You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 07:05:13 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Read my post, Hunter. (Was: Evolution and Religion)  (Read 1408 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline HunterTopic starter

Read my post, Hunter. (Was: Evolution and Religion)
« on: December 09, 2010, 06:40:28 AM »
Evolution is a theory.  You can babble all the pseudo-science that you want at it but that doesn't change the "detail" that it's still a theory.  You can't reproduce it (doing so would require creating another universe), you simply can't do more than a WAG (wild ass guess).   For all we know, aliens put us here.   Or the moon is really a spacecraft and we're the decendants of it.  You think evolution is "the explanation", okay.  Don't insult the intelligence of otherwise educated people who don't have the same faith as you.

Prove that carbon has always decayed at the same rate.  ALWAYS.
Explain WHY there was so little moon dust on the moon.  Based on evolutionary theory, it should have been FEET deep.
Show me where in the world the fossil record actually exists.   To the best of my knowledge (and collegiate geology/biology), it doesn't.   Not in any one spot.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2010, 10:12:19 AM by Vekseid »

Offline Acinonyx

Re: Read my post, Hunter.
« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2010, 07:29:41 AM »
Quote
You can babble all the pseudo-science that you want at it but that doesn't change the "detail" that it's still a theory.

Hunter, you can talk about this "detail" as much as it pleases you, but it doesn't change the meaning of the word theory in science, even though you'd like to put it that way.
Simply put, what you think is a theory would  in science be called a "hypothesis". It's not my fault that common language and scientific terms disagree here, but they actually do.

In science a theory is a model used to explain and predict things in the natural world. The fact that it can make predictions means that it can be tested - to see whether the prediction is true. A theory often contains a collection of laws and is based on facts - So in conclusion, a theory is actually more than just a law and a fact - it's a combination of those with an added level that allows predictions and puts these things together into one global idea.

In comparison to a hypothesis (or a "theory" in common language), a scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been proven.

That is pretty far from a "wild ass guess".


Also, evolution has nothing to do with carbon decay. The theory of evolution is only concerned with the development of living species on this planet. While carbon decay (along with a whole lot of other dating methods) has to do with dating fossils which lend an additional support for evolution, but evolution would nicely stand on its own without it it. In fact, it did when Darwin first came up with it and he predicted that a lot of transitional fossils may be found. They were found and are still found today, but Darwin supported his theory with good evidence and didn't need any fossils and molecular genetics (both disciplines which lend a whole lot of extra support to evolution).

Darwin knew nothing about moon dust, either, but then moon dust has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2010, 07:32:19 AM by Acinonyx »

Offline Muninn

Re: Read my post, Hunter.
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2010, 08:15:52 AM »
Quote
Evolution is a theory.  You can babble all the pseudo-science that you want at it but that doesn't change the "detail" that it's still a theory. 
Whoa, whoa, wait a minute and back up yer horses there! "Pseudo-science?"  From everything I have read so far many have been citing actual scientific literature from real honest-to-goodness scientists.  I'm not sure any of that could be considered "pseudo-science."  I know for a that fact Acinonyx's info comes from reputable sources because that crazy woman (<3) has read volumes of literature on the subject of evolution and has even managed to read through that dry wafer of a book The Origin of Species.

Quote
You can't reproduce it (doing so would require creating another universe), you simply can't do more than a WAG (wild ass guess).
Here's an example of an experiment that has produced some interesting results:
E. coli long-term evolution experiment

If someone has other examples please feel free to share. I'm a bit empty-handed in that department!

Quote
You think evolution is "the explanation", okay.  Don't insult the intelligence of otherwise educated people who don't have the same faith as you.
I don't think anyone is trying to insult anyone's intelligence here, we're just having (and trying to maintain) an intellectual conversation/debate.  :-) Everyone is speaking their mind with what information and proof they can find or know and speak out when an easily explained discrepancy shows.   Also, I wouldn't call the belief of evolution (or science as a whole) as a "faith." Faith, as we normally use it, is a belief in something (or someone) when we lack the hard physical evidence, right?  I mean, ones belief in God is based on faith that you know he is there and have faith in His existence, no matter if others believe there is proof or not.  That is one of His stipulations of gaining entrance into heaven, isn't it?  That one has to put all their faith into Him even if we are never given a word or shred of physical confirmation.  One can argue that the proof of God's existence lays with the Bible but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.  And my apologies if I've mangled something here.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2010, 08:59:19 AM by Muninn »

