Evolutionary debate

[AV1611VET]

This is the grossest misrepresentation of science I have ever seen.

-- Thank you.

It's a tough job, but someone has to do it.

Scientists do not make up junk out of thin air and take it as facts without doing any experiments.

I agree -- they work hard to misrepresent what really happened.

Religious people are the ones that do that.

I won't argue that.

I wish my brothers and sisters in Christ would stop it too.

You ought to get a price for outrageous misrepresentation of science.

Keep it -- I'd rather have crowns in Heaven to cast at Jesus' feet.

-- "Tell him what he's won, Bob!"
--"A free vacation trip to the "Creationist Museum."

Why, thank you -- been there.

It's a nice place where scientists can take a hike.

 

[Sephsekla]

The difference is that Science modifies the theories to fit the evidence.

Religion modifies the evidence to fit with the theories

 

[AV1611VET]

The difference is that Science modifies the theories to fit the evidence.

So science makes the rules, don't they?

Religion modifies the evidence to fit with the theories

I don't think true religion should take evidence into account.

If God said it, that settles it.

 

[Sephsekla]

So science makes the rules, don't they?

I don't think true religion should take evidence into account.

If God said it, that settles it.

No, Science recognises that we cannot simply make up a theory which is perfect and the absolute truth, because we do not have all the facts or all the evidence. Instead we go with the model which best explains the phenomena that we observe. When new evidence comes along, it may fit with what we expect, improving the reliability of our theory, or contradict it, suggesting that the theory is wrong. If so, we either adapt our theory, or come up with a new one which better fits. This is how Science works.

As for your other point: How do you know that God said it? Did he confide in you in the pub one day?

 

[AV1611VET]

So science makes the rules, don't they?

No,

Now watch him contradict himself:

Science recognises that we cannot simply make up a theory which is perfect and the absolute truth, because we do not have all the facts or all the evidence.

So you make up the rules as you go along, right?

Instead we go with the model which best explains the phenomena that we observe.

And change the rules accordingly, right?

When new evidence comes along, it may fit with what we expect, improving the reliability of our theory, or contradict it, suggesting that the theory is wrong.

At which point you either leave the rules as-is, or change them accordingly, right?

If so, we either adapt our theory, or come up with a new one which better fits.

Meaning you change the rules accordingly, right?

This is how Science works.

By making up rules, then modifying (technoblab for 'changing') them accordingly, right?

As for your other point: How do you know that God said it?

It's a long story.

Did he confide in you in the pub one day?

No -- I don't drink.

 

[Sephsekla]

Your use of the word "rules" implies that the theories that scientists create are meant to govern the Universe.

On the contrary, they just attempt to model what is really going on. Science frequently changes its view on things. However this is not its weakness but its strength. We are not trying to validate what we already think. We simply want to find the truth, whatever it may be, and if our theory doesn't fit this, then we discard it.

And while I applaud your sobriety you still haven't answered my question. How do you know that God said it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Your use of the word "rules" implies that the theories that scientists create are meant to govern the Universe.

Scientists can't govern anything.

That's why they need administrations and governments to run the show and take the blame for their mistakes.

Behind every bad decision on the part of administration and government, is a scientist somewhere.

On the contrary, they just attempt to model what is really going on.

If scientists want to model, they can walk down the catwalk and show off their latest pocket protectors for all I care.

But when they start modeling the Bible, that catwalk becomes a hiking trail.

Science frequently changes its view on things.

That's because they can't get it right.

However this is not its weakness but its strength.

Ya -- I know.

Scientists are the only ones I know of who boast about being wrong.

Unless, of course, it involves some tragedy, then it's administration or government's fault.

We are not trying to validate what we already think.

What you 'think' will someday be invalidated by the next generation of clipboards.

We simply want to find the truth, whatever it may be, and if our theory doesn't fit this, then we discard it.

"Truth?"

Science deals in truth now, do they?

And while I applaud your sobriety you still haven't answered my question.

I don't intend to, either.

How do you know that God said it?

 

[Sephsekla]

If scientists want to model, they can walk down the catwalk and show off their latest pocket protectors for all I care.

But when they start modeling the Bible, that catwalk becomes a hiking trail.

That's because they can't get it right.

Hilarious. You still entirely miss the point of Science and how it operates.

However if you refuse to discuss how you can be sure that the Bible is actually the word of God and not just a fantasy dreamed up by a man in the heat of 1st century Palestine, then I have a feeling my attempts to clarify the Scientific Method aren't going to do anything to change your view of it.

Out of interest though, if we assume for a minute that a "Holy" Book is acceptable evidence despite its contradiction of the fossil record etc, (which in my view it isn't), why should Christianity in particular be taken as truth?

There is just as much evidence for Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Pastafarianism as Christianity: Namely, their religious texts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hilarious. You still entirely miss the point of Science and how it operates.

-- Flattery will get you nowhere.

However if you refuse to discuss how you can be sure that the Bible is actually the word of God and not just a fantasy dreamed up by a man in the heat of 1st century Palestine, then I have a feeling my attempts to clarify the Scientific Method aren't going to do anything to change your view of it.

You can clarify this if you want: 74.

But I'm not really interested.

Asking the pro-science & scientists here to clarify science is like asking a bartender to clarify alcohol.

On principle, you're not going to agree with anything I post against science; and since I'm so scientifically-challenged in the first place, almost anything you say will be over my head.

So I couldn't care less how you justify your stances.

You may as well say it in Greek, if you're going to say it to me.

 

[Sephsekla]

So your response to anything I say in order to try to help with your misconceptions of Science is:

"I couldn't care less."

