Evolution is BULLSHIT

[Jesse]

I wonder if it's just evolution you discount or other modern scientific theories that don't question the bible?

Also what your saying has merit. Never assume anything.

Just look at the history of science to see that the scientific consensus is sometimes wrong.

However what your saying is wrong and can be proven wrong.

 

[Puffy]

Evolution: Kuhnian revolution gone wrong?

Only one of Copernicus's followers had to go on trial for his theories to be accepted :P

 

[scorpiomover]

Yeah, it is very common to think that there is no point in arguing if nobody changes their respective positions. But, I think that arguing about this stuff is the best way to learn the topics--more educational than reading books or watching documentaries or taking classes--because it causes the knowledge to stick. Any argument is mutually beneficial, regardless of who does or does not forfeit.

I have learned much from arguments. However, I have also learned that people tend to take arguments personally, and when they do, they just defend their position endlessly. The end result seems to be that maybe 10% at most is useful, and the other 90% is just made-up rationalisations. I end up feeling like I would be far more productive by doing something else.

So I agree that people can learn a LOT from arguments, provided that everyone goes into it, to explore others' opinions, but not to tear them down.

Even if it is all about the goal of changing someone else's position, it is not something that you would expect to see drastically and immediately. Such changes almost always happen gradually--someone gets wailed in a debate, doesn't change his or her explicit position, but with each successive debate has more doubt about it than before, and becomes less likely to evangelize it.

I tend to find that when people get into an argument, and it becomes a personal battle, they get very defensive. Even when they've totally lost the argument, they still don't change their opinions. They even become more entrenched in their opinions, and more desirous to push their POV. They just choose a different battle-ground for their persuasions.

On the other hand, if I embrace others' views as being equally valid as my own, then even if we are arguing, others tend to be more willing to admit weakness in their views, and more willing to admit strengths to mine. Then I find that they are far more willing to come to agreement, and even to see my side of things, and then are less willing to encourage others to their POV in other situations, because they understand that my views do have some merit, and do not want to exterminate my views.

I think that explains why evolutionists are far more likely than creationists to win political fights, even when evolutionists are in the minority. When members of a local school board threaten to remove evolution from the curriculum, the voters tend to kick them to the curb, even in strongly conservative districts with creationist majorities. Evolutionists win the debates far more often, and they have far more zealous passion about the issues because of that. Creationists, despite what you may expect, have considerably less confidence in their own ability to defend their own positions.

That is exactly what people believed about 40 years ago, which is why evolution was so pushed into schools. As a result, everyone expected that the numbers of Creationists would have diminished to only a handful of survivors. What has happened, is that as much as 50% of Americans are now Creationists, and even in UK, there are now many who dispute the validity of evolution, when no-one questioned it 40 years ago. It seems that Creationists win the debates, and even win in the school system, and yet there are more Creationists than ever.

However, where Evolutionists have chosen to LISTEN to the issues that Creationists have, and changed their views and actions, to protect the concerns of Creationists, it seems to me that Creationists have been willing to either accept evolution, or at least to validate it as an alternative that is compatible with their own views.

What I have noticed, is that in countries where freedoms are valued, money is plentiful, and crime is relatively low, Evolutionists seem to be gung-ho for an all-out war, and the rest of the country is not. Hence, they are ALLOWED to win the debates, because most do not want a civil war. But the people do not change their views, and even seem to increase their levels of Creationism.

In countries where freedoms are low, money is scarce, and crime is very high, the reverse happens. Evolutionists seem as gung-ho as in the free, rich countries. But there, the Creationists are refusing to back down, because things are already so bad, that a civil war is not going to make things that much worse, and so you lose little by fighting for what you believe in.

So I don't think that Evolutionists ARE winning debates. I think the other side is just stopping arguing, because the end result of keeping culture wars going, is all-out bloody civil war. Evolutionists seem to be currently unaware that such choices are even happening. They think they've won the debate, even when everyone know still talks to the Creationists, hears quite plainly, that they don't even concede a single point.

That is why such debates have been called "Culture Wars" in America, and not "Culture Battles". The battles are won by the Evolutionists, but the other side refuses to surrender. The only choice left is nuking 50% of America, and a large part of the rest of the world.

Well, that, or that Evolutionists and Creationists start talking to each other, like they are each intelligent human beings, each with equally valid views.

Mutual respect goes a long war to prevent civil war.

 

[Oblivious]

You realise that calling creationism science is the same as going to a church and saying that the Bible should include Greek Mythology in its canon scripture?

What concerns do creationists have? The only one I know of is that evolutionary theory somehow leads to a degradation of moral values, which is simply untrue. Moral integrity and faith in God do not conflict with Evolutionary theory.

The attack of evolution is not justified as evolution does not interfere with the right to practise religion. The reason why creationism is banned from schools is because it violates the separation of church and state set forth in the constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision

What I have noticed, is that in countries where freedoms are valued, money is plentiful, and crime is relatively low, Evolutionists seem to be gung-ho for an all-out war, and the rest of the country is not. Hence, they are ALLOWED to win the debates, because most do not want a civil war. But the people do not change their views, and even seem to increase their levels of Creationism.

In countries where freedoms are low, money is scarce, and crime is very high, the reverse happens. Evolutionists seem as gung-ho as in the free, rich countries. But there, the Creationists are refusing to back down, because things are already so bad, that a civil war is not going to make things that much worse, and so you lose little by fighting for what you believe in.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/04/opinion/04blow.html?hp

Religion is succour for the poor. Richer countries are generally less religious and are likely to have a better educated population, though the US seems to be an exception.

 

[scorpiomover]

Okay, well, thermodynamics is actually a law, but the point stands. All theories must conform to laws, and I find it baffling how people read a few articles online and then presume they've figured out that thermodynamics disallows evolution, yet practicing biologists have missed the fact for over a century. Sure, they might have, but then we come to find out that these internexperts are operating on a false idea of thermodynamics, applied in the wrong circumstances.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is pretty simple in its examples. Heat one part of a room, and the heat spreads to become even through the entire room. Drop a blob of oil on one side of a plate, and it spreads throughout the whole plate.

Evolution is also pretty easy to understand. Not everything develops exactly the same. Environments make one type of thing spread easier and faster than another. So one tends to dominate, and the other tends to reduce.

Both concepts apply to biology, chemistry and physics, equally well. The only problem is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is largely left to chemistry and physics, and the concept of Evolution is largely left to biology. So Evolutionists tend not to take the Second Law of Thermodynamics into account, and chemists and physicists tend to not take evolutionary processes into account.

If we are to develop science for everyone's benefit, then we need them both in the same set of laws, that apply to all branches of science equally.

I have tried to do that for myself. What I have ended up with, is a scientific view that is incredibly close to religious views, so close as to make the idea that religion is against science, laughable.

For instance, Evolution dictates that the fitter sub-section of any species, dominates. Atheism as a mutation, must have occurred to some, over the years. It's certainly a view that occurs to almost everyone who considers the matter of gods. Ergo, it's been around for as long as the mutations that are called religions. Yet every time it arises, it seems to go extinct. Ergo, atheism is the lesser fittest of the 2. You'd expect atheistic evolutionists to get that. But they seem to refuse to accept that. You start to wonder if they are not just vestigial members of dying sub-species, that are doing their best to try to survive, by trying to fight against evolution itself.

How can we possibly expect to develop science, if the people who are producing science, are in denial of the very science they are studying?

Time for a re-think of if our society is heading up towards continued survival, or heading down towards extinction.

And the fact is evolution is not other theories. Even if it's related to another theory (as it is in all of biology and medicine), it's still not those other theories, and stands or falls on it's merits or lack thereof, not the merit or lack thereof for the other theories. If someone has something against evolution because it doesn't account for the appearance of life in the first place, they're simply not addressing the appropriate theory. They should, instead, argue against abiogenesis, which is it's own theory and is based on a different set of facts than those which support evolution, even though some of those facts may overlap or be somehow interdependent.

It's pretty hard to argue for evolution, independently of abiogenesis, when the alternatives are that G-d genetically engineered the first amoeba, or that aliens genetically engineered the first amoeba.

For one thing, it raises the possibility that plenty of other species were genetically engineered. So one result is that one ends up questioning if one needs evolution at all. It then becomes an additional concept that is unnecessary, and Occam's Razor comes to mind.

For another, if evolution does not require abiogenesis, then it needs to be demonstrated independently of prior origin, such as in the present day, with macro-evolution in the present day. We know that mastiffs were artificially cross-bred to develop the British bulldog. We know that evolution can happen when directed by artificial means, as if has been done for millennia. The first question that then comes to mind, is if macro-evolution occurs naturally, and if it does, where, and how. This would also be incredibly useful, as it would be predictive in the present, and so would enable us to solve a lot of problems early on, when they are able to be dealt with much easiser. These questions tend to be ignored by Evolutionary theory. So what seems to occur to us naturally, and what is going to be most helpful to us in the present, is not really being addressed.

For a third, if evolution is to be considered independently of abiogenesis, then it too cannot be used to explain a theory that accounts for the origins of life. So it only stands as a HYPOTHESIS about how life came to be, and how it came to be in its present form. In other words, the theory is incomplete, in a very serious way. It's rather like trying to prove a mathematical theorem by induction, showing the inductive step, which is how, if the theorem is true for one generation, it is true for the next, and then not showing the first step. It COULD be true. But without the first step, the thing never gets going. It might work from now on. But you couldn't realistically work backwards.

There are TWO theories of evolution:

1) A hypothesis that some species evolved from others, of which the hypothesis is seriously incomplete, and is trying to tell us what happened in a time we cannot access, and cannot really help us.

It can give us the excuse that religion is wrong, and to justify doing whatever it takes to get rid of religious terrorists, such as by invading and occupying 2 countries for several years, under entirely illegal and false premises.

It can also give us stuff to entertain us, such as why humans learned to wear clothes.

It can also give us stuff to keep scientists in work, such as why humans learned to wear clothes.

Outside of that, it's just another anecdote about the past, giving us nothing more than we had from religious stories.

2) The distinct possibility that evolution works in the present day. This one really COULD benefit humanity, today, and tomorrow. It could save the life of millions. It is not being used much in present-day prediction. So ironically, the really great bit about evolution, is the part we are not really using.

I want a better future. Stop worrying about the past. It's the present that matters. Only theories about the present can help us.

Certainly poor decisions and unjust, but that doesn't really apply to the subject. That was always the law interfering in science, not the scientific community cencoring itself or it's opposition.

The law was PROTECTING Jenner's vaccine, against the standard practice of the scientific community. Culpepper didn't get arrested by the law, but by the private army of the Royal College of Surgeons. These are only 2 of lots of other cases where conservativism of the scientific community threatened to wipe out scientific discoveries. Practically everyone in the scientific community was against Einstein's theory of relativity, with Lord Kelvin, the President of the Royal Society, and one of the heads of the scientific community, at the spearhead of the opposition. If not for Arthur Eddington being Einstein's bulldog, you'd be swearing blind that space is flat.

