal with an uncomfortable reality: Evolution is an observable process. The truth is, all evolution is "micro-evolution". When two groups of a species are separated -- by physical barriers or different ecological niches--for long enough, accumulated "micro-evolution" changes reach the point where the two groups can no longer interbreed, and become separate species. This takes quite a bit of time, even for rapidly evolving forms like bactera and insects. However, we can observe pairs of organisme in different stages of this process. Polar bears and grizzly bears have been crossed in captivity and produced fertile offspring. However, they are quite different and occupy different habitats, so they rarely, if ever, interbreed in the wild. Horses and donkeys, or lions and tigers, are close enough that a mating will produce viable offspring but the offspring are sterile, muels and ligers, respectively. Mating between sheep and goats will result in pregnancy, but the offspring is usually stillborn. Dogs and cats can't interbreed at all.

Creationsists would have us believe that "micro-evolution" runs into some sort of mystical barrier that prevents diverging lines from becoming separate species.

So, no, nobody has ever observed "macro-evolution" because nobody has lived long enough. But it's pretty evident that it happens.