solid proof of evolution

Micawber said:
Not really, someone can believe the genesis story is allegorical and that God initiated evolution as his mechanism to create man in his image.
I think it's unlikely that was the author's intent with genesis, but it is less stupid than your belief that it is literal and therefore all the science
it defies is wrong. I think those people are coming to an uncomfortable accommodation, and you should let them. Their only alternative
is to leave the fold or accept your narrow, rigid exegesis? Your membership will winnow down from a global religion to the population
of Mississippi.
Click to expand...
Funny, Genisis says thay God made Adam out of dirt, and somehow that's better than being descended from animals.
 
rjhenn said:
Funny, Genisis says thay God made Adam out of dirt, and somehow that's better than being descended from animals.
Click to expand...

Even if Genesis is taken strictly as allegory, it’s remarkable that the ancients were intuitively aware that the only difference between man and dirt was how their respective atoms were arranged.

Man being ‘formed from dirt’ is what you believe lol. You just throw a bunch of steps in between.
 
NOVA said:
I hate to repeat myself, but it seems you don't quite understand the written word....I don't know if a god exists or he doesn't exist....far above my pay grade to come
to a conclusion on that.....Its you that have come to conclusions with absolutely no logical proof.....not me. You think lack of proof proves your conclusion...thats a very
stupid mind set.
Click to expand...
The thing of it is, there's absolutely no evidence for the existence of any gods. That's at odds with the idea of an omnipotent God who is both benevolent and wants us to believe in Him. The rational conclusion is that there is no such beast.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No it isn’t. Show me a peer reviewed document where that is assumed? The consensus in science is we simply don’t know the historical origins of life.
Click to expand...

Darth is confusing scientific consensus with a hypothesis. All scientists create and record exacting conditions any time they do any experiment, whether its drugs with phenotype interaction in a clinical trial or dropping an apple to demonstrate gravitational attraction.
So if some weird scientist studying primordial soup has a recipe, that is to be expected. Why Darth thinks that scores him a point, I have no idea. By the same token scientists until success is achieved tweak
the recipe and the hypothesis.

That assumptions are made in science is a point?
 
Micawber said:
Darth is confusing scientific consensus with a hypothesis. All scientist create and record exact conditions any time they do any experiment, whether its drugs with phenotype in a clinical tral or dropping an apple to demonstrate gravitational attraction.
So if some weird scientist studying primordial soup has a recipe, that is to be expected. Why Garth thinks that scores him a point, I have no idea.
Click to expand...

If the history of science tells us anything, it’s to be wary of consensus.
 
Thing1 said:
Agreed. I have just never really understood how the concept of evolution threatened religious beliefs, or at least most religious beliefs. Most people I know are Christian, and most believe in evolution. I believe in god & in evolution.

It's just strange to me that evolution is viewed that way, as though you have to believe in science OR religion.
Click to expand...

It's the creation aspect. Believers like the story of god molding the clay and then stealing a rib. Silly stuff but that's what they choose to believe
 
Darth Omar said:
If the history of science tells us anything, it’s to be wary of consensus.
Click to expand...

What makes you think they aren’t? Have you ever been to a scientific conference?

Consensus in science are extraordinarily difficult to reach and when they are it’s because there is an extraordinary body of research and fact upon which consensus is built. That doesn’t mean that scientists don’t consider what is known as tentative or that there is far more to be learned. It is a general consensus that what facts are known are widely agreed upon by independent scientists. Building a consensus in science is extremely difficult to do and it is equally absurd to dismiss them out of hand on the basis that we don’t know everything.

Your argument is the god of the gaps argument that because there are gaps of knowledge in a scientific field that a scientific consensus agreeing about those facts which are known to have a high probability of being correct are some how invalid because they are widely agreed upon isn’t rational.
 
Last edited:
Darth Omar said:
If the history of science tells us anything, it’s to be wary of consensus.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And that is precisely why science is far more to be trusted than the latest crackpot religious "intelligent design" type explanation. I personally find the ability to change one's POV once new evidence is in much more trustworthy than rigid clinging to disproven ideas, because once chosen it becomes some sort of emotional investment by the believer.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
What makes you think they aren’t? Have you ever been to a scientific conference?

Consensus in science are extraordinarily difficult to reach and when they are it’s because there is an extraordinary body of research and fact upon which consensus is built. That doesn’t mean that scientists don’t consider what is known as tentative or that there is far more to be learned. It is a general consensus that what facts are known are widely agreed upon by independent scientists. Building a consensus in science is extremely difficult to do and it is equally absurd to dismiss them out of hand on the basis that we don’t know everything.

Your argument is the god of the gaps argument that because there are gaps of knowledge in a scientific field that a scientific consensus agreeing about those facts which are known to have a high probability of being correct are some how invalid because they are widely agreed upon isn’t rational.
Click to expand...