Offline Jude

Re: Read my post, Hunter.
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2010, 08:52:40 AM »
Evolution is a theory.  You can babble all the pseudo-science that you want at it but that doesn't change the "detail" that it's still a theory.
And you can babble that talking point all you want, but it's a theory in the same way gravity, electro-magnetism, and kinetics are.  A hypothesis is an inference on the state of things based on cursory explanation, a theory is a set of laws and explanations developed to fit collected data that has survived every scientific attempt to disprove it.  Your attempts at discrediting evolution by calling it a theory do nothing but show ignorance of science on your part.
You can't reproduce it (doing so would require creating another universe)
It's been reproduced many times.  The E Coli experiment, the evolution of wolves to dogs, et cetera.  All of that evidence has already been cited on this thread, long before you made that post.  This tells me you are not looking at any sources that people cite and instead continue to parrot your point of view without even being open to information that may falsify it.
you simply can't do more than a WAG (wild ass guess).
A hypothesis isn't even a wild guess.  I'm utterly amazing that you think you know better than the combined efforts of the scientific community over decades of hard work.  Especially when you consider how much you rely on science through dependence on technology in every other way in your life.
For all we know, aliens put us here.   Or the moon is really a spacecraft and we're the decendants of it.
But there's no evidence of that.  None.  There's tons of evidence of evolution.  It's all over the place.  It's literally in every organism on the planet when you look at its genetic code.
You think evolution is "the explanation", okay.  Don't insult the intelligence of otherwise educated people who don't have the same faith as you.
It's not faith.  Collection of evidence, analysis of it, and then coming to the conclusion that the theory of evolution fits all of the evidence and conflicts none is not faith.  That's reason, that's empiricism, that's science.  Science is the opposite of faith.
Prove that carbon has always decayed at the same rate.  ALWAYS.
Every piece of carbon we've ever dated that we knew the age of for other reasons fit the half-life decay model.  There are very good physical reasons why carbon decays at the rate it does, but none that point to the ironclad aging date with absolute perfect.  The reason why carbon-dating is taken to be solid is that it's reliable.  It's called inductive logic; it's the same thing that's present in all of science.  The idea is that if you do x and y happens 10,000,000 times, x probably causes y.  Do you doubt that when you set up your coffee pot it brews coffee and not poison?  You're relying on inductive logic.  Literally every cause and effect action which you predict throughout your day is based on inductive logic.  If you gather enough points of data and the trend persists, of course you're going to trust that relationship.  To not do so flies in the face of all of the "evidence" you've gathered.  If you're going to doubt carbon-dating because you expect that some day it's miraculously not going to work even though it has all of these other times, then you can't rely on anything based on inductive logic, and your predictive ability to do anything falls apart.  Also you're overestimating the level of reliance evolution has on carbon dating.
Explain WHY there was so little moon dust on the moon.  Based on evolutionary theory, it should have been FEET deep.
I think my favorite part of this absurd claim is that it's based on what was scientifically incorrect and disproven when it first surfaced, but it hasn't stopped creationists from continuing to spread this nonsense for a great many years.
Polystrate Fossils, Moon Dust, and other creationist nonsense.
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=4&fldAuto=48
http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/moon-dust.html
http://www.evolution-creationism.us/young_earth/moon_dust.html
Every one of the links I have given uses solid evidence in disputing the moon dust argument.
Show me where in the world the fossil record actually exists.   To the best of my knowledge (and collegiate geology/biology), it doesn't.   Not in any one spot.
You seem like a reasonably intelligent guy.  It's pretty obvious that you didn't decide to oppose evolution on the basis of your ideological beliefs alone.  You have lots of points, but the problem is, these points are clearly not points you thought of on your own.  You're parroting the same nonsense that every creationist does that has been disproven time and time again, because you received all of this information from them.  Unfortunately it's bad information, extremely bad really, that clearly does not originate from someone with scientific rigor as it all overlooks very basic problems.

People who oppose evolution at this point, almost without exception, are not biological scientists.  There are a lot of religiously motivated people who are in ancillary scientific or engineering positions that will gladly pipe up as being in opposition to the idea but, the thing is, you aren't a scientist and thus magically able to analyze every scientific phenomenon with the credentials of expertise.  Being a scientist can definitely give you the tools needed to understand logical fallacies, faults in experiments, and poor arguments, but it does not necessarily give you the potential to recognize that in areas where you are ignorant of the background information.  You really don't find people who are experts on genetics and evolutionary biology in general who oppose evolution, because once you take in the evidence, it's quite a corroborated theory.

