44 replies to this topic

[MuzikChik]

John, on 29 November 2009 - 08:09 PM, said:

I also believe in limits to democracy. For example, if 80% of a population are creationists, I still think evolution should be absolutely taught in public schools. Why? Because it's reality. And I don't think that should be up for a vote.

YOUR reality not everyones.

Personally I think it takes more faith to believe that we grew from bacteria, than to believe there is a god.

[JohnWayneWasANazi]

MuzikChik, on 29 November 2009 - 09:47 PM, said:

YOUR reality not everyones.

What he means is Fact > Belief

[John]

MuzikChik, on 29 November 2009 - 09:47 PM, said:

YOUR reality not everyones.

Personally I think it takes more faith to believe that we grew from bacteria, than to believe there is a god.

The issue of the existence of god has very little to do with the fact of evolution.

And, while everything is arguably subjective, some subjective views are pragmatically more useful than others.

[Steve]

MuzikChik, on 29 November 2009 - 09:47 PM, said:

YOUR reality not everyones.

Personally I think it takes more faith to believe that we grew from bacteria, than to believe there is a god.

LOL

[MuzikChik]

JohnWayneWasANazi, on 29 November 2009 - 10:40 PM, said:

What he means is Fact > Belief

I see where your coming from.
But at some point those scientific facts lead to beliefs, hence the term 'Theory'.

John, on 30 November 2009 - 12:17 AM, said:

The issue of the existence of god has very little to do with the fact of evolution.

And, while everything is arguably subjective, some subjective views are pragmatically more useful than others.

I see your point.
I just believe that no theory should be taught as 'Absolute truth'.

[Fightin_da_Man]

MuzikChik, on 30 November 2009 - 01:38 AM, said:

I see where your coming from.
But at some point those scientific facts lead to beliefs, hence the term 'Theory'.

False.  This is a common misconception.  While popularly used to mean "hunch" "guess" or "idea", in scientific terminology, a "theory" is well established, has been tested, and is supported by empirical evidence.

Quote

I see your point.
I just believe that no theory should be taught as 'Absolute truth'.

Evolution is "absolute truth".  There is no question that mutations happen between generations, that those mutations can be beneficial, and that those mutations can lead to speciation (the creating of a new species) because all of these things have been directly observed.

Now, there can be more debate about the theories of abiogenesis (the development of living organisms from non-living material) and common descent (the theory that all life is descended from a single ancestor), as these are in fact theoretical explanations (although, supported by evidence) and have not been observed, since we obviously weren't there.  And these are not, in my experience, taught as "absolute truth" but as the best explanation of how we got here that scientists are able to come up with, and that's what they are.

[Gibby]

[KillBoY]

Fightin_da_Man, on 30 November 2009 - 02:46 PM, said:

False.  This is a common misconception.  While popularly used to mean "hunch" "guess" or "idea", in scientific terminology, a "theory" is well established, has been tested, and is supported by empirical evidence.




Evolution is "absolute truth".  There is no question that mutations happen between generations, that those mutations can be beneficial, and that those mutations can lead to speciation (the creating of a new species) because all of these things have been directly observed.

Now, there can be more debate about the theories of abiogenesis (the development of living organisms from non-living material) and common descent (the theory that all life is descended from a single ancestor), as these are in fact theoretical explanations (although, supported by evidence) and have not been observed, since we obviously weren't there.  And these are not, in my experience, taught as "absolute truth" but as the best explanation of how we got here that scientists are able to come up with, and that's what they are.

Beat me to it FDM.

I swear I have the "theory" conversation at least once a month.  

[MuzikChik]

Fightin_da_Man, on 30 November 2009 - 02:46 PM, said:

False.  This is a common misconception.  While popularly used to mean "hunch" "guess" or "idea", in scientific terminology, a "theory" is well established, has been tested, and is supported by empirical evidence.

Evolution is "absolute truth".  There is no question that mutations happen between generations, that those mutations can be beneficial, and that those mutations can lead to speciation (the creating of a new species) because all of these things have been directly observed.

Now, there can be more debate about the theories of abiogenesis (the development of living organisms from non-living material) and common descent (the theory that all life is descended from a single ancestor), as these are in fact theoretical explanations (although, supported by evidence) and have not been observed, since we obviously weren't there.  And these are not, in my experience, taught as "absolute truth" but as the best explanation of how we got here that scientists are able to come up with, and that's what they are.

I'm not disputing that evolution doesnt happen, I just don't think thats how we were created.
How can complex emotion spawn from bacteria (or whatever it i we were supposed to have evolved from)?
Scientists can't seem to agree on this issue.

[KillBoY]

MuzikChik, on 30 November 2009 - 09:37 PM, said:

Scientists can't seem to agree on this issue.

Care to back that claim up?

[MuzikChik]

KillBoY, on 30 November 2009 - 09:39 PM, said:

Care to back that claim up?

http://allpsych.com/...01/emotion.html

[KillBoY]

Unless I'm mistaken those are theories on the experience of emotion. Not on whether emotion is an evolved trait or a "gift from god".

For the record, as an actor, I believe the Lazarus theory is the most accurate. Though I also believe we experience emotions differently.

