# Off-Topic Discussion > Extended Discussion >  >  Evolution is a Fact - Not a Theory

## O'nus

Evolution is a Fact - Not a Theory

"It really happened"

*Intro (Yes, its a long read, look here first)*:

This is intended to examine the problems with "its just a theory" and explain evolution as simply as possible.  Focus on the certain sections as you see fit.  At most, consider the videos at the bottom of this post.

*"It's just a theory"*
A theory is a coherent system of primitive concepts, axioms, and rules of inferene from which 
theorems may be drived.  It is a proposition or set of propositions offered as a conjectured 
explanation for an observed phenomnenon, state of affairs, or event.  (Colman, A. 2001).

Let's first look at what the phrase "it's just a theory" offers:
- That the theory should not be considered because it is a theory
- Implies an alternative explanation or none at all
- States that the theory is obviously not a fact. 

Let's assume for a moment that evolution is just a "theory".

When evolutionists hear the phrase "it's just a theory", what they would like to hear are these alternative explanations or empirical disproval for the theory.  Scientists endure to find out the true nature of things and how the world works.  We strive to find the empirical nature of our existance, thus, truth prevails over pride.

Let us examine how this phrase disputes our "theory" Darwin`s approach began as a hypothesis and then came to fruition as fact, keep this in mind as we examine the following under the pretense that everything he said is "just a theory".  So let us consider these key conceptual titles from "The Origin of Species" by Darwin himself to see his approach to evolution as a simple explanation or opinion of things:
- Variation under domestication
- Variation un der nature
- Struggle for existance
- Natural Selection: Or the Survival of the Fittest
- Law of Variation
- Difficulties of the Theory
- Miscellaneous Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection
- Instinct
- Hybridism
- On the Imperfection of the Geological Record
- On the Geological Succession of Organic Beings
- Geographical Distribution
- Mutual Affinities of Organic beings: Morphology: Embryology: Rudimentary Organs

When the creationist rebuffs these with "it's just a theory" they little often take note of what is actually being said.  The phrase does not actually offer any substantial criticism to what is being said and rests entirely on the idea that the theory is not a fact and can not be systematically disproven.
With this pretense, let us take key conceptual points from Darwin and see how this response works.  
So, what I am going to do is take a key conceptual point from Darwin and respond with "that's just a theory" with the idea in mind that, it is not a fact and cannot be systematically observed (in others, can not be proven):

*First lines from the "Origin of Species" read: "When we compare the individuals of the same variety or sub-variety of our older cultivated plants and animals, one of the first points which strike us is, that they generally differ from each other than do individuals of any one species or 
variety in a state of nature."*
+ Response "That's just a theory"
- This denies that there is a variation in nature.  Of course, this is silly and they will continue to say that a God caused the variation, that the variation was with 'purpose' for a final end.

*Wide ranging, much diffused, and common species vary most."*
+ Response "That's just a theory"
- Again, they would likely make the step that this variation was with a purpose other than evolution.

*Struggle for life most severe between species of the same genus.*
+ Response "That's just a theory"
- This is simple fact and incontrovertable.  The theist will have problems responding to this one because it asks of them to explain why God will let some species die and suffer while still being a good God.  What has to be explained is why a God would cause so much suffering and death between 
species.  Of course, this is entirely conjecture and an opinion.  It cannot be proven unless a God himself reveals itself and shows how they can cause all this pain and death.  On this premise, I can also prove a pink elephant in my room with the same reasoning (ie. "i see a pink elephant" "but I do not" "yes, but I see it.  Therefore, it is real").  Darwin offers this as a function of 
natural selection.

*Parts developed in an unusual manner are highly variable; specific characters more variable than 
generic.*
+ Response "That's just a theory"
- How can a creationist explain the variations between species?  Explain that this form of evolution is, in fact, the working of God.  That God caused this evolutionary step.  So now, in the words of Ted Haggard himself, "you are accepting some of the facts, but not the whole, to support yourself".  

*The absence of intermediate varieties at the presentday.*
+ Response "That's just a theory"
- Just a theory?  Just a theory that neanderthals existed?  There are clear fossil records and mounds of species (and their bones) to show the variety amongst species which we have established earlier.  The only thing that a creationist can respond with is to try and integrate God somehow to say that is was Gods idea to do this when we have clearly established that this works _
entirely and completely on its own without any supernatural influence_.  

Let's elaborate this one, because you may find humour in it.
My point here is that, the creationist is saying that God intended these steps of evolution.  However, there is no reason to doubt then that this can happen _without_ a God.  God is not required for any of the abovementioned processes (and the creationist accepted this!) and there is no denying this because it's evidence of prolific and paramount in every environment.  The only room for debate here is for the beginning 
of existance itself.

There are many other arguments held within the Origin of Species, such as modification and rates of modification.  However, because of stubborn creationists, these arguments have barely (if at all) come to fruition in the public sector.  I dream of the day that our people look back and see how 
this *fact* was held back from the world in the exact same way that the heliocentric system was.

Conclusion; next time you say or hear someone say "that's just a theory" ask them to explain the alternative explanation because evolution *does not account for the beginning of time*.

*Evolution is a Fact*
After Darwins adventure on the HMS Beagle, he reaped a paramount of evidence for the evolutionary theory.  In the years to come, a plethora of work has been done with fossil records and systematic observations.  In the end, we have come to show how it is a fact and that the system of evolution 
is the quintessential operating system of life itself.  To say it is not a fact is to deny diversity, death, natural selection, hybridism, and more.  If you still hold it is not a fact, you would have to show how the whole being of existance is actually the exact samething and that there is no diversity of intermediate species within any genus.

*Edit:*

I realized I should elaborate.  Many creationists deny the age of the Earth, they argue that it is 10 000 years old or 5000 years old.  However, the fact is that it is significantly older than that.  Also, these same creationists fail to explain the existance of dinosaurs.  This point itself is the very achilles heel of creationists which, it seems, is never paid attention.  Or, at the most, accredited to God employing the evolutionary theory.  But as we stated earlier, God is not required for this to occur.  And because of that, even if this God existed, we do not need him.  The further implications of this is what typically leads to the result of the majority of scientists being atheistic.

*Mechanisms of Evolution:*

_Natural Selection:_
Those things that can not survive in their enviornment, simply die off.
Those that can survive, will continue to reproduce.  This is the survival of the fittest.

Mutations are passed on through generations to continue to adapt to perpetually changing 
environemtnts.

Example:
- Say we have a large desert, yellow/beige as can be.
- We also have two rats; one beige, one black.
- We also have a hungry owl which routinely flies over the desert looking for something to eat.
- Which rat will be best at surviving?
- Obviously, the beige ones.  
- How does this beige rat continue to exist?  It learns the growing dangers in the desert, teaches 
its young, etc.  Those rats that fail at adapting, simply die.  Those that adapt, survive and 
reproduce.

It is really just as easy as that.  

For the best explanation I have ever heard, please consider the great Carl Sagan.  No one can explain evolution better themself than Carl Sagan (yes, Darwin is a rather terrible writer).  
Please consider, you will enjoy:
Carl Sagan:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx0YxEGBf6U
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ4eZIC0MJo
(Roughly 17 minutes)

What do you think...?

*Cough* ThisWouldHaveGoneInAScienceForum*Cough*
~

----------


## Universal Mind

Are you calling me a monkey?!!!

----------


## O'nus

> Are you calling me a monkey?!!!



A bonobo, to be exact.  :tongue2: 

~

----------


## Universal Mind

> A bonobo, to be exact.



I've never opened a jar of peanut butter and seen a bonobo.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504&feature=related

----------


## O'nus

> I've never opened a jar of peanut butter and seen a bonobo.
> 
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504&feature=related



That would be a hillarious response.

*Opens jar* *Out pops out an ape!* "Holy shit!  Evolution is real I guess!"  ::roll:: 

~

----------


## Xei

Evolution _is_ a theory, theory meaning 'a hypothesis which has repeatedly shown itself to be true'.

There is no such thing a 'fact' in the scientific method, claiming so shows an ignorance of it.

One might have thought Newton's theory of gravitation was a 'fact' as it is accurate as much as you can measure in virtually every test you do, but in reality it is not correct; Einstein's general theory of relativity is more accurate. And still it is just a theory that may be disproved with some falsifying evidence in the future.

Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

----------


## O'nus

> Evolution _is_ a theory, theory meaning 'a hypothesis which has repeatedly shown itself to be true'.
> 
> There is no such thing a 'fact' in the scientific method, claiming so shows an ignorance of it.
> 
> One might have thought Newton's theory of gravitation was a 'fact' as it is accurate as much as you can measure in virtually every test you do, but in reality it is not correct; Einstein's general theory of relativity is more accurate. And still it is just a theory that may be disproved with some falsifying evidence in the future.
> 
> Evolution is a theory, not a fact.



Please read the thread before posting.  

Evolution, as I have stated, is asserting that there is diversity in species, multiples of genus, natural selection, etc.  It is a fact that it happens.

If you really want to go that route, then we could bring up Cartesian doubt and say that your existance is also not a fact.  You do not know that you exist, you cannot prove you do, it is only a theory that you do.

~

----------


## Universal Mind

> Evolution _is_ a theory, theory meaning 'a hypothesis which has repeatedly shown itself to be true'.
> 
> There is no such thing a 'fact' in the scientific method, claiming so shows an ignorance of it.
> 
> One might have thought Newton's theory of gravitation was a 'fact' as it is accurate as much as you can measure in virtually every test you do, but in reality it is not correct; Einstein's general theory of relativity is more accurate. And still it is just a theory that may be disproved with some falsifying evidence in the future.
> 
> Evolution is a theory, not a fact.