My suggestion to you would be starting over.  Go back to the drawing board and toss away all of your preconceived notions and all of the garbage that the creationists have filled you head with.  Realize that evolution does not preclude your faith, it makes no religious claims whatsoever, god could still be behind the process if it makes you feel better and makes you more open to the idea of evolution.  Then start educating yourself on it from better resources.

Offline Vekseid

Re: Read my post, Hunter.
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2010, 09:11:35 AM »
Edit: Split from Evolution and Religion

I'm going to be making a reply, and I expect you to read it and reply to it, Hunter.

I expect you to address, completely and fully, every single point made by everyone responding to you in this thread, or concede where you are wrong.

This post of yours if flagrantly disrespectful to everyone who responded to your points. It is intensely dishonest of you to ignore points made by others, then repeat the exact same argument.

So, you will do a few things, in this thread.
1) Apologize to the people you have ignored. That is rude and uncalled for on your part.
2) Debate honestly, as an adult, considering points as they are made and responding to them. Admit where you are wrong, and apologize where you are arguing deceptively. It is not going to fly.

If you are a good and honest person, you will do those things. If you are not, you will leave.

I hope I am clear.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2010, 10:14:26 AM by Vekseid »

Offline Vekseid

Re: Read my post, Hunter.
« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2010, 10:08:04 AM »
Evolution is a theory.

The basic definition of evolution is: the change in a population's allele frequencies over time.

There are actual scenarios where it is mathematically impossible for evolution not to occur.


Take eye color, for example. If your mother has the alleles for blue eyes in both chromosomes, and your father has one blue set and one brown set, and you have two siblings with the same parents, there is no means by which genetic drift cannot have occurred. You can't have a 1/4th ratio in a sample of six without resorting to fractions - which in the case of an allele would imply a mutation of some sort and would mean that a novel allele was formed.

That aspect of evolution is a fact. Eye color is of course not covered by a single gene, but hopefully the idea gets across.

Mutations, as they are observed readily, are also facts. As are chromosome fusion and division, and other individual incidents that drive the creation and destruction of alleles.

An allele, if you have not guessed, is a specific expression of a gene. There are at least a half dozen that govern skin color, for example (melanin content, to be more precise).

Quote
  You can babble all the pseudo-science

The onus is on you to point out a part of evolution - or any theory - that is pseudo-scientific in nature. If you believe all of it is, begin with one piece.

Quote
that you want at it but that doesn't change the "detail" that it's still a theory.

This has been demonstrated to be false.

If you wish to focus your argument on common descent, which obviously is a part of evolution but cannot be directly observed on Earth for obvious reasons, you may do so.

But I expect you to either somehow disprove what I said above, ask questions if you are confused or uncertain about a point, or concede the point and explain why you know you were wrong.

Quote
You can't reproduce it (doing so would require creating another universe),

You appear to be confusing evolutionary theory and the Big Bang. If you wish to argue about the Big Bang, which has no need to draw on evolution or vice-versa, you may start a new thread.

Quote
you simply can't do more than a WAG (wild ass guess).   For all we know, aliens put us here.   Or the moon is really a spacecraft and we're the decendants of it.

A scientific theory requires that it be able to successfully make predictions. Claiming the Universe was created in situ last Thursday is a perfectly complete explanation. However, it provides no framework for prediction and thus is useless.

I do expect you to acknowledge or refute this point, as it is an important one. It is what distinguishes science from solipsism and other such nonsense.

Quote
You think evolution is "the explanation", okay.  Don't insult the intelligence of otherwise educated people who don't have the same faith as you.

You have insulted many members of this forum by ignoring their points.

Regardless, you have demonstrated that you are not educated in this subject matter. You have your own areas of expertise, and would not appreciate it if people uneducated in your field lectured you on your own field. I expect you to show the same courtesy and respect that you would expect in that situation.

Quote
Prove that carbon has always decayed at the same rate.  ALWAYS.

Given the principle of relativity, the onus is on the claimant to prove that a variation has occurred. Ever. In any situation.

Regardless, carbon dating has little to do with the geological record. The geological record is dated using isochronic mechanisms. I am perfectly willing to explain, but I expect you to state that you will read and make an attempt to understand.

Quote
Explain WHY there was so little moon dust on the moon.

Creationists admitted that this was a fallacious argument nearly two decades ago.

I expect you to apologize for making such a spurious and widely disproven claim.

