Evolution offers a better alternative to bible creationism

Author: Moozer325
evolution

Posts

Total: 63
#31
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@IlDiavolo
Anything is superior to biblical creationism.

A more serious and fun debate would be evolutionism vs panspermia, for example.
The choice between being descendants of apes to losing immortality for eating a fruit are both extreme views.
Topic's author
#32
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,175
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@Shila
The choice between being descendants of apes to losing immortality for eating a fruit are both extreme views.
How is a proven fact an extreme view? Also, humans aren’t descended from apes, we share a common ancestor.
#33
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
You do realise that the fruit thing was a metaphor?

Made up by a bloke, who was told not to play with his willy, or anyone else's for that matter.

And not to keep dressing up in his sister's fig leaves.

Don't know who told him this, but who ever it was, was a hypocrite.
#34
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
You do realise that the fruit thing was a metaphor?

Made up by a bloke, who was told not to play with his willy, or anyone else's for that matter.

And not to keep dressing up in his sister's fig leaves.

Don't know who told him this, but who ever it was, was a hypocrite.

Nice.

#35
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Nice weather too.

Hope it's the same in Bromsgrove.

Regards.
#36
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Moozer325
How is a proven fact an extreme view? Also, humans aren’t descended from apes, we share a common ancestor.
Do apes digest fruit’s differently? The consequences were less severe on them.
#37
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
You do realise that the fruit thing was a metaphor?

Made up by a bloke, who was told not to play with his willy, or anyone else's for that matter.

And not to keep dressing up in his sister's fig leaves.

Don't know who told him this, but who ever it was, was a hypocrite.
Can a metaphor be more damaging than if it were a fact? Both views are extreme.
Topic's author
#38
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,175
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@Shila

How is a proven fact an extreme view? Also, humans aren’t descended from apes, we share a common ancestor.
Do apes digest fruit’s differently? The consequences were less severe on them.
I don’t see your point.
#39
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Moozer325
Do apes digest fruit’s differently? The consequences were less severe on them.

I don’t see your point.


Only humans were cursed. Apes and monkeys freely ate the fruit.

Genesis 3
1
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, `You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
2
The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,
3
but God did say, `You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'"
4
"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.
5
"For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
6
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
7
Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
8
Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
9
But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"
10
He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."
11
And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"
12
The man said, "The woman you put here with me--she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."
13
Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
14
So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
15
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring [1] and hers; he will crush [2] your head, and you will strike his heel."
16
To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
17
To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, `You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
18
It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.
19
By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."
20
Adam [3] named his wife Eve, [4] because she would become the mother of all the living.
21
The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.
22
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
23
So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.
24
After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side [5] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

#40
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
Can a metaphor be more damaging than if it were a fact? Both views are extreme.

Not exactly sure what you mean Shila.


Though, if facts were known, then representative tales wouldn't be necessary.

But such metaphorical tales become established as guiding principles for some.

Which, if all guiding principles were the same wouldn't really be damaging.

But as we know, society isn't like that.


So perhaps it would be better to know the facts rather than promote a minefield of misinformation tales.


Nonetheless, I still tend to run with the idea that all aspects of the bigger evolutionary picture including factional religious hypotheses, are all an inevitable and therefore necessary part of the process.

But at the same time, I'm also happy with the idea that everything lacks any greater meaning outside of it's own universal context.
#41
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,574
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

As Einstein said,  'the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this. '

9 days later

#42
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Can a metaphor be more damaging than if it were a fact? Both views are extreme.

Not exactly sure what you mean Shila.


Though, if facts were known, then representative tales wouldn't be necessary.

But such metaphorical tales become established as guiding principles for some.

Which, if all guiding principles were the same wouldn't really be damaging.

But as we know, society isn't like that.


So perhaps it would be better to know the facts rather than promote a minefield of misinformation tales.


Nonetheless, I still tend to run with the idea that all aspects of the bigger evolutionary picture including factional religious hypotheses, are all an inevitable and therefore necessary part of the process.

