Posts: 3045
Threads: 14
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Why the religious will never admit you won the argument (and why they don't care)
June 22, 2016 at 4:15 pm
(June 22, 2016 at 1:44 pm)robvalue Wrote: Science leads to theories. End of story. If you reject theories, you're rejecting science.
If you think something gets to be a theory easily, you don't understand what it means.
Evolution happens. That's obvious. To suggest otherwise is to say that offspring are either (a) identical to their parents or (b) not based on their parents. Natural selection takes care of the rest.
All that remains is to model it as best we can. Challenging evolution and challenging the theory of evolution are two different things. Challenging evolution is like... I don't even know what that's like. Plugging up your eyes and ears I guess.
Here is an good example of using the word "evolution" in multiple ways.
1. Evolution (defined as "decent with modification") happens. Rob referred to this when he mentioned parents. --I don't have any problem with that.
2. Evolution (defined as "the mechanism that accounts for evolutionary change") or as Rob shortened it "natural selection" is not clearly understood and is under active investigation and debate.
3. Evolution (defined as "reconstructing evolutionary history") Rob seems to reference in "all that remains is to model it as best we can". This is the weakest leg of the three legged stool.
People skeptical of the case being made for evolution are referring to the second and/or third, yet you use the first definition (which they agree with) to make statements like "evolution happens" or evolution is a fact.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Why the religious will never admit you won the argument (and why they don't care)
June 22, 2016 at 4:21 pm
(This post was last modified: June 22, 2016 at 4:25 pm by robvalue.)
Natural selection is not clearly understood? Decent with modification happens, and beneficial traits are given preference mainly by survival. That's the basics. If you're challenging that then...
And yes, the theory attempts to draw everything together, regarding ancestry. And no, it's not a weak leg at all. But until you go study it, you won't understand why.
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Why the religious will never admit you won the argument (and why they don't care)
June 22, 2016 at 4:26 pm
There are people who can be naturally selectively dense when they so choose, Rob.
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
151
RE: Why the religious will never admit you won the argument (and why they don't care)
June 22, 2016 at 4:26 pm
(This post was last modified: June 22, 2016 at 4:27 pm by Whateverist.)
Read the first page hoping someone had written a "Dummy's Guide to the OP". TLDR. Doesn't mean I won't get back and give it another go later though, Veritas. Welcome to the forum and I hope to have more to say about the OP once I get up and over it.
Posts: 3045
Threads: 14
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Why the religious will never admit you won the argument (and why they don't care)
June 22, 2016 at 4:54 pm
(June 22, 2016 at 9:03 am)Veritas_Vincit Wrote: Quote:For an atheist, evolution is all or nothing. The problem is "evolution" can have multiple meanings that you can use at will to make sentences like "Evolution isn't true because it disproves creationism, it's true because is based on observed facts and many types of evidence"
What observed facts prove the mechanism that went from single cell to complex systems?
What observed facts prove that all life evolved from a common ancestor?
Don't spout theories, you said there were observable facts that prove evolution.
You see this is the sad thing Steve II, your profile says you are "looking for reasonable dialog" (I think you mean dialogue unless that's an American spelling) but people following this thread will notice that you clearly haven't read my post or watched the video that I took the trouble to attach which gives an accessible overview of the evidence for evolution by natural selection. Or you can go to talkorigins.org for a more comprehensive breakdown of the evidence for common ancestry.
But you have also missed the broader point I said which is that whether or not the theory of evolution is true has no baring on whether Creationism or Intelligent design are true. Both of those theories would have to meet their own burden of proof for anyone to be justified in believing them. As it happens, both theories are actually contradicted by whole categories of evidence. It's like we're making a puzzle and we don't know what the picture is, but we've put together about 95 out of 100 pieces. Now, there are still a couple of gaps but if we look at it we can see that all the pieces we have put together go to make a clear, beautiful picture of a tree, to the point where it would be ridiculous to find out that it's actually a magic lamp because the pieces we already have make such a clear picture, and every new piece we find fits in with the tree, and there aren't any that don't fit in. What you're saying is that you want ignore the clear picture that the pieces are making, and to smush the pieces together where they don't fit to force them into the rough, approximate shape of the magic lamp, because that's what your magic book says.
I actually did watch about 80% of the video before I had to leave this morning. Nothing new. Your posts are also full of barely surface information and repeated statements that evolution is true with no attempt to write an accurate description of the state of evolution (even from a pro-evolution standpoint). You don't bother to define what evolution is or which part is "proven to be true". When I ask a direct question, I never get a direct answer (I don't think ever). Look at the thread above. I asked pointedly what were the "observable facts" you clearly said exist. If I dig down enough in your puzzle metaphor, you admit to a couple of gaps. Based on the backpedaling, I am assuming you don't know what those gaps might even be or how they might affect your claim: "it's true because it's based on observed facts and many types of evidence". I think you were under the assumption that all you had to do was assert the truth of evolution (in all of it's meanings) and the was enough.
BTW, "dialog" is an American spelling which you could have very easily looked up.
Posts: 3045
Threads: 14
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Why the religious will never admit you won the argument (and why they don't care)
June 22, 2016 at 5:05 pm
(June 22, 2016 at 4:21 pm)robvalue Wrote: Natural selection is not clearly understood? Decent with modification happens, and beneficial traits are given preference mainly by survival. That's the basics. If you're challenging that then...