Quote
Based on evolutionary theory, it should have been FEET deep.

I also expect you to acknowledge that there is a difference between fields such as the following
Astronomy
Biology (and Evolution)
Geology

The moon dust argument has nothing to do with evolution. At all.

I expect you to acknowledge this.

Quote
Show me where in the world the fossil record actually exists.   To the best of my knowledge (and collegiate geology/biology), it doesn't.   Not in any one spot.

Please explain why the fact that the fossil record is held in thousands of museums and universities around the world has any sort of bearing on this argument.

I look forward to your detailed reply.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2010, 11:21:56 AM by Vekseid »

Offline HunterTopic starter

Re: Read my post, Hunter. (Was: Evolution and Religion)
« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2010, 10:18:15 AM »
I will NOT apologize.  My intelligence, my religion, my person, and my education have been repeatedly insulted here.  Not just in this thread but others as well.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2010, 10:22:18 AM by Hunter »

Offline Noelle

Re: Read my post, Hunter. (Was: Evolution and Religion)
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2010, 10:26:50 AM »
For the sake of a civilized discussion, could you possibly point out where you have been wronged? Regardless of whether it is here or personally through PM to the people you feel have wronged you, I think we could have a much more productive conversation if we could clear up any misunderstandings before anything else blows up in edited posts of massive caps-locked text like this.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2010, 10:28:25 AM by Noelle »

Offline Vekseid

Re: Read my post, Hunter. (Was: Evolution and Religion)
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2010, 10:40:37 AM »
I will NOT apologize.  My intelligence, my religion, my person, and my education have been repeatedly insulted here.  Not just in this thread but others as well.

You are insulting the intelligence and education of the members of this forum by ignoring them. They are getting frustrated with your insults and disrespect. For some members here, you have called their field of study pseudoscience. For others, a 'wild ass guess'. People who have spent years studying their material, you dismiss with a few ill-thought words.

If you refuse to respect people who take the time to reply to you, that is your choice.

If you are a good an honest person, however, then you will instead stand for your points, and reply, and address each one, as we have addressed each one of yours.

If the truth is on your side, that should not be difficult in the slightest. We would all certainly owe you an apology.

It takes a brave person to apologize when they are wrong, I know.

It takes a brave person to stand up for what they believe in. I know.

You could do one of those things, and be well-regarded either way.

Or not.

It is up to you.

Offline HunterTopic starter

Re: Read my post, Hunter. (Was: Evolution and Religion)
« Reply #9 on: December 09, 2010, 10:52:53 AM »
SO...I'm once again being called to the carpet and being told to apologize or else.

Again.


Very well.   I apologize for having a different viewpoint and daring to open my mouth to express it.  I apologize for daring to challenge the status quo.  Herein, I will try to stay out of this subforum as all I seem to do is tick people off every time I say something.

Offline Vekseid

Re: Read my post, Hunter. (Was: Evolution and Religion)
« Reply #10 on: December 09, 2010, 11:06:33 AM »
That is not what I asked you to apologize for, Hunter.

People have considered your arguments, and replied to them point by point.

You have ignored their effort, and insulted them in doing so.

That is not civil. That is the rule you agreed to when you signed up to this forum.

It has nothing, whatsoever, to you being in the right or wrong. Merely, your disrespect of those who engage in discourse with you.

The last person we banned for this was in fact militantly liberal. He's 'The Overlord' in the pillory. Right or wrong is not the same as showing respect.

Do you understand that, Hunter?

Offline Noelle

Re: Read my post, Hunter. (Was: Evolution and Religion)
« Reply #11 on: December 09, 2010, 11:56:21 AM »
Very well.   I apologize for having a different viewpoint and daring to open my mouth to express it.  I apologize for daring to challenge the status quo.  Herein, I will try to stay out of this subforum as all I seem to do is tick people off every time I say something.

Er...There's certainly no issue here with having a different viewpoint. That's sort of one of the functions of this subforum, is for debating different ideas. I'm sorry you feel wronged, I don't think it was anyone's intent to do so and certainly not my own, but I am also clueless about where anyone stepped over the line, so if you'd like to point out where and why you feel offended, I'm sure we can communicate to make sure everyone understands each other better in the future. If you can't talk about it or if having your ideas criticized in a well-informed manner when they are flawed makes you upset, then I'm afraid there's not a lot we can do for you.

Offline Jude

Re: Read my post, Hunter. (Was: Evolution and Religion)
« Reply #12 on: December 09, 2010, 12:17:17 PM »
I'd greatly prefer you didn't leave the P&R forums as you add to the diversity of opinion here, which is something I appreciate even if I don't always agree with your views.