But at the same time, I'm also happy with the idea that everything lacks any greater meaning outside of its own universal context.
If you accept the metaphor then we are indeed cursed by it.
If we see it only as a metaphor then the fact remains we are cursed.
This proves both views are dangerous either as a metaphor or a fact.
#43
DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 303
0
2
5
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
0
2
5
-->
@Shila
Just my two cents:

I don't think the fruit itself was cursed.  I think it was the fact that Adam and Eve realized that they could disobey God, "Know good and evil".  "Their eyes were opened" is the metaphor. 
#44
DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 303
0
2
5
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
0
2
5
-->
@Moozer325
How is a proven fact an extreme view?
Were you referring to evolution as the "proven fact"?

Topic's author
#45
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,175
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@DavidAZZ
Yes, are you really going to try and fight me on this?
#46
DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 303
0
2
5
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
0
2
5
-->
@Moozer325
Sure! :)

I'm probably going to bite off more than I can chew on this, BUT you cannot say that evolution is proven fact.

I guess we should determine what "proven fact" means to you.  Is it proven in your mind or that it is a widely accepted theory by the masses, or that it can be replicated in a lab somehow, therefore proving the evolution theory?

My point is along the lines of ADOL above.  There are such huge SciFi claims about how life came to be but CANNOT be proven.  It just some guy in a lab coat flapping his jaws about how he thinks it all came together and then gets paid huge sums to try to prove his theory.

I will say, however, that my view of God creating all things in 6 days is just as unprovable since I cannot take us back in time or wrangle God to come down for an interview.
Topic's author
#47
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,175
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@DavidAZZ
By proven fact I mean that it is a phenomenon that can be observed and measured. It has been observed and measured in labs with viruses, but there is other stuff too. 

There is overwhelming evidence from the fossil record that shows evolution, and most simple of all, we know that all the components necessary for it to happen are happening, so we know that it happens.

Here’s what I mean. The theory of evolution states that different species are caused by genetic mutations. For instance, say a group of brown bears moves up north. One of the brown bears has a genetic mutation, and has white fur, not brown fur. Because of this, it has camouflage so it can hunt better. Because it can hunt better, it has a better chance of surviving long enough to pass on its genes, so then more brown bears develop white fur, and more traits that help them survive in colder climates. The brown bears in the group die off and the Polar bears survive.

We know that genetic mutation happens, every single person is born with it. If not, we would be exact copies of our parent. Some people have more than others, but everybody does.

Because we know these things, the natural confusion is that the theory of evolution is correct. We know that we have genetic mutation, so either mutations exist, and they just affect nothing, but that’s completely stupid. The species with better mutations will go on to survive, which is the theory of evolution.


#48
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@Moozer325
I know I'm a bit late, but sure.

The theory of evolution is that which is best supported by physical science. However, science as we know it is a closed system. We don't know to what extent the claims of science correspond to actual reality. Physical science cannot prove that said correspondence is 100% because it has no standard outside of itself. Which is no different in principle from religious revelation and theology, whose standard is also itself.

By analogy, suppose you were a simulated person born into a simulated world. The builders of this world installed certain commands that would make your lives easier once discovered. For example, a "Farm" command would cause a digital seed to be planted on a tile, and with the elapsing of a certain amount of time it would turn into a fruit or seed bearing plant, usually at a small profit to the owner. At first the results are crude. But with time, your civilization figures out the intricacies of how these commands work and what the programming logic behind them is, and manages to use the game's engine to churn out more and more complicated results, so that your world prospers beyond measure.
So far as you the simulated person know, "the commands" are objective science. They explain how the universe works. They explain how reality works. Anyone who claims there is something beyond the commands is a pseudoscientist. And I wouldn't blame this hypothetical you for thinking so. But that could well be the situation we find ourselves in now. Perhaps science as we know it was a convenient framework put in place to help us make sense of the environment we currently live in, but not the final say on what indeed is.
Topic's author
#49
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,175
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@Swagnarok
Well sure, that might be the case,  but we have no way of knowing, so by our current knowledge its logical to believe that things we observe are as they are.