It is improper for a scientist to publish a theory and call it a "fact", but it makes perfect sense for us on this site to be so sure of a theory that we call it a fact.  It is like in criminal court cases when people are "innocent until proven guilty".  It would be improper for the judge to say before the verdict that it is a "fact" that the person is guilty, but we can legitimately get on this site and say, "Come on.  The verdict has not been handed down, but he is not innocent.  He's guilty as sin.  It's a fact."

Evolution is no longer considered a "theory" any way.  It is now a "law".  As O'nus just said, it has been observed.  The existence of gravity is a law because it is an observation of what happens.  What causes gravity is a theory.

----------


## Xei

Oh okay, I thought you were referring to Darwinism.




> If you really want to go that route, then we could bring up Cartesian doubt and say that your existance is also not a fact. You do not know that you exist, you cannot prove you do, it is only a theory that you do.



By the way, Cartesian doubt states exactly the opposite of this.

----------


## O'nus

> "If you really want to go that route, then we could bring up Cartesian doubt and say that your existance is also not a fact. You do not know that you exist, you cannot prove you do, it is only a theory that you do."
> 
> By the way, Cartesian doubt states exactly the opposite of this.



Oh, I meant prove your existance to _other_ people.  It, of course, is a fact that you can prove to _yourself_ that you exist.

I think, with that said, we're on the same page, right?

~

----------


## Mystic7

Evolution is not fact. It's also bogus. Evolution theory is another illogical religion. I don't know where you got this rubbish from. But it wasn't from inside your little head O'nus. No I am not entering a debate with timewasters.

----------


## O'nus

> Evolution is not fact. It's also bogus. Evolution theory is another illogical religion. I don't know where you got this rubbish from. But it wasn't from inside your little head O'nus. No I am not entering a debate with timewasters.



Beautiful.  You somehow managed to use a bunch of words and actually say nothing at all.  

Let me summarise what you said for you:

"You are wrong and stupid"

About as intelligent as a douchebag.  

Instead of making such vapid comments, please consider actually contributing comments with a form of substance other than trying to attempt a "holier-than-thou" sanctimonious comment which survives vicariously through complaints as such because it is, in its essential form, a pathetic form of argument that is completely derived from ignorance and lack of intellectual perspicacity.  

Please prove me wrong and formulate a response with some form of substantial contribution that does not wreak in sanctimonious subtext with the obvious narcisisstic intent of getting attention.

Failure.

Edit:
Notice that I also used references to support what I am saying.

~

----------


## ♥Mark

> Evolution is not fact. It's also bogus. Evolution theory is another illogical religion. I don't know where you got this rubbish from. But it wasn't from inside your little head O'nus. No I am not entering a debate with timewasters.



Well I'm convinced.

----------


## Mystic7

I was going to repond, but it's such a bunch of rubbish that I think I'll wait for you to define your personal belief in a nutshell of why you think evolution is something that is truth above all truths about reality. When you can decide what and why you think what you do...Then I won't have this look on my face when you write a string of nonsense designed to look scientific in your eyes  ::wtf2::

----------


## ♥Mark

You didn't actually read it, did you? (It's okay, I didn't either ^__^)

----------


## Mes Tarrant

Here's the reason why Mystic and co get worked up and really upset in the face of facts. Religion has been a very important part of these people's lives, probably from a very young age. Religion gives them hope, it gives them something positive to rely on in an otherwise very uncertain and sometimes scary world. Religion is like their rock, and they are going to fight you for the death to protect it. So what if you convince them that there is no God - what are they going to do with the rest of their lives? Where are they going to find the strength that religion has given them, the same strength that atheists have long since learned to find elsewhere?

I am not religious. But, I don't need to be. I don't feel a gaping hole anywhere in my life. But fear of such a hole is what drives religious people to swear at you and to discard facts like a pile of shit. I think scientists/atheists should offer these facts to people who are eager to listen, not try to convince people who are unwilling to budge. This obviously applies to the other side too - I just want those Christian fundamentalists who shout at people in the street that God will kill them to leave us alone!

I'm not saying you're forcing anything on anyone, O'nus. I always find your posts very intellectual and objective. But this, I think, is the reason behind certain short-fused religious people.  :smiley:  To each his own, I guess.

----------


## Mystic7

I had a good look at it. Noticed it was irrelevant, boring, explaining the explanations of itself over and over in a loop of petty definitions, trying to sound authority like with strawman arguments. While ignoring and not even mentioning core concepts. No gold stars for this one.

----------


## ♥Mark

> stuff



Quite right. But the cruel irony is that the ones who are unwilling to listen to reason are the ones that need to hear it most.




> No gold stars for this one.



I count five.

----------


## Mes Tarrant

> Quite right. But the cruel irony is that the ones who are unwilling to listen to reason are the ones that need to hear it most.



That's very true. I propose we stop worrying about them and let them be.

----------


## Mes Tarrant

I know there is more. I was just trying to categorize people into two rough groups for nothing more than to simplify my explanation.  :smiley:

----------


## ♥Mark

> That's very true. I propose we stop worrying about them and let them be.



Would only that they stopped blowing us up.

----------


## Mes Tarrant

> Would only that they stopped blowing us up.



 ::lol::  Okay okay. We let the non-violent ones be.

----------


## Mystic7

> Here's the reason why Mystic and co get worked up and really upset in the face of facts. Religion has been a very important part of these people's lives, probably from a very young age. Religion gives them hope, it gives them something positive to rely on in an otherwise very uncertain and sometimes scary world. Religion is like their rock, and they are going to fight you for the death to protect it



My rock is the foundations of reality itself. Religion and science (real science and religion not pretend) can play a part of that reality. But it's more than a "religious" person. Human beings are more. Saying someone is upset and worked up is pretty amusing over the internet when you can't see them. In addition it's very simple minded of you to say this in general about people you don't understand and have never met. Something heretics like to indulge in. You are religiously anti-religious. That's why you label me like you do. Because I don't fit into your understanding. Whatever the case your much more likely to succeed at something that you believe and have faith in. Than if you have faith that you can't do something in doubt. That will decrease your chances of being successful. No matter what your belief system is. Wether you call something science or religion. Dogma or truth.

----------


## ♥Mark

> Okay okay. We let the non-violent ones be.



But as long as "having faith" exists and is taught as valid "reasoning", the potential for such people exists, too. Aside from that, the simple fact that these religions aren't true is a perfectly good reason to say that they aren't true.





> My rock is the foundations of reality itself. Religion and science (real science and religion not pretend) can play a part of that reality. But it's more than a "religious" person. Human beings are more. Saying someone is upset and worked up is pretty amusing over the internet when you can't see them. In addition it's very simple minded of you to say this in general about people you don't understand and have never met. Something heretics like to indulge in. You are religiously anti-religious. That's why you label me like you do. Because I don't fit into your understanding. Whatever the case your much more likely to succeed at something that you believe and have faith in. Than if you have faith that you can't do something in doubt. That will decrease your chances of being successful. No matter what your belief system is. Wether you call something science or religion. Dogma or truth.



You are wrong and stupid.

----------


## Mes Tarrant

Mystic, I also "labeled" people as atheists/non religious. Relax.  :smiley:  I am glad you were at least a bit amused though!

----------


## Taosaur

> Here's something interesting, both about human ancestry and the interbreeding of species:
> 
> http://www.boston.com/news/science/a...d_after_split/



That article is hawt. 

Creationists: Polizzly? God would never think of that.

----------


## Jeff777

Say something Mystic7.

----------


## Mystic7

> So, you are saying:
> - evolution is wrong because of the scientists doing the work
> - but science is right
> - since science can't prove everything, it is wrong
> - religious people are morons



I love how you capture little bits of writing and re-make statements to try to put together like a puzzle your model of why I'm an idiot who doesn't know anything, utilizing what you consider my contradictory belief system, which is only as good as the belief system of the person interpreting it.






> So, now that we have a few contradictions, what are you saying that we ought to believe?



Why would you require me to tell you what to believe?





> You have yet again dodged asserting your beliefs or any support.



Your interpretation is what dodged it.





> Any person can stand on top of a mountain and cast judgment down on people.



It's madness isn't it. You are doing it right now. Stop fighting what you don't understand.





> Say something Mystic7.



Your the king of dreamviews.

----------


## Taosaur

> It's madness isn't it. You are doing it right now. Stop fighting what you don't understand.



And what of Polizzly?

----------


## Xox

> It's madness isn't it. You are doing it right now. Stop fighting what you don't understand.



Mystic, if you are trying to make a point, it's not wise to say that.

It's very ignorant for you to say, "Stop fighting what you don't understand."

May I suggest, if _you think_ he doesn't understand, tell him. Why don't you fully answer his questions?  ::roll::  You're defending your theory very poorly.

I hope you understand what I mean.

----------


## Mystic7

See O'nus. Everyone does it. Even Polizzly.

----------


## Moonbeam

> I'm an idiot who doesn't know anything.



 ::chuckle::

----------


## Mystic7

Well done moonbeam you created your own reality and it's true because we can see it.

----------


## Spartiate

> Well done moonbeam you created your own reality and it's true because we can see it.



You have left us with no choice but to ridicule you.

----------


## Oneria

i think anyone who believes in evolution deserves to come from monkeys
 ::D:  ::D:  ::D:

----------


## Universal Mind

> Why don't you fully answer his questions?  *You're defending your theory very poorly.*



I have been trying for years to come up with a strong single shotgun blast comment to make when people relentlessly dodge my questions in debates.  You just gave me one.  I am going to use that every time I come across a dodgeball player in a debate.  It gets right to the point.  The one I have used for years has been, "You would be answering that question if you had a good answer."  I think yours makes a more important point.

----------


## Tsen

> i think anyone who believes in evolution deserves to come from monkeys



And I think those who refuse to inform themselves of a scientifically validated fact are indistinguishable monkeys.  Oh, hahaha!  Look how witty that was!

Seriously, add something meaningful, or don't bother.

