Why this debate forum doesn't matter

KyleSpringer · Feb 22, 2018

DogmaHunter said:
"true" is that which corresponds to reality.
So to find out if a claim is "true", one needs to match it up against reality.

Science is quite good at that.
Religion? Not so much.

Reification. Science is not good at anything. Science is a tool, like you said, but to personify it and say it’s good at finding stuff out is arbitrary and fallacious.

Secondly, it’s ironic that you say you must match truth to reality, when in reality, reality needs an absolute for truth. Otherwise you prove anything you want.

Purple giraffes and alien spaceships. Why?

Well because giraffes are real, and I’ve seen the color purple, therefore purple giraffes must be real.

If we exist on our planet, and there are other planets like ours, there must be other life, and if there is other life, and I accept evolution, and the fact that science and intellect is the way the universe understands itself, the aliens will want to build ships to explore and practice science throughout the universe.

Speedwell · Feb 22, 2018

KyleSpringer said:
“Our corporeal bodies are a product of biological evolution ‘as described by science’”

Not strawman. To tell me that something is described by science, therefore it logically follows that one holds it as an absolute standard of truth.

Wrong. Not only wrong, I think, but perhaps even an intentional falsehood.

Scientific theories are only accepted provisionally. Even if some of them, like evolution, are well supported, they are still, in principle, falsifiable.

Otherwise, why propegate it?

Because it is the best explanation for the diversity of life we observe which scientists(You seem to dislike the idea of using "science" as a collective noun for evolutionary biologists.) have come up with. There is at the present time no better explanation out there.

My point is not to argue the burden of proof, rather the worldview with which one looks upon the evidence.
We are all looking at the same evidence, the question is, which is right?

I'm not sure that's true. Creationists seem to regard their dubious interpretation of the ancient Hebrew creation stories in the Bible as evidence.

DogmaHunter · Feb 22, 2018

KyleSpringer said:
You’re implying a conscious choice to benifit yourself, while propegating that evolution occurs to “weed out” those who don’t adapt.

I'm just point out to you that evolution is not some random process and that I don't require some "magical" explanation for why my perceptions are generally reliable.

Natural selection is anything but random.

If I don’t know how to use stairs, I would never be off of ground level.

But you do know how to use the stairs. And you don't need human intelligence for it either. My cat knows how to use the stairs too. It doesn't just jump down either.

And if there were not intellect and a design for the truck, you would have no worries at all right?

A truck is a mechanical device manufactured by humans.
I have no idea what your point is here.

There have been plenty of people hit by cars, and it wasn’t because they shoulda known better, but because people are indeed fallible creatures who’s senses are basically reliable but are not exempt from deception.

Did I say otherwise?

You said: "I’m unable to resolve how you believe your perception could be more accurate and reliable than a worldview where..."

That's what I was replying to.
In a world where evolution is completely random, then you would have a point. But evolution is not random. Creatures with completely unreliable and inaccurate perceptions, would not survive. It is really that easy.

In fact, by acknowledging that our senses indeed aren't always reliable and can even be quite deceptive, how do YOU explain that in a worldview where we are supposedly created by some all-powerful, all-intelligent engineer???? What, he couldn't create humans who's brains would actually perceive reality like it really is 100% of the time? Why can't we, for example, detect radio-activity before our limbs are starting to fall off? Or dangerous ultra-violette sun rays?

In context of evolution, it is perfectly explainable... our sense need not be "perfect". They just need to be "good enough". And many of the known ways in which our perception can fail or "trick us", we actually have reasonable evolutionary reasons as they (in)directly help with survival.

So.... brains that are "just good enough" is what I would expect from an evolutionary process and it is also what we observe.

In other words, what’s to stop someone in a truck from plowing you down on the sidewalk?

Certainly not your god.

Your world seems in perfect order until you’ve been ran over by someone who thinks THEIR world is in perfect order. So much wrong with that argument.

The only thing wrong here, seems to be your reading comprehension.

Evolution at its finest.

Strawman at its finest.