There is consensus....and then there is consensus. Evolution is a foundational tenet of science. It is not a par with your garden variety theory. It has been so thoroughly tested and probed with multiple lives of evidence over the course of more than a century, that is has been basically elevated to the vaunted status of a scientific tenet or law. While interesting questions remain, the basic outlines are firmly established.

Now, when wingnuts trot out this "consensus can be wrong!" argument, I can tell you exactly where that comes from: they have heard over the years that climate science consensus is wrong, because "science" used to think the sun went around the earth. Of course, the educated among us know that the pre-Coperincan view of the solar system was not based on the scientific method...it was based on religious dogma, speculation, and guesswork...which the scientific method and scientific consensus ultimately corrected.
 
It is fundamental to science that when an set of conditions is met, the result will be the same.
If that was not the assumption, there would not be the requirement of replication.
If the result can not be replicated then nothing has been discover, except that the experiment has been shown to be invalid.
If the recipe only has the same result for some percentage, that is reported with the understanding that something is unknown
that is knowable. Never is it thought some religious pixie dust is lacking from the procedure, despite the joy it may
bring god in the gaps crowds.

Once god was on high riding a winged horse, now he has to hide in quantum fuzziness or inside black holes.
We are winning, bigly.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
What makes you think they aren’t? Have you ever been to a scientific conference?

Consensus in science are extraordinarily difficult to reach and when they are it’s because there is an extraordinary body of research and fact upon which consensus is built. That doesn’t mean that scientists don’t consider what is known as tentative or that there is far more to be learned. It is a general consensus that what facts are known are widely agreed upon by independent scientists. Building a consensus in science is extremely difficult to do and it is equally absurd to dismiss them out of hand on the basis that we don’t know everything.

Your argument is the god of the gaps argument that because there are gaps of knowledge in a scientific field that a scientific consensus agreeing about those facts which are known to have a high probability of being correct are some how invalid because they are widely agreed upon isn’t rational.
Click to expand...

No, my argument is that an assumption is an assumption.
 
Cypress said:
There is consensus....and then there is consensus. Evolution is a foundational tenet of science. It is not a par with your garden variety theory. It has been so thoroughly tested and probed with multiple lives of evidence over the course of more than a century, that is has been basically elevated to the vaunted status of a scientific tenet or law. While interesting questions remain, the basic outlines are firmly established.

Now, when wingnuts trot out this "consensus can be wrong!" argument, I can tell you exactly where that comes from: they have heard over the years that climate science consensus is wrong, because "science" used to think the sun went around the earth. Of course, the educated among us know that the pre-Coperincan view of the solar system was not based on the scientific method...it was based on religious dogma, speculation, and guesswork...which the scientific method and scientific consensus ultimately corrected.
Click to expand...

I think it was stretch who was trying to drag me down by comparing me to Aristotle or some other ancient braintrusts. It made me think about
the geocentric view of the universe and how these brilliant scientists had to make fantabulous mathamatic equations to explain the bizarre apparent motion
of planets with all the perturbations and reversals of course, when if they but held a heliocentric view, the math would be much simpler. Sadly, if the said or did so,
they'd have been burnt at the stake. Makes me wonder how many knew but did those exotic math equations anyway just to stay alive.

"So Pope in 1400, uh, venus goes retrograde, then flips a bitch, does a 180, then shoots straight upwards at double time, then......." -court scientist
 
Micawber said:
It is fundamental to science that when an set of conditions is met, the result will be the same.
If that was not the assumption, there would not be the requirement of replication.
If the result can not be replicated then nothing has been discover, except that the experiment has been shown to be invalid.
If the recipe only has the same result for some percentage, that is reported with the understanding that something is unknown
that is knowable. Never is it thought some religious pixie dust is lacking from the procedure, despite the joy it may
bring god in the gaps crowds.

Once god was on high riding a winged horse, now he has to hide in quantum fuzziness or inside black holes.
We are winning, bigly.
Click to expand...

Yet, you just can’t seem to find that knock out punch lol.
 
Cypress said:
There is consensus....and then there is consensus. Evolution is a foundational tenet of science. It is not a par with your garden variety theory. It has been so thoroughly tested and probed with multiple lives of evidence over the course of more than a century, that is has been basically elevated to the vaunted status of a scientific tenet or law. While interesting questions remain, the basic outlines are firmly established.

Now, when wingnuts trot out this "consensus can be wrong!" argument, I can tell you exactly where that comes from: they have heard over the years that climate science consensus is wrong, because "science" used to think the sun went around the earth. Of course, the educated among us know that the pre-Coperincan view of the solar system was not based on the scientific method...it was based on religious dogma, speculation, and guesswork...which the scientific method and scientific consensus ultimately corrected.
Click to expand...

The reigning consensus is that life will form under the proper conditions plus sufficient time: it’s why life is *assumed* to exist on other planets in the galaxy.

How is it ‘scientific’ just to accept that assumption at face value?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top