Evolution is observed, so it’s logical to assume that it is how things actually work.
#50
DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 303
0
2
5
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
0
2
5
-->
@Moozer325
Here’s what I mean. The theory of evolution states that different species are caused by genetic mutations. For instance, say a group of brown bears moves up north. One of the brown bears has a genetic mutation, and has white fur, not brown fur. Because of this, it has camouflage so it can hunt better. Because it can hunt better, it has a better chance of surviving long enough to pass on its genes, so then more brown bears develop white fur, and more traits that help them survive in colder climates. The brown bears in the group die off and the Polar bears survive.
I would agree with this analogy if this were the only tenant of evolution, but what you have described is merely "natural selection".  This is the ability for a species to survive through the certain slight changes of a creatures already existing DNA.  Humans do it too.  Stronger limbs for battle.  Taller bodies for reaching.  Stronger eyes for sight, ETC Survival of the Fittest, BUT we have never developed the oh so needed third arm to get my keys out when I'm walking to my car with a Circle K hotdog and a Thirst Buster™. 

Where do we see or observe these mutations changing into something else?  The fossil record doesn't show it (The missing link) and we have nothing showing this is the case in real life.

So again, just because one portion of Science can show how animals live and adapt to certain climates and situations, it doesn't mean that evolution is "proven".  You cannot prove that life was produced from amino acids and lightning.  You cannot prove that a life form has "evolved" into a higher form of life just through random chance.

Topic's author
#51
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,175
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@DavidAZZ
I would agree with this analogy if this were the only tenant of evolution, but what you have described is merely "natural selection".  This is the ability for a species to survive through the certain slight changes of a creatures already existing DNA.
I think you’re confused. Natural selection is the theory of evolution. They’re just the same thing with different words.

BUT we have never developed the oh so needed third arm to get my keys out when I'm walking to my car with a Circle K hotdog and a Thirst Buster™.
Well the reason for this is that evolution isn’t a machine that makes every species perfect.

Evolution takes a huge amount of time, and Circle K hasn’t been around that long, but I get that that’s a joke. Any of the traits that would help us survive in the modern world haven’t evolved yet because our human technology just moves way too fast for evolution to catch up. To even have the slightest change, it take a few generations of humans. Now look back a few generations by technology, let’s say 100 years. Look how far we have come from 1924! Evolution can’t change as rapidly as technology because it is slow.

But besides that even, it only makes changes that are necessary. Just because you can’t open your car door because your hands are full doesn’t mean you will die, and it doesn’t mean you will have a less chance of survival. Evolution only changes things when they help the species survive and reproduce, not when they need to open a car door.

The fossil record doesn't show it (The missing link)
Actually 🤓, there is overwhelming evidence in the fossil record for evolution. Darwin even showed that the fossil record supports his theory. Here’s some more recent studies:




The first two aren’t scientific studies, they summarize the information I’m trying to convey, but they both have studies link and cited, and are very reputable.

The last one is a study, but like most of them, it’s behind a pay-wall. I just put it there so you could see that there are studies proving
evolution.

and we have nothing showing this is the case in real life.
We do actually. We can observe viruses in labs evolving. 

So again, just because one portion of Science can show how animals live and adapt to certain climates and situations, it doesn't mean that evolution is "proven".

That entire sentence is an oxymoron. You basically just said that even though science proves evolution, science doesn’t prove evolution. 

Animals adapting to climate by natural selection is evolution. 

You cannot prove that a life form has "evolved" into a higher form of life just through random chance.

Well that depends what you mean by “prove”. Can go back in time and watch every minute of history to see animals evolving, no. But all something needs to be proven a scientific fact is to have overwhelming evidence in favor of it, and evolution has that.

If you were to walk up to a tree and say, God made that tree exactly how it is, it didn’t grow. I might believe you if it was cave man time. 

But now we have science that shows how seeds can grow into trees. Even if we decided never to witness a tree growing, we would still know that they grow from seeds because of our knowledge of how seeds work and of how trees work.