KyleSpringer · Feb 22, 2018

Speedwell said:
Wrong. Not only wrong, I think, but perhaps even an intentional falsehood.

Scientific theories are only accepted provisionally. Even if some of them, like evolution, are well supported, they are still, in principle, falsifiable.

Because it is the best explanation for the diversity of life we observe which scientists(You seem to dislike the idea of using "science" as a collective noun for evolutionary biologists.) have come up with. There is at the present time no better explanation out there.

I'm not sure that's true. Creationists seem to regard their dubious interpretation of the ancient Hebrew creation stories in the Bible as evidence.

You observe diversity, therefore evolution is the best explanation?

What??

So you observe the kinds there are, and conclude that without evolution there wouldn’t be so many variations?

Hold up. Am I understanding you correctly?

You’re saying we observe variations within kinds and you classify that as a reasonable explanation for evolution???

DogmaHunter · Feb 22, 2018

KyleSpringer said:
Reification. Science is not good at anything. Science is a tool,

A tool which is very good at answering question about reality.

like you said, but to personify it and say it’s good at finding stuff out is arbitrary and fallacious.

"science" as being the human endeavor of finding out how the world works, by using the scientific method.

You do realise that science is done by people using the scientific method, right?

Secondly, it’s ironic that you say you must match truth to reality, when in reality, reality needs an absolute for truth. Otherwise you prove anything you want.

That's not what I said. Seems you have trouble reading comprehensively again.

What I actually said was that "true" are those things that correspond to reality.
You have claim X about reality. X is either true or false.
"true" means: it matches reality.
"false" means: it does not match reality.

How do you differentiate true claims from false claims, if not by actually seeing if X matches reality? And how do you do that, if not by actually studying reality and seeing if X can be validated IN reality?

Purple giraffes and alien spaceships. Why?
Well because giraffes are real, and I’ve seen the color purple, therefore purple giraffes must be real.

You'ld be required to point out a purple giraffe.

Can you? No? Then "purple giraffes" does not match reality and therefor, you can't assign it a value of "true".

Did you really need to have this explained to you, or are you just trolling?
I kinda hope that you are just trolling, but I fear you aren't.

If we exist on our planet, and there are other planets like ours, there must be other life, and if there is other life, and I accept evolution, and the fact that science and intellect is the way the universe understands itself, the aliens will want to build ships to explore and practice science throughout the universe.

So, is this really how you think science is done?

DogmaHunter · Feb 22, 2018

KyleSpringer said:
You observe diversity, therefore evolution is the best explanation?

That's not at all what he said. I'm starting to have a difficult time given you the benefit of the doubt. You seem to be making a sport of "misunderstanding" rather simple sentences.

So you observe the kinds there are, and conclude that without evolution there wouldn’t be so many variations?

No.

Hold up. Am I understanding you correctly?

No.

You’re saying we observe variations within kinds and you classify that as a reasonable explanation for evolution???

No.

Ygrene Imref · Feb 22, 2018

DogmaHunter said:
The catholic church and science are enemies?
Did nobody inform you that the official stance of the vatican is the very opposite of creationist dogmatic doctrines we find in the US (and the middle east)?

You are experiencing a very new paradigm in which science and faith are just beginning to juxtapose. Enlightenment was categorically against organized religion.

I am not talking about the silly creationist/evolution feud that occur on the internet.

The current pope even notoriously said "God is not a magician with a magic wand" when addressing the whole evolution/creationism issue.

You are experiencing a very new paradigm in which science and faith are just beginning to juxtapose. And, this current pope is not necessarily the "People's Champion."

You mean academia like Francis Collins, Ken Miller, etc... devout christians and world reknown evolutionary biologists?

Devout by whose standards?

And, no. I am not talking about them.

The reality is, that you are simply projecting your own dogmatism unto others.

The only thing I am projecting is disdain for the incredible deception academia has delivered to the population for over thousands of years - and the population's willingness to accept what they feel makes sense. Organized philosophy (academia) is just as bad as organized spirituality (religion.) It all ends up corrupt, yet people ignore that corruption for a greater good feeling that is nothing more than an illusion of exploitation mistaken for progress.