And yes, the theory attempts to draw everything together, regarding ancestry. And no, it's not a weak leg at all. But until you go study it, you won't understand why.
As I am sure some of our more scientific-minded members can help with, Natural Selection alone is not enough to account for #2.
1. Evolution (defined as "decent with modification")
2. Evolution (defined as "the mechanism that accounts for evolutionary change")
3. Evolution (defined as "reconstructing evolutionary history")
Posts: 185
Threads: 7
Joined: June 15, 2016
Reputation:
8
RE: Why the religious will never admit you won the argument (and why they don't care)
June 22, 2016 at 5:58 pm
(This post was last modified: June 22, 2016 at 6:16 pm by Veritas_Vincit.)
Steve II - it's starting to really look like you aren't reading my posts and you're dancing around the issue.
Forget evolution, as I said, evolution could be proven wrong tomorrow and it wouldn't matter because ID and Creationism still have about as much evidence for them as the Flat Earth Society!
I am not a scientist, and neither are you, but the current consensus among scientists is that Evolution by natural selection is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, backed up by shelves of evidence. They have a different opinion about those 'gaps' which you would understand if you thought about the puzzle analogy. If you think you know better than the consensus of the scientific community then this is a lost cause... but then, I imagine you haven't come here looking to change your mind, you've come here because you consider yourself to be a Christian and you believe it it all, and you've come here to try to convince these atheists that they don't know what they're talking about, right?
The problem is, the facts don't support Christianity and they certainly don't support Creationism or ID, and if you actually turn around and consider them, neither of them are rationally or empirically justified. The whole construct is like one of those big knots where when you pull both ends, the whole things just comes undone. You owe it to yourself to consider the evidence, open your mind! Read The Selfish Gene, or The Greatest Show On Earth, both by Richard Dawkins - both are amazing books. Or you can go to talkorigins.com which I already listed in the last post. Or watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
Or go here: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Posts: 8731
Threads: 425
Joined: October 7, 2014
Reputation:
37
RE: Why the religious will never admit you won the argument (and why they don't care)
June 22, 2016 at 6:30 pm
Why religious people will never admit to being wrong.
1. they have to much pride.
2. they hate being wrong.
3. Evidence that is contrary to their belief is automatically the work of satan.
4. They think the bible has all the answers and is infallible when it reality if the bible was correct in that matter earth should be a hell of a lot different
and in the case of humans... let's say we would all be really closely related.
5. Some people are just... complete nutters.. with their wild assumptions and theories... WLC...
Atheism is a non-prophet organization join today.
Code: <iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/255506953&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true"></iframe>
Posts: 1494
Threads: 0
Joined: July 26, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Why the religious will never admit you won the argument (and why they don't care)
June 22, 2016 at 6:38 pm
(June 22, 2016 at 4:15 pm)SteveII Wrote: (June 22, 2016 at 1:44 pm)robvalue Wrote: Science leads to theories. End of story. If you reject theories, you're rejecting science.
If you think something gets to be a theory easily, you don't understand what it means.
Evolution happens. That's obvious. To suggest otherwise is to say that offspring are either (a) identical to their parents or (b) not based on their parents. Natural selection takes care of the rest.
All that remains is to model it as best we can. Challenging evolution and challenging the theory of evolution are two different things. Challenging evolution is like... I don't even know what that's like. Plugging up your eyes and ears I guess.
Here is an good example of using the word "evolution" in multiple ways.
1. Evolution (defined as "decent with modification") happens. Rob referred to this when he mentioned parents. --I don't have any problem with that.
2. Evolution (defined as "the mechanism that accounts for evolutionary change") or as Rob shortened it "natural selection" is not clearly understood and is under active investigation and debate.
3. Evolution (defined as "reconstructing evolutionary history") Rob seems to reference in "all that remains is to model it as best we can". This is the weakest leg of the three legged stool.
People skeptical of the case being made for evolution are referring to the second and/or third, yet you use the first definition (which they agree with) to make statements like "evolution happens" or evolution is a fact.
Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology, so I don't think there is really any debate about it.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Why the religious will never admit you won the argument (and why they don't care)
June 22, 2016 at 8:34 pm
(This post was last modified: June 22, 2016 at 8:37 pm by robvalue.)
(June 22, 2016 at 5:05 pm)SteveII Wrote: (June 22, 2016 at 4:21 pm)robvalue Wrote: Natural selection is not clearly understood? Decent with modification happens, and beneficial traits are given preference mainly by survival. That's the basics. If you're challenging that then...
And yes, the theory attempts to draw everything together, regarding ancestry. And no, it's not a weak leg at all. But until you go study it, you won't understand why.
As I am sure some of our more scientific-minded members can help with, Natural Selection alone is not enough to account for #2.
1. Evolution (defined as "decent with modification")
2. Evolution (defined as "the mechanism that accounts for evolutionary change")
3. Evolution (defined as "reconstructing evolutionary history")
What do you mean the mechanism? Sure it's enough. Science guys are welcome to kick my ass if I'm wrong. I'm saying that just with variation and natural selection, you've got enough going for a species to evolve to better fit its surroundings. Just think about it. Play it out in your mind, and hopefully you'll see it's an unavoidable conclusion, even before you start collecting evidence.
If you're not seeing it, I can only say you're badly misunderstanding some aspect of this. I'll put my video up again just in case it helps.
The serious stuff starts at 0:40
https://youtu.be/qV3WPyp8WmU
|
