Evidence for Evolution

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by olorin hamfast

What I do know is there is no such thing as an athiest evolutionist: the two ists cancel each other out.

So if you're an atheist, you can't believe in evolution? Then what do you believe in?

Creationism is unfortunately the booby prize for people with closed minds. Sorry forthat one, but its true. Creationism is for sentimentalists who like the idea that the earth was made in 7 days. Im sorry again, its just not FEASIBLE.

Ok, you're talking about literal fundamentalist creationism. I am NOT a literal fundamentalist. I make no assumptions about the length of creation. BTW...if you're talking about a deity, is there such a thing as non-feasible?

You just like calling people atheist or something and you dont like athiests.

The reason I brought up atheism is to distinguish atheistic evolution from theistic evolution. The two are inexonerable and totally anathema to each other.

It is a convenient mistake and now a lie designed to allow the scripture to continue

How does it allow scripture to continue? Doesn't scripture continue on its own.
And please cut the ad hominem arguments.

[Count Comfect]

Curubethion... many of us have provided arguments about how evolution is based on something more than simply faith, and is a theory and not a belief (and also mentioned the difference between those two). It is simply not true to say that if creationism doesn't belong in science class, evolution doesn't. I refer you again to Edwards v. Aguillard.

Additionally, if you explore Big Bang Theory (in its most modern versions) you'll find out how science tries to explain something-out-of-nothing... which is a little off-topic for evolution. Evolution does indeed include life-from-not-life, which we've gone over recently in response to Rian's questions about abiogenesis/chemical evolution. But for the formation of that not-life, you'll have to go outside the scope of evolution.

And where did God come from in a theistic model? It too has no beginning, because beginnings are very difficult (since they aren't analogous to today, and so are hard to decipher).

P.S. since when is direct evidence the only admissable evidence? Indirect evidence is still evidence. Fossil record. Artificial selection. olorin's example of the sticklebacks.

And guys, please keep it civil. We don't want to get shut down here.

[olorin hamfast]

Nice job decifering that one, smartie pants. believe what you want. just dont push it on me. Creationsist are lost! next time print the whole thing. eddie H bomb Hmm
an h bomb did in hiroshima and nagasaki did it not?

[olorin hamfast]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Curubethion... many of us have provided arguments about how evolution is based on something more than simply faith, and is a theory and not a belief (and also mentioned the difference between those two). It is simply not true to say that if creationism doesn't belong in science class, evolution doesn't. I refer you again to Edwards v. Aguillard.

Additionally, if you explore Big Bang Theory (in its most modern versions) you'll find out how science tries to explain something-out-of-nothing... which is a little off-topic for evolution. Evolution does indeed include life-from-not-life, which we've gone over recently in response to Rian's questions about abiogenesis/chemical evolution. But for the formation of that not-life, you'll have to go outside the scope of evolution.

And where did God come from in a theistic model? It too has no beginning, because beginnings are very difficult (since they aren't analogous to today, and so are hard to decipher).

P.S. since when is direct evidence the only admissable evidence? Indirect evidence is still evidence. Fossil record. Artificial selection. olorin's example of the sticklebacks.

And guys, please keep it civil. We don't want to get shut down here.

Nice one

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

And where did God come from in a theistic model? It too has no beginning, because beginnings are very difficult (since they aren't analogous to today, and so are hard to decipher).

A theistic model assumes laws other that physical laws-which cannot begin to comprehend infinity-and so it transcends what we can mentally grasp. This includes eternal existence without a beginning.

And all the "evidence for evolution" is simply evidence that evolution is possible; there is no evidence that it actually did happen. The same is true for any theistic belief. Ergo they are both religions.

And the Big Bang material still had to come from something.

[olorin hamfast]

I simply wished to offer insight into frontierism not insult. Like Ganadlf to Bilbo
"Im not trying to rob you, I am trying to help you"

[olorin hamfast]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

A theistic model assumes laws other that physical laws-which cannot begin to comprehend infinity-and so it transcends what we can mentally grasp. This includes eternal existence without a beginning.

And all the "evidence for evolution" is simply evidence that evolution is possible; there is no evidence that it actually did happen. The same is true for any theistic belief. Ergo they are both religions.

And the Big Bang material still had to come from something.

I believe a discussion of scientific method is in order. Not an argument on archaeic issues. Was that polite or what.

[Curubethion]

Frontierism seems a little off topic to me. Please don't go on any more tangents.

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by olorin hamfast

I believe a discussion of scientific method is in order. Not an argument on archaeic issues. Was that polite or what.