KyleSpringer · Feb 22, 2018

DogmaHunter said:
I'm just point out to you that evolution is not some random process and that I don't require some "magical" explanation for why my perceptions are generally reliable.

Evolution is not random, because it’s not true.

Natural selection is anything but random.

Applying that nature selects anything is reification.

But you do know how to use the stairs. And you don't need human intelligence for it either. My cat knows how to use the stairs too. It doesn't just jump down either.

But your cat won’t decide to ride the elevator one day instead.

A truck is a mechanical device manufactured by humans.
I have no idea what your point is here.

Without intelligence it would be impossible to make a truck. Your position stands on the Christian worldview for its foundational presuppositions, that would otherwise hold no water.

In fact, by acknowledging that our senses indeed aren't always reliable and can even be quite deceptive, how do YOU explain that in a worldview where we are supposedly created by some all-powerful, all-intelligent engineer???? What, he couldn't create humans who's brains would actually perceive reality like it really is 100% of the time? Why can't we, for example, detect radio-activity before our limbs are starting to fall off? Or dangerous ultra-violette sun rays?

In context of evolution, it is perfectly explainable... our sense need not be "perfect". They just need to be "good enough". And many of the known ways in which our perception can fail or "trick us", we actually have reasonable evolutionary reasons as they (in)directly help with survival.

So.... brains that are "just good enough" is what I would expect from an evolutionary process and it is also what we observe.

The fact that you can expect anything insinuates the idea that your “just good enough” brain isn’t autonomous and driven by the forces of nature, rather you’re perfectly content living a lie.

How do I explain it? We were made perfectly. Adam and Eve were perfectly healthy and there was never intended to be death or illness or confusion. We were made by an intelligent mind with consciousness for relationship.

Jjmcubbin · Feb 22, 2018

One thing I've noticed is that no creationist ever gives an example that even remotely suggests creationism, instead they argue about why evolution is wrong, even though they don't know even a little bit about it, about some of the various examples it has to show (literally, all biodiversity).
This is why the image is so relevant. Evolution has practical use because we see it, creationism is just bull**** that serves as an example of cognitive dissonance and conformation bias. It has no evidence to show for it other than a book that makes claims with no evidence. Even I can write some stuff on a piece of paper and say it is true. The point is evidence.

Ygrene Imref · Feb 22, 2018

DogmaHunter said:
Both big bang and evolution are scientific theories and treated as such by scientists. Just like all other theories.

Except that whoever doesn't believe those theories are "crackpot conspiracy theorist religitards who haven't seen a science book in their life."

It doesn't matter if I am a mathematician, for example; if I vehemently disagree with the physical interpretation of the Big Bang (I am completely apathetic toward Evolution,) then I lose credibility amongst my peers. It is a pressure many submit to, forsaking their objective as doctorates, masters of philosophy.

Either people need to actually believe scientific theories are just theories, or they need to stop treating people as if they are intellectually green for 1) choosing to have an mind independent of the academic status quo, and 2) having the audacity to challenge the status quo.

The only issue you have with these 2 particular theories, is that they don't agree with what you believe religiously.

Just admit that. You don't have any problems with the science. In fact, chances are rather big that you, just like most creationists, don't even understand the basics of the science behind evoluion and big bang.

I would admit it if it was the truth. I have said several times I have no problem with science; you clearly do not pay attention in context or quality - or you missed it. I have expressed many times on these forums that my problem is academia, and academics. There is a distinct difference.

You are simply "against them" because you are under the impression that they are incompatible with your religious beliefs.

That is all.

The typical accusatory, "conspiracy theorist religitard" cliche...

Excellent.

And "religion" is bad, I bet?
Tell me, would you also complain if "the science religion" would agree with your actual "religion"? Be honest now....

You would not.

Complain? You mean make an argument that is as unbiased as possible? Absolutely. I have in the past, I have lost and gained advisors because I have no problem challenging the status quo of academia. As I said earlier, I was disillusioned with education, and then academia. I wasn't even a Christian until I completed my thesis, but in the mean time I trusted myself - and I didn't depend on my advisors or committee to hold my academic hand while I encountered new intellectual challenges.