----------


## Universal Mind

> i think anyone who believes in evolution deserves to come from monkeys



I have a challenge for you.  Explain in two paragraphs or more the theory of evolution in a genuine manner.  Mystic could not do it, so let's see if you can.  Do the best you can to give a true summary of the theory of evolution.  I am very curious to read what you think it says.  Something tells me that you would have no Earthly idea what to write or else would say things that are just flat out false.  Let's see what you can do with it.  

After you do that, tell us specifically where your disagreements with it are.  I bet you can't do that either.  Saying that people deserve punishment for believing in evolution and that the punishment should be that their ancestors are monkeys does not qualify as a debate point.

----------


## Serkat

Evolution is simple
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1GhYGEoRfo

----------


## Universal Mind

> Evolution is simple
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1GhYGEoRfo



That is one of my favorite South Park episodes.  Mr. Garrison's understanding of the theory of evolution is really not that different from what most creationists think it says.  I bet Mystic and Oneira think what Mr. Garrison said is not that far from what the theory actually does say.  If they ever have the nerve to tell us what they think the theory says, I bet they sound a lot like Garrison.

----------


## Idolfan

Even though I beleive in it, evolution is still a theory and people shouldn't be considerting it completely factual. There are still complex things in ourselves and our minds in particular that evolution cannot explain.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Even though I beleive in it, evolution is still a theory and people shouldn't be considerting it completely factual. There are still complex things in ourselves and our minds in particular that evolution cannot explain.



The existence of atoms is a theory.  The existence of black holes is a theory.  The explanation for continental drift is a theory.  The explanation for why volcanoes erupt is a theory.  The idea that the position of the moon affects the tides is a theory.  "Theory" is not synonymous with "opinion somebody pulled out of his ass".  It takes a great deal of evidence for something to become a well documented scientific theory.

"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."  - Isaac Asimov

----------


## Taosaur

> I have a challenge for you.  Explain in two paragraphs or more the theory of evolution in a genuine manner.  Mystic could not do it, so let's see if you can.  Do the best you can to give a true summary of the theory of evolution.  I am very curious to read what you think it says.



To be fair, could you give a similar summary of a sincere, thoughtful religious person's outlook? I've found the disconnect runs both ways.

----------


## Photolysis

> Even though I beleive in it, evolution is still a theory and people shouldn't be considerting it completely factual. There are still complex things in ourselves and our minds in particular that evolution cannot explain.



The laws of physics are ultimately theories at the end of the day. Somehow I don't imagine you'll stop getting on planes because our understanding of the physics that keeps them airborne is 'just a theory'

And what things can evolution not explain? That's a very bold claim.

----------


## Moonbeam

> Even though I beleive in it, evolution is still a theory and people shouldn't be considerting it completely factual. There are still complex things in ourselves and our minds in particular that evolution cannot explain.



 
We've come full circle in this thread.  Evolution, which is genetic change over time, is a fact, and the overwhelmingly agreed upon theory used to explain it is natural selection.

There is nothing within ourselves that we have identified that evolution cannot explain.

----------


## The Cusp

Natural selection is not evolution.  It allows adaptation to the environment though selective reproduction of the traits available to any particular species, but does not explain how one species makes the change into a completely different species.  The missing links remain missing, and the theory of evolution remains a theory.

Yes, we share DNA with other species of animals, but DNA is simply the basic building blocks of life.  Atoms are the building blocks of DNA.  We are carbon based life forms.  Does that mean we evolved from lumps of coal?

----------


## mark

> Even though I beleive in it, evolution is still a theory and people shouldn't be considerting it completely factual. There are still complex things in ourselves and our minds in particular that evolution cannot explain.



In a way you are correct, evolution is a theory but then so is gravity and the earth orbiting the sun and plate tectonics.....I could go on and on but the point is this:

Just because something is stated as a theory does not make it any less true. There are huge amounts of evidence supporting these theories. I think they are still called "Theory" for a few reasons 1) there is more to learn and 2) it is hard to reproduce in a lab due to limitations but the models and understanding of these concepts fit very well to the evidence found in nature.

Stating things as a theory is a very poor attack on a idea and I would suggest providing evidence against it if that is what you intend to do






> Natural selection is not evolution.  It allows adaptation to the environment though selective reproduction of the traits available to any particular species, but does not explain how one species makes the change into a completely different species.  The missing links remain missing, and the theory of evolution remains a theory.




Well it is a good point you make but natural selection is one of the core principles behind evolution. As far as I know (and I may be wrong here I am not a biologist or anything) changes in species occur when they become isolated from the remainder of the species due to geographical environments or constraints and continue to change until the 2 species become genetically incompatible. But like I say im no expert lol





> Yes, we share DNA with other species of animals, but DNA is simply the basic building blocks of life.  Atoms are the building blocks of DNA.  We are carbon based life forms.  Does that mean we evolved from lumps of coal?



In a way that is true saying as we are the remnant of "star dust".

----------


## Moonbeam

> Natural selection is not evolution. It allows adaptation to the environment though selective reproduction of the traits available to any particular species, but does not explain how one species makes the change into a completely different species. The missing links remain missing, and the theory of evolution remains a theory.



Evolution is genetic change over time.  Natural selection determines which animals live and reproduce.  This is the way that genes either multiply or die out.  "Species" is a vague definition created by humans for convenience in classifying animals.  There is nothing magic about "speciation".  When isolated groups of animals diverge enough genetically that they can no longer reproduce, we can use that as a definition of species.  Very simple, nothing that can't be explained there.  Missing links are only gaps in the fossil record, which is incomplete for obvious reasons.  Lots of "links" that seemed to be "missing" are found all the time; for example, the gaps in the line between dinosaurs and birds have been massively filled in--there are many other species in between now, not just archaeopteryx.





> Yes, we share DNA with other species of animals, but DNA is simply the basic building blocks of life. Atoms are the building blocks of DNA. We are carbon based life forms. Does that mean we evolved from lumps of coal?



Umm, no...I'm pretty sure the "coal theory" of the origin of life is pretty original with you.  :wink2:  As is the related "diamond theory".  ::lol:: 





> In a way that is true saying as we are the remnant of "star dust".



That's a cool way of looking at that... :smiley:

----------


## Universal Mind

> To be fair, could you give a similar summary of a sincere, thoughtful religious person's outlook? I've found the disconnect runs both ways.



Of course I can do that.  I used to be a Christian, and I have studied Eastern religion a great deal.  Search my posts in the R/S forum and you will see that I don't make ignorant comments about religious teachings.  I try to make sure I know what I am talking about when I debate people.  What does it have to do with whether Oneira and Mystic understand the subject of this thread?  I don't think Oneira and Mystic are able to give a substantially detailed explanation of what the theory of evolution says, yet they make insulting comments toward those who believe in it.  What does my ability to say what a religious belief system involves have to do with whether or not they know what they are talking about?  

_A litle more than six thousand years ago, God existed without the world.  He decided to create the world.  He did so in six days and then rested on the seventh.  In the world he created, he created a man named Adam by blowing clay.  Soon afterwards, a woman named Eve came into existence from one of Adam's ribs.  They were the first man and woman.  Later, a fallen angel named Satan showed up in Adam and Eve's Garden of Eden and tempted Adam to eat a fruit from the tree of knowledge, something God said specifically not to do.  Adam ate the fruit any way.  As a result, Adam and Eve were no longer naked and sin existed in the world.  It has been with humans ever since.  However, the sin that resulted from eating the fruit is necessary for the existence of free will.  Because of free will and sin, God later spoke to a prophet named Moses.  God was in the form of a burning bush.  He instructed Moses on his ten big rules for humans to follow in using their free will in order to avoid sin.  For a long time, God's rule was that people who use their free will to violate those laws or his other ones do not get into Heaven, and the only other place to go after death is Satan's Hell, a terrible place most commonly believed by Christians to be a place of eternal torture by burning in a fire. _ 

_After 4,000 years of Earth's existence, God decided to change the rules on getting into Heaven.  He wanted to give people a chance to get into Heaven even if they sin, so he came to Earth in the form of his son and had himself tortured to "death" and resurrected so that people could believe that story and accept God in the form of his son Jesus as their savior from the punishment for sin.  That allowed him to change his rule.  Jesus is going to come back to Earth in the future and round up those who are allowed to go to Heaven.  Many other things happen soon after.  The world will end, and Satan and the people not allowed into Heaven will spend eternity in a lake of fire while those in Heaven experience bliss for eternity._

There you go.   In case you were asking for their perspective on why only creationism makes sense, the argument is that something cannot come from nothing and that if God did not exist, something would have had to have come from nothing.  They also believe that the universe is so fascinating, complicated, complex, and impressive that only something with intelligence could have created it.  In case you were asking what the creationist perspective is on why evolution does not make sense, I can only tell you the few arguments I have heard for it.  I have never heard one give a solid counterargument to the theory of evolution because every time I hear them try, they give false explanations of what the theory of evolution says.  That is why I challenged Mystic and Oneiroa to tell me what it says, and I have a feeling they are not going to do that.  Here are some of the arguments I have heard creationists make against evolution.

- Monkeys do not give birth to humans now, so why should we believe that they did at one time?  (false premise concerning the theory of evolution)

- If humans came from gorillas, then why don't we have hispanic gorillas, Chinese gorillas, Eskimo gorillas, and Indian gorillas?  (false premise concerning the theory of evolution)

- If animal life can come from non-animal cells, then why don't ants appear in unopened jars of peanut butter?  (false premise concerning the theory of evolution)

- Evolution would be too much of a coincidental accident to be real. (false premise concerning the theory of evolution) 

- Scientists do not know every single step involved in the evolutionary process, therefore they have no reason to believe they have identified any of the steps. (false premise concerning the nature of scientific knowledge)

- 4.5 billion years is not long enough for protein to evolve into humans.  (Until people who claim that can explain the theory of evolution, that false statement cannot be debated with them effectively.  It is so substanceless there is very little room for even a short conversation about it.)