Scientists are people. They are subject to the same rules of psychology as everyone else. They are subject to trusting in their own ideas more than distrusting them. They are subject to trusting in the ideas of their industry, more than others. They are subject to trusting in whatever will ensure their survival, by what will guarantee them having a continued paycheck, such as continued belief in a theory that they are currently being paid a grant to explore.

Scientists take on a noble task. They still remain human beings, with all their weaknesses. Remember that.

Accomplishing such a thing in modern times would be extremely difficult if possible in the first place, due to the freedom of information gained through the internet and other forms of global communication.

It's harder today, to hide ideas from ALL of the general public, because someone can always post it on the web. I think that it's hard to hide the truth forever. I doubt that it's that hard to hide the truth for many years.

The police had found some journalists hacking people's phones and online accounts years ago. Most people had no idea that was happening until recently.

There had been cases of MPs fiddling expenses years before the MP expenses scandal came out.

Even in the late 90s, Alan Greenspan was getting conflicting reports that profits were up, when productivity had not increased, indicating that self-regulation could seriously be going wrong, 10 years before the Credit Crunch. We should have suspected that something was fishy with the banks, when Nick Leeson managed to sink the longest-running investment bank in the UK, which ran for over 200 years, because no-one was checking the books. No-one even questioned then, if there might be a problem with the other banks.

Or do you want to Google "Jan Hendrik Schön"? He managed to fool the entire scientific world for several years. Probably would have got away with it too, if not that his claims looked so cool, that major companies started trying to develop his theories into commercial technology, and couldn't understand why they couldn't get it to work at all.

How many cases do you need, before you start realising that you CAN fool all of the people, for several years, before being found out?

Kinda like how medical doctors who denies Germ Theory would get discredited?

There are plenty of doctors who got discredited, like Andrew Wakefield. I don't know of ANY doctor who denies the existence of germs.

I mean, sure, you do have to follow certain memes to retain your credibility in the scientific community. For starters, you have to actually use science.

There are lots of theories that scientists come up with, that don't make sense. Psychological theories are part of science, and they include the idea that if you fry someone's brain with enough volts, that miraculously, it will cure mental illness. There are even theories that photons follow probability, not what is actually there. What constitutes science, is pretty broad, even broader than what constitutes reason.

Theories that oppose evolution are simply not scientific, ans so cannot really be called theories except colloquially.

You cannot learn anything substantial, unless you are open to the possibility of being wrong.

All opposition to evolution so far has been nothing except religion, hidden as such to differing degrees.

I know quite a few people who don't like religion at all, and believe that evolution is NOT true, and that we were genetically engineered by aliens.

I haven't heard anything about this, but I'd be interested to read more

There are several documentaries on the subject, including at least one by the BBC. I'm sure that you have the ability to find much about it online.

(as well as slower to point at atheists for getting butt-hurt to the point they'd destroy knowledge. Religious source or no, I know of few to no atheists who would deny truth due to the source it came from.

You yourself have testified to being unbelievably scientifically dogmatic. If you are admitting to avoiding the possibility of new discoveries of truth, how can I can possibly take your word for it about anyone else?

I think that the view of us having evolved from other species, is a hypothesis worthy of much study and has great potential for benefit of humanity. But ONLY when scientific dogmatism of evolution, is let go. It's time to face facts. Either evolution can always be challenged, to ensure that we can continue to learn, or as a species, we deny ourselves the ability to learn new breakthroughs, and then, we are no longer capable of adapting to new challenges, and then we eventually go extinct.

We are simply in the midst of a sub-species war, on who will dominate. The future results are obvious, even now. The only question is how far scientific dogmatists and atheistic dogmatists will continue this war, until they give up, and humanity can evolve.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I have learned much from arguments. However, I have also learned that people tend to take arguments personally, and when they do, they just defend their position endlessly. The end result seems to be that maybe 10% at most is useful, and the other 90% is just made-up rationalisations. I end up feeling like I would be far more productive by doing something else.

So I agree that people can learn a LOT from arguments, provided that everyone goes into it, to explore others' opinions, but not to tear them down.

I tend to find that when people get into an argument, and it becomes a personal battle, they get very defensive. Even when they've totally lost the argument, they still don't change their opinions. They even become more entrenched in their opinions, and more desirous to push their POV. They just choose a different battle-ground for their persuasions.

On the other hand, if I embrace others' views as being equally valid as my own, then even if we are arguing, others tend to be more willing to admit weakness in their views, and more willing to admit strengths to mine. Then I find that they are far more willing to come to agreement, and even to see my side of things, and then are less willing to encourage others to their POV in other situations, because they understand that my views do have some merit, and do not want to exterminate my views.

Yeah, admissions generally don't happen in debates, except implicitly and on a small scale, which still counts. Sometimes, the evidence is there, but you have to pay attention to see it. For example, someone responds to a powerful argument by changing the topic, shifting his or her own argument and moving the goalposts--the positions remain, but your opponent learned something from you, even if he or she won't admit it. I see that happening a lot, and chances are that you have done such a thing yourself (so have I), and that should be taken as evidence that a mind was enhanced.

Even so, I generally wouldn't hope to change anyone else's mind. The most productive debates are the debates where I learn something. I debate for me, not for them. Learning something doesn't always mean listening to what they have to say, but it more often means paying attention to what I am saying and learning from my own sources.

That is exactly what people believed about 40 years ago, which is why evolution was so pushed into schools. As a result, everyone expected that the numbers of Creationists would have diminished to only a handful of survivors. What has happened, is that as much as 50% of Americans are now Creationists, and even in UK, there are now many who dispute the validity of evolution, when no-one questioned it 40 years ago. It seems that Creationists win the debates, and even win in the school system, and yet there are more Creationists than ever.

However, where Evolutionists have chosen to LISTEN to the issues that Creationists have, and changed their views and actions, to protect the concerns of Creationists, it seems to me that Creationists have been willing to either accept evolution, or at least to validate it as an alternative that is compatible with their own views.

What I have noticed, is that in countries where freedoms are valued, money is plentiful, and crime is relatively low, Evolutionists seem to be gung-ho for an all-out war, and the rest of the country is not. Hence, they are ALLOWED to win the debates, because most do not want a civil war. But the people do not change their views, and even seem to increase their levels of Creationism.

In countries where freedoms are low, money is scarce, and crime is very high, the reverse happens. Evolutionists seem as gung-ho as in the free, rich countries. But there, the Creationists are refusing to back down, because things are already so bad, that a civil war is not going to make things that much worse, and so you lose little by fighting for what you believe in.

So I don't think that Evolutionists ARE winning debates. I think the other side is just stopping arguing, because the end result of keeping culture wars going, is all-out bloody civil war. Evolutionists seem to be currently unaware that such choices are even happening. They think they've won the debate, even when everyone know still talks to the Creationists, hears quite plainly, that they don't even concede a single point.

That is why such debates have been called "Culture Wars" in America, and not "Culture Battles". The battles are won by the Evolutionists, but the other side refuses to surrender. The only choice left is nuking 50% of America, and a large part of the rest of the world.

Well, that, or that Evolutionists and Creationists start talking to each other, like they are each intelligent human beings, each with equally valid views.

Mutual respect goes a long war to prevent civil war.

I actually don't think that creationism is promoted through debate. It is promoted the same way as other religious doctrines--listening to sermons, going to Bible study groups, listening to friends and family, and reading the religious literature. The theory of evolution is promoted through public education, scientific literature, and religious debate. Debate is how evolutionists win the political battles in elections and court rooms, but those political battles are not how they gain belief in the wider population. They don't and they won't win the "culture war" by winning the battle over public schools, or else they would have won. Acceptance of creationism is almost exclusively a function of acceptance of Biblicism (Biblical literalism). Creationism is only a small element of Biblicism, and Biblicists invest an incredible amount of time and effort evangelizing that general perspective. Evolutionists tend to focus on the issue of public education, but Biblicists are not so focused, because they take their evangelism to all aspects of life. They lose the political fights over public education, but they are evenly-matched with liberalism in the culture war.

The good news is that the common formulation of Biblicism is changing in favor of liberalism as time progresses. No longer is slavery a Biblicist doctrine. Subservience of women is not what it used to be among Biblicists. No longer is divorce so hotly opposed by Biblicists. There is a very good chance that creationism will make a retreat within Biblicism before long, but it will require that evolutionists broaden their methods of persuasion.

I go to Bible-study groups, and I discuss these issues, always in a friendly manner. Conservative Biblicists can accept the theory of evolution--my Bible study leader is already one of them.

 

[Lostwitheal]

What has happened, is that as much as 50% of Americans are now Creationists, and even in UK, there are now many who dispute the validity of evolution, when no-one questioned it 40 years ago. It seems that Creationists win the debates, and even win in the school system, and yet there are more Creationists than ever.

What? Where did these numbers come from? I live in England and know no creationists. I know a fair few Christians, but no creationists, and the majority of people I know aren't even religious.

 

[Oblivious]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is pretty simple in its examples. Heat one part of a room, and the heat spreads to become even through the entire room. Drop a blob of oil on one side of a plate, and it spreads throughout the whole plate.

Evolution is also pretty easy to understand. Not everything develops exactly the same. Environments make one type of thing spread easier and faster than another. So one tends to dominate, and the other tends to reduce.

Both concepts apply to biology, chemistry and physics, equally well. The only problem is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is largely left to chemistry and physics, and the concept of Evolution is largely left to biology. So Evolutionists tend not to take the Second Law of Thermodynamics into account, and chemists and physicists tend to not take evolutionary processes into account.

I suggest you read the below.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/02/darwin-in-a-test-tube.html

“They’re just molecules, so they do what they do until they run out of substrate. And this will go for ever – it’s an immortal molecule, if you like,” he told a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Diego.

The research shows that the system can sustain molecular information, a form of heritability, and give rise to variations of itself in a way akin to Darwinian evolution. So, says Lincoln, "What we have is non-living, but we've been able to show that it has some life-like properties, and that was extremely interesting."

The actual paper: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5918/1229.abstract

Also:

The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy tends to increase in closed systems. Earth is not a closed system. Earth is constantly bombarded by new energy by the sun. Life itself takes in new energy by eating in whatever manner any particular form of life eats, so life is not a closed system either. The second law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply to either Earth's ecosystem or any particular organism.

scorpiomover:

Now that we have that out of the way, I notice you make the interesting claim that creationism is a valid scientific theory. This is news to me (blatant lie), and I would like to invite you to present your arguments. (So we can destroy them )

 

[alrai]

I brag? What do I brag about? And if this gets personal, then okay. I'm trying not to make it personal, but, as I said, I find it difficult to not accidentally insult people. I usually accomplish it through not talking or with silly jokes, but we're talking.

