Creationist Error #5: Evolution = Religion

[leibowde84]

As above, one theory predicted smooth gradual change, the other sudden appearances, explosions 'as if planted with no evolutionary history'. Also that neither the process nor it's origins could be replicated, and would not be found to have created sentient life on other planets, credit where it's due, we have no proof either way, but predictive ability is certainly evidence.

But, evolution has been used time and time again to make accurate predictions. ID has not been used to make any. And, we have absolutely no reason to think that life isn't abundant throughout the cosmos and even our own galaxy. Why would you doubt that it is, seeing how we have only explored about a trillionth of the cosmos.

 

[leibowde84]

sticks and stones ... I don't think you are a liar or ignorant or indoctrinated or pitiful, you seem like a reasonably intelligent person to me, capable of critical thought.

None of this alters the observational evidence in question, or lack thereof as Dawkins conceeds to.

I can understand and empathize that this and many other observations that have come to light since Darwin- touch a nerve with some people. Evolution is a highly beloved theory, so was classical physics. The ultraviolet 'catastrophe' was so named for the discomfort of seeing a theory hitherto considered 'immutable' go through it's death throes.

I have no problem with evolution being true if evidence supported it, I was raised believing in it, I'm interested in the truth either way.

Can you point to any specific findings (not generalities) that contradict the modern theory of evolution (not Darwin's original theory)?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But, evolution has been used time and time again to make accurate predictions. ID has not been used to make any. And, we have absolutely no reason to think that life isn't abundant throughout the cosmos and even our own galaxy. Why would you doubt that it is, seeing how we have only explored about a trillionth of the cosmos.

Like the gaps in the fossil record, any arguments for the utter lack of evidence for ET are arguments from the gaps.

If they are found I'd accept the implications, but the cold hard reality is the great silence of the galaxy- a particularly large stable 'hospitable' galaxy at that
The cosmos all came from the same place, there's no reason to think it's entirely different elsewhere.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Can you point to any specific findings (not generalities) that contradict the modern theory of evolution (not Darwin's original theory)?

not without upsetting people!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Like the gaps in the fossil record, any arguments for the utter lack of evidence for ET are arguments from the gaps.

What gaps in the fossil record, specifically? Also, you're the one claiming that if evolution were true, we would have found life on other planets - which, by your own definition, is an argument from ignorance because we've barely explored a trillionth of the cosmos.

If they are found I'd accept the implications, but the cold hard reality is the great silence of the galaxy- a particularly large stable 'hospitable' galaxy at that

One galaxy out of how many...? Again, you're the one making sweeping claims - not us.

The cosmos all came from the same place, there's no reason to think it's entirely different elsewhere.

Like this ridiculously sweeping claim, for instance. You're literally telling us to just assume that every other place in the entirety of the Universe is similar to our own. Do you have any idea how ignorant that is?

(By the way, Guy has me on ignore - this is largely just for my own benefit, like squeezing a stress toy)

 

[Yerda]

But I'm skeptical that random mutations can create a human from a molecule.

Do you think random mutations (with non-random selection) can create a modern sapiens from a non-sapiens population?

 

[leibowde84]

Like the gaps in the fossil record, any arguments for the utter lack of evidence for ET are arguments from the gaps.

If they are found I'd accept the implications, but the cold hard reality is the great silence of the galaxy- a particularly large stable 'hospitable' galaxy at that
The cosmos all came from the same place, there's no reason to think it's entirely different elsewhere.

Your first point is correct. Arguments from the gaps don't strengthen opposing arguments.

ET life is extremely likely, but it is completely unreasonable to assume that we would have found it or even will find it in the future. The Universe is far too large for us to ever expect communication from other galaxies ... at least not in the near future. So, I fail to see the relevance of even including it in this discussion.

 

[leibowde84]

not without upsetting people!

Humor me, please. I've never seen any.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Do you think random mutations (with non-random selection) can create a modern sapiens from a non-sapiens population?

It get's into semantics a little, some argue whether Neanderthals are sapiens etc, also as we touched on- gene pools can be altered from mixing as opposed to mutation- but essentially no, I don't think modern humans are chance creations

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Your first point is correct. Arguments from the gaps don't strengthen opposing arguments.

ET life is extremely likely, but it is completely unreasonable to assume that we would have found it or even will find it in the future. The Universe is far too large for us to ever expect communication from other galaxies ... at least not in the near future. So, I fail to see the relevance of even including it in this discussion.

But our galaxy is not too large, it is much smaller than it is old- i.e. 100KLY v billions of years, so we can observe and listen to our galaxy in the same very recent slice of time, so that the odds of scoring a 'hit' are no different than monitoring the entire galaxy instantaneously.

This is a very large hospitable galaxy, if we are alone here what does that say of the majority of galaxies which are much smaller and more chaotic?

What math are you using to claim that ET is 'extremely likely'?

 

[leibowde84]

But our galaxy is not too large, it is much smaller than it is old- i.e. 100KLY v billions of years, so we can observe and listen to our galaxy in the same very recent slice of time, so that the odds of scoring a 'hit' are no different than monitoring the entire galaxy instantaneously.

This is a very large hospitable galaxy, if we are alone here what does that say of the majority of galaxies which are much smaller and more chaotic?

What math are you using to claim that ET is 'extremely likely'?

That's my point. If you look into the size of our galaxy, it is unreasonable to assume that we would have found life if it exists. The Milky Way is 100,000 light years away. So, if we sent out a message, and there was life that could actually understand and get that message, it would take 100,000 years for the message to reach them. Then, if they wanted to return the message, it would take at least another 100,000 years to get back to us. Your understanding of the limits of our technology is severely flawed. We aren't even close to being able to send messages that far without it taking thousands of years to get there.