Likewise, because I was fortunate enough to have some very cool advisers, and brilliant people as my readers, I was encouraged to keep the same suspicion about the academic status quo (instead of discouraged, as some of my undergraduate and graduate advisers treated the case.) What they did for me was invaluable. It prepared me for a career in academia, and dealing with people like you in real life - whilst being able to keep my professional name and academic success insulated from the collateral damage of challenging the academic status quo.

Academia is not science; academia is a political system within the scientific community. You must be dishonest with yourself, and others if you believe academia is a benign beast - especially because you may be a part of it. I understand you feel strongly your position, and judging by how it is going it would be futility for us to continue arguing, no?

I am genuinely asking; if you think I am just projecting my own dogmatic beliefs without an understanding of what I am speaking - who is also incapable of entertaining other perspectives for the purposes of protecting what would be a fragile ego - then we should stop here. I can distribute my words to other parties that would appreciate the conversation (without necessarily believing/accepting it.)

Jimmy D · Feb 22, 2018

KyleSpringer said:
Evolution is not random, because it’s not true.

Applying that nature selects anything is reification.

But your cat won’t decide to ride the elevator one day instead.

Without intelligence it would be impossible to make a truck. Your position stands on the Christian worldview for its foundational presuppositions, that would otherwise hold no water.

The fact that you can expect anything insinuates the idea that your “just good enough” brain isn’t autonomous and driven by the forces of nature, rather you’re perfectly content living a lie.

How do I explain it? We were made perfectly. Adam and Eve were perfectly healthy and there was never intended to be death or illness or confusion. We were made by an intelligent mind with consciousness for relationship.

Your rhetoric is noted.

Back in the real world - are you aware that the TOE has practical applications? And that it gets results? How do you explain that?

Speedwell · Feb 22, 2018

Ygrene Imref said:
Either people need to actually believe scientific theories are just theories, or they need to stop treating people as if they are intellectually green for 1) choosing to have an mind independent of the academic status quo, and 2) having the audacity to challenge the status quo.

LOL! For neither of those reasons, but instead for advancing a pseudo-scientific "explanation" based on a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation stories--presented agressively, often offensively and without full understanding of the theory of evolution, what it claims nor the evidence on which it is based. If that shoe doesn't fit you, then don't wear it.

Ygrene Imref · Feb 22, 2018

Speedwell said:
LOL! For neither of those reasons, but instead for advancing a pseudo-scientific "explanation" based on a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation stories--presented agressively, often offensively and without full understanding of the theory of evolution, what it claims nor the evidence on which it is based. If that shoe doesn't fit you, then don't wear it.

The presumption of a scientific argument that is not part of a status quo is the argument is "pseudo-science" - until, of course, it isn't.

That cultural paradigm of academia is why there was a quantum revolution, but you are still sending spaceships into the sky with rocket technology. Now, that is "laugh-out-loud" worthy.

I am not arguing the validity of creationism and/or evolution, because as I said I am completely apathetic toward evolution, and also the colloquial creationism/literal theories.

For example, if one wants to take a literal approach to Genesis, then we see that the earth was here before anything else was created - even time itself. That is just a conclusion that would be made if one reads the bible as if it is straight-forward (i.e. like a child.)

I am not interested in those (in my opinion) silly arguments, therefore, between [the validity of] creationism or evolution; I am more focused on the academic infrastructure that encourages and nurtures the status quo psychology that has kept the human race in technological degeneracy for centuries.

loveofourlord · Feb 22, 2018

KyleSpringer said:
“Evolution is true, or else we wouldn’t be here”

Sounds very circular to me.

But I’ll respond.

Your first objection that logic hasn’t been used consistently “until recently” is to say that Logic has existed prior to humans capacity to understand it. My question is how, if our universe is only a cosmic accident and our very existence is based upon some autonomous recognition of what’s beneficial, can your position even justify a pre-existent standard for logic?