Oh, and I'm the most hilarious person alive.

Seriously, though, I'm glad that the things I said made you think, even if you have a distaste for me personally.

Okay. I think I misunderstood you. Your right. We're talking.

Assuming that article is telling the truth, so what? Archaeopteryx could possibly fly. How does that make it not a transitional fossil?

It doesn't. But it makes it a fake dinosaur-bird ancestor. Archaeopteryx is now considered only a bird, not an intermediate fossil. Other examples include, the pepper moth and the horse series [http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud.htm].

The facts as I see them; evolution is a well structured, and can provides a straight-foward logical explanation of life development.
There are constant claims of transitional fossils that they celebrate over for a few years, and are later heart broken. Do I have to remind you of the Piltdown man, Hesperopithecus, Lothagam man etc(The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution by William R. Fix).

Only an ignorant fanatics says that evolution or creation can be proved scientifically. I don't like the fact that;

1. A book about origins does not deal with origins(although It tackles the development of life well).
2. Darwin was a racists who believed that blacks were closer to the alleged ape men than whites?
3.man are supposedly only a little higher than the animals(I certainly don't see myself as a LITTLE higher)
4. Its portrayed and discussed as a FACT in our media (I'm British) when in reality, evolution is a speculation, a hypothesis, a theory, and for some people a faith, that apparently represent free thought (I am aware that if we only taught entirely proved sciences, that's observable, then there would be little or no science teaching at all).

Admittedly, evolution provides a good understanding of how and why different organisms work as they do, and is relied on in biology for its concepts on mutation, natural selection and adaptation.

I have learned much from arguments. However, I have also learned that people tend to take arguments personally, and when they do, they just defend their position endlessly. The end result seems to be that maybe 10% at most is useful, and the other 90% is just made-up rationalisations. I end up feeling like I would be far more productive by doing something else.

Individual differences.

If you respect each other then your both likely to learn something new.
Changes to the beliefs system is always gradual process, But changes in thought can be instant. If you approach things with that preconceived notion then its likely you will limit yourself.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Holy wall of Text, Batman!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is pretty simple in its examples. Heat one part of a room, and the heat spreads to become even through the entire room. Drop a blob of oil on one side of a plate, and it spreads throughout the whole plate.

Evolution is also pretty easy to understand. Not everything develops exactly the same. Environments make one type of thing spread easier and faster than another. So one tends to dominate, and the other tends to reduce.

Both concepts apply to biology, chemistry and physics, equally well. The only problem is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is largely left to chemistry and physics, and the concept of Evolution is largely left to biology. So Evolutionists tend not to take the Second Law of Thermodynamics into account, and chemists and physicists tend to not take evolutionary processes into account.

There's also the fact that everything relevant to biology is an open system and the second law of thermodynamics simply doesn't apply. It applies to closed systems. Life is not a closed system.

If we are to develop science for everyone's benefit, then we need them both in the same set of laws, that apply to all branches of science equally.

Laws apply under the circumstances they define themselves. The second law, as it's relevant and as already stated, does not apply to open systems, as it describes what happens in closed systems specifically. If a branch of science studies a thing which is not a closed system, then that law would not apply not due to some sort of unfairness, but because it simply doesn't apply.

I have tried to do that for myself. What I have ended up with, is a scientific view that is incredibly close to religious views, so close as to make the idea that religion is against science, laughable.

Religion and science are not close. One is based on testable observation, and the other is based on beliefs, with no further requirement.

For instance, Evolution dictates that the fitter sub-section of any species, dominates. Atheism as a mutation, must have occurred to some, over the years. It's certainly a view that occurs to almost everyone who considers the matter of gods. Ergo, it's been around for as long as the mutations that are called religions. Yet every time it arises, it seems to go extinct. Ergo, atheism is the lesser fittest of the 2. You'd expect atheistic evolutionists to get that. But they seem to refuse to accept that. You start to wonder if they are not just vestigial members of dying sub-species, that are doing their best to try to survive, by trying to fight against evolution itself.

Evolution dictates that those better suited to survival will tend to survive. That's true. And your analogy is even a good one, comparing religion/atheism to competing mutations in a community of some species. Let's face the facts, atheism has been faced with violent ignorance for as long back as we have history of the idea. It would probably be better for the individuals in the population who proclaim atheism to not do so, that they might continue living to reproduce. However, the environment has changed since then. At least within first world nations, atheism is accepted, albeit with stigmas attached, and their numbers are growing.

How can we possibly expect to develop science, if the people who are producing science, are in denial of the very science they are studying?

Leap in logic, much? Most scientists are religious, and I don't see how else what you said would be relevant

Time for a re-think of if our society is heading up towards continued survival, or heading down towards extinction.

... Seeing as how we dominate the world, yeah, I'm going with up.

It's pretty hard to argue for evolution, independently of abiogenesis, when the alternatives are that G-d genetically engineered the first amoeba, or that aliens genetically engineered the first amoeba.

If we discovered that God did, in fact, create the very first form of simple life (oh, and that such an entity exists, btw), it wouldn't effect the theory of evolution at all. So, no, you're totally wrong about this one. The evidence would still suggest that life became as diverse as it currently is due to evolution, unless we also discovered that effected the theory of evolution as well.

For one thing, it raises the possibility that plenty of other species were genetically engineered. So one result is that one ends up questioning if one needs evolution at all. It then becomes an additional concept that is unnecessary, and Occam's Razor comes to mind.

It rasies the chances of it being possible, but evidence God created one thing is not evidence he created another, it's only evidence he could have created another. I'm beginning to suspect you don't actually understand what sort of piles and piles of evidence for evolution that actually exist. I certainly can't list them all, as I'm no expert. I'd suggest a google search, or perhaps a discussion with a biology professor if that's a possibility for you.

For another, if evolution does not require abiogenesis, then it needs to be demonstrated independently of prior origin... These questions tend to be ignored by Evolutionary theory. So what seems to occur to us naturally, and what is going to be most helpful to us in the present, is not really being addressed.

It is. That's my entire point. The theory of evolution is a separate theory from the theory of abiogenesis. It's demonstrated from a different set of evidence than abiogenesis, and is about a different subject than abiogenesis.

The theory of evolution strings together all the other theories within the branch of biology, including, most prominently, medicine. As I keep saying, I'm no expert and cannot list it's exact uses, so go talk to a doctor, preferably one working in experimentation. Or Google.

For a third, if evolution is to be considered independently of abiogenesis, then it too cannot be used to explain a theory that accounts for the origins of life. So it only stands as a HYPOTHESIS about how life came to be, and how it came to be in its present form. In other words, the theory is incomplete, in a very serious way. It's rather like trying to prove a mathematical theorem by induction, showing the inductive step, which is how, if the theorem is true for one generation, it is true for the next, and then not showing the first step. It COULD be true. But without the first step, the thing never gets going. It might work from now on. But you couldn't realistically work backwards.

... No. They're different things. The theory of evolution is not about the origin of life. It's not "incomplete" for not explaining something it doesn't even attempt to explain! You can keep making comparisons all day long, but the theory of evolution is not bound to your expectations. It explains what it explain, regardless what you ask it to explain. Are you equally baffled why Germ Theory doesn't explain the origin of germs? Why doesn't the theory of gravity explain the origin of gravity? Are they equally incomplete?

There are TWO theories of evolution:

1) A hypothesis that some species evolved from others, of which the hypothesis is seriously incomplete, and is trying to tell us what happened in a time we cannot access, and cannot really help us.

It can give us the excuse that religion is wrong, and to justify doing whatever it takes to get rid of religious terrorists, such as by invading and occupying 2 countries for several years, under entirely illegal and false premises.

It can also give us stuff to entertain us, such as why humans learned to wear clothes.

It can also give us stuff to keep scientists in work, such as why humans learned to wear clothes.

Outside of that, it's just another anecdote about the past, giving us nothing more than we had from religious stories.

It's not a hypothesis. It's a theory. Until you show me your biology lab and your peer reviewed articles, I'm not going to let you toss around words as though you were a scientist who could distinguish between those words within a scientific context, because it's pretty blatant by now that you don't, at the very least, understand the theory of evolution, and science itself to at least a lesser extent.

Evolution and atheism are not intrinsically tied to one another, and most biologists are religious. Sure, much fewer are religious compared to the rest of society, but they're still mostly religious, making your assumption that this is somehow tied to atheism appear silly.

And bravo on blowing off the potential for the past to be relevant to the present. I guess people who study ancient artifacts and lost civilizations ought to quit as well. Screw the fact that the stuff we're learning is interesting, screw the fact that it gives us insights into modern society (biology), and let's not even bother asking exactly what benefits may come of it, let's just assume we know better than they do and call it all useless based on the fact that we personally don't want to pay for their research.

2) The distinct possibility that evolution works in the present day. This one really COULD benefit humanity, today, and tomorrow. It could save the life of millions. It is not being used much in present-day prediction. So ironically, the really great bit about evolution, is the part we are not really using.

I want a better future. Stop worrying about the past. It's the present that matters. Only theories about the present can help us.

See above.

The law was PROTECTING Jenner's vaccine, against the standard practice of the scientific community. Culpepper didn't get arrested by the law, but by the private army of the Royal College of Surgeons. These are only 2 of lots of other cases where conservativism of the scientific community threatened to wipe out scientific discoveries. Practically everyone in the scientific community was against Einstein's theory of relativity, with Lord Kelvin, the President of the Royal Society, and one of the heads of the scientific community, at the spearhead of the opposition. If not for Arthur Eddington being Einstein's bulldog, you'd be swearing blind that space is flat.

At first, I took your stories as fact because, frankly, I don't have the time to check them. Now, however, I'm more interested, and would like to know your sources, as finding anything substantial online is time consuming. And about Einstein's GR, someone would have eventually plugged it into the orbits of the planets and seen how it did the work better than the alternative. GR is not accepted because of some popularity contest or something, it explained what we observe better than the competing theories did. I'm not sure you understand how science works if you think a theory having opposition, even in high places, is some indication that the scientific method doesn't work right, or something. A scientific theory is tested and, due to it's ability to explain phenomena, is eventually accepted by the majority of scientists in the field. It doesn't start that way, though!

I don't really have the time or patience to address your preachy ending of your post here, so I won't. I doubt anyone else will take an interest in the exchange given it's length as is. Keep in mind that I'm deployed, and that I don't have a tremendous amount of time to give to the internet. Another post that long and I'm pretty likely not going to respond. Maybe in the states, but I'm simply too busy out here.

 

[Oblivious]

2. I have not based this on a particular book

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud.htm.

Enough said.

4. Its portrayed and discussed as a FACT in our media (I'm British) when in reality, evolution is a speculation, a hypothesis, a theory, and for some people a faith, that apparently represent free thought (I am aware that if we only taught entirely proved sciences, that's observable, then there would be little or no science teaching at all).