Scientific method:
1. State a problem or question
2. Formulate a hypothesis
3. Experiment on the hypothesis
4. Make a conclusion
5. Verify the results
6. Submit for additional verification

It seems to me that both evolution and creation get hung up on #3, so by the scientific method both are unscientific->both are beliefs.

And yes, that was very polite. Thanks!

[olorin hamfast]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

So if you're an atheist, you can't believe in evolution? Then what do you believe in?

Ok, you're talking about literal fundamentalist creationism. I am NOT a literal fundamentalist. I make no assumptions about the length of creation. BTW...if you're talking about a deity, is there such a thing as non-feasible?

The reason I brought up atheism is to distinguish atheistic evolution from theistic evolution. The two are inexonerable and totally anathema to each other.

How does it allow scripture to continue? Doesn't scripture continue on its own.
And please cut the ad hominem arguments.

Ithink you should skip going to Uni and build one yourself. By the way im agnostic and I wear fruit of the loom. Anything else?

[olorin hamfast]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

Scientific method:
1. State a problem or question
2. Formulate a hypothesis
3. Experiment on the hypothesis
4. Make a conclusion
5. Verify the results
6. Submit for additional verification

It seems to me that both evolution and creation get hung up on #3, so by the scientific method both are unscientific->both are beliefs.

And yes, that was very polite. Thanks!

Im not convinced why try to putn asquare block in around hole

[Curubethion]

You said a discussion of the scientific method was in order.
[Think it's time to call it a day... ]

[Count Comfect]

Curubethion, your #3 is incomplete. Scientific method can also include "observe evidence related to the hypothesis." Otherwise, astronomy (for example) is also not science, because you don't experiment on the stars. Nor is geochemistry, because we don't fiddle with deep sea vents, we just observe them. Science has ample room for non-experimental observation. We look for "natural experiments" - that is, times in history that nature has done something similar to what we'd like to do if we had the power. So for evolution, we look at the fossil record and compare to environmental indicators of the past to see if things changed as we would have expected them to. For one example.

And getting out of a difficulty by saying that it "transcends what we can mentally grasp" is EXACTLY why theism is OUTSIDE science and evolution is NOT. Because science deals with what we CAN grasp.

Evidence for evolution is NOT just that evolution is possible. It is that evolution appears to have occurred - ie, evolution predicts that if a finch population found itself suddenly on the Galapagos with many niches unfilled, it might expand to fill those niches. And we observe that it appears to have done so. This is just like saying "Newton predicts the gravitational force should be X. It is X. Therefore Newton is supported." It is evidence for evolution over any other theory that does not predict the same thing as evolution... and if a theory predicts the same thing, how is it different?

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

Scientific method:
1. State a problem or question
2. Formulate a hypothesis
3. Experiment on the hypothesis
4. Make a conclusion
5. Verify the results
6. Submit for additional verification

It seems to me that both evolution and creation get hung up on #3, so by the scientific method both are unscientific->both are beliefs.

And yes, that was very polite. Thanks!

listen to the redsox fan here, this is exaclty what i've been saying for a long time here, both are beliefs, you don't have to admit it, you don't have to like it , but they both are beliefs

[brownjenkins]

i think CC spelled it out pretty well...

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

And getting out of a difficulty by saying that it "transcends what we can mentally grasp" is EXACTLY why theism is OUTSIDE science and evolution is NOT. Because science deals with what we CAN grasp.

remember, as i have stressed before... this is not about right and wrong (which is ultimately unknowable)... it is about what "science" does and does not concern itself with

[EarthBound]

I "believe" we'd be all 'hanged' the moment we put all our eggs in one basket...bound to trip up this early in the game and loose them all if you feel the need to champion one over the other.

1. Evidence for 'Intelligent Design' lies in a vein of logic.
2. Evidence for "Evolution" lies in vain of logic as well

I'm getting a new computer....I just put some plastic knobs, dirt, an apple core, bolts, cut wires, and a piece of glass into my top drawer of my desk at work...should be any day now it'll turn into a Mac Titanium...of course I'm helping it out by shaking the drawer...OH, wait, maybe that's cheating....inserting 'intelligent design' through nudging....wait....it was my idea to create the thing in the first place ......the conundrum! LOL

If you took this post seriously.....you may need more beer....in fact....I need more beer....hehehe

[Spock]

don't forget your new computer comes with a cup holder

[brownjenkins]

beliefs are based on logic

science is based on logic and evidence

and beer is good

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

beliefs are based on logic
science is based on logic and evidence
and beer is good

At last a sensible post.

[EarthBound]

Originally Posted by Spock

At last a sensible post.

Beer Evolution

Oye, just a had a startling thought, would life elsewhere in the universe proove one theory/concept over another....somehow I don't think so....we're doomed DOOMED doomed I say.... Burp!