If logic increases as our minds evolve, what’s to say your standard of logic is right? If everyone is at a different stage in evolution, you would really be relying on the majority, which even then assumes a standard of accuracy.

You know the socialogical analogy where a tribe on a remote desert island make up their own standards and laws?

Evolution can’t even do that, because if our thoughts are only seen as synapses in our brain, you actually have turned back on your own belief because you have assumed your thoughts are intrinsically valuable.

Otherwise you wouldn’t be able to argue, unless that’s just your nature and it is somehow benefiting you right now to tell me that a zebra is lion food, whether or not he runs.

Sorry I realize I worded that wrong :> i meant in the context of evolution would have to create logic or we wouldn't exist if it's true. Things like logic, minds that are reliable and such isn't a impedement to evolution. I wrote that while I was half asleep heh.

well because logic, math and laws of physics and other things are descriptive not prescrcriptive. Like what I meant to say about evolution, if there wasn't logical things in the universe, we wouldn't be here. logic isn't some hard law about reality that can't be broken, they are things we obeserve and as far as we know and can imagine can't be broken in our dimension. Though in the 5th and beyond they can be, such as you can have a married bachelor, a square circle and such, due to the nature of higher dimensions if they exist. All we have done is noticed that A can't be A and not A, and so on.

well we rely on majoirty for certain things like logic, math and such because while it's possible we might be wrong, they are testable multiple times over and over. can you produce something that is A and not A at the same time, can you disprove math of physics? You can maybe show our undestanding's of certain things might be off, but these are things that are called axiomatic because there is no known conceivable way for these things to be otherwise.

I accept these things because everything I've seen about these things is true to the best of my knowledge, I don't deny science or reality just to hold to some false belief in how the bible must be interpeted. And when I talk about logic I mean the formal logical rules, not the informal, though most of those are pretty good starting points, but informal logical rules have exceptions. And in fact there is even a fallicy for using them wrong, the fallacy fallacy. But our understanding of the imformal rules of logic have definetly helped us improve by seeing where there are errors in or thinking.

A island might have different rules for murder, stealing, and such but that doesn't mean that it's still a good idea to ignore the laws of logic informal or not, and in some small ways if they know them or not they are often following such logical rules.

Not sure on the last point, it benefits us all to understand logic and errors in our thinking. Telling you about zebra's and lions is to point out that the zebra and lion wouldn't have evolved to this point without some logical thinking on some level without some ability to tell a lion from a rock, if their brains were not reliable to a point they would have died long ago being unable to tell food from predator, or even know what either is.

loveofourlord · Feb 22, 2018

KyleSpringer said:
Again you’re assuming uniformity, which is not something your position can readily explain. Although the Bible clearly tells us that all things are held together for our benifit.

Order out of chaos is not a problem for the Christian worldview, but you blindly accept that no one knows how or why but the fact that we even are is your proof.. that’s silly.

Order out of chaos will happen any time there is order in how things work.

if we reset the universe a billion times, each with different settings, there will always be order from chaos. Because the speed of light in a vacuum, the greater and lesser magnetic forces and so on all create the order. evolution and abiogenesis are just chemistry, there is no need for some extra explanation.

I believe in god, but I believe in a god that created the universe and maybe even earth to allow natural processes to create us and the planet(s) to some day support life. Whats more amazing, a god that created the universe to allow for various things, or one that has to tinker, and reuse body shapes. I find the one that allowed things to run on their own far more interesting, and more closely matches what we see.

loveofourlord · Feb 22, 2018

KyleSpringer said:
You’re implying a conscious choice to benifit yourself, while propegating that evolution occurs to “weed out” those who don’t adapt. If I don’t know how to use stairs, I would never be off of ground level. And if there were not intellect and a design for the truck, you would have no worries at all right?

There have been plenty of people hit by cars, and it wasn’t because they shoulda known better, but because people are indeed fallible creatures who’s senses are basically reliable but are not exempt from deception.

In other words, what’s to stop someone in a truck from plowing you down on the sidewalk?