For a champion of science you really seem to have done very limited research on the matter. Other then www.bible.ca of course. Don't think you deserve to be spoonfed the facts when there is google available to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Ken Miller on Intelligent Design And The Kitzmiller-Dover Trial - YouTube

 

[SpaceYeti]

It doesn't. But it makes it a fake dinosaur-bird ancestor. Archaeopteryx is now considered only a bird, not an intermediate fossil. Other examples include, the pepper moth and the horse series [http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud.htm].

I most certasinly suggest googling this subject a bit more. Moreover, I would suggest not using religious web-sites as your sources. Creationism/ID is a religious movement, not a scientific one. Further, Archeopteryx is a bird and a transitional fossil. It's both.

(I came back up here after I wrote the paragraph to follow your next quoted block) Please elaborate on the Peppered Moth and Horse so that I can revisit those arguments as well. Or, hopefully, you'll give me something I haven't encountered before. I would appreciate that. I'm too tired to get into those subjects without knowing exactly what you object to about them for now, and I'm going to bed (keep in mind this is actually the last paragraph I actually wrote in my reply)

The facts as I see them; evolution is a well structured, and can provides a straight-foward logical explanation of life development.
There are constant claims of transitional fossils that they celebrate over for a few years, and are later heart broken. Do I have to remind you of the Piltdown man, Hesperopithecus, Lothagam man etc(The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution by William R. Fix).

No, there's no need to remind me of hoaxes and mistakes, because they're well documented and no longer considered as evidence for evolution. Again, I'd suggest a google search and a read-through of the sites which come up and are not religious web-sites. I used to argue with someone frequently about those hoaxes. It happened for years. One day we were getting along, and he felt comfortable enough to confide in me that he didn't sincerely think evolution was untrue. No, he argued against it because he thought it gave room to atheism, which he considered immoral. He thought people needed religion, so that they'd have a God to fear oir attempt to suck up to, or whatever, so that they didn't do bad things. Granting my pledge of assuming you're real, I can explain to you what I know of each of these hoaxes. Know that this is taking time away from the sleep I ought to be doing right now and I'll be going primarily on memory alone so that I take less time;

Piltdown Man; A hoax. An artificially aged human skull with the jaw-bone of some other ape attached, done in this way to make it believable in the context of how it was thought humans evolved back then, the brain first, everything else following. For about forty years this fossil became marginalized as more and more legitimate fossils were found and it didn't seem to fit in anywhere. In 1952 (I believe), a new aging method was discovered and, when done on this fossil, it was exposed as a hoax. Because we know it's a hoax, it's no longer considered as evidence for evolution (and who even cares about the fossil record anymore anyhow? Endogenous retroviruses, anyone? That's a different subject, though)

Hesperopithecus (Nebraska Man, I believe it was called); Misclassification. Several teeth (perhaps even only one) were discovered by a farmer. They were published in a popular (not scientific) journal as what they were thought to be, the teeth of a higher primate in northern America. There was even an artists rendering of what they may have looked like included (I believe the picture was based on homo erectus, however). Nebraska man was never widely accepted in the scientific community, and it was discovered several years later that the teeth were to an extinct species of... I don't remember. Equine or peccary or something.

I don't recall the last one from the top of my head, and I need to get to bed. Maybe I'll look him up as out discussion progresses.

Only an ignorant fanatics says that evolution or creation can be proved scientifically. I don't like the fact that;

1. A book about origins does not deal with origins(although It tackles the development of life well).
2. Darwin was a racists who believed that blacks were closer to the alleged ape men than whites?
3.man are supposedly only a little higher than the animals(I certainly don't see myself as a LITTLE higher)
4. Its portrayed and discussed as a FACT in our media (I'm British) when in reality, evolution is a speculation, a hypothesis, a theory, and for some people a faith, that apparently represent free thought (I am aware that if we only taught entirely proved sciences, that's observable, then there would be little or no science teaching at all).

1. Whether or not Darwin's theory had anything to do with the origin of life itself, it's irrelevant to the current theory which does not. Further, I'm pretty sure his book was about the origin of species, not life.
2. I'd suggest actually reading his books. Parts of them do come off as potentially racist, especially out of context. However, granting that Darwin was the most racist, sexist pig ever (which I do exclusively for the argument. I don't wish to sully a name already unnecessarily sullied), it has no relevancy to the truth or falseness of evolution. It's true regardless any character flaws Darwin may have had.
3. Your ego does not determine biological truths. Further, there's no such thing as "higher", evolutionarily speaking. Evolution is not like a ladder, with fish under us and cats above them yet still under us. It's more like an interwoven tapestry, with no thread being necessarily superior or inferior to any others due to layout, even though most of the threads have been severed.
4. Evolution is a fact. The only people who deny it's a fact are religious zealots who would tear down a valid scientific explanation for something and replace it with their mythological creation story. I'm too tired to explain how the scientific method works in order to help you understand the relationship between all of those terms' colloquial usage and it's scientific usage, but I'd recommend looking that up as well.[/QUOTE]

 

[alrai]

@oblivious You really are easily provoked. You are more child-like so your probably the one being spoonfed. Calm down.

That isn't a book, it's a site. The example I used can be verified in many other sites. [http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/component/content/article/127.html] [http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html] [http://www.icr.org/article/do-peppered-moths-prove-evolution/]
Anti-Darwinism is difficult to google without creationist overlapping (this doesn't necessarily make the arguemment invalid).

And here a site that you used.
[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bonepeddlers.html]

 

[Oblivious]

@oblivious You really are easily provoked. You are more child-like so you're probably the one being spoonfed. Calm down.

Fixed for grammar. I also suggest you look up the definition of spoonfed.

Thank you for the compliment. I am proud of upholding Truth in this forum and the world.

Also, when you provoke someone, it is prudent to expect a bloody nose.

That isn't a book, it's a site. The example I used can be verified in many other sites.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud.htm.

Oh come on you are making this too easy. A site that says the interactive bible? Please continue to cling on to the scant shreds of your integrity. It is amusing.

I just love how you people can go on about scientific scrutiny when you pull this sort of brazen nonsense.

You find your arguments most on creationist websites? Go figure.

Anti-Darwinism is difficult to google without creationist overlapping (this doesn't necessarily make the arguemment invalid).

From your own link: http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis...icle/127.html

Conclusion
School children need to learn that the peppered moth story provides evidence for changes of frequencies of different types within a population, but does not show that large scale evolution can occur. They should also understand that the original experiments behind the peppered moth story have widely acknowledged flaws, and some of these issues have been addressed in more recent experiments.

And yes, updated textbooks do reflect this change, testament to the fact that the scientific process does work.

This is no way discounts the possibility of macroevolution, assuming that that was your point. If there is a specific point in the article you want to bring up, do it.

And no, I am not going to debunk creationism

Many people more able and intelligent then myself have already done it.

The Collapse of Intelligent Design:Kenneth R. Miller Lecture - YouTube

 

[Oblivious]

Oh, and before you go away with the idea that I am anti-religion: INTP Forum - View Single Post - Atheist/Agnostic?

 

[alrai]

My last response to your closed minded tone and approach.

The structure of your argument.

- Ignore relevant points that you have no answers for. Cling, repeat and blow out of proportion insignificant and sometimes irrelevant details i.e 'OH! the source is Biblical', OH! 'your grammar is minimal'. Their is no end to debates with someone who twists words.

-My integrity is intact. My writing style maybe under developed as I have not lived most my life between 4 walls and a laptop like yourself. It must be difficult to be lonely.

-We all can refine and develop such skills, you should never underestimate the potential of other.

-I used spoon-fed in creative manner. I guess a stubborn strictly formal Bird wouldn't understand.

-And your faith isn't relevant to me. I'm not offended by you. I'm just bored.

 

[Agent Intellect]

This thread became very long in a short amount of time. Being that any rebuttals I make, no matter how well supported by evidence and backed up by actual research they are (which I have been kind enough to reference) will be glossed over by the non-issues raised by easily answered creationist talking points, I'm not going to take the time. I will, however, ask what better theory there is? I'm going to copy and paste this from my earlier response, because for anyone who thinks evolution is bullshit, the onus is on them to answer this:

It is cheap, I agree. But even cheaper is to fill the gaps with even more untestable and baseless claims about intelligent design. Of course, I'm not accusing you of this, since you have yet to propose a better theory that takes all known fossil phylogeny and homology and geological dating evidence, comparative physiological and anatomical evidence, genetic phylogeny and homology evidence, the universality of the genetic code, molecular homology and parsimony corroborating fossil evidence, evidence from atavisms and vestigiality, biogeographical dispersion and continental drift agreeing with known phylogeny, symbiotic co-evolutionary dependence, known mutation rates in the genome, and abiotic organic chemistry evidence into account, while also explaining numerous laboratory observations and genetic experiments while also logically demonstrating why Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is necessarily maintained despite all evidence and statistical analysis to the contrary.

There are mountains of mutually corroborating evidence available, and the theory of evolution is what best explains it. There are certainly gaps in our knowledge, but that is why biology is still a science, and not simply a collection of facts. New biology textbooks come out all the time (as a biology undergrad, I'm painfully aware of this) mainly so the publishers can make money, but also because new discoveries are constantly being made - none of which, so far, have invalidated the core of evolution: that organisms change genetically, biochemically, and morphologically on account of natural causes. The story that the fossil record and the phylogenic trees we build from it changes as new discoveries are made, but none of these discoveries are inconsistent with evolution, despite what creationist literature would have one believe.

None of the things brought up against evolution is this thread is even a real issue, and all of it has been mind-numbingly easy to refute. All that this thread has shown is that the OP, despite their insistence on being an advocate for the truth, has done a piss poor job of researching these issues, as the answers to all of these non-issues are readily available (talkorigins.org is a great collection of known facts with reputable sources).

So the questions remain:
1. What would better explain the available evidence?
2. If organisms do not evolve, then what force could be proposed that prevents the accumulation of genetic changes from resulting in phenotypic changes that lead to large scale morphological changes?
3. If organisms do not evolve from other organisms, then where do they come from, and how?
4. What part of the three axioms of evolution (as stated by Vrecknidj and re-posted in the following spoiler) cannot be true?

Spoiler

1) In most species, the individual members are not identical to one another.
2) In most species, the individual members tend to produce more offspring than the environment can support.
3) In most species, some individuals survive long enough to reproduce (and succeed in reproducing) because of some trait that they have that other members of their species lack.

5. Can it be demonstrated that all of the following do not occur: non-random mating, mutations, selection, limited population size, "overlapping generations", random genetic drift, gene flow and meiotic drive. If evolution were not occurring, then all of these would necessarily have to be steady: what force could be proposed that prevents any of this happening, and what could explain the fact that this force is inconsistent with our observations?