Something doesn’t have to be completely and directly observed to be “proven”, it just has to be far and away the best explanation, and that’s what evolution is.




#52
DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 303
0
2
5
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
0
2
5
-->
@Moozer325
I think you’re confused. Natural selection is the theory of evolution. They’re just the same thing with different words.
Natural selection is a process within the evolution theory, but not evolution as a whole.  

Actually 🤓, there is overwhelming evidence in the fossil record for evolution. Darwin even showed that the fossil record supports his theory. Here’s some more recent studies:
All these say is that the fossils form the bottom don't look like the fossils from the top.  That is not proving anything except there were a lot of different animals that died and was fossilized.

BTW, I think you messed up on the 3rd one.  It had something to do with Monsoons in Pakistan.  Maybe the link changed the article.

I am referring to the "missing link" in the fossil record.  There is no hybrid "kind", like a dog/cat or a horse/alligator transitioning in the fossil record.

We do actually. We can observe viruses in labs evolving.
Please send link.

Something doesn’t have to be completely and directly observed to be “proven”, it just has to be far and away the best explanation, and that’s what evolution is.
I would say that it would be considering that all the "evidence" is circumstantial.  You believe the fossil change because you believe in evolution.  You believe the virus "evolved" because you believe evolution.  We don't debate that a tree grows from a seed because it can be observed.  Trees growing from seeds is proven, not theories.





Topic's author
#53
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,175
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@DavidAZZ
Natural selection is a process within the evolution theory, but not evolution as a whole. 
What’s the difference, I’ve always heard them used interchangeably?

All these say is that the fossils form the bottom don't look like the fossils from the top.  That is not proving anything except there were a lot of different animals that died and was fossilized.
But that’s the point. Fossils buried deeper are older because they have had more time to sink down into the earth. 

The fossils from longer ago are different from the more recent ones, so this shows is that some species went extinct longer ago than other, and some began to exist at other times.

The older fossils are less complex than the new ones, so it follows that they have been evolving into the new ones.

Bible creationism says that God created all the animals in one day, but this clearly disputes that.

I am referring to the "missing link" in the fossil record.  There is no hybrid "kind", like a dog/cat or a horse/alligator transitioning in the fossil record.

Well first of all, dogs didn’t evolve from cats. They had a common ancestor long ago that branches off, but I’m assuming that was a joke.
Same thing goes for horses and alligators.

Second, the missing link problem isn’t really a problem. People used to say there was a missing link between dinosaurs and birds, but recently we have found that dinosaurs which came much later had feathers and began getting smaller. 
 
We have found animals between fish and tetrapods, reptiles and mammals, and whales and land mammals.

If there are still “missing links”, that doesn’t disprove anything, it just means we haven’t found everything yet, or some things aren’t present in the fossil record.

We do actually. We can observe viruses in labs evolving.
Please send link.
Sure! Virus evolution is the whole reason we need to take a new flu shot every year, or why there are so many variants of COVID. Viruses reproduce so fast that we can actually measure the evolution is the RNA. 

This is a cool study where they took a population of E-Coli and checked in on the RNA in the virus to see if it had change. The crazy things is there was noticeable differences by only about generation 500-1000.

You have to create a free account to access it BTW.



You believe the fossil change because you believe in evolution.  You believe the virus "evolved" because you believe evolution. 

I believe in this science because 1. It’s widely observable and probable through empirical evidence, and 2. I trust the experts. Let’s be honest. Neither me nor you are experts in this field, and unless we dedicate our lives to researching it, we never will be. That’s why if you don’t want to waste your life, you turn to people who did waste it :P. 

These people have dedicated their lives to science, so if they all 100% agree on something, it’s probably true.

We don't debate that a tree grows from a seed because it can be observed.  Trees growing from seeds is proven, not theories.

My point was using a hypothetical where we couldn’t observe trees growing. We would still know that they grew from seeds even though we couldn’t actually observe it.