Your world seems in perfect order until you’ve been ran over by someone who thinks THEIR world is in perfect order. So much wrong with that argument.

Evolution at its finest.

So your saying your god is so incompetent to make a humans that are prone to errors? Not sure how this doesn't hurt your position, either humans with all their mistakes and fallacies and incorrect perception were created by a perfect god, or it was created by a imperfect system that creates through a imperect process that is prone to some errors, and doesn't aim for perfect, but good enough.

loveofourlord · Feb 22, 2018

Ygrene Imref said:
Except that whoever doesn't believe those theories are "crackpot conspiracy theorist religitards who haven't seen a science book in their life."

It doesn't matter if I am a mathematician, for example; if I vehemently disagree with the physical interpretation of the Big Bang (I am completely apathetic toward Evolution,) then I lose credibility amongst my peers. It is a pressure many submit to, forsaking their objective as doctorates, masters of philosophy.

Either people need to actually believe scientific theories are just theories, or they need to stop treating people as if they are intellectually green for 1) choosing to have an mind independent of the academic status quo, and 2) having the audacity to challenge the status quo.

I would admit it if it was the truth. I have said several times I have no problem with science; you clearly do not pay attention in context or quality - or you missed it. I have expressed many times on these forums that my problem is academia, and academics. There is a distinct difference.

The typical accusatory, "conspiracy theorist religitard" cliche...

Excellent.

Complain? You mean make an argument that is as unbiased as possible? Absolutely. I have in the past, I have lost and gained advisors because I have no problem challenging the status quo of academia. As I said earlier, I was disillusioned with education, and then academia. I wasn't even a Christian until I completed my thesis, but in the mean time I trusted myself - and I didn't depend on my advisors or committee to hold my academic hand while I encountered new intellectual challenges.

Likewise, because I was fortunate enough to have some very cool advisers, and brilliant people as my readers, I was encouraged to keep the same suspicion about the academic status quo (instead of discouraged, as some of my undergraduate and graduate advisers treated the case.) What they did for me was invaluable. It prepared me for a career in academia, and dealing with people like you in real life - whilst being able to keep my professional name and academic success insulated from the collateral damage of challenging the academic status quo.

Academia is not science; academia is a political system within the scientific community. You must be dishonest with yourself, and others if you believe academia is a benign beast - especially because you may be a part of it. I understand you feel strongly your position, and judging by how it is going it would be futility for us to continue arguing, no?

I am genuinely asking; if you think I am just projecting my own dogmatic beliefs without an understanding of what I am speaking - who is also incapable of entertaining other perspectives for the purposes of protecting what would be a fragile ego - then we should stop here. I can distribute my words to other parties that would appreciate the conversation (without necessarily believing/accepting it.)

Creationists arn't rejected because they don't accept big bang and creationism, but because they lack the understanding of what these thigns are or even the evidence. Being a mathematician doesn't mean you understand physics, or even the evidence or or against the big bang.

I find myself laughing every time a creationists is so sure they have disproven evolution, and then I look at their understanding of it, and it's not even 5th grade level. I'm a google scholar on evolution and even I can tell that most creationist understanding of evolution isn't even remotly close to what actual science says. Just have to look at this topic where you have people arguing evolution is random, or that logic and things have no purpose in evolution. it's just silly and makes anyone with a minor undrstanding just shake their heads.

I have yet to see many creationists that know even half of what I know about evolution, and that missing knowledge quickly leads to a lot of donny kruger effect.

Ygrene Imref · Feb 22, 2018

loveofourlord said:
Creationists arn't rejected because they don't accept big bang and creationism, but because they lack the understanding of what these thigns are or even the evidence. Being a mathematician doesn't mean you understand physics, or even the evidence or or against the big bang.

I find myself laughing every time a creationists is so sure they have disproven evolution, and then I look at their understanding of it, and it's not even 5th grade level. I'm a google scholar on evolution and even I can tell that most creationist understanding of evolution isn't even remotly close to what actual science says. Just have to look at this topic where you have people arguing evolution is random, or that logic and things have no purpose in evolution. it's just silly and makes anyone with a minor undrstanding just shake their heads.