I suppose I should have guessed from your oh so mature

"SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE"

If you truly believe that your explanation of the Universe is correct, then surely there is no harm in researching the alternatives? Maybe you'll learn something. Or are you scared of realising that you're wrong?

 

[AV1611VET]

So your response to anything I say in order to try to help with your misconceptions of Science is:

"I couldn't care less."

I'll tell you what, I'll go into the next bar I see and ask the bartender why drinking is a sin, then listen to him tell me about my 'misconceptions' -- how's that?

Comparatively, I'll go into the next laboratory I see and ask the scientist why the scientific method is a joke, then listen to him tell me about my 'misconceptions' -- how's that?

If you want to know why a movie is bad, do you ask those who saw the movie and loved it?

 

[Sephsekla]

If you want to know why a movie is bad, do you ask those who saw the movie and loved it?

If you don't know why it's bad, then how do you know it is bad?

Much better to talk to those who loved it, and those who hated it, those who thought it was Ok... etc.

Then you can evaluate all the viewpoints and come to your own conclusion.

That's what I did, and it's why I no longer call myself Christian.

 

[Sephsekla]

Come to think of it, why not watch the movie yourself?

 

[USincognito]

Oh goody! AV's got a new toy to clog up threads with as they respond to his admittedly trollish attitude regarding the Crevo "discussion".

Shouldn't "Science Can Take A Hike" be enough to know you're wasting your time?

 

[Sephsekla]

Benjamin Franklin: The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

It's interesting to talk to a real deep-set Fundamentalist. I only joined yesterday after reading this argument and being blown away by the aggression some people seem to display.

Apologies if I'm spamming up your inbox though.

 

[Miami Marlins 2012]

Why are we debating evolution still? The science is in, evolution happened. Denying evolution is like saying the Earth is flat. Now if this was a debate on Global Warming, that's another story. No one can deny climate change happens. But at least you could debate whether this warming period in-between ice ages is man-made or not.

But evolution vs. creationism? That ship has sailed already. Look up the fossil record, genetic studies, etc. Creationists can offer nothing to refute the science, except that they are afraid that death is a permanent state, and therefore continue to hang to their beliefs in the vain hope of an afterlife.

When I die there is only one place I'm going, into an oven for cremation, and after that as ashes into some river or field somewhere. That's it!!! No heaven, no hell, no netherworld where some ferryman takes me across some mystical river, or whatever.

 

[f3n1xhvn732]

Evolution is real. It is based on fossil evidence. And the evidence in the DNA. About compatibility with a belief in a god well, its possible if the you think the bible is "inspired" by a deity but written my humans. My mother (a christian) said one time "evolution is an intelligent design". If you take the bible like a useful spiritual "manual" more than based on facts (is only mithology) then it can be useful. But creationism is not the answer. Is virtually impossible.

I have a problem on evolution in its actual form. "Natural Selection" is a Dogma, a belief. New advances in Systems Biology, are revealing that is the interactions, the dynamics, the system itself and its rules the thing that really guides evolution. Like Stuart Kauffman said:

"Since Darwin’s time almost all biologists have felt that selection is the sole source of order in biology. But a growing number of scholars are suggesting that even the abiotic world exhibits astonishing self-organization. . . . [Kauffman’s] theory of autocatalytic sets is an example at the dawn of life itself: complex polymer systems may spontaneously or-ganize into collectively autocatalytic self-reproducing systems. Self-organization may require that we rethink all of evolutionary theory, for the order seen in evolution may not be the sole result of natural selection but of some new marriage of contingency, se-lection, and self-organization. "

It´s all in the rules of interaction, is all in the interconection. It drives evolution, not selection. Selection is the thing that retires the "dissonant" with the system. If is not retired it can breng the system down, but is only one factor.

Also there are a new framework of biology, the biosemiotics that studies meaning in biological systems. And is targeting one of the many questions in biology, Where meaning comes from?

So Darwinism is falling, and evolution is more complex than everyone thought to be.

 

[sandwiches]

So science makes the rules, don't they?

I don't think true religion should take evidence into account.

If God said it, that settles it.

If I tell you that God created the world in 30 days, you won't believe and you'll use the Bible to back up your argument and counter mine. Thus, to you, the Bible is evidence. So, as much as you like to pretend you're "evidence-free" it's only evidence that inconveniences you that you ignore but you have no problems quoting the Bible, many times out of context, as evidence.

 

[sandwiches]

So your response to anything I say in order to try to help with your misconceptions of Science is:

"I couldn't care less."

I suppose I should have guessed from your oh so mature

"SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE"

If you truly believe that your explanation of the Universe is correct, then surely there is no harm in researching the alternatives? Maybe you'll learn something. Or are you scared of realising that you're wrong?

Since you're new here, I'll let you in on a little secret: AV never answers anything straightforward. He defends his points with trolling, word games, playing victim or whenever he's unable to do those, he'll simply ignore you.

So, never expect sensible discussion from him but he has a very important role in these discussions as to what bad ideas, bad debating, and bad logic is. Sadly, even for Christians he's a good example as to how NOT to bring people to be saved by Jesus.

 

[AV1611VET]

If I tell you that God created the world in 30 days, you won't believe and you'll use the Bible to back up your argument and counter mine. Thus, to you, the Bible is evidence. So, as much as you like to pretend you're "evidence-free" it's only evidence that inconveniences you that you ignore but you have no problems quoting the Bible, many times out of context, as evidence.

Is God creating the universe in six days an example of quoting the Bible out of context?