Does that work for you?

----------


## Xei

> Even though I beleive in it, evolution is still a theory and people shouldn't be considerting it completely factual.



Wrong. Evolution is an observed fact. Darwin's attempt to explain it is a theory, with ample evidence and as of yet no evidence to the contrary, therefore we can assume that it is true.

----------


## Taosaur

> Of course I can do that. I used to be a Christian, and I have studied Eastern religion a great deal. Search my posts in the R/S forum and you will see that I don't make ignorant comments about religious teachings. I try to make sure I know what I am talking about when I debate people. What does it have to do with whether Oneira and Mystic understand the subject of this thread?



You're right, I did run off-topic, more so considering the individuals in question are far from "sincere, thoughtful religious" people. I was thinking more about the perceived conflict between evolution and Christianity, or science and religion generally, from which this debate largely stems (except in the case of rare birds like Mystic). 

In my experience, most people in Western culture who consider themselves Christian or simply believe in God _do not_ reject evolution. I suspect more are coming to do so because of the insistence of vocal minorities that the two must conflict, a reflection of equally extreme and rigid views on both sides. 

Your response to my request for "a sincere, thoughtful religious person's outlook" is a good case in point. I would characterize your summary as an unexamined, dogmatic, and literalist outlook, suggesting that you can't even conceive of a "sincere, thoughtful religious person." Most people who derive their views in whole or in part from the canonized Bible do not treat the text as an infallible history book. They have some ideas of their own about the meanings of different stories and passages. And, like you and I, most Westerners, Christian or otherwise, view religious crusaders as, in Tony Blair's words, "nutters." 

Promoting the idea it's religion vs. science, all or nothing, just does the nutters' work for them.

----------


## Mystic7

> And what things can evolution not explain? That's a very bold claim.



The dellusional extremist are certainly an amusing bunch. How about, the universe. Realize your idea of science is limited for once. Or do you know everything like the pope?

----------


## tkdyo

1.tao is correct about most people who believe in God not believing the Bible to be literal. 

2. I believe in a higher power, but I do not see how this would conflict with evolution.  When you think about it, wouldnt a higher being want the world to be able to develop itself?  I would think that would be the most beautiful thing it could create.  It would be like a cosmic movie to see life's trails, successes and failures.  Hell not only life but the whole universe developing thanks to the laws set up, what more could such a being want then to enjoy watching his work?  Without having to constantly interfere.

----------


## Mystic7

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not talking about 'Evolution' against 'the bible'. I find there is more than 2 choices to make.

----------


## tkdyo

nor do I, hence why I said, not conflicting with a "higher power"

however I guess I should notate that those two parts of my post are seperate points

----------


## Scatterbrain

> The dellusional extremist are certainly an amusing bunch. How about, the universe. Realize your idea of science is limited for once. Or do you know everything like the pope?



Evolution can't explain the universe? I'm shocked.

----------


## Moonbeam

> 1.tao is correct about most people who believe in God not believing the Bible to be literal.



If they call themselves Christians, it's their book, therefore up to them to defend what it says and instructs its followers to do, many of whom do take it literally.





> 2. I believe in a higher power, but I do not see how this would conflict with evolution. When you think about it, wouldnt a higher being want the world to be able to develop itself? I would think that would be the most beautiful thing it could create. It would be like a cosmic movie to see life's trails, successes and failures. Hell not only life but the whole universe developing thanks to the laws set up, what more could such a being want then to enjoy watching his work? Without having to constantly interfere.



So besides being totally unnecessary to explain how anything happened (besides some initial event or deciding on some universal constants or something), the higher power is also totally uninvolved?  Therefore it is meaningless and we can totally disregard its "existence"?

----------


## tkdyo

yeah, pretty much.  Think about it.  If you were a higher power would that not be the ideal universe?  One that doest require constant maintenance and you can just enjoy it?

Its why I dont concern myself with the afterlife too much.

----------


## ♥Mark

> Evolution can't explain the universe? I'm shocked.



I know, right? It's almost like they think (very liberal use of that word) they know what they're talking about. The ignorance might even be cute if it weren't so fucking repulsive.

----------


## Mystic7

> Evolution can't explain the universe? I'm shocked.



So you think you can explain the universe, and then your shocked when someone normal states they don't know everything....And you wonder why I find you amusing.

----------


## Scatterbrain

> So you think you can explain the universe, and then your shocked when someone normal states they don't know everything....And you wonder why I find you amusing.



Indeed.

----------


## Spartiate

> So you think you can explain the universe, and then your shocked when someone normal states they don't know everything....And you wonder why I find you amusing.



OK, I'll ask the obvious question...

Where does it say that evolution explains the universe?

----------


## Mystic7

> Where does it say that evolution explains the universe?



You can never seem to think with your own mind.

----------


## O'nus

> You can never seem to think with your own mind.



Mystic, you're a hypocrit.  You say you are just learning from us but you refuse to take any information from us or absorb what we are saying.  You simply put up a brick wall and stonewall anything people say and then have the audacity to call us blind.  I am copying and pasting this response to any other silly posts you make until I finally see you take in something someone says and actually learn from it as you propose to be being but show no actual behaviour of doing.

~

----------


## Tsen

> How about, the universe



Evolution explains the genetic variances among organisms and how the repercussions of the survivability of traits effects the future generation's genetic makeup.  It deals with how the inequality of the viability of certain genes leads to a change of the status quo over time.

It does NOT deal with the origin of the universe.  It does not even attempt to.  That is left solely up to other fields of science.  Other fields, which, by the way, are doing quite well.  The origin of the universe, however, has no bearing whatsoever on evolution--whether the universe was created in a cosmic big bang, or when Ra masturbated it into existence is absolutely irrelevant.  The fact is, organisms evolve.  You may debate how they evolve.  You may debate why.  You may debate whether there is a purpose behind it.  You may debate whether a creator intended a specific path for evolution.  You cannot, however, deny that it IS happening, and that it has repercussions in the real world.

----------


## Mes Tarrant

> whether the universe was created in a cosmic big bang, or when Ra masturbated it into existence is absolutely irrelevant.



Omg that made me laugh out loud.  ::D: 

Very good rest of the post too.

----------


## bluefinger

Right... so what I have here is the theory of evolution, somehow mixed up in Godly/Unrelated/etc affairs?

Okay... so how can I inject my little musings of insanity (I jest  ::D: ):

1) Evolution. By no means a perfect theory. Having done Biology for A-levels, I can understand that whilst very good at explaining the progression and diverging of species, however it won't explain the following:
The universe - For this you need Astrophysics. Not Biology...The Perpetuation of Information - This is an interesting topic, but it isn't something that evolution can explain as well. It works upon different principles.So, what can I add into this. Evolution is still a work-in-progress theory. It has gone beyond the stage of hypothesis, as it has been observed occurring within nature, but there are a few things that need to be tweaked (of which has already been discussed).

2)Religion/Atheism/etc - Personally, in any topic involving science, I'd like to see Religion kept out. Why? Because it has a nasty habit of complicating matters and generally causes flames to burst out of my screen. Of course, I have had plenty of healthy discussions around religion and philosophy, but most of the time, the discussions I witness are hardly civil. This also applies within politics, education (save for furthering the knowledge of not only one's own culture, but other's as well, as opposed to simply forcing scripture upon one), etc...

As for _my_ beliefs, they are my own. I do not wish to be called religious, atheist, or even agnostic because of them, however, I do not mix this belief with the knowledge I have gained through science and whatever. In my perspective, beliefs and knowledge are two separate things.

3)Troll infestations. A common affliction to even the most healthy of forums. Only cured through a period of quarantine and confinement, in which in the said trolls are left in 'sensory deprivation'. Whilst one must expect a serious struggle for the first few weeks, after a long enough period, the trolls will simply curl up and disappear up their own asses, being unable to sustain themselves on other people's attention. :tongue2:

----------


## shark!

why is this even still a debate? Try being against evolution in any univeristy, and you'll be laughed all the way back to jesusfag county rural usa

----------


## Universal Mind

> Your response to my request for "a sincere, thoughtful religious person's outlook" is a good case in point. I would characterize your summary as an unexamined, dogmatic, and literalist outlook, suggesting that you can't even conceive of a "sincere, thoughtful religious person."



I was just telling you what I was taught, what the Bible says, and what I thought most Christians believe, at least most Christians in my region.  If most Christians think the Bible is not literal, then there is a whole spectrum of beliefs that could be considered Christianity.  Making a book of rules symbolic when it determines a person's eternal destiny is a really bizarre concept.  I can tell you what their books says, but it would take me as many characterizations as there are such Christians to tell you what they think.  Once you say a book is purely symbolic, there is no limit to what it can be interpreted as saying.  There is no book titled _The Disciples' Guide to What Jesus Said He Really Meant When He Spoke Symbolically_ by The Twelve Disciples or _"Burning Bush" Means "Hallucination Revealing The Truth About Nirvana I Found While on Mushrooms" and Other Things I Was Really Saying_ by Moses.  

I think a lot of literalists are sincere.  I question their intelligence and sanity, but I think a lot of them believe exactly what the Bible says.

----------


## Moonbeam

> I think a lot of literalists are sincere. I question their intelligence and sanity, but I think a lot of them believe exactly what the Bible says.



Of course they are sincere.  Same with the Koran.  Sure, some people have realized that they can't live in modern society and follow their religion (all that rock-throwing, etc.), but a lot of people would like to change things back so that they could, and in some places they still are doing it that way.

----------


## Riot Maker

i thought this thread could use a bit of comical releif.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1GhYGEoRfo

Well anyways, im leaning towards evolution a bit after doing more research.

----------


## ♥Mark

> after a long enough period, the trolls will simply curl up and disappear up their own asses



Oh yeah. Like that snake that eats itself.




> _and Other Things I Was Really Saying_



If I ever write a book, I'm using this for its subtitle.