If these questions can be satisfactorily answered while also demonstrating that evolution is not occurring, then the theory of evolution would have to be rejected. Even if the 'issues' brought up by the OP were valid, they would still not be enough evidence to reject the theory of evolution.

 

[snafupants]

Could the antropic principle be ontological middle ground between creationism and scientific materialism? Just another copout? In what instance would everyone be happy aesthetically with any theory?

 

[Vrecknidj]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110815143929.htm

 

[alrai]

All that this thread has shown is that the OP, despite their insistence on being an advocate for the truth, has done a piss poor job of researching these issues, as the answers to all of these non-issues are readily available (talkorigins.org is a great collection of known facts with reputable sources).

This is the TRUTH that I have come to realize.

-I admit that some of my argument failed, and often were poorly researched.

-I agree that evolution explains changes in DNA and adaption to environments.

-I know that I don't have the answers to many opposed questions.

-I learnt that evolution deserves all the respect its given.

-I will dedicate more time and effort to understanding this topic. I've been reading over this thread and checking references; I found that people like ApostateAbe, Vrecknidj, Agent intellect, Spaceyeti are very convincing.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Thank Oblivious. He played the bad cop.

 

[alrai]

I must admit also that oblivious was making some good points. But his tone just made it so hard for me to accept it, I just ended up been provocative because I was upset. I admire his consistence.

 

[Joz_helloworld]

For instance, Evolution dictates that the fitter sub-section of any species, dominates. Atheism as a mutation, must have occurred to some, over the years. It's certainly a view that occurs to almost everyone who considers the matter of gods. Ergo, it's been around for as long as the mutations that are called religions. Yet every time it arises, it seems to go extinct. Ergo, atheism is the lesser fittest of the 2. You'd expect atheistic evolutionists to get that. But they seem to refuse to accept that. You start to wonder if they are not just vestigial members of dying sub-species, that are doing their best to try to survive, by trying to fight against evolution itself.

How can we possibly expect to develop science, if the people who are producing science, are in denial of the very science they are studying?

??

What on earth do you mean, atheism goes extinct? 10-30% of the population is atheist, varying country to country. It has been around for a hellava long time. How is it less fit? Atheists are well able to find suitable partners, there is no evidence that finding a partner is more difficult for atheists than religous people, as far as I know. How on earth would you get to the idea that atheists are a dying sub-species?

I find that whole thing very random.

The only choice left is nuking 50% of America, and a large part of the rest of the world.

No, the creationist thing is really one of those, "only in America" things.

So I don't think that Evolutionists ARE winning debates. I think the other side is just stopping arguing, because the end result of keeping culture wars going, is all-out bloody civil war. Evolutionists seem to be currently unaware that such choices are even happening. They think they've won the debate, even when everyone know still talks to the Creationists, hears quite plainly, that they don't even concede a single point.

The 'evolutionists' have won the debate. Because there is no real debate. We know that 'creationists' will continue to think their wacky ideas, regardless of reason. And so long as they don't bother me, they can think whatever stupidity they want. I do like to point out to them, however, that most people think their ideas are stupid, because I know that in some places, they may actually be under the impression that their ideas are normal.

Unfortunatly, they do try to bother people, by trying to get their wacky ideas taught in schools.

Well, that, or that Evolutionists and Creationists start talking to each other, like they are each intelligent human beings, each with equally valid views.

They may well be intellegent, but their views are not equally valid.

There is ample evidence for evolution. Whether or not the first aomeba began by a God figure or not is a different concept, something I can respect. The idea that God created earth 6000 years ago with humans, has ample evidence pointed against it, ergo, it is not a valid view. It is disproven.


I stated in another post, that I do not like to 'proflitise' atheism. I do believe strongly in freedom of religion and separation of church and state.

But I am not going to pretend that religious extremists have a valid point of view.

 

[Jah]

This is just stupid.


Alrai clearly has not learned the subject, and hir arguments are from ignorance.


Even this is a waste of words.



Look at dogs.
Absolutely every dog you see, from chihuahua to siberian husky is evolved from regular wolves, Canis Lupus.


Evolution is predicated on the concept of inherited traits.
Children inherit the traits of their parents.

If you accept this, go on to the next step.

Some children will have traits neither of the parents have. (mutation, which is random)


If you do not accept this step. Look at a child with Down syndrome.


Then there is the environment;
Subjects, animals, beings, who are more apt at surviving in their environment,( that being due to any number of factors; food, heat, sunshine... ) will be more likely to survive and have offspring.

This means that those that survive harsher climates will have children who, like them, are good at surviving harsh climates.

Among these children, some will have children of their own, which due to mutation, will be more or less able to survive. (Or they may have benign mutations which don't really change anything, which is the most usual.)


So the thing that had children whose children's children's... ...children became tigers, also had children's children's... ...children who became cheetahs.
Both very adapted to their environment, but unable to interbreed at this stage.




But; I somehow think this will fall at nothing but stone.
Actually that's a good, biblical parable:
Your faith is a rock, upon it, no seeds of thought may find purchase.



Saying evolution is bullshit is like saying history is bullshit.
Darwin's theory is that evolution happened because of Natural selection.

You may argue that Natural Selection is bullshit, but I can't see your argument going anywhere there.

It's not a question of belief, really.

Darwin's theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is accepted because it's the theory that most elegantly explains the evidence. It generally accepted (except in the middle-east and strangely the USA) as sufficient to explain how more diversity can come from less diversity.

It is also supported by the discovery of DNA, and the Fossil records.
It has also shown us where to look for missing fossils, and predicted missing links. (You would not look for links if you didn't accept the theory of natural selection. it's that simple.)



So, I'll rephrase that;
Darwin's theory proposes there to be continuous, gradual change from one form to another, kind of like a line from 1 to 2. Where the numbers (species) are just markers we've put upon the line of continuous change. This tells us to look for intermediate stages, numbers like 1,5.

I suppose you'll be arguing for there to be a deity who created diversity next; which would be akin to saying there are just numbers 1 and 2 with nothing in between.

Your argument regarding the search for "missing links" between 1,49 and 1,51 (which would not have been discovered if we followed your theory) is meaningless, is itself a small acceptance of the theory.









But fuck it. You're probably right.
Numbers are discrete, not points along a line, and we shouldn't examine the gaps.

It's best to give up right now, and not be curious. Because curiosity killed the cat.
We'll just have to accept that, and never try finding out what the cat found out, or examine the cat to find out whether or not it actually was curiosity which killed it.

 

[scorpiomover]

Yeah, admissions generally don't happen in debates, except implicitly and on a small scale, which still counts. Sometimes, the evidence is there, but you have to pay attention to see it. For example, someone responds to a powerful argument by changing the topic, shifting his or her own argument and moving the goalposts--the positions remain, but your opponent learned something from you, even if he or she won't admit it. I see that happening a lot, and chances are that you have done such a thing yourself (so have I), and that should be taken as evidence that a mind was enhanced.

I think that my mind has advanced through argument. I find that I come to new understandings, mainly not from the argument itself, but by thinking about the issues, which the argument encourages me to do. This seems to happen the most, when I have got to the point where I got so dissuaded by the arguments, that I stopped posting for a while. In those weeks, I found that my questioning completely re-vamped my views.

When I got back to the forums, I found that I wrote my posts differently. Suddenly, people wouldn't argue with me any more. They would actually take a very sympathetic approach to their responses, that verged on being apologetic for holding their views.

Even so, I generally wouldn't hope to change anyone else's mind.

I am pleased to read you wrote that. My own goal, was just to make people think about things more.

The most productive debates are the debates where I learn something. I debate for me, not for them. Learning something doesn't always mean listening to what they have to say, but it more often means paying attention to what I am saying and learning from my own sources.

This amazed me, because it's actually why I joined internet forums in the first place. My initial desire was to learn to communicate and interact better, to develop my social skills. Now, I like to see what people think, to learn what I DON'T know. That's one reason why I sometimes seek out debates like this one. I KNOW I will get attacked. But that's how my thinking will be criticised, and thus, refined.

I actually don't think that creationism is promoted through debate. It is promoted the same way as other religious doctrines--listening to sermons, going to Bible study groups, listening to friends and family, and reading the religious literature.

If by creationism, you mean rejection of evolutionary theory, then I'd agree with that. Why would you want to spend all your time talking about something that you don't believe in? I would imagine that most sensible people would prefer to talk about things they are interested in.

As far as Bible study groups go, from what I have observed of such groups, which is quite a lot, they have extremely heated debates, but tend to prefer to keep the debates strictly within their own context. So a Biblical study group can have people shouting at the top of their voice. But when they walk out of the room, they act like they are best friends, who agree on everything.

This is even more true when it comes to their teachers and leaders. In their own groups, religious people often question their teachers and leaders, on everything. However, outside of the debate, they show the respect that they believe they should show to their teachers and their leaders, and act positively submissively in public towards their teachers and leaders.

This difference may be missed by mainstream non-religious people, because they expect to see heated debates, and they aren't seeing any.

Of course, this doesn't ALWAYS happen. But it does happen so often, that I would be disinclined to say that religious people do not learn through debate, just not through debate in public.

You don't air your dirty laundry in public, ya know.

Edit: I noticed that you stated that you went to Bible study groups. You may have had different experiences than I did. Mind you, few people seek out religious debates. I personally used to do nothing but, for years. But they were Jewish ones. I've only been to maybe 20-30 Xian study groups, and a handful of Muslim ones. They were still heated, but nowhere near like the Jewish ones.

The theory of evolution is promoted through public education, scientific literature, and religious debate. Debate is how evolutionists win the political battles in elections and court rooms, but those political battles are not how they gain belief in the wider population.

This doesn't make sense. Either debates win people over, or they don't. The only types of debates that don't win people over in public, but do in courtrooms, are courtroom debates, aka, "lawyer tactics", which have nothing to do with truth, and all to do with presentation, who you hired, and not what you say.

So you are making me question if the opinion I was raised with, that being that courtroom battles over evolution are won by evolutionists because they have the better arguments, is true.

They don't and they won't win the "culture war" by winning the battle over public schools, or else they would have won. Acceptance of creationism is almost exclusively a function of acceptance of Biblicism (Biblical literalism). Creationism is only a small element of Biblicism, and Biblicists invest an incredible amount of time and effort evangelizing that general perspective. Evolutionists tend to focus on the issue of public education, but Biblicists are not so focused, because they take their evangelism to all aspects of life. They lose the political fights over public education, but they are evenly-matched with liberalism in the culture war.

I'd agree with everything you've said here. However, it doesn't make sense to me. Evolutionists focus on the issue of public education, quite rightly, because if you can convince people in debate, such as in the classroom, then you will convince people of the truth of evolution. This does not seem to be happening.