Also, the theory of evolution isn’t a theory. It was once, but now it’s fact and the name has stuck. The theory of relativity is also called a theory, but no one disputes that.
#54
DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 303
0
2
5
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
0
2
5
-->
@Moozer325
What’s the difference, I’ve always heard them used interchangeably?
The difference is that evolution is not observable and natural selection is.  To use it interchangeably is disingenuous. 

But that’s the point. Fossils buried deeper are older because they have had more time to sink down into the earth. 
That would be a great point assuming the layers were created over millions of years.  These are sediment layers and they were laid in a short time. 

We have found animals between fish and tetrapods, reptiles and mammals, and whales and land mammals.
Such as the Coelacanth which turned out to be more fins and not protruding limbs?

This is a cool study where they took a population of E-Coli and checked in on the RNA in the virus to see if it had change. The crazy things is there was noticeable differences by only about generation 500-1000.
Only read the preview.  Did they state that they saw the final generation to be more like a fly than a bacteria?  That is what evolution is proposing.  You cannot call genetic makeup passed down to their children as evolution.  It is not the same.

Neither me nor you are experts in this field, and unless we dedicate our lives to researching it, we never will be. That’s why if you don’t want to waste your life, you turn to people who did waste it :P. 
Good point! LOL

These people have dedicated their lives to science, so if they all 100% agree on something, it’s probably true.
Islamic people have dedicated their lives to Allah, but that doesn't mean what they conjure is good. (See 9/11 for reference)  Just because a group agrees, it doesn't mean its a sure thing.

Also, the theory of evolution isn’t a theory.
It is.  The fact is that animals change (adapt, genetics, etc), BUT they do not change into other animals (Evolve).  This is not proven not is it reproducible.

BTW, have you noticed that evolution actually secretly gives homage to Greek Gods?  What are the two main pillars of evolution?  Time and the Earth.  Look up the Greek gods Cronos and Gaia.  It is secret pagan worship because in order for evolution to be real, there has to be a dedicated intelligence making the evolving decisions for the better.  Otherwise all life would not exist.  What if evolution got it wrong?  Dead species and no chance for reproduction.

Topic's author
#55
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,175
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
The difference is that evolution is not observable and natural selection is.  To use it interchangeably is disingenuous.
I still don’t get it. If I’ve been using “evolution” to describe natural selection, then what really is evolution?

Only read the preview.  Did they state that they saw the final generation to be more like a fly than a bacteria?  That is what evolution is proposing.  You cannot call genetic makeup passed down to their children as evolution.  It is not the same.
No, the viruses didn’t turn into flys, but there were noticeable changes in their RNA. If subtle changes can happen in such short a time, then if you give a single cell organism 3.7 billion years, it can have its children be humans.

I don’t understand why you can accept evolution on a small scale and the say that that can’t possibly transfer to a bigger one?

Islamic people have dedicated their lives to Allah, but that doesn't mean what they conjure is good. (See 9/11 for reference)  Just because a group agrees, it doesn't mean its a sure thing.
Well Islam isn’t science. You can dedicate your life to Allah without every trying to see if he’s real, but science is all about try to see if things are real.

If every single person trying to see if evolution is real comes to the conclusion that it is, well then it probably is. 

This is like if I showed 1,000 people a colored block, they all came back honestly saying that block was red, and then you said, no, it’s blue. 

Okay, it’s a little different, but I couldn’t think of a better analogy. The point remains the same.

That would be a great point assuming the layers were created over millions of years.  These are sediment layers and they were laid in a short time.  
See attached link of trees in sediment layers.
If sunken trees were found in the same location as some bones were dug up, then that might be grounds to question whether or not those bones had the right dating, but almost all of these sites don’t have the sunken trees.

Your source said that they were caused by sudden landslides and other things, but those haven’t happened to every piece of dirt on every dig site. 
#56
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Swagnarok
Physical science cannot prove that said correspondence is 100% because it has no standard outside of itself.
Reason and existence are axioms. That is where the chain ends and that is the only place the chain can end because outside of those axioms there are no arguments (chains).