----------


## Mystic7

> when Ra masturbated it into existence is absolutely irrelevant.



Atleast you have done some homework. That is suprising. Someone with some knowledge of culture and mythology.





> until I finally see you take in something someone says and actually learn from it



Would this be your idea of learning or my idea of learning? Do you think I can't handle your idea of learning? Do you wish me to show you? It would be for your benifit not mine.

----------


## O'nus

> Would this be your idea of learning or my idea of learning? Do you think I can't handle your idea of learning? Do you wish me to show you? It would be for your benifit not mine.



First, it would be learning: gathering new ideas and growing as an individual.

I do not see how else you would define learning unless it became a new word like "ego-inflation".  Do you want to just hear people say, "Oh Mystic, you're so right, you're so sexy"?  Or do you want people to actually offer ideas for you to consider to develop your already existing ideas?

I do not care if you show me or not - I am pointing out the hypocricy in your statements and how nonsequitor you are.  If you can show otherwise, then I learn as an individual.  More importantly, it's just fucking annoying to have someone troll around saying, "I don't care about talking to you people; I am learning from you" and then in the next sentence say, "You're blind" or some other vague response that tries to maintain some sanctimonious yet vague definition that desparately tries to reach beyond its context because it has no other chance of surviving otherwise.

The only thing to my benefit is either having you finally able to offer ideas to discuss and allow mutual enlightenment, or learn that you are someone who is a hypocrit and refuses to take others comments into consideration and just pontificates.  

That is my main complaint; you are blindly pontificating vague nonsequitor nonsense.

~

----------


## ♥Mark

> "Oh Mystic, you're so right, you're so sexy"?



For the record, this is all I want people to say of me (except replacing Mystic with Mark, obviously...).

----------


## Mystic7

> That is my main complaint; you are blindly pontificating vague nonsequitor nonsense



Ok, I will no longer do that.

----------


## O'nus

> Ok, I will no longer do that.



Look, I am sorry for being harsh but it is annoying when someone proposes that they know something you do not and then do not follow up.  

Please realize that I do want to learn and I do not doubt that you are knowledgable.  So why not share it with us?  I want to hear it.

~

----------


## Mystic7

I just posted my answer in the other thread to mark75. (link provided) If you don't like the answer or can't see the sense in it. Fair enough. Ask me what you do not understand and I will reply differently in the most suitable way. If you persist you may find a variety of answers to suit your needs. If you do not persist. I may appear as vague nonsequitor nonsense. This will only happen if you ask me a question. Otherwise you have requested that I not respond from your complaint.

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...=45074&page=11

----------


## O'nus

Are you referring to the comment "I created your game show" or "..."??  I really hope you meant to link to another page.

~

----------


## Mystic7

It's a joke. What is rationality.... I thought it was funny.

----------


## Taosaur

> I was just telling you what I was taught, what the Bible says, and what I thought most Christians believe, at least most Christians in my region.  If most Christians think the Bible is not literal,* then there is a whole spectrum of beliefs that could be considered Christianity*.



The plethora of denominations and millions of "basically Christian" non-churchgoers do indicate that's the case, yes. Fundamentalists are way too powerful and plentiful in the U.S., no doubt, but they're not the only "real" Christians, nor, in my experience, the majority; they're just the loudest. If you were born among them, I'm sorry. Still, plenty of people hear the "fairy tales" as children, come to question them as young adults, and either on their own or through the guidance of reasonable Christian adults come to see that while the stories may not be perfect documents of history and material cosmology,  they still have meaning and truth. Others just "take what you can use, leave the rest," not a Christian scripture, but a natural attitude to take toward a religious text if you don't intend to devote years to contemplating it anytime soon. "Rulebook" and "bullshit" are not the only options.

The general point I'm making here is that if you're discounting all Christians as fundamentalists, or fundamentalism is your only understanding of religion, then you're letting personal prejudice obscure crucial elements of the debate, to the detriment of both your position and the conversation as a whole.

More to the point of evolution and its main opposition, Creationism, you're missing the most basic criticism--not that Creationists have misunderstood science, but that they've misunderstood their basis for opposing it: religion.

----------


## Xei

It's right that selecting the good bits of scripture is better than using all of the scripture, but when you think about it, it is really your own morals which tells you which bits of the scripture you should discard, so you're really following your own morals anyway and might as well do away with all the metaphors, since the only function they seem to have is causing conflict.

----------


## Universal Mind

> The plethora of denominations and millions of "basically Christian" non-churchgoers do indicate that's the case, yes. Fundamentalists are way too powerful and plentiful in the U.S., no doubt, but they're not the only "real" Christians, nor, in my experience, the majority; they're just the loudest. If you were born among them, I'm sorry. Still, plenty of people hear the "fairy tales" as children, come to question them as young adults, and either on their own or through the guidance of reasonable Christian adults come to see that while the stories may not be perfect documents of history and material cosmology, they still have meaning and truth. Others just "take what you can use, leave the rest," not a Christian scripture, but a natural attitude to take toward a religious text if you don't intend to devote years to contemplating it anytime soon. "Rulebook" and "bullshit" are not the only options.
> 
> The general point I'm making here is that if you're discounting all Christians as fundamentalists, or fundamentalism is your only understanding of religion, then you're letting personal prejudice obscure crucial elements of the debate, to the detriment of both your position and the conversation as a whole.
> 
> More to the point of evolution and its main opposition, Creationism, you're missing the most basic criticism--not that Creationists have misunderstood science, but that they've misunderstood their basis for opposing it: religion.



Like I said, with the Bible aside, there is no philosophical documentation for me to go on in answering your question.  There is only a spectrum of things people pull out of their asses.  That is why I answered your question according to what the Bible says and what the Southern fundamentalists I live around say.  It is also what I was taught and what I believed when I was a Christian.  My answer answered your question.  Right?  If not, then how exactly should I have answered your question?  Would you like for me to pick some random guy off the street who calls him self a nonfundamentalist Christian and tell you what he has pulled out of his ass?

----------


## Taosaur

> Like I said, with the Bible aside, there is no philosophical documentation for me to go on in answering your question.  There is only a spectrum of things people pull out of their asses.  That is why I answered your question according to what the Bible says and what the Southern fundamentalists I live around say.  It is also what I was taught and what I believed when I was a Christian.  My answer answered your question.  Right?  If not, then how exactly should I have answered your question?  Would you like for me to pick some random guy off the street who calls him self a nonfundamentalist Christian and tell you what he has pulled out of his ass?



_________





> The general point I'm making here is that if you're discounting all Christians as fundamentalists, or fundamentalism is your only understanding of religion, then you're letting personal prejudice obscure crucial elements of the debate, to the detriment of both your position and the conversation as a whole.

----------


## Universal Mind

Why would you think I might be doing that when I said there is a whole spectrum of people who call themselves Christians but don't base their views on anything but what they make up?

----------


## O'nus

I think Taosaur is jumping too quickly on the "you're being prejudice" argument rather than the more subtextual implications of Universal Minds argument.  

The point is that there are many people who consider themselves Christian or any other religion and only loosely follow there beliefs.  This immediately goes to show that there are flaws in their beliefs as it is based on an external bias function rather thant the ostensive belief that they purport initially (ie. Christianity).

There are words for these people; hypocrites, apathetic, lazy, non-thinkers, irrational, stupid, ignorant, etc.

All these are in support of the original argument that people ought to think for themselves.  Not that fundamentalist believers are the issue; please stop focusing on that.

~

----------


## Taosaur

My criticism is out of place in this thread and I apologize--theists arguing against evolution are typically just team players spouting talking points, and UM's criticisms are pretty valid for that group. 

I just think it's a mistake to paint religion and religious people with too broad a brush. The story of civilization is largely the story of religions interacting and developing as populations divide, meet, clash, and divide again. Suggesting we get rid of religion is like addressing heart disease by cutting out our hearts.

----------


## skysaw

> The story of civilization is largely the story of religions interacting and developing as populations divide, meet, clash, and divide again. Suggesting we get rid of religion is like addressing heart disease by cutting out our hearts.



Eloquent, but not very apt in my opinion. Your metaphor depends on our accepting that religion is as vital to civilization as a heart is to a human's life. While its absolutely certain that cutting out a human's heart will end his life, the same cannot be said about cutting religion out of civilization. It's a very untenable position to hold that removing religion would instantly end civilization.

----------


## beorn

> It's a very untenable position to hold that removing religion would instantly end civilization.



A very large portion of the Earth's inhabitants are religious. Some more than others, of course. 
One of the most important aspects of religion (if not _the_ most important), in my opinion, are the ethics and morals they promote. 
The religions give billions of people a set of ethic rules and guidelines. 

I would like to expand this to encompass atheists as well. I must admit that I am not very informed about how they derive their morals, but they do have them, and knowing atheists, there is probably good reasoning behind them.

All religious people have reasoning behind their morals (and _some_  atheists can be pretty religious about their views, as well  :smiley:  ). 

"What would happen if religion was removed?" can therefore be analogous to "What would happen if all reason behind morals were removed?".

Well, there would simply not be any reason to adhere to any morals anymore.

Our civilization is based upon morals and rules, and the trust that other people, the government included, will follow those rules. 

What would happen if religion was removed?
The end of civilization may very well be the outcome.

----------


## Taosaur

> Eloquent, but not very apt in my opinion. Your metaphor depends on our accepting that religion is as vital to civilization as a heart is to a human's life. While its absolutely certain that cutting out a human's heart will end his life, the same cannot be said about cutting religion out of civilization. It's a very untenable position to hold that removing religion would instantly end civilization.



It's a very untenable position to hold that you can remove religion from civilization, anymore than a man could cut out his own heart.

----------


## Moonbeam

> "What would happen if religion was removed?" can therefore be analogous to "What would happen if all reason behind morals were removed?".