Like said in a previous post, you seem to be a very intelligent person, but when it comes to this evolution debate in particular you seem to be deadset on stating your views but listening to absolutely nothing else that anyone else says.  That isn't fair:  if you want to be listened to, to have other people consider your points and actually be willing to accept them if they seem to have merit, you need to give other people that same consideration.  Your latest post in particular had a lot of content that was already disproven far in advance, for example you said evolution has never been observed despite the fact that I, earlier in the thread, gave a link to a length study wherein e coli have evolved quite a bit.

I found your usage of the term "WAG" kind of baffling.  It's an acronym for something that doesn't need to be given an acronym; it seemed to me like you were using it as a slur against evolutionary biology in the middle of what is supposed to be a civil debate.  In general a lot of your terminology is downright mystifying.  I cannot begin to understand why calling the scientific consensus of evolution "pseudo-scientific" could be deemed even remotely fair.

Stating conclusions before giving the meat that proves them is not really how logic works.  Your posts have consisted entirely of strongly-worded indictments of evolution and science plus creationist talking points with little or no attempt to actually respond to what was being said in the discussion.  For example, your first post on the issue said this:
Quote from: Hunter
That's because the day/night cycle was the first thing created.  The "myth" specifically refers to each day of creation as a "day and a night, one day".    Given the probability of evolutionary theory as so far past impossible (try 1 in 10^50), I'll stick with the other side.

But feel free to pick the side you want as we no more know for sure how the universe came into being then we do how the Egyptians built the pyramids.
You used an unsourced citing of the probability of evolution, stated an incorrect piece of information about creation in genesis, then used an analogy that failed to take into account that not only is evolution not about the origin of the universe but also that we have a pretty good idea on how the pyramids were constructed.  Criticisms were levied against every aspect of your post and you completely ignored them.  I personally requested the source of your number and you ignored me.  You made your next post without addressing a single person who responded to you.

Offline Acinonyx

Re: Read my post, Hunter. (Was: Evolution and Religion)
« Reply #13 on: December 09, 2010, 04:16:19 PM »
I admit that despite the unwarranted attack on my field of study, it takes a lot more for me to feel insulted. However, it is frustrating to spend time and effort attempting to clarify an obvious misunderstanding or misinformation - much worse if it is one that has already been explained - to someone, only to be ignored.

Hunter, we're devoting our time to respond to your posts and the least you could do would be to make an effort to let people know you've read and tried to understand what was being said, even if that means giving reasons as to why you object to the points made. People have been offering that kindness to you, after all.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2010, 04:19:24 PM by Acinonyx »

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Read my post, Hunter. (Was: Evolution and Religion)
« Reply #14 on: December 09, 2010, 07:09:30 PM »
Evolution is a theory.  You can babble all the pseudo-science that you want at it but that doesn't change the "detail" that it's still a theory.  You can't reproduce it (doing so would require creating another universe), you simply can't do more than a WAG (wild ass guess).   For all we know, aliens put us here.   Or the moon is really a spacecraft and we're the decendants of it.  You think evolution is "the explanation", okay.  Don't insult the intelligence of otherwise educated people who don't have the same faith as you.

Prove that carbon has always decayed at the same rate.  ALWAYS.
Explain WHY there was so little moon dust on the moon.  Based on evolutionary theory, it should have been FEET deep.
Show me where in the world the fossil record actually exists.   To the best of my knowledge (and collegiate geology/biology), it doesn't.   Not in any one spot.

Natrural Law dictates the Universe in ancient and the systems seemed to have to made that way for the Universe to function example giant black holes in the center of many large galaxies.  Faith is that the Miracle was it was done in a six day creation and therefore outside of Natural Law. I don't try to mix the two.

Online Doomsday

Re: Read my post, Hunter. (Was: Evolution and Religion)
« Reply #15 on: December 09, 2010, 08:07:30 PM »
Isn't it sad that objective facts are now "just, like, your opinion, man"?

Offline Peachie

Re: Read my post, Hunter. (Was: Evolution and Religion)
« Reply #16 on: December 09, 2010, 11:34:09 PM »
Hunter, I don't understand how you became so insulted from my original board.

You can have your view on the matter, but the way you posted, made me feel insulted by you. So please, if you are going to disrespect my belief, please give me some real reasons why you disagree. And don't be so ignorant -- do some research first please.