You basically said "but you can't prove math because even if you put two things in a basket by adding one at a time that is still using math"

Math is defined as the concept which relates adding two things and the total being two. Reason is the concept which is defined as the best argument and the truth in that system is the system of non-contradictory beliefs with the most direct (sensory) evidence in support of it.

Science is nothing more or less than reason applied to physical phenomenon, although people who don't know what philosophy and speculative thought experiments aare sometimes try to usurp those domains with the word since for them rational and scientific are synonyms.
#57
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@DavidAZZ
@Moozer325
I would agree with this analogy if this were the only tenant of evolution, but what you have described is merely "natural selection".  This is the ability for a species to survive through the certain slight changes of a creatures already existing DNA.
I think you’re confused. Natural selection is the theory of evolution. They’re just the same thing with different words.
No, when people say evolution (and you dig into it) they mean simultaneously refinement of existing function through natural selection and the generation of novel functional structures through a coincidental scaffolding, which is then preserved and refined by natural selection.

The former contains only the assumption of a continuous gradient of changes towards a local maximum of fitness.

The second involves the concept of irreducible complexity and I have found many people who think they understand "evolution" do not understand this distinction nor its implications.

BTW:
[Moozer325] These people have dedicated their lives to science, so if they all 100% agree on something, it’s probably true.
[David] Islamic people have dedicated their lives to Allah, but that doesn't mean what they conjure is good. (See 9/11 for reference)  Just because a group agrees, it doesn't mean its a sure thing.
This is an excellent rebuttal.


[Moozer325] Well Islam isn’t science.
The difference being reason. If the only difference is logic, then the only way to prove the difference is to know the logic is correct. There is no substitute, so appealing to authority is a waste of time in a debate.


[Moozer325] If every single person trying to see if evolution is real comes to the conclusion that it is, well then it probably is.
Everyone who dedicates themselves to finding a personal connection with Jesus eventually succeeds. The real is not defined as that which you can convince yourself of, but that which reason forces you to believe whether you want to believe it or not.


[Moozer325] This is like if I showed 1,000 people a colored block, they all came back honestly saying that block was red, and then you said, no, it’s blue. 

Okay, it’s a little different, but I couldn’t think of a better analogy. The point remains the same.
If that is the analogy then what happens when evolution is saying the block was blue? That is closer to the situation when Darwin published and even now if you actually polled the entire planet most would profess to believe that evolution doesn't work without god (or that the fossil record was a trick god made or something).

Like you said, that's not science because science is rational and reason is not a democracy.

Topic's author
#58
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,175
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No, when people say evolution (and you dig into it) they mean simultaneously refinement of existing function through natural selection and the generation of novel functional structures through a coincidental scaffolding, which is then preserved and refined by natural selection.

The former contains only the assumption of a continuous gradient of changes towards a local maximum of fitness.
Well then by that definition I don’t believe in the theory of evolution. Natural selection preferred animals that survive and reproduce, not thrive. There is a threshold that and animal must cross, and if it does, there is no need for more improvement until environments change.

Evolution doesn’t tend towards perfection, it tends towards a bear minimum.

There is no substitute, so appealing to authority is a waste of time in a debate.
I never tried to explicitly “prove” anything with my appeals to authority. I used other primary sources and science to “prove” my point, I just made it so that my point was better backed up by my citing of authority. Sure, that doesn’t prove anything, but it makes it so there is about a 99.99% my argument is correct. If every single person working to find if something is true come back and say it is true, then there is a very good chance it is true.

It’s possible that they have some sort of secret science cabal, but most of these studies are independent of each other, and there are literally millions of biologists. I think they know what they’re talking about.

This is an excellent rebuttal.
I don’t think it is. Biology and Islam are two very different things. Islam is blind faith while Biology is people actively working together to see if something is true. The people behind 9/11 weren’t actively trying to prove Allah was real, they just did it.

Biologists are successfully proving the theory of evolution, not just blindly accepting it.

The real is not defined as that which you can convince yourself of, but that which reason forces you to believe whether you want to believe it or not.
Again, I’m not saying that an appeal to authority argument definitely proves anything, I’m just saying to makes it very probable that if they all agree to the same thing, that thing is the truth.

If that is the analogy then what happens when evolution is saying the block was blue? That is closer to the situation when Darwin published and even now if you actually polled the entire planet most would profess to believe that evolution doesn't work without god (or that the fossil record was a trick god made or something).
Well that’s why I said that the block was “probably” red. I don’t deny that there is a slight chance those million people all created a  pact to lie about the block and every single one kept it, but the chance are slim to nill. 

It makes so much more sense to trust the million people who said it was red than to just go against all of them for no good reason.

Obviously, some research of your own would be good too,  but if you don’t have that time, or you take into account the research you did plus what the other people say, it’s okay to trust the one million people who said it was red.
#59
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Moozer325
No, when people say evolution (and you dig into it) they mean simultaneously refinement of existing function through natural selection and the generation of novel functional structures through a coincidental scaffolding, which is then preserved and refined by natural selection.

The former contains only the assumption of a continuous gradient of changes towards a local maximum of fitness.
Well then by that definition I don’t believe in the theory of evolution. Natural selection preferred animals that survive and reproduce, not thrive. There is a threshold that and animal must cross, and if it does, there is no need for more improvement until environments change.

Evolution doesn’t tend towards perfection, it tends towards a bear minimum.
I don't believe there is any merit in this framing.

If the mutation causes a shift in gene frequencies then it will be selected and become dominant given enough trials (population * generation).

"fitness" in this context is defined as the positive effect on gene frequency in the population and "perfection" must then be defined as the peak of fitness, the genetic sequence for which any change causes deselection. If a changing environment causes rapid changes it is only because the finesses landscape has changed and thus the definition of perfection changed.

I don't know what "thrive" vs "reproduce" is supposed to mean in this context.

If you want to define "perfection" as that which is more useful as seen by an intelligent analysis, then of course evolution doesn't aim towards perfection because it can't select for non-functioning systems. If novel function appears it is by definition a coincidence. That is irreducible complexity in a nutshell.


it makes it so there is about a 99.99% my argument is correct
Assuming 99.99% trust in your authority.


It’s possible that they have some sort of secret science cabal, but most of these studies are independent of each other, and there are literally millions of biologists. I think they know what they’re talking about.
If you think there are double blind controls in paleontology you don't know what you're talking about.

This isn't an experiment, it's all analysis (logic).


Biologists are successfully proving the theory of evolution, not just blindly accepting it.
Then respect those who emulate them, and do not expect (or condone) blind acceptance.


I’m just saying to makes it very probable that if they all agree to the same thing, that thing is the truth.
and yet if you applied that premise to religion suddenly "it's different". A rule with exceptions is no rule.

Or I suppose you could say that Islam is very probably true, just happens to not be true; or maybe you are Muslim.


It makes so much more sense to trust the million people who said it was red than to just go against all of them for no good reason.
Go straight for those good reasons, it saves time.


Obviously, some research of your own would be good too,  but if you don’t have that time, or you take into account the research you did plus what the other people say, it’s okay to trust the one million people who said it was red.
I'll see you at morning prayers then.
Topic's author
#60
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,175
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
Go straight for those good reasons, it saves time.
Well in that hypothetical, it would be beneficial to find out for yourself, but when it comes to complex issues like evolution, you can't just walk into the room and see what color the cube is. 

To really be an expert you have to dedicate your whole life to biology, and I doubt me or you are going to to that. That's why we go out and find studies that other scientists did, because it's their job to do those studies.

and yet if you applied that premise to religion suddenly "it's different". A rule with exceptions is no rule.
Once again, religion isn't science. Religion is mostly blind faith, while science is all about looking for answers. Million believe in christianity, but that doesn't make them experts on Evolution. You have to go to the actual experts, the Biologists.

If you think there are double blind controls in paleontology you don't know what you're talking about.

This isn't an experiment, it's all analysis (logic).
Fine, I misused the word experiment, but if all the analysis comes back and says that evolution is proven, then the fact doesn't change.