I am completely apathetic to the theory of evolution. I have no desire to argue or (dis)prove the theory because it isn't an important part of my scientific understanding of the world and universe around me.

I have yet to see many creationists that know even half of what I know about evolution, and that missing knowledge quickly leads to a lot of donny kruger effect.

I don't know what you call a creationist, but if you believe a creationist is someone who believes God created the cosmos and earth as He said in the canon, then I would say you haven't met enough creationists. I personally know several of my colleagues who are, perhaps, not believers that the earth is 6000 years old, but they certainly believe Genesis 1 account. I am not a creationist in the colloquial sense of the world. I don't even know the dogma. However, mathematicians inherently understand physics. Physics is simply applied math; this is why physics is controversial but mathematics not so much. You have to create theories that are derived from mathematics.

For example, the idea of vector and scalar potential arises from the mathematical application of the vector and scalar product to the physical theory of electromagnetism. It is based on math.

Transport phenomena of cell is based on differential equations.

Obviously SR, GR and QM is based almost primarily on math - applied mathematical concepts to physical theories. My research is quantum topological field theory - which is simply computational physics. Analysis, geometry and algebra become the focus on higher level physics; [multivariable] calculus is the basis. Since Classical Mechanics is obsolete, physics has become synonymous with math; the concepts are not so far removed. Even computer science overlaps physics (especially beyond undergraduate).

As far as this cultural vendetta against creationists, or evolutionists: as I said, in my opinion it is silly. It is a game of ego.

xianghua · Feb 22, 2018

Theodoric said:
First, I do respect your effort and integrity in answering my post. Second, I simply don't have the time, energy, or interest to continue this discussion any further. I believe the so-called "big bang" happened largely as science has described, I was flippant with the "rock" imagery to kind of poke fun at the idea of mindless evolution.

As to your final question, "What verifiable evidence do you have for this asserted extra layer of unexplained and unexplainable mystery that causes more questions than it answers?", that's by far the best thing you've asked so far.

What I have is this: everywhere you look in the universe you see design, purpose, and order. Look at a spider crafting a web. That's a computer program, there's nothing random about it. I think that design does not evolve out of cosmic sludge given time plus chance. It requires a designer. And the denial of that does not come from science facts, it comes from a fallen desire to rebel against God. We simply don't want God to exist so that we don't have to answer to Him. And man's science facilitates that rebellion and so replaces God with "an image made like corruptible man."

even if you will check every one of those suppose "evidence" you will find that they base on faith rather then science. there is no real scientific evidence for evolution.

xianghua · Feb 22, 2018

Gene2memE said:
Boooooo.

If you're going to make absolute statements, it might be worthwhile to know what you're talking about.

Here's a study published two weeks ago, providing evidence for rapid evolution in grassland species:
Evidence for rapid evolution in a grassland biodiversity experiment

Here's one, published last week, providing evidence for speciation events due to geographic separation, in rattlesnakes:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00222933.2018.1429689

Neither of those studies are based on an assumption that evolution must be true, those studies demonstrate that evolution is occurring.

Cool. If you want, you can ask the authors for their observations and data and try to replicate it, if you want.

Science, by necessity, cannot consider the supernatural. It is limited to the real world.

Wow, there's so much wrong here, its hard to know where to begin.

Big Bang cosmology isn't biological evolution
There was no "rock", there was no "space" - talking about these concepts before the existence of space-time may not even make sense
Nothing "spontaneously blew up" - what we observe in nature is evidence of a rapid expansion of space-time approximately 13.7 billion years ago
Nothing is in "violation of one of the primary laws of thermodynamics" - go and ask a cosmologist what the actual energy content of the universe is. The answer may surprise you.

Personal incredulity does not overcome well supported scientific theories.

speciation isnt realy evolution since its basically the same creature. so i will call it variation rather then evolution.

Why this debate forum doesn't matter

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Code Monkey

Active Member

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency