Believe in Evolution?

[Roland Deschain]

Actually, its a theory
Theory - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

The problem, however, lies in the general public's lack of knowledge about the distinction between a hypothesis and a theory

Its all the same: hypothesis, theory, law. The distinction basically comes out of politics and human need to rank and define things. Science is inductive, and therefore can never be proven true, only false. By that, every statement is a running hypothesis; there are strong hypothesis, which we like to call theories or laws, but its all the same. We use laws and theories more to make ourselves feel good, then out of any necessity. For examply, Newtons LAWS are false, but the true laws (as we know now) are Einsteins's THEORY of Special and General Relativity. So its just lanuage we are talking about.

In short, evolution is a hypothesis that can explain many things. It has many many many many many many weak points, in that many observations have been made that, at this point, cannot be explained by evolution. This however is science, and does not prove evolution wrong. No observation has yet been made that crealy violates the principles of evolution.

 

[Ikerous]

Its all the same: hypothesis, theory, law.

No they're not, and the distinction is actually very important
However, i'm far too lazy to explain why, so i'll leave it at that

 

[Roland Deschain]

No they're not, and the distinction is actually very important
However, i'm far too lazy to explain why, so i'll leave it at that

I disagree, we call Einstein's hypothesis a theory, even though they are far more corrent that Newton's Laws. Yet everybody says that a law is stronger than a theory. It is simply a word game we are playing, defenitions upon useless defenitions. And if you look in the scientific literature, you'll notice that the term "law" has not been used in a long time.

But I do agree with you in some extend. Hypothesis and thory are ever so slightly different. However, there is no fundamental distinction between hypothesis and theory. Nobody has ever defined how many observations are necessary for a hypothesis to become a theory.

 

[Max35]

Nothing in the Universe is perfect. And yes we do think differently than the stone age people.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that studies have shown that the average IQ has risen over the generations. And if we did still think like them (not talking about vague similiarities) we would still be living in caves. We have evolved since, both the body and mind have.

 

[Ikerous]

I disagree, we call Einstein's hypothesis a theory, even though they are far more corrent that Newton's Laws. Yet everybody says that a law is stronger than a theory. It is simply a word game we are playing, defenitions upon useless defenitions. And if you look in the scientific literature, you'll notice that the term "law" has not been used in a long time.

But I do agree with you in some extend. Hypothesis and thory are ever so slightly different. However, there is no fundamental distinction between hypothesis and theory. Nobody has ever defined how many observations are necessary for a hypothesis to become a theory.

Theories are well tested and widely accepted hypothesies; theres a pretty big distinction. But yea, in the end, it's all really about semantics. It's just that a lot of creationsists point out that evolution is merely a "theory" as if that somehow discredits it, when they're just playing on the public's lack of knowledge between the two terms. Which, in this case, is an important distinction to make

 

[Roland Deschain]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that studies have shown that the average IQ has risen over the generations. And if we did still think like them (not talking about vague similiarities) we would still be living in caves. We have evolved since, both the body and mind have.

Please cite those studies. And the topic of intelligence is very touchy in evolution, as it is almost impossible to define (IQ is useless, as it caters to too many biases and human models of thought). Just as an example, Einstein was horrible horrible at school and in standardized testings, yet look what he came up with.

Look up the scientific literature, you'll see that IQ is not that respected and has not been used in evolutionary circles to any extend.

 

[Roland Deschain]

Theories are well tested and widely accepted hypothesies; theres a pretty big distinction. But yea, in the end, it's all really about semantics. It's just that a lot of creationsists point out that evolution is merely a "theory" as if that somehow discredits it, when they're just playing on the public's lack of knowledge between the two terms. Which, in this case, is an important distinction to make

Spot on. I agree with you. The key term you use are "well tested" and "widely accepted". These two terms do not exist in contemporary science. We call it "the String Theory" even though it has not been tested once and it is accepted only by very very few people (look up physical citation if you don't believe me). So here professional and respected scientist use theory even though they do not even come close to the defenition you and I agree on.

So scientists are also pretty arrogant when it comes to the distinction.

 

[Ikerous]

Spot on. I agree with you. The key term you use are "well tested" and "widely accepted". These two terms do not exist in contemporary science. We call it "the String Theory" even though it has not been tested once and it is accepted only by very very few people (look up physical citation if you don't believe me). So here professional and respected scientist use theory even though they do not even come close to the defenition you and I agree on.

So scientists are also pretty arrogant when it comes to the distinction.

Yea. And it's because of scientists being sloppy with how they label things when addressing the public that created the confusion in the first place
(The String Hpothesis just doesn't sound as catchy, does it? )

 

[Max35]

You could be right, I was just saying the studies indicated a rise in IQ, I never said a certain IQ number was needed to advance the species. Overall Intelligence (complexity of mind, not "too many biases and human models of thought") has risen throughout the centuries though, or where would have cities and urban technologies come from otherwise? Trial and error played a certain role I'm sure, but without a certain level of intelligence these same mistakes would still be made over and over again. Again I do agree that IQ testing is too one-dimensional and could never touch the full complexity of the human mind and what it is capable of.

 

[Roland Deschain]

You could be right, I was just saying the studies indicated a rise in IQ, I never said a certain IQ number was needed to advance the species. Overall Intelligence (complexity of mind, not "too many biases and human models of thought") has risen throughout the centuries though, or where would have cities and urban technologies come from otherwise? Trial and error played a certain role I'm sure, but without a certain level of intelligence these same mistakes would still be made over and over again. Again I do agree that IQ testing is too one-dimensional and could never touch the full complexity of the human mind and what it is capable of.

Yep, your right. But you must take into account that sociaty has a huge impact on human advancement, regardless of intelligence. Once the taboo of human disaction has been removed, medical science took of like crazy. So the intelligence was there all along, but other facts did not allow it to be used. Yet we are smarter than anything on this world. However, we still don't understand what causes that intelligence. A couple of genes that are necessary for language are missing in the chimp, indicating that language could have propelled us so far ahead, rather than any specific hard wiring.

 

[Max35]

Again I agree with your points as well. But with all these complex techs/societal rules, whatever, you would need a more slightly complex mind to fully comprehend them. There are other factors that play a bigger role in societal advancement I agree, but I think our minds are becoming more complex as time goes on, however minute the changes.

 

[Captain M4d]

The belief or disbelief of evolution is like the belief or disbelief of the number 2.

 

[Roland Deschain]

The belief or disbelief of evolution is like the belief or disbelief of the number 2.

Are you arguing for or against evolution?

 

[MiccyNarc]

It's all retrospective, and it's all speculation, no matter where you stand on the issue (ID, Evolution, whatever)
For all we know the world came into being 500 years ago, and all the stories of events before that time were created by the aliens that placed us here.
We have to make do with what we have, and assume that everything is as it appears.

Personally? I don't think it matters. I'm just doing what I can with the time I have here (I am a Christian by the way, I just don't care about evolution vs. creation anymore. I avoid those arguments)

 

[Captain M4d]

Are you arguing for or against evolution?

For.

6char

 

[DeusExMachina]

I like to think the universe was, is, and always will be.

 

[Apos]

Laws are generally statements of simple relationships that hold unversally. They don't explain anything, they are just statements of what we always see, everywhere we look.

Theories, on the other hand, are large bodies of explanation describing complex phenomena. Theories never become laws. Calling something a theory is not any sort of statement on how good it is, or how certain it is to have relevance to the real world.

Evolution is both a theory, in that it provides lots of explanations for things, and a set of facts. The facts of evolution are historical: all known life is related via reproduction, it developed via evolutionary mechanism, and so on.

I'd be happy to answer any questions or challenges about evolution.

 

[MiccyNarc]

The nice thing about my position on the subject is that noone can argue with it

 

[Apos]

I can argue with it: it's just a cop out that even you don't really believe. It's just a smokescreen you throw up to avoid having to deal with the issue. Fact is, you don't in real life live as if everything is just speculation and the world could have come into being three seconds ago. All of that is nonsense.

In reality, the old age of the earth, the evolutionary record: all of it is as certain and as factual as anything else you deal with in the world everyday.

 

[MiccyNarc]

I can argue with it: it's just a cop out that even you don't really believe. It's just a smokescreen you throw up to avoid having to deal with the issue. Fact is, you don't in real life live as if everything is just speculation and the world could have come into being three seconds ago. All of that is nonsense.

In reality, the old age of the earth, the evolutionary record: all of it is as certain and as factual as anything else you deal with in the world everyday.

Why the hell does it matter? It doesn't, let's face it. We're all arguing about "oh God created it, oh God DIDN'T create it, oh..." blah blah blah. Why are we worried about something so trivial? Who knows, another 500 years from now there will be an entirely new theory related to origins.
It's a pointless argument, one that can't be resolved in everyone's minds until the invention of time machines.

Nothing before human existence has been recorded, we can only look at what we have and make assumptions off of it. They may be accurate, they may not be. I honestly don't care.
And yes, I do believe this.
I think we'd all be better off if everyone agreed with me and put our efforts to something worthwhile, like world peace or a cure for cancer or something.

 

[Direwolf]

I agree that its pointless to argue, but I'm not sure if I'd call it trivial.

It might in fact be the most important thing ever.

 

[Apos]

Why the hell does it matter?

That's a cop out too: avoiding the argument. It doesn't matter or not whether it subjectively matters to you. Its certainty is just the same regardless of whether or not you care, and the claim "it's all just speculation" as if it were a bunch of handwaving guesswork is just as flimsy.

Nothing before human existence has been recorded, we can only look at what we have and make assumptions off of it.

But more than enough evidence exists to prove all sorts of things. In fact, there's more evidence for evolution and the old age of the earth than there is for most of the "recorded" human events you talk about, and even many very recent events. So you can't accept everyday facts and recent history and also discard evolution as speculation. That would be inconcistent of you.

I think we'd all be better off if everyone agreed with me and put our efforts to something worthwhile, like world peace or a cure for cancer or something.

It wasn't until we really understood evolution that we were able to formulate cures for all sorts of diseases. But regardless, that's another cop out. Whether or not YOU think discovering the history of our planet is important enough to bother with, that doesn't affect the accuracy or the debate over the validity of evolution.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Creationism is based in the rejection of all scientific understanding.

As Henry Morris writes in Scientific Creationism,
“Creation... is inaccessible to the scientific method. It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place.”
As for Duane Gish (Evolution: The Fossils Say No!)
“We do not know how the Creator created... for he used processes not now operating anywhere in the universe.... We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.”
How do we know about it, then? As Michael Behe writes,
“We don't need science to tell us that the universe and life are designed, any more than that we need science to tell us that they had a beginning.... Through his personal revelation... God has told us that he designed life.”
Or as William Dembski puts it,
“The conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained apart from Christ.”
This is the same Dembski, by the way, who writes elsewhere that there is no Constitutional objection to teaching Intelligent Design in schools because it is based on hard “science and presupposes neither a creator nor miracles.”

https://webspace.utexas.edu/cokerwr/www/slides/creation/creation.shtml (emphasises are mine)

Creationism fails at life.

Get it? It's a pun.

 

[Shippi]

.

 

[kirovman]

Yes, the big bang's too complex to have been created by a natural process, so an even more complex higher being must have created it.

In the immortal words of the late Winston Churchill: "gg"

 

[madog]

I believe God made things so they can evolve.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Kirov and Shippi are correct.

If the universe is impossibly complex, the creator of the universe would need to be even more impossibly complex.

Since you can't be more complex than impossibly complex, the religious argument breaks down.

 

[Alexferris]

Evolution is a pretty damn good theory. I listened to his entire speech, and if a 16 year old boy can "crack" it, the entire intelligent design theory is pretty baseless.

 

[Roland Deschain]

Just finished listening to it, and I wanna make three points (could make more but these are the biggest.

*) This point is so utterly huge, so its seperate: if you want to discuss something, make sure you know what it is and define it for everybody. The only thing he said was that evolution was random, if I was at that meeting, it would cause me to errupt in uncontrollable laughter.

1) During his 1 hour speech he did not once bring up a single scientific argument against evolution (with the exception of the second law which many people in this post already easily refuted)

2) All his arguments were philosophical and metaphorical (complexity=design, etc etc). Science cannot refute those arguments, but luckily, those arguments cannot bring down even the most stupid hypothesis ever created.

3) Lastly, what is an engineer doing discussing evolution. I'll be like me trying to refute the theory of relativity.

 

[Raziaar]

Kirov and Shippi are correct.

If the universe is impossibly complex, the creator of the universe would need to be even more impossibly complex.

Since you can't be more complex than impossibly complex, the religious argument breaks down.

I don't believe the universe is impossibly complex. It may be out of our understanding, but that doesn't necessarily mean its impossibly complex. It just means we're not at that point yet.

 

[Direwolf]

Kirov and Shippi are correct.

If the universe is impossibly complex, the creator of the universe would need to be even more impossibly complex.

Since you can't be more complex than impossibly complex, the religious argument breaks down.

I think the idea is that the universe as we understand it has to play by the rules, but a creator wouldn't need to operate by rules we understand. Its still trying to prove a negative, which isn't any good, but whatever.

 

[Ikerous]

I think mountains are more than enough proof of God's existence.
I certainly didn't put em there

/debate

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I don't believe the universe is impossibly complex. It may be out of our understanding, but that doesn't necessarily mean its impossibly complex. It just means we're not at that point yet.

The basis of all creationist "science" is that the universe is too complex to be natural.

However, a god must be more complex than what he creates, which means that god is too complex to be natural.

That means that god either doesn't exist or was created by something that is too complex to be natural, which was created by something that is too complex to be natural, was created by something that is too complex to be natural, etc. - into infinity.

In the world's greatest irony, creation science has logically proven that god doesn't exist.
:O :O :O

 

[MiccyNarc]

Bah, I hate these debates and yet here I go:
Mecha, of course God is too complex to be "natural". Never heard the term "supernatural"?

into infinity.