A few years ago, I heard on a documentary about the "culture war", that evolutionists had focussed on public education, and were very surprised at their lack of results. It reminded me of the scientific method: if you have a hypothesis, that being, that you can change people's beliefs in Creationism through education, then you test it, and if it doesn't match your results, then it's wrong. I thus concluded that the hypothesis that you can change people's beliefs in Creationism through education, is wrong, in that, it doesn't work.

But then I started wondering about it. Scientists are the smart people. They would have realised this already. Even if they hadn't, being smart people, they would have realised this very quickly, and changed tack. But they have been doing the same thing for over 20 years, and still keep expecting a different result. It reminded me of Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing repeatedly, and expecting a different result.

This made me question another thing I was raised to believe, that scientists are the smartest people there are. If they were that smart, they would have abandoned a seriously failing method years ago. Yet they haven't.

The good news is that the common formulation of Biblicism is changing in favor of liberalism as time progresses. No longer is slavery a Biblicist doctrine. Subservience of women is not what it used to be among Biblicists. No longer is divorce so hotly opposed by Biblicists. There is a very good chance that creationism will make a retreat within Biblicism before long, but it will require that evolutionists broaden their methods of persuasion.

I can see where you are coming from. However, there was another BBC documentary that I watched, called "Ian Hislop's Age of the Do-Gooders", that discussed these types of social reforms, who started them, and where they came from.

Liberalism was originally a religious doctrine. It arose with the rise of the Social Reformers, who were religious fanatics of the Methodist movement. Many of the Methodists were actually dirt-poor people, who were trodden on by the upper classes, which included most of the scientists. They used to turn to crime and alcoholism. Religion gave them purpose, a desire to live a better life, and, later on, to help others. This fanaticism infected some of the rich young people, and they put their power and influence to helping the poor and the downtrodden. An example of this is William Wilberforce, a rich MP, who became a rabid evangelist, and only after this conversion to fanaticism, became positively fanatical about helping the most trodden-on of society, such as the African slaves in the Colonies. Other ultra-religious social reformers set up girls' schools for girls who were already criminals while teens, probably headed for prostitution. Anthony Ashley Cooper, later to become the 7th Earl of Shaftesbury, also became an evangelist, and subsequently campaigned for, and got, rights for all the children who were sent to work in the mines in pitch-black, for 14 hours a day.

There was one who was either an atheist or an agnostic, who set up model homes and a great community for the people who worked in his factory. But nearly all were evangelists, and the fanatical kind.

The rights we take for granted today, seem to have been fought for, by the same types of people who are now called Creationists.

From what I understand, it is actually the non-religious, who moved position, and by a massive degree. 200 years ago, if you didn't care about religion, you beat your wife, slept with other women, including prostitutes, owned a plantation with slaves, and raped the women slaves, or owned a mine, and sent children to work in them, or you owned a factory, and made children go in between moving machines to pick up bits of cloth, or to fix the machines while in operation.

None of this is what I was told. But then again, this is the problem for me. I was told the same things that you and others here seem to believe in. Then I came to the forums, and saw people arguing about all this. So I started looking it up. I spent most of my time on the forums, researching what was mentioned there. Then I started watching documentaries to learn more about the subject. What I found shocked me. It gave me evidence after evidence, and all that evidence, I made my own mind up on. More and more, evidence seemed to stack up against the traditional conservative, pro-science, pro-secular views that I was raised with.

What do I do, when the more evidence I collect, seems to stack up against the views of the people who are convinced that the evidence supports them?

I go to Bible-study groups, and I discuss these issues, always in a friendly manner. Conservative Biblicists can accept the theory of evolution--my Bible study leader is already one of them.

I knew they could. I found that half the problem when discussing evolution, is that the minute you turn to an Evolutionist, and say "Maybe evolution isn't true?", he goes into a rabid attack. It doesn't really leave any room for debate of both sides, and without seeing both sides of an equation, I don't see how you can solve it. I think that is why you have had success, where others have not. You are learning that nothing is won by opposition, only by listening.

 

[scorpiomover]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/04/opinion/04blow.html?hp

Religion is succour for the poor. Richer countries are generally less religious and are likely to have a better educated population, though the US seems to be an exception.

I agree that atheism is correlated with rich people, like bankers, lawyers, politicians, children of companies like Monsanto, BP, etc. I also agree that academic knowledge of the Western variety is highly correlated with rich people, like bankers, lawyers, politicians, etc. Both correlations are well-known.

It is interesting to note, that the main justification for slavery in Britain and the Colonies, was that the Africans were uneducated, unscientific savages, who believed in religions that encouraged them into sexual depravity, violence, and homicide, and that the moral thing to do, was to bring them to embrace science, reason, rationalism, and a much more rational attitude to religion, which was more a form of social cohesion by this point.

As I wrote in an earlier post, it was the ultra-religious who brought about the end of slavery. They were of the same religious denomination as the poorest in Britain.

Thus the attitude "religion is succour for the poor", would have been something that both slave traders and abolitionists would have embraced.

However, abolitionists would have said that religion brought intelligence and education to the poor, while slave traders would have said that it was a sign that the poor were stuck in delusions that they needed to be freed from.

 

[scorpiomover]

What? Where did these numbers come from?

The 50% refers to Americans.

I live in England and know no creationists. I know a fair few Christians, but no creationists, and the majority of people I know aren't even religious.

I know a few. Non-religious theists, Hindus, people like that. Not Xians, though. Xians seem to mostly accept evolution, at least, in the UK. I found it quite surprising to find out that there are people who have absolutely no connection with Xians, Muslims, or Jews, who don't believe in evolution. But they have told me that there are loads online. You just have to know where to look.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Evolution is picked on a lot for some reason. I'm sure part of it is a positive feedback mechanism, wherein because it was picked on initially, there is a lot of misinformation and strongly opposed parties, which makes it seems like there must be something to it. The thing is, the theory of evolution has more evidence for it than say, organic chemistry.

Organic chemists like to draw all their little arrows and explain things like Zaitsev's rule and Markovnikov's rule using resonance structures and nucleophilicity/basicity, but nobody has ever observed that these things are true, they simply best explain our observations about how reactions go and what products are most present.

And yet, there are no websites dedicated to debunking our theory for Markovnikov's rule, or for the way electrons move during reaction mechanisms; there are no religious zealots pounding their fists in righteous indignation, campaigning about how it's actually God that determines whether a solution is protic or aprotic, as opposed to the resonance and Ka of a solution.

The thing is, evolution should be questioned (as should all science (and any other conceivable thought)). But, it should be questioned in a reasonable way that takes available evidence into account. I think it would be great if some new mechanism for the diversity of life was discovered. But this mechanism would have to explain everything we know and it would have to be scientifically testable and falsifiable. I've yet to hear of a theory (or come up with one on my own (not for lack of trying)) that can satisfy both of these requirements.

 

[scorpiomover]

I suggest you read the below.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/02/darwin-in-a-test-tube.html

I prefer the article in the New Scientist. After all, it's a scientific magazine of news of scientific papers. It's not news. It was news 2 years ago. It's also not the only attempt to prove abiogenesis. There have been several papers in this vein.

Yes, I know about them. I get New Scientist, because I want to be "in the know" about the latest science.

Now that we have that out of the way, I notice you make the interesting claim that creationism is a valid scientific theory.

Where did I write that? I am fairly confident that I wrote that it's impossible to do science, without treating the anti-hypothesis as a valid scientific view. I did so, because of Karl Popper's point, that science cannot perform verification, only falsification. Scientists can thus only prove hypotheses false. So, if we cannot raise the antithesis of the hypothesis to be a valid scientific hypothesis, we cannot falsify it at all, and hence, we can have no possible level of verification of it's complement, the actual hypothesis we want to prove, in any way at all.

I don't know. Maybe everyone is just making it up. Maybe Karl Popper was just a character on a video game, and someone thought it was a cool thing to say, and they convinced everyone in the scientific community to think it was true. Or, maybe he was a real philosopher, and maybe he really did say it, and just maybe, he was right.

This is news to me (blatant lie),

If you were to say that the anti-hypothesis was a valid view, but that you have proof that it is false, then we could falsify it, and verify your view. You said it is a blatant lie. I presume by that, that you mean that no-one could rationally imagine any way, shape or form, that the anti-hypothesis is true. Hence, it cannot be falsified. Hence, it would seem that Popper would would consider your views impossible to verify, or even to support.

This is news to me (blatant lie), and I would like to invite you to present your arguments. (So we can destroy them )

What for? Your neuroses are showing. You are thus unlikely to give me any solid arguments. I am likely to analyse your arguments, find them seriously wanting, and based on erroneous assumptions. You are so adamant of your view, that you are unlikely to listen to reason. I am then likely to get annoyed with you, lose my normal sense of decorum, and let you know how you are showing your insecurities. Given just how adamantly you are on the attack, you are clearly avoiding facing up to them. It would be a bitter blow to you, to have your insecurities put up front to you, when you are so clearly avoiding them. Last time I did that, the guy left the forum we were on. He had been there for years. He seemed way smarter than you, and earned the respect of all the other posters, including me. He emailed me directly to let me know that it was my insights into his personality that drove him off the forums. I really don't want you to end up the same way.

So, no thanks.

Come back when you've resolved whatever insecurities you are dealing with, and we'll talk.

 

[ApostateAbe]

This is the TRUTH that I have come to realize.

-I admit that some of my argument failed, and often were poorly researched.

-I agree that evolution explains changes in DNA and adaption to environments.

-I know that I don't have the answers to many opposed questions.

-I learnt that evolution deserves all the respect its given.

-I will dedicate more time and effort to understanding this topic. I've been reading over this thread and checking references; I found that people like ApostateAbe, Vrecknidj, Agent intellect, Spaceyeti are very convincing.

This is a key post, and I don't want anyone to overlook it.

 

[Lostwitheal]

The 50% refers to Americans.

I'm afraid I'm still none-the-wiser as to where this statistic came from.

I know a few. Non-religious theists, Hindus, people like that. Not Xians, though. Xians seem to mostly accept evolution, at least, in the UK. I found it quite surprising to find out that there are people who have absolutely no connection with Xians, Muslims, or Jews, who don't believe in evolution. But they have told me that there are loads online. You just have to know where to look.

To be honest, "I know a few" does not constitute a significant percentage of the population. Frankly I find it amazing that anyone with intact cognitive faculties can not see that living things evolve. Do they just ignore things like antibiotic-resistant illnesses? Stick their fingers in their ears and sing "la la la la la it's not happening la la la la la"? I'm genuinely intrigued.

 

[Joz_helloworld]

To be honest, "I know a few" does not constitute a significant percentage of the population. Frankly I find it amazing that anyone with intact cognitive faculties can not see that living things evolve.

Indeed. However, it is shocking but true that there is an enormous amount of Americans lacking such faculties.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

 

[Kevin Stratocaster]

-I will dedicate more time and effort to understanding this topic. I've been reading over this thread and checking references; I found that people like ApostateAbe, Vrecknidj, Agent intellect, Spaceyeti are very convincing.

Did this actually happen? Did I really just see a creationist admit he might be wrong, commit to understanding and even put in a little effort?

 

[ApostateAbe]

Did this actually happen? Did I really just see a creationist admit he might be wrong, commit to understanding and even put in a little effort?

Magic things like this happen at the INTP Forum.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I'm not positive they were a creationist in the first place. May have been, but I suspect, more, just someone who grew up around them and only recently began looking into it.

 

[Trebuchet]

I'm afraid I'm still none-the-wiser as to where this statistic came from.

Personally, I think questioning a statistical number like that is very wise. Especially when it sounds so bad. It seems like it must be skewed by how the question was asked or something.

50% comes from polls, mostly. In the US, somewhere between 35% and 65% of respondents think evolution is false, or creationism is true, or prefer creationism be taught in school, or however you phrase the question.

Here are a few different sources, mostly from earlier this decade, and you can decide how much you believe they are properly conducted.

http://pocketcultures.com/topicsoftheworld/2009/06/15/which-are-the-most-religious-countries/
http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_public.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

So 50% is a reasonable number to put here, based on these polls. The US is very religious, though many other countries - such as Egypt - are more so. England is well-known to be more accepting of evolution than the United States. Here, religion is considered incompatible or even at war with science.

The US is a very big country, though. It is big enough to have several completely different regional cultures, dialects, cuisines, and traditions. More education Americans are much more accepting of evolution. So generalizing can only get you so far.

 

[scorpiomover]

Holy wall of Text, Batman!

Yeah. I know. When people make a lot of unreasonable claims, I don't know which to say, and which to skip. I often end up responding to them all.

I don't really have the time or patience to address your preachy ending of your post here, so I won't. I doubt anyone else will take an interest in the exchange given it's length as is. Keep in mind that I'm deployed, and that I don't have a tremendous amount of time to give to the internet. Another post that long and I'm pretty likely not going to respond. Maybe in the states, but I'm simply too busy out here.

I take that on board. So I'll just respond to a few points, the ones that I think are most pertinent.

Religion and science are not close. One is based on testable observation, and the other is based on beliefs, with no further requirement.

Testable observation is Se. If you draw conclusions from it, that's Se-Ti, which is ESTP. ESTPs make great soldiers. But lousy scientists. Good scientists are INTJ/INTP. Their basis is Ni-Te / Ti-Ne, drawing conclusions from thinking. Science is based on thinking and understanding.

I understand where you are coming from. Teachers tell us that science is based on testable observation. As one person observed, schools seem to be most interested in making everyone into STPs, people who just accept what they are told, and never actually question what they have been told to accept.

Leap in logic, much? Most scientists are religious, and I don't see how else what you said would be relevant

The science we have, comes from scientists. If the science we have is smart, then it's because the scientists who produce our science, are smart. If they are religious, then the smartest people in our society are religious, because religion is smart.

On the other hand, if religion is bunkum, then anyone who believes in it has a screw missing. So scientists are stupid. So what they come out with is stupid. So science is stupid.

You cannot have your cake AND eat it.

I'm beginning to suspect you don't actually understand what sort of piles and piles of evidence for evolution that actually exist. I certainly can't list them all, as I'm no expert. I'd suggest a google search, or perhaps a discussion with a biology professor if that's a possibility for you.

Evidence is not proof of anything, other than it exists. You have to study the evidence, and figure out what it means, for you. Letting others tell you what it means, is called "taking their word for it, on blind faith".

Am I saying evolution is definitely false? No. I am simply of the opinion that what has been presented to me, has not yet persuaded me. The fact that lots of people believe it, is Appeal to Popularity. The fact that the scientific community believes it, is Appeal to Authority. The fact is that I haven't studied all the evidence. So I don't say it's complete BS. But until I've studied all the evidence, then I cannot say it's true, and hence, I cannot criticise anyone for not believing in it.

So my question is: Should I sit and study the evidence, and make my mind up for myself?

There is so much data, that it would take years. If evolutionists were all millionaires with hot girlfriends who were totally crazy about them, and did everything they wanted, then I'd say that it's worth it for me, to spend the time confirming it. If evolutionists cured cancer, polio, AIDS, malaria, and every other disease going, wiped out war, poverty, crime, and all other things that make others suffer, then I'd say that it was worth it for the world, to spend my time confirming it. To my knowledge, none of that is the case. The only advantage I see, is winning a debate on an internet forum. I have more important things to do with my life.

 

[scorpiomover]

I'm afraid I'm still none-the-wiser as to where this statistic came from.

I came across it on the news somewhere. Might have been BBC teletext news. I prefer it, as it's got less subjective opinions stuck into it, than the regular news.

To be honest, "I know a few" does not constitute a significant percentage of the population.

I thought so too. But then I noticed that they weren't the religious fundies, and actually did use their brains, and they represented so many sections of society, that it couldn't just be some marginal group. They represented a true cross-section of society.

Frankly I find it amazing that anyone with intact cognitive faculties can not see that living things evolve. Do they just ignore things like antibiotic-resistant illnesses? Stick their fingers in their ears and sing "la la la la la it's not happening la la la la la"? I'm genuinely intrigued.

That's what I thought, at first. To be honest, I never even thought about if evolution was false all that much, not until I started going on the forums a few years ago, and found a forum where lots of Evolutionists were saying stuff like you are saying. I was intrigued. If they were right, then how could anyone not think that way? I considered that the Creationists were nuts. I know something about mental illness. So I looked for the signs. They Creationists were showing signs of being mentally sane. I looked for signs of ignorance, and stupidity. Again, the signs were missing. Then I looked at the signs of mental illness, stupidity and ignorance in the Evolutionists. A lot of alarming red flags started showing up, far more than even the level that occurs in people with mental illness. At the same time, I started looking into the basic proofs of evolution. My head went into INTP-mode, and started analysing it. I started having questions. I raised a few with the Evolutionists. They dismissed my questions as crazy. This also set off massive red flags. I kept doing more research. I ended up in flame wars.

After a few years of this, I realised that I wasn't getting anywhere.

Truth to be told, I wasn't even trying to change the minds of Creationists, as I had originally expected them to be too stupid and ignorant for them to change their minds. I expected that atheists and pro-science people would have all the answers. But all I got was what appeared to me, to be ignorance, stupidity, bigotry, blind faith, coupled with symptoms of delusions, delusions of grandeur, and indicators of schizophrenia.

Really, if Evolutionists wanted me to agree with them, they should not have done so many things that made me move towards the other way. The only thing stopping me from rejecting evolution altogether, is my stubborn belief that I have to check things out for myself, before rejecting them entirely.

Does that enlighten you a little?

 

[scorpiomover]

??

What on earth do you mean, atheism goes extinct? 10-30% of the population is atheist, varying country to country. It has been around for a hellava long time. How is it less fit? Atheists are well able to find suitable partners, there is no evidence that finding a partner is more difficult for atheists than religous people, as far as I know. How on earth would you get to the idea that atheists are a dying sub-species?

I find that whole thing very random.

Well, I grew up thinking all that as well. The traditional way to evaluate atheist rates, is to look at the non-religious and the religious. In this regard, the non-religious are increasing at a massive rate. Then I started coming across internet articles reporting that the average birth rate of atheists, was well below 1 per person. This should have shown that atheist numbers were shrinking massively. But they weren't. I tried and tried, and could not make sense of it.

Finally, I found a way to accurately represent what was going on.

I grouped populations into 3 types: atheists/agnostics, religious moderates (people who are nominally religious), and religious fundies. Atheists/agnostics are having few kids. But they are increasing in number. Religious moderates are mostly staying par with the population in terms of birth rate. But they are diminishing in size, with each year. Religious fundies are having 5 kids at least, over 20 at most, with many having 10, and they were increasing in size with each passing year, but were also getting quite a few converts. So I looked at the convert situation.

Kids of atheists/agnostics were mostly staying atheists/agnostics, but with a few going to the religious fundies. Kids of religious fundies were mostly staying fundie, with a few becoming atheists/agnostics. Kids of religious moderates were either becoming atheists/agnostics, or becoming religious fundies, in roughly equal amounts.

This trend of religious moderates splitting between atheists and fundies, with religious moderates dying out, was something that quite a few people remarked independently, about 26 years ago, and this trend has continued.

Factoring this in, religious moderates are disappearing, turning into atheists/agnostics, and religious fundies. Atheists/agnostics have a very low birth rate, not even enough to keep their numbers the same without converts, while religious fundies are breeding like rabbits. So religious fundies have sexual selection working in their favour. Fitness, in evolutionary terms, is a matter of who is likely to increase.

However, this isn't how the situation appears. We need to realise that the religious moderates used to account for the vast majority of the population. So the split of the religious moderates is massive, and is currently hiding the numbers of the birth rates.

Also, religious fundies are staying in their ghettos. They are packing themselves in there like sardines, and mostly keeping themselves to themselves. I have friends who have friends and business in those areas. So periodically, I end up going there. Out of the area, you cannot see a fundie anywhere. In the area, the streets are full of fundies, not just that most of the people are fundies, but there is barely room on the pavement to walk. Atheists, by contrast, are spreading out everywhere, and making themselves known wherever they are. So atheists appear a lot more numerous than they are, while religious fundies appear a lot less numerous than they are.

Basically, atheists/agnostics are increasing, from the religious moderates, who were often only nominally religious anyway, believed in evolution and science anyway, and didn't have any big objections to atheists. Once their ranks are depleted, we only have the atheists/agnostics, and the religious fundies. Then birth rates determine who becomes the dominant sub-species. That is, of course, assuming that the fundies don't outnumber the atheists/agnostics before then.

I grew up knowing all 3 groups. I can see how churches, synagogues and mosques that used to be populated by people who were mostly religious moderates, and with very few fundies, are now mostly fundies. I see kosher shops, halal shops, springing up everywhere. Fundies used to be rare. Now, they are everywhere.

I also watched quite a few public discussion programmes on religion. Even on those programmes, it's become abundantly clear that fundies are growing far more than we have been led to believe.

It's not a pleasant situation, to realise that your country is probably going to be run by religious fundies in the future. But then, there are plenty of problems with the West, that aren't going away, like that Asia looks set to be the First World of the future. This is just another problem, that looks to have no viable solutions.

No, the creationist thing is really one of those, "only in America" things.

It was. But in the last 20 years, more and more Americanisms have been imported to the UK. Early morning meetings, high school proms, extreme empiricism, particularly in science, political self-interest, and emotional attitudes to religion, extreme atheists, and their counterparts.

It is still mostly in America. But America's influence is spreading all over the Western world, and with it, is coming the culture wars. Both sides are coming.

I stated in another post, that I do not like to 'proflitise' atheism. I do believe strongly in freedom of religion and separation of church and state.

But I am not going to pretend that religious extremists have a valid point of view.