Wrong.  Morality is innate in humans.  Humans invented religion.  Therefore, humans put the morals in religion, not the other way around.

----------


## skysaw

> "What would happen if religion was removed?" can therefore be analogous to "What would happen if all reason behind morals were removed?".
> 
> Well, there would simply not be any reason to adhere to any morals anymore.



Religion is not the reason for morals any more than frogs are the reason for light bulbs. People seem to think that the bible somehow bestows upon them the unique quality of morality. The truth is Atheists are no less moral than any religious group (and a hell of a lot more moral than most).

But don't worry... if religion is ever suddenly removed, we Atheists would be more than happy to teach you how to be moral without a book.

----------


## Universal Mind

> humans put the morals in religion, not the other way around.



That is a good way of putting it.  You also pointed out recently that a much lower percentage of atheists are in prison than the percentage of religious people.  That destroys the "Morals only come from religion" argument assertion.

----------


## Xaqaria

> That is a good way of putting it.  You also pointed out recently that a much lower percentage of atheists are in prison than the percentage of religious people.  That destroys the "Morals only come from religion" argument assertion.



I'm not necessarily arguing one way or the other, but it would be much easier to demonstrate that religion is the source of morality, and not necessarily the cause for the practice of the moral code.

----------


## beorn

> Wrong.  Morality is innate in humans.  Humans invented religion. Therefore, humans put the morals in religion, not the other way around.



This may be so, I am not denying this. But not all religious people holds the same view, that morale is innate. Many would even say that humans have a disposition towards doing evil things; the opposite of having morals.





> Religion is not the reason for morals any more than frogs are the reason for light bulbs. People seem to think that the bible somehow bestows upon them the unique quality of morality. The truth is Atheists are no less moral than any religious group (and a hell of a lot more moral than most).







> I am not very informed about how [atheists] derive their morals, *but they do have them, and knowing atheists, there is probably good reasoning behind them*.







> But don't worry... if religion is ever suddenly removed, we Atheists would be more than happy to teach you how to be moral without a book.



But would it be possible to teach moral to billions of people? 


Please, I am not trying to attack anyone here. It is just my musings. Understanding each others viewpoints is very important. 
I have never understood why people with different perspectives seems to have to yell and fight. There is always some common ground. We should all take it.


I feel trapped by the words we have to use. Religion, atheists, those words are so full of prejudice.
I prefer human to both. 
Humans have belief, belief in religion, belief in atheism. 
Belief is also a good word. Some things cannot, at least for now, be proven or disproven. There is no problem with this.


And, to go on topic; evolution is a good model to describe the world's life. Just as gravitational theory is a good model to describe gravitation.
Often, models are extremely close to the real thing.

Here also I see no argument. Why would I? Evolution seems to work.
Of course there is a philosophical point to be made in that we use induction to prove our scientific theories. But we have to live with this very minimal risk of wrong conclusions. There simply is no other way (that I know of, at least).

----------


## Universal Mind

> I'm not necessarily arguing one way or the other, but it would be much easier to demonstrate that religion is the source of morality, and not necessarily the cause for the practice of the moral code.



It would be impossible to demonstrate that religion is THE source of morality.  Even wild animals have moral codes.  Zebras have to spar with an intended female's father and impress him enough to get his approval before mating with the female.  That is one example of many.  Have zebras accepted Christ?

----------


## Xaqaria

I didn't mention Christianity, nor do I think it is the source of religion or morality.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I didn't mention Christianity, nor do I think it is the source of religion or morality.



The Christianity reference was just an example used to illustrate that wild animals have morals without religion.

----------


## Xaqaria

I would argue that it is extremely difficult to accurately discern the motivations of animals when referencing such complex actions as moral decisions. I would have to see concrete evidence in order to be convinced that the actions of zebras were due to a moral code and not situational or intuitive necessity. 

I would also say that any form of religion in the animal kingdom would be extremely hard to recognize and therefore it would be next to impossible to make an accurate claim one way or the other in regards to its existence.

----------


## Moonbeam

> I'm not necessarily arguing one way or the other, but it would be much easier to demonstrate that religion is the source of morality, and not necessarily the cause for the practice of the moral code.



Wrong, see, here I'll do the opposite really quickly, then you can say how it would go the other way.  

It's very easy to see how morals evolve in animals that live in social groups, and you can observe the rules that various species who live in groups have, concerning their social behavior.  Humans spent much of their evolutionary time living in small tribal groups, in which many people were related, and cooperation was necessary fo survival.  It's obvious that all human cultures have the same basic moral codes (don't kill, don't steal, lots of rules about sex).  This is true of cultures seperated widely over time and space, and applies even to non-religious people.  As people expand on what they innately feel to be wrong, this become the moral code that is part of religion.


I guess you could believe that God handed Moses some stone tablets with the rules written on them, but you wonder how those people survived so long without "thou shalt not kill" rules.






> I would argue that it is extremely difficult to accurately discern the motivations of animals when referencing such complex actions as moral decisions. I would have to see concrete evidence in order to be convinced that the actions of zebras were due to a moral code and not situational or intuitive necessity.



No, it's not actually as difficult as you say.  If you studied the subject, which you obviously haven't, you would know this.  That's how you "see the concrete evidence"; it's not like someone can take a picture of an animal and prove something to you.  You can't get it that easily, you actually have to learn about the subject before you point out the flaws.






> This may be so, I am not denying this. But not all religious people holds the same view, that morale is innate. Many would even say that humans have a disposition towards doing evil things; the opposite of having morals.



See above. Of course religious people don't have the same veiw, they don't believe in science or evolution, and think that magic put morals in people.   

I simplified it above, of course there are other things that evolve when people live in small tribal groups--such as the tendency to fight other groups.  That's why, altho people usually feel an inhibition against killing, that is easily overcome if necessary by feelings of solidarity with your own group and hatred and fear of people outside the group.  






> Please, I am not trying to attack anyone here. It is just my musings. Understanding each others viewpoints is very important. 
> I have never understood why people with different perspectives seems to have to yell and fight. There is always some common ground. We should all take it.



Don't worry, I don't think any atheists will be offended by your comments.   We are just discussing ideas, that's all, nobody needs to get offended.  It is usually the other way around--religious people don't like to be disagreed with; I think atheists get used to it.  :smiley: 






> Humans have belief, belief in religion, belief in atheism. 
> Belief is also a good word. Some things cannot, at least for now, be proven or disproven. There is no problem with this.



Religious beliefs are faith, which means believing things despite evidence to the contrary.  Atheists need proof for the ideas that they have.   They are not equally valid viewpoints.  The fact that something cannot be disproven does not mean that it exists.

----------


## Xaqaria

I have studied behavioral psychology (of course, I'm no expert) and yet I have still seen no definitive evidence of moral codes among animals. What I have seen is patterns of behavior due at least in part to social stresses, which is not the same thing. What have you studied that has lead you to believe otherwise? There are alternative forms of evidence that you could provide other than a picture.

Also, not all cultures developed moral stigmas about killing and sex, and even the ones that have moral guidelines regarding these things differ drastically from each other. The Romans and the Greeks had very few social restrictions when it came to sex, and most early meso-american cultures were not against killing for virtually any reason.

As far as your comment about Moses is concerned; religion existed long before Moses; among the Jews and otherwise. I think you would be hard pressed to come up with an example of a moral code that predated religion, as it is near impossible to tell when the advent of religion came about.

----------


## Taosaur

> Of course religious people don't have the same veiw, they don't believe in science or evolution



 This statement is either disingenuous or deluded. The vast majority of 'religious people,' no matter how you define 'religious,' believe in science at least insofar as it produces technology, even if they perceive bias in some work. Many also believe in evolution to varying degrees, though pernicious misinformation erodes that demographic. Waving a strawman does not support your claims to objectivity and reason.









> Religious beliefs are faith, which means believing things despite evidence to the contrary.



0.o I think your dictionary's broken. You're treating faith like something exotic that you don't experience. It's a synonym of trust, not belief. It's trust in something one cannot know for certain, based on evidence that typically includes direct experience and sources one finds authoritative. Obviously you reject their evidence and reasoning, but it's present nonetheless.

----------


## O'nus

Taosaur, 

For one example; Perhaps you could explain peoples faith in praying?  

There is no evidence that this has ever helped anyone.  Further, it has never done anything like heal a severed limb or something that could have happened, by chance, without praying.  Statistics can explain just about any 'miracle' caused by praying.  

So why do people have faith in praying?

For another example;

Having a religious faith immediately sets forth a bias to scientific research.  You can have a hypothesis that a God might exist, but if you are confident and believe a God exists regardless of any evidence or logic, then you have no reasoning for it.  Furthermore, faith limits research as you can easily retort "God caused X" to whatever proposed research hypothesis is presented.

Of course, several do not do this, but the point is that you can and many do.

I hope you see where I was going with the latter part of this.

~

----------


## Verto

> Please read the thread before posting.  
> 
> Evolution, as I have stated, is asserting that there is diversity in species, multiples of genus, natural selection, etc.  It is a fact that it happens.
> 
> If you really want to go that route, then we could bring up Cartesian doubt and say that your existance is also not a fact.  You do not know that you exist, you cannot prove you do, it is only a theory that you do.
> 
> ~



This is what we will never be able to prove or Disprove however if we presume that this is true and that we do infact exist then Evolution would also be a conclusive Theorem under the existance and the rules that Apply to this universe.

O'nus how do you propose to stop people from saying God caused x god caused y etc, you cant! Also I dont understand why we cant accept theorems which have been proven to scientifcily correct to the Variables present at the times with God. Why do we have to deal in absolutes all the time? (I know this is going off topic a bit soz)

----------


## O'nus

> This is what we will never be able to prove or Disprove however if we presume that this is true and that we do infact exist then Evolution would also be a conclusive Theorem under the existance and the rules that Apply to this universe.



Are you saying that evolution is also a preconceived bias..?  I am not sure what you are saying here.