Infinity, that's the term we're looking for. God has existed, does exist, and will always exist.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

"Supernatural" is a catch-all synonym for "cop-out".

We're going to have to assume the bible is correct, because god has otherwise provided no evidence of his existence.

The bible repeatedly shows god to be a flawed entity.
In actuality, the fact that a bible exists shows that god is fallible.
(Satan, paradise and Adam & Eve are all failed experiments that god should have been able to predict, since he is omniscient beyond the constraints of time. Not to mention the failure of pre-flood earth.

The bible - since it is open to so much interpretation, which defeats the point of its existence - shows that all-powerful and omniscient god has the relative writing skill of retarded porcupine. Poor writing skill means that he isn't all-powerful.)

If he's fallible, that means he is not infinite.
If he's not infinite, creation science proves that he doesn't exist.

 

[Raziaar]

(Satan, paradise and Adam & Eve are all failed experiments that god should have been able to predict, since he is omniscient beyond the constraints of time. Not to mention the failure of pre-flood earth.

Well thats the thing... Satan, paradise, Adam & Eve were created to be able to defy god's will. That's how he wanted it, and thats what it says in the bible.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Well thats the thing... Satan, paradise, Adam & Eve were created to be able to defy god's will. That's how he wanted it, and thats what it says in the bible.

This is the so-called "god burrito paradox".

Can god make a burrito too big for god to eat?
and, simultaneously,
Can an omnipotent god make himself fail?

The answer of that question is, of course, no.
If a burrito overpowers god, that would mean the burrito is "more infinite," which isn't possible.*

Whatever goals god had, he knew the outcome in advance.
That means he had no need** to bother with the experiment (us) unless he wasn't omniscient.

Which means he wasn't infinite.
Which means creation science proves there is no god.


*The burrito metaphor also means that god has a weakness.
He is incapable of making infinite burritos.
This means he is fallable, and creation science proves he doesn't exist.

**The very state of "needing" something is also a flaw. By the very virtue of having goals, god isn't infinite.
And you know what that means.

 

[Raziaar]

Hey. If people want to spend their lives pointlessly trying to disprove god, I say more power to them, as long as they don't infringe upon my rights. If people infringe upon my rights, i'm going to infringe upon others rights.

Until then, I say good luck wasting your time. I'll continue to worship my god no matter what anybody says, and keep it between myself and god. At least i'll feel fulfilled in my desire to do so.


But... as to your post. I don't see how that is a "god burrito" paradox, what I said. All I said was that he made his creations with the ability to defy him. That's very easily done by an all powerful being.

Can god make a burrito too big for god to eat?
and, simultaneously,
Can an omnipotent god make himself fail?

I still laugh when I hear these things. They're rediculous. It's people striving to try to prove that god isn't real, based on their own logic of the situation. Logic which is obviously not the most advanced. To what end? I mean... why is it that people strive to disprove god endlessly, like it'll somehow accomplish something? It'll never accomplish anything, because since the BEGINNING OF RELIGION, there has always been people trying to disprove god, going against the grain. And guess what? It hasn't changed anything.

Point in case, don't waste your breath, you'll live your life feeling like you wasted time on something you don't even believe in.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Can god make a burrito too big for god to eat?

Unfortunately, you fail to acknowledge the inherent awesome of God.

He could create a burrito too big to eat...but then he'd eat it anyway.

He's that good.

 

[Raziaar]

UNfortunately, you fail to acknowledge the inherent awesome of God.

He could create a burrito too big for him to eat, but then he would eat it.

He could create a rock too big to lift, but then he would lift it anyway.

Heh heh. Interesting way to say that.

I'm creating these at these moment that are impossible for me to do. But since i'm so METAL, i'm going to increase my ability to do the impossible! Just to play along with your foolish little game, weakling mortal.


Just some random quote I picked off the web. its not like it matters, cause neither of us can make the other believe otherwise. So how bout we respectfully agree to disagree, and move on? I have my faith in god, you don't have such a thing... so why do you choose to occupy your time with it?

No, he can not, because God is almighty, with one exception:
God cannot create something that would deprive him of his omnipotence. A stone, too heavy for him to lift, would steal his omnipotence from him. It would deprive him of his divinity and he would be no longer be a god. God can accomplish everything with one exception: God cannot unmake himself. That is the only exception in his omnipotence.
The moral of the tale: �_
Even God’s omnipotence contains the exception.
(By virtue of the exception in the omnipotence of God, God becomes almighty)

I seriously believe that Humans are not even close to being able to comprehend omnipotence. So what's the point? All we can do is throw out our theories...

the thing with god... its blind faith. Believers of religion know this.