That's OK. Religious extremists don't mind if you don't accept their views. They believe that if you are are or are not a religious fundie, is all that matters. From what I can see, they have reproduction on their side, and that is what matters, when it comes to evolutionary dominance. It's a matter of time, that's all.

 

[Lostwitheal]

I came across it on the news somewhere. Might have been BBC teletext news. I prefer it, as it's got less subjective opinions stuck into it, than the regular news.

I thought so too. But then I noticed that they weren't the religious fundies, and actually did use their brains, and they represented so many sections of society, that it couldn't just be some marginal group. They represented a true cross-section of society.

That's what I thought, at first. To be honest, I never even thought about if evolution was false all that much, not until I started going on the forums a few years ago, and found a forum where lots of Evolutionists were saying stuff like you are saying. I was intrigued. If they were right, then how could anyone not think that way? I considered that the Creationists were nuts. I know something about mental illness. So I looked for the signs. They Creationists were showing signs of being mentally sane. I looked for signs of ignorance, and stupidity. Again, the signs were missing. Then I looked at the signs of mental illness, stupidity and ignorance in the Evolutionists. A lot of alarming red flags started showing up, far more than even the level that occurs in people with mental illness. At the same time, I started looking into the basic proofs of evolution. My head went into INTP-mode, and started analysing it. I started having questions. I raised a few with the Evolutionists. They dismissed my questions as crazy. This also set off massive red flags. I kept doing more research. I ended up in flame wars.

After a few years of this, I realised that I wasn't getting anywhere.

Truth to be told, I wasn't even trying to change the minds of Creationists, as I had originally expected them to be too stupid and ignorant for them to change their minds. I expected that atheists and pro-science people would have all the answers. But all I got was what appeared to me, to be ignorance, stupidity, bigotry, blind faith, coupled with symptoms of delusions, delusions of grandeur, and indicators of schizophrenia.

Really, if Evolutionists wanted me to agree with them, they should not have done so many things that made me move towards the other way. The only thing stopping me from rejecting evolution altogether, is my stubborn belief that I have to check things out for myself, before rejecting them entirely.

Does that enlighten you a little?

I believe that is a little clearer now, thank you. Fundamentally it seems from this that your main problem with evolution is not with how well the theory fits the observable universe, it's with the attitudes and manners of the particular evolution advocates that you've dealt with. Richard Dawkins, for example, can be a bit of a cock, valid points or not. I can kind of understand that, I guess, and if that's how you wish to choose how to construct your view of reality then that's fair enough, your preogative and all that. It's not going to be the most accurate way of determining what is true though.

 

[scorpiomover]

I believe that is a little clearer now, thank you. Fundamentally it seems from this that your main problem with evolution is not with how well the theory fits the observable universe, it's with the attitudes and manners of the particular evolution advocates that you've dealt with. Richard Dawkins, for example, can be a bit of a cock, valid points or not. I can kind of understand that, I guess, and if that's how you wish to choose how to construct your view of reality then that's fair enough, your preogative and all that. It's not going to be the most accurate way of determining what is true though.

That's a large part of it, yes.

I'd still buy the theory, even from an ultra-arrogant cock, if his arguments were rock solid. There are a couple of things where someone did that, and I totally changed my world-view as a result. Evolution just isn't one of them.

 

[SpaceYeti]

That's a large part of it, yes.

I'd still buy the theory, even from an ultra-arrogant cock, if his arguments were rock solid. There are a couple of things where someone did that, and I totally changed my world-view as a result. Evolution just isn't one of them.

Perhaps you're the super arrogant cock, here.

 

[scorpiomover]

Perhaps you're the super arrogant cock, here.

Perhaps I am. I am always willing to be wrong. By keeping my mind open to me being wrong, I can then always learn.

 

[Ex-User (4771)]

Tl:dr so those who have been watching this can probably tell me, has micro evolution been discussed? Micro evolution has been proven, macroevolution just seems to be microevolution on a grand scale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution (terrible source but a source non the less)
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IVMicroevolution.shtml
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v1i4f.htm

 

[Joz_helloworld]

Atheists/agnostics have a very low birth rate, not even enough to keep their numbers the same without converts, while religious fundies are breeding like rabbits.

All of this, I find rather scary... lol.

Yes, you have a good point. I don't think religion is a hereditory, but environmental trait. However, environmental traits are no less strong, although have the element of free will, and I can see how religious people are putting themselves slowly into the position to encourage such a position (of extremism), through an evolutionary type process.

Certainly, the 'dominant hegemony' is an incredibly powerful force in every society, and eventually their ideas, through their stregth in numbers and fervour, could come to form such.

And at 40%, that is already the main alternative in the US, making it seem reasonable when it it isn't.

more and more Americanisms have been imported to the UK.

... and elsewhere.

And for the most part, it was more due to an ignorance of the real differences between US and [Aust], but more recently yes, the US religious have begun to influence a small amount of people outside of US.

I don't think, however, that religious extremism of either Christianity or Islam would ever become the same thing here as the US. We are historically different and culturally different in this regard, but it is certainly true that we like to copy the culture we like, and it used to be UK now is US.

But of course it should be a concern to all countries should the world superpower be religiously extreme. I wonder what the political ramifications would be? Could this be a catalyst of the rejection of US culture? What an interesting turn of events it would be. And, incredibly scary.

Both sides are coming.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean, like I am discussing above, both the 'fashion' type things as well as the values, or do you mean extremists and atheists, (as we already have plenty of atheists, atheism is certainly not an American thing), or do you mean the 'black and white' thinking, where you have extreme theists vs extreme atheists and a silent majority?

Religious extremists don't mind if you don't accept their views.

Are you sure? They don't seem to like gay people getting married much, nor abortion. I remember one I had an argument with because they were trying to tell me that swearing is offensive to God and their duty was to try to prevent it... And if they get power, I garuntee they will mind.

Mutual respect goes a long war to prevent civil war.

I doubt very much if they are as willing to embrace secularism, and leave people to live their lives according to their own values, so much as you are, I think, implying that they will.

What is respect?

I respect their right to hold a view, and my right to hold mine. I respect their right to live a lifestyle, so long as it does not infringe upon my right to live a lifestyle.

But I don't respect the actual view itself, it is deeply flawed, to say the least.

There is a way that all religions can be respected and free, and that is secularism, and that is the only option.

I suspect, that should there be a scenario where a civil war is a real prospect, it will be them trying to force others to live in a way of the extremists choosing... for that is the nature of extremism.

 

[DarkNex]

Firstly, I will have to say, I am a new comer, and that I read "most" of this discussion. (It's REALLY long and tedious for my time) I accept that evolution COULD be true, but it does have it's flaws, and it has a lot more gaps to fill before I would ever accept it as Scientific. Such as how did spontaneous life come to be and why are plants and animals are so different (and why inferior plants still exist).

Since I do not consider Evolution to be tested enough, nor is there any evidence of a new species being created since this theory was thought of, I'll have to say a no on Evolution. I _do_ believe in evolution happening in the forms of adaptation, but not one species becoming another. Since the species cannot reproduce with each other (such is the definition of species), there has to be some fine line that defines the mutated from the rest of it's "previous" species. And the chances of two of these of the same "type" of mutation are astronomically small. (As well as the fact that they would have to be born with this mutation, otherwise the mutated gene wouldn't be given to their offspring)

So, to put it all together, I believe that evolution could've created different dog types, but not one species into another. Also, I would like to add, I am atheist, so no "It's a better solution than creationism", and no, I don't know how everything was created and put together. Maybe aliens? Who knows, everything is technically viable, but to me, evolution AND creationism have neither proved their worth to me as an answer I'd accept, based on what we currently know.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Firstly, I will have to say, I am a new comer, and that I read "most" of this discussion. (It's REALLY long and tedious for my time) I accept that evolution COULD be true, but it does have it's flaws, and it has a lot more gaps to fill before I would ever accept it as Scientific. Such as how did spontaneous life come to be and why are plants and animals are so different (and why inferior plants still exist).

Since I do not consider Evolution to be tested enough, nor is there any evidence of a new species being created since this theory was thought of, I'll have to say a no on Evolution. I _do_ believe in evolution happening in the forms of adaptation, but not one species becoming another. Since the species cannot reproduce with each other (such is the definition of species), there has to be some fine line that defines the mutated from the rest of it's "previous" species. And the chances of two of these of the same "type" of mutation are astronomically small. (As well as the fact that they would have to be born with this mutation, otherwise the mutated gene wouldn't be given to their offspring)

So, to put it all together, I believe that evolution could've created different dog types, but not one species into another. Also, I would like to add, I am atheist, so no "It's a better solution than creationism", and no, I don't know how everything was created and put together. Maybe aliens? Who knows, everything is technically viable, but to me, evolution AND creationism have neither proved their worth to me as an answer I'd accept, based on what we currently know.

OK, I think this is a good place to continue one's investigation. Maybe you caught this, maybe you didn't, but I personally think this list of specimens is very compelling:

• (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
• (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My (million years ago)
• (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
• (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
• (E) Homo habilis, OH 24, 1.8 My
• (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
• (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
• (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
• (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Kabwe 1," 300,000 - 125,000 y (years)
• (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
• (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
• (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
• (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
• (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

On that note, another important question would be: what hypothetical argument would it take for the theory of evolution to seem probable, if not the argument from this series of skulls?

 

[ApostateAbe]

Since I do not consider Evolution to be tested enough, nor is there any evidence of a new species being created since this theory was thought of, I'll have to say a no on Evolution. I _do_ believe in evolution happening in the forms of adaptation, but not one species becoming another. Since the species cannot reproduce with each other (such is the definition of species), there has to be some fine line that defines the mutated from the rest of it's "previous" species. And the chances of two of these of the same "type" of mutation are astronomically small. (As well as the fact that they would have to be born with this mutation, otherwise the mutated gene wouldn't be given to their offspring)

"Speciation" (emergence of new species) is actually a biological phenomenon that has apparently many times been directly observed. See this Wikipedia page--it has many examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

 

[DarkNex]

Very compelling indeed. And to answer your question, I would need a "thought" experiment (if you will), as to how one species "adapted" into another, that is all I am concerned about and is my only argument, if it is sufficiently answered, I will be a believer of evolution.

And really, you didn't answer any of my fundamental flaws with the subject, which I will state more clearly here.
The how's and why's of:
1. The spontaneous happening of life. (not technically to due with evolution, but I believe it is fundamental in believing evolution)
2. The connection between plants and animals.
3. Species turning into another species.
4. No evidence of another species being created during our "life" on Earth. (I can live with this one, but if you could prove THIS one, all the others should follow quite easily)

I firmly believe in micro-evolution. It's the inter-species and gets me. I also firmly agree there is a striking resemble of all the skulls, and that they are surely connected, but I can't believe anything unless there is detailed process of how it happens.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I ninja-posted you, sorry.