> O'nus how do you propose to stop people from saying God caused x god caused y etc, you cant! Also I dont understand why we cant accept theorems which have been proven to scientifcily correct to the Variables present at the times with God. Why do we have to deal in absolutes all the time? (I know this is going off topic a bit soz)



You can stop people from saying and believing falsehoods by simply enlightening them.  (ie. gravity, math, psychology, etc.).  We do not have to deal with absolutes, but we ought to deal with empirical observation and those things which we can show and see.  Tangible material that is not subject to manipulation, lies, and bias.

Say I have a deck of cards.  You want to get the ace of spades from me.  You can bet whether or not the card is in the deck to win.  Theists will bet that the card is in the deck, Atheists will question it first and likely not bet in the end.  They will want to see reasoning to believe that it is in there, not otherwise.  I hope you see what I am trying to analgously illustrate.

What do you think...?

~

----------


## Taosaur

> Taosaur, 
> 
> For one example; Perhaps you could explain peoples faith in praying?  
> 
> There is no evidence that this has ever helped anyone.  Further, it has never done anything like heal a severed limb or something that could have happened, by chance, without praying.  Statistics can explain just about any 'miracle' caused by praying.  
> 
> So why do people have faith in praying?



1. because it feels good--prayer can have a "zeroing" effect similar to meditation, refocusing the mind and setting aside daily preoccupations
2. because they have perceived intervention in their own lives--again, you won't convince them to adopt strict materialism by citing statistics any more than they'll convince you to pray by laying out their biography. It doesn't mean they're bad or stupid, they just have different experiences and priorities.






> For another example;
> 
> Having a religious faith immediately sets forth a bias to scientific research.  You can have a hypothesis that a God might exist, but if you are confident and believe a God exists regardless of any evidence or logic, then you have no reasoning for it.  Furthermore, faith limits research as you can easily retort "God caused X" to whatever proposed research hypothesis is presented.



If you've set up a scientific study of whether God exists, you've  already got issues. There's a reason people drawn to the sciences also tend to be atheists and deists; it suits their way of thinking. For them, the scientific method may be the ultimate Golden Rule, applicable in variable measure to every aspect of life. For the rest of humanity, its relevance approaches zero. 

Take leadership, for instance. While leaders can and should take into account the advice of experts, in the end they can only be so analytical--many decisions require intuiting systems too large and chaotic for detailed study and determining how to navigate or reshape them toward desirable outcomes. 

Science and empiricism can and do coexist with religion and mysticism in the majority of people alive today. All of the above serve us as a society and serve the needs of different individuals with the society; all of them are susceptible to corruption and distortion; from my perspective all of them are equally imaginary; and all of them need more work.

----------


## O'nus

> 1. because it feels good--prayer can have a "zeroing" effect similar to meditation, refocusing the mind and setting aside daily preoccupations
> 2. because they have perceived intervention in their own lives--again, you won't convince them to adopt strict materialism by citing statistics any more than they'll convince you to pray by laying out their biography. It doesn't mean they're bad or stupid, they just have different experiences and priorities.



1) Could not you say that about just about any fetish?  That is no justification.  If it is, we could say that child pornography is justified because it 'zeroes' the fetished one.  Of course, I think we both agree that this is not a justification or reason.

2) Perceving intervention is very subject to confirmation bias when approached with the randomness of the miraculous events and their sparse nature.  That alone quells the validity of its initial nature; to act as a catalyst for the miraculous.  How can it be a reliable source for miracles when it has absolutely no results or reason to believe in results?  Would you say the samething about someone who tucks their shirt in before each game?  This is superstitition and we both know that superstition is as profound as any anecodotal reasoning.





> If you've set up a scientific study of whether God exists, you've already got issues. There's a reason people drawn to the sciences also tend to be atheists and deists; it suits their way of thinking. For them, the scientific method may be the ultimate Golden Rule, applicable in variable measure to every aspect of life. For the rest of humanity, its relevance approaches zero.



Right, if someone did set up a study for whether or not God exists, they are going to face problems.  However, consider the following:

Study: To see what that cause is of a death caused by an implausible incident (ie. hockey puck flying from a game and killing one single audience member):
Theist: Conceives of a preconception of fate; they died because they were meant to die.  Now they set out to prove this or disprove this.
Atheist: No preconcpetions.  Invesitgates empirical reasoning free-from confirmation bias.

See the difference now?





> Science and empiricism can and do coexist with religion and mysticism in the majority of people alive today. All of the above serve us as a society and serve the needs of different individuals with the society; all of them are susceptible to corruption and distortion; from my perspective all of them are equally imaginary; and all of them need more work.



Empiricism and Religion cannot coexist because they directly contradict each other.  The one requires evidence and reason for facticity wheras the latter only requires a fundamental belief and idea; worship and memes to elevate it from an idea to a set tradition.  The tradition easily becomes longer and the longer it becomes the more powerful it becomes.  There is no reason for it, tradition is not a justification for a doctrine.  The ancients slept with Catamites, young boys, as a tradition; does that mean it is justified or rational?

Militant Atheists do set out to disprove God and this is where I think you are subject to your own criticism; you are focusing only on those militant Atheists and Scientists that are setting forth to disprove things rather than investigate things.  Please recognize the distinguishment and that this is the initial definitions that I have always ardently argued for.

~

----------


## Taosaur

*O'nus*, tell me this: are you convinced that there is one correct set of principles to live by, and one correct method for arriving at them?

----------


## O'nus

> *O'nus*, tell me this: are you convinced that there is one correct set of principles to live by, and one correct method for arriving at them?



No, I think that is the room for debate.

If I were to answer this question instinctively, I would say "Discourse".  Discourse is the best thing to live by because without it nothing would exist.  We need interaction.  All living things require interaction and discourse in order to survive and to develop.  

With that said, if I have prevented or deterred any form of discourse, I want to be told so; I would do the same in turn.  Although, I humbly note that you have been a very well versed and honorable person to speak with; you have taught me a great lot over the last while.  For that, I thank you.

The ethical body is what is up for debate.  That is what I am trying to avoid in my discussion becaues I hold, at this time, to be of profound aporetic nature.  However, if that is what you want to strive towards, please let me know.

~

----------


## thegnome54

I see two big problems in this thread so far - both are vague or absent definitions.  I think we should all agree on a good definition of these two terms before we continue our discussion.

The first word is "morals".  If you define "morals" as a universal code of conduct, I would think most non-theists would say that they do not have morals.  We do have personal opinions as to what is 'right' or 'wrong' to do _in a given situation_, but not in general (like thou shalt not kill - what if someone's intent on killing you?).  I personally include these individual judgments of subjective 'right' and 'wrong' in my definition of morality.  However, 




> What I have seen is patterns of behavior due at least in part to social stresses, which is not the same thing.



That seems to be directly opposing my view of what 'morals' are.  So let's get this straight.  Are they a universal code of which actions are right and which are wrong, or are they the ability to make decisions we consider right in any given situation?


The other word is of course 'faith'.




> It's a synonym of trust, not belief. It's trust in something one cannot know for certain, based on evidence that typically includes direct experience and sources one finds authoritative. Obviously you reject their evidence and reasoning, but it's present nonetheless.



I would argue that one can never know anything for 'certain', just beyond reasonable doubt - does that mean that everything is 'faith'?  My definition of faith is also not "a belief held despite evidence of the contrary", because what if there is massively more evidence in favor of a belief?

I think faith is "A belief which is not backed by empirical evidence".  In this light, personal experiences do count as evidence.  However, assumptions and conjecture based on these experiences require faith.  For example, the belief that "I was walking through the woods the other day and suddenly I felt a great joy, and a great clarity" is not faith-based.  However, if one extends this experience and says "God touched me in the woods and now I see the light" is faith-based.

A trust in someone is also not 'faith' under my definition - it is a belief backed by your previous observations of their competence or success.

Can everyone agree on this definition of faith?

----------


## Moonbeam

> I have studied behavioral psychology (of course, I'm no expert) and yet I have still seen no definitive evidence of moral codes among animals.What I have seen is patterns of behavior due at least in part to social stresses, which is not the same thing. What have you studied that has lead you to believe otherwise? There are alternative forms of evidence that you could provide other than a picture.



I'm not clear what you are using as a definition of "morals" if you can't see evidence of what we would call moral behavior in humans in animals as well. To start very simply, it is moral behavior when a when a mother takes care of her children instead of abandoning them, right? Obviously animals do this. A step up might be altruistic behavior in animals, examples of which can easily be found. (I'm defining that as an animal risking danger to itself to help another, in addition the parental behavior). Another analagous behavior to that which we call moral in humans is the aversion of breeding with siblings, parents, etc. Some animals have much more complex rules about sex even than that. Animals who live in groups have much more complex social "moral" behavior than those that live individually. Every human moral behavior can easily be explained by the biopsychosocial model of evolution, and in fact, make no sense otherwise (barring belief of course in a higher power who created the universe and is also deeply interested in human's sex lives.)





> Also, not all cultures developed moral stigmas about killing and sex, and even the ones that have moral guidelines regarding these things differ drastically from each other.



OK, the vast, vast majority of cultures have moral guidelines concerning killing and sex. I guess I shouldn't say "all", but I'd be surprised if there were any.





> The Romans and the Greeks had very few social restrictions when it came to sex,



 ::shock:: So incredibly wrong I'm not going to bother.





> and most early meso-american cultures were not against killing for virtually any reason.



 ::shock::   ::shock::  Wow, so wrong I'm seriously starting to wonder about you. You must have studied history at the same place you studied biology. 

I'm really so astounded by your statements that I don't know what to say. 





> As far as your comment about Moses is concerned; religion existed long before Moses; among the Jews and otherwise. I think you would be hard pressed to come up with an example of a moral code that predated religion, as it is near impossible to tell when the advent of religion came about.