[Dopamino]

MuzikChik, on 30 November 2009 - 09:37 PM, said:

I'm not disputing that evolution doesnt happen, I just don't think thats how we were created.
How can complex emotion spawn from bacteria (or whatever it i we were supposed to have evolved from)?
Scientists can't seem to agree on this issue.

I don't think you realize how long 3.8 billion years is. We didn't just evolve single cell > multicell > fish > amphibian > reptile > mammal > human in the course of a few thousand years. It took countless, infinitesimally small mutations over a period of time that's equal to nearly 85% of the Earth's existence. 3.8 billion years is a really, really long time.

Besides, emotions are just chemicals in our brains. not that complicated.

[Fightin_da_Man]

MuzikChik, on 30 November 2009 - 09:37 PM, said:

I'm not disputing that evolution doesnt happen, I just don't think thats how we were created.
How can complex emotion spawn from bacteria (or whatever it i we were supposed to have evolved from)?
Scientists can't seem to agree on this issue.

So your beef is with abiogenesis/common descent, not with evolution.

Complex emotions are driven by chemicals.  They evolve because they help organisms survive and reproduce.  Example: Organism A lacks a chemical "fear" response.  Organism B, when it senses danger, dumps adrenaline into its system, causing it to experience "fear" and also perform certain tasks (such as running away) better.  Over time Organism B will reproduce more than Organism A, thus you have an evolutionary basis for a chemical which creates an "emotion".

That's overly simplified, but about the gist of it.  It seems more like you don't really understand the science.  Just because it seems complex, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

And, for the record, the general scientific consensus is that the high energy environment of young earth helped create the building blocks for life, which eventually formed some kind of rudimentary life form, which eventually developed into all life as we know it.  Over several billion years.  There is very little disagreement on these points.  Now, there is disagreement as to exactly how the process how happened, what the first building blocks/early life forms were, but not so much on the big picture.

[MuzikChik]

KillBoY, on 30 November 2009 - 09:50 PM, said:

Unless I'm mistaken those are theories on the experience of emotion. Not on whether emotion is an evolved trait or a "gift from god".

No theory (Well that i've come across) attempts to explain where an emotion comes from.

I guess we have to look at the 'Mind-body' connection arguments.
http://en.wikipedia....losophy_of_mind)

And then this can lead into the 'Free will vs Determinism' debates.

[MuzikChik]

Fightin_da_Man, on 30 November 2009 - 10:02 PM, said:

So your beef is with abiogenesis/common descent, not with evolution.

Complex emotions are driven by chemicals.  They evolve because they help organisms survive and reproduce.  Example: Organism A lacks a chemical "fear" response.  Organism B, when it senses danger, dumps adrenaline into its system, causing it to experience "fear" and also perform certain tasks (such as running away) better.  Over time Organism B will reproduce more than Organism A, thus you have an evolutionary basis for a chemical which creates an "emotion".

That's overly simplified, but about the gist of it.  It seems more like you don't really understand the science.  Just because it seems complex, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

Well by that theory we are just machines.
So then, you do not believe in free will?

[Dopamino]

We are complex, organic machines, yes.
Free will is control over our lives, not over what we eventually evolve into. There really can't be any overlap in predestination and evolution.

[KillBoY]

Ugh, Descartes and the Mind Body divide. I'm writing an essay on this topic atm and came on here to take a break from it.

I think we are machines, incredibly intricate machines but machines nonetheless and machines that can malfunction. Do you ever feel less a divine being created by God than when you bite the inside of your own mouth?

[MuzikChik]

It takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe that an intelligent force designed all that we see, even if you don't want to believe in God. I am all for people knowing ALL the facts of science regarding the universe because it can only lead to the logical conclusion that something intelligent, beyond creation and time,  created the universe. Even Einstein toward the end of his life became a Pantheist....he didn't want to believe in the God of the Bible  but he had to concede through his own theory of relativity that the universe was not eternal, that it had a starting point, and that some intelligent force was working in it.

Darwinists believe that a single Amoeba sprang to life from the primordial soup and became the first seed to all that we see. But what created that Amoeba?  No-one was there, not Darwinists or Creationists, but we do know that one Amoeba, the simplest form of life, contains millions of strands of DNA, each sequenced with 4 chemical markers in perfect order, The DNA information in ONE Amoeba has been SCIENTIFICALLY proven to contain the equivalent of one thousand encyclopedias. The chance of an Amoeba accidentally forming from non life, with each DNA strand in perfect order, is like saying that a bookstore exploded and out of the chaos a thousand encyclopedias, all making perfect sense, formed out of all the different books. You can either believe that life formed from the almost zero chance of a chemical accident, or that something intelligent wrote the first DNA strands in perfect order. Common sense tells us that nature doesn't create intelligent order, but over time, nature will naturally disorder.

Scientists have been trying to create new life from non living chemicals for over a century, without any success. But even if they could, wouldn't that only prove that it need INTELLIGENCE to create something as immensly complex as life.

I applaud Darwinists, you guys have much more faith than  Creationists.

[KillxxCopsxx]

Quote

that it had a starting point, and that some intelligent force was working in it.

I find the big bang is easier to believe then a mythical man creating all.
And Evolution does have hard facts, look at animals in pre-historic fossils then look at modern day animals.