Well.. that actually is more support for my argument than yours, I would say.





> This statement is either disingenuous or deluded. The vast majority of 'religious people,' no matter how you define 'religious,' believe in science at least insofar as it produces technology, even if they perceive bias in some work. Many also believe in evolution to varying degrees, though pernicious misinformation erodes that demographic. Waving a strawman does not support your claims to objectivity and reason.



Yea, you're right, that was kind of a stupid thing to say. Most religious people of course believe in most aspects of science; they just away from it turn to faith when it comes to geology, biology, etc.; whichever happens to contradict something that they have faith in. 






> 0.o I think your dictionary's broken. You're treating faith like something exotic that you don't experience. It's a synonym of trust, not belief. It's trust in something one cannot know for certain, based on evidence that typically includes direct experience and sources one finds authoritative. Obviously you reject their evidence and reasoning, but it's present nonetheless.



Well, I guess it can be used in both senses, can't it? I have faith that my car will start in the morning, but I can't prove it. I meant it in the religious sense of faith, which is belief despite a lack of or even evidence to the contrary, not the wider meaning of things that we think are true but which we can't prove, but for which we have some experience based on past occurrences in similar circumstances.

----------


## Taosaur

> I think faith is "A belief which is not backed by empirical evidence".



That's problematic in that faith is not the belief itself, but the support of belief. Perhaps "a non-empirical support of belief." It's also synonymous with _confidence_.

----------


## Taosaur

> things that we think are true but which we can't prove, but for which we have some experience based on past occurrences in similar circumstances.



That's precisely the case with religious faith of all kinds. Like the example of your car, virtually every action we take requires faith for us to proceed. Religious teachings and practices, when they're working, serve as both a well of faith--an energizing force--and a toolkit for shaping the mindstream to proceed more easily, with less resistance. 

I take my personal understanding of religion from Buddhism, which is a very deliberate and self-conscious religion, but it _is_ a religion. The other religions, and many secular philosophies, do the same things Buddhism does, but with different styles and emphases. Also, I would say, different strengths and weaknesses.

----------


## O'nus

> That's problematic in that faith is not the belief itself, but the support of belief. Perhaps "a non-empirical support of belief." It's also synonymous with _confidence_.



I understand.  You can take this route and it does make sense.  It is faithful to believe in the uniformity of nature; that if nature does one thing a certain way, it will continue to do so.  For example, once we empirically view one thing, we rely on nature to keep that empirical observation uniform.  However, even this is a inductive inference to the unpredictable future.  We cannot empirically observe the future, only predict and predictions are residual incarnations of implications and derived from inferences.  Reinforcing these would be invariable beliefs and faith to theorems such as the uniformity of nature.

Is this what you are saying?

There is one problem with this; if we adhere to the randomness and arbitrary nature of reality, we must propogate this logic to universality.  We must be able to apply it to all systems of view otherwise it is subject to bias and extends beyond its context to a separate entity; another set of beliefs.

This being the premise, we ought to not believe in the uniform nature of anything.  Every moment ought to be random and give room for every single possibility.  This means you ought to give leeway to the possibility that you can turn into jello in the next moment of reading this very setence.  

My question is then, how plausible and pragmatic is this approach?  Unfortunately, we are tangible mortal beings that rely on a physical approach to sensing reality and require a set of beliefs and preconceptions in order to best structure and interact with our environment.  Without these, we would all inexorably die.

What do you think...?

~

----------


## Xaqaria

> I'm really so astounded by your statements that I don't know what to say.



Thats quite obvious, since your post was lacking in any evidence or arguments whatsoever. Your unsupported assertions that I am wrong do nothing to convince me.

----------


## Xaqaria

> That seems to be directly opposing my view of what 'morals' are.  So let's get this straight.  Are they a universal code of which actions are right and which are wrong, or are they the ability to make decisions we consider right in any given situation?



I can't tell but it seems like you are agreeing with me. I was arguing that behavioral patterns that respond to social stresses were not the same as morals. Are you saying that they are? It is my belief that morality is opposed to natural social responses. This can be illustrated by a feeling of remorse after an 'immoral' act, even though no negative consequences were experienced.

----------


## Moonbeam

> Thats quite obvious, since your post was lacking in any evidence or arguments whatsoever. Your unsupported assertions that I am wrong do nothing to convince me.



OK, whatever.  Maybe you'll learn about it someday.

----------


## Verto

These sort of threads allways lose me in there wide range of Vocabulary. These sort of people should rule the world. lol

However on topic, apologies for my abysmal use of sentence structure and vocab in my first post. O'nus the bit you didnt understand was the bit that I hadnt actualy quoted.

I dont think you answered it very well or not in the simple terms that mere mortals as myself understand, I cannot see how you can tell me or anyone else that we cannot say that *GOD* made it that way? He/She/It just decided oh what the heck Ill create a Magnetic field for all mass and have it flip every thousand years just as an example?

----------


## Taosaur

> These sort of threads allways lose me in there wide range of Vocabulary. These sort of people should rule the world. lol
> 
> However on topic, apologies for my abysmal use of sentence structure and vocab in my first post. O'nus the bit you didnt understand was the bit that I hadnt actualy quoted.
> 
> I dont think you answered it very well or not in the simple terms that mere mortals as myself understand, I cannot see how you can tell me or anyone else that we cannot say that *GOD* made it that way? He/She/It just decided oh what the heck Ill create a Magnetic field for all mass and have it flip every thousand years just as an example?



I was just watching Sam Harris lecture from last year's Beyond Belief conference, and he provided a good context for this question by distinguishing between evidence _suggesting_ a god vs. being _compatible_ with a god. When you look at evidence with the assumption that there is a god and ask, is this evidence compatible with my belief?--as you point out, you can always answer yes. If, however, you examine the evidence of cosmology, biology, history and other disciplines, and you ask instead, what does this evidence suggest?--the existence of a benevolent, involved creator is unlikely to come up.

----------


## Verto

Thank you, I like that answer. That is a very interesting way to look at this repetitive view that alot of Christians come up with.

----------


## adam has a dream

> Please read the thread before posting.  
> 
> Evolution, as I have stated, is asserting that there is diversity in species, multiples of genus, natural selection, etc.  It is a fact that it happens.
> 
> If you really want to go that route, then we could bring up Cartesian doubt and say that your existance is also not a fact.  You do not know that you exist, you cannot prove you do, it is only a theory that you do.
> 
> ~



Theory is not a fact itself, but rather a statement about facts (it also has many other qualities, such as repeated, independently verifiable results; that's already been mentioned though). That said, i'm not denying the truth in theories, i am simply being pedantic about semantics, rhyming all the while...
I find it horrifying and at the same time hilarious that there has been a drive to teach Creationism alongside The Theory of Evolution; the former is a collection of untestable statements, and the latter is what i defined earlier - an attempt at truth, and a pretty damn good one.

----------


## adam has a dream

> All you have to do is google or go to the Library. And plenty of information, modern science, quantum physics, etc. It will show you that evolution is an older model that doesn't hold up to the present known results of the latest work anyway. There will always be dinosaurs, but progress cannot be ignored. *The double slit experiment is just one revelation that does not conform to an evolution theory at all*. If those who bark at me for not responding correctly were more interested in the truth and less interested in making me look bad. Maybe they would realize their fragile ego has already being shattered by someone more qualified that they havn't even being bothered to read about yet.



What are you on about? The double slit experiment has nothing *at all* to do with evolution, nor will it *ever* have anything to do with evolution.
Let me say that again. Nothing to do with evolution.
Guess what, i play guitar. That also has nothing to do with evolution.

If you are going to construct an argument by referring to random things, your argument will get shot apart pretty quickly.

For those who don't know, the double slit experiment is a test of the wave-particle duality of matter and light. It works by allowing one photon at a time to pass between one of two slits. The experiment produced an interference pattern that could only be explained by wave theory, while a single photon appears particle-like in nature. Thus, through displaying both wave and particle attributes of photons, the double slit experiment confirmed wave-particle duality.

Hence, this has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory and can neither prove nor disprove it.

Sorry if this was already mentioned.

----------


## Carôusoul

*Spoiler* for _The truth about evolution_:

----------


## thegnome54

> The truth about evolution



Mmm, strawmenberry.

----------


## Sornaensis

Guys, evolution is quite simple at base:

When split appart and copied during reproduction at cellular level, the DNA molecule will be changed slightly from the parent molecule. Why?

Because copying isn't perfect. There is no intelligence to it, so you get a slightly altered molecule.

That's it. There is NOTHING more to biological evolution. The rest is just the application of this basic fact and other spring-offs from it.

----------


## thegnome54

> When split appart and copied during reproduction at cellular level, the DNA molecule will be changed slightly from the parent molecule.



But that's racist!  ::shock::

----------


## ninja9578

what you just described it mutation, that's only part of evolution.  sometimes those random mutations are detrimental.  

Evolution = mutation + natural selection  :tongue2:

----------


## Sornaensis

> But that's racist!



 ::?: 





> what you just described it mutation, that's only part of evolution.  sometimes those random mutations are detrimental.  
> 
> Evolution = mutation + natural selection



No. Evolution *is* mutation.

Natural Selection is just an explanation of why things are the way they are.

Saying NS is evolution usually impresses that there is something "selecting" what survives or not-- That's not true.

Mutation is the simplist, most understandable and fundamental part of evolution.

Not the scientific theory of evolution, but evolution itself.

----------


## ninja9578

I'm sure that we're all seen this, but it's still funny

----------


## Spartiate

I've seen that guy at JFL before, he's hilarious  ::rolllaugh:: ...

----------


## TempleGuard

I hate when religious people tell me there is no evolution ::?:

----------


## Kromoh

OMG ninja that was hilarious!!

lovely!

----------


## Sornaensis

> I'm sure that we're all seen this, but it's still funny



Five stars!  :Cool:

----------