It is utterly ridiculous to use our lack of finding extra terrestrial life as evidence that life doesn't exist outside earth. Our understanding of intergallactic space and our own milky way galaxy is far too limited to expect this reasonably.

Thus, there is absolutely no reason to think that life is not abundant throughout the cosmos. It's just that our concept of distance is so useless when speaking to the cosmos as a whole.

I mean, our entire galaxy could be inside a black hole, as black holes distort the laws of physics in a way that we don't nearly understand. And, that black hold could just be one in trillions of a much larger universe. Our understanding is far too limited to even count this out.

 

[Yerda]

It get's into semantics a little, some argue whether Neanderthals are sapiens etc, also as we touched on- gene pools can be altered from mixing as opposed to mutation- but essentially no, I don't think modern humans are chance creations

I see. I don't know if I'd use the word chance either.

Many working in the area of evolutionary anthropology believe that sapiens descends from ergaster. Do you think there is something preventing our ancestors from being another species?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's my point. If you look into the size of our galaxy, it is unreasonable to assume that we would have found life if it exists. The Milky Way is 100,000 light years away. So, if we sent out a message, and there was life that could actually understand and get that message, it would take 100,000 years for the message to reach them. Then, if they wanted to return the message, it would take at least another 100,000 years to get back to us. Your understanding of the limits of our technology is severely flawed. We aren't even close to being able to send messages that far without it taking thousands of years to get there.

It is utterly ridiculous to use our lack of finding extra terrestrial life as evidence that life doesn't exist outside earth. Our understanding of intergallactic space and our own milky way galaxy is far too limited to expect this reasonably.

Thus, there is absolutely no reason to think that life is not abundant throughout the cosmos. It's just that our concept of distance is so useless when speaking to the cosmos as a whole.

I mean, our entire galaxy could be inside a black hole, as black holes distort the laws of physics in a way that we don't nearly understand. And, that black hold could just be one in trillions of a much larger universe. Our understanding is far too limited to even count this out.

you missed my point this time, the time lag is insignificant compared with the age of the galaxy. So in terms of the odds of detecting an alien signal- it's a wash. We could detect at 10K year old signal from 10KLY away, 20 from 20 and so on, so the overall odds are identical to monitoring everything at once, and we still get nada. two way communication would be tricky of course..

In the days of Poe and Verne we used to ponder what sort of folks lived on the moon, now we'd be delighted with a fossilized bacteria on Mars. The pattern has been an ever increasing appreciation of how special Earth is. How finely tuned it is for complex life and humanity to exist.

Crunch the numbers, and don't think the odds look good, I think the universe would have to be much much larger to make another Earth probable.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I see. I don't know if I'd use the word chance either.

Many working in the area of evolutionary anthropology believe that sapiens descends from ergaster. Do you think there is something preventing our ancestors from being another species?

If it's not by design, we have to evoke chance making all those millions of improvements do we not?

Again I take the majority position; that we may have had ancestors, though obviously that part of natural history is still very cloudy- but that either way humanity is a distinct creation by design-

 

[leibowde84]

you missed my point this time, the time lag is insignificant compared with the age of the galaxy. So in terms of the odds of detecting an alien signal- it's a wash. We could detect at 10K year old signal from 10KLY away, 20 from 20 and so on, so the overall odds are identical to monitoring everything at once, and we still get nada. two way communication would be tricky of course..

In the days of Poe and Verne we used to ponder what sort of folks lived on the moon, now we'd be delighted with a fossilized bacteria on Mars. The pattern has been an ever increasing appreciation of how special Earth is. How finely tuned it is for complex life and humanity to exist.

Crunch the numbers, and don't think the odds look good, I think the universe would have to be much much larger to make another Earth probable.

That is another false assumption though. We've only been able to pick up communications for roughly 100 years. Less for light signaling. And, who is to say that aliens haven't tried to Co tact us, but we simply weren't able to pick them up? And, the government seems to be hiding some stuff, for very good reason.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

It get's into semantics a little, some argue whether Neanderthals are sapiens etc, also as we touched on- gene pools can be altered from mixing as opposed to mutation- but essentially no, I don't think modern humans are chance creations

Interesting that you "don't think modern humans are chance creations" as Dawkins doesn't either; and something he explains in his book. Perhaps you should take the time to read his entire book instead of taking a quote that someone else took out of context and regurgitating it.

To say that "it gets into semantics a little" to state that humans are apes and Neanderthals are sapiens; such a philosophical position is vague, nonspecific and somewhat arbitrary. However, what is not vague, nonspecific and arbitrary is that we share DNA, morphological, taxonomic, etc. similarities with Neanderthal. We are closely related to these ancestors, irregardless of what semantic one chooses to place on them and us.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That is another false assumption though. We've only been able to pick up communications for roughly 100 years. Less for light signaling. And, who is to say that aliens haven't tried to Co tact us, but we simply weren't able to pick them up? And, the government seems to be hiding some stuff, for very good reason.

so 100 years worth and still nothing. maybe aliens tried and failed- all of them? perhaps- but that's where the Fermi paradox comes in. Any single civilization with tech. not much greater than ours could have colonized the entire galaxy many times over by now- a galaxy in which Earth would have stuck out as prime vacant real-estate. Yet this apparently never happened in billions of years- ancient alien theories not withstanding of course- but were quickly getting into some far from safe assumptions to explain away the silence.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Interesting that you "don't think modern humans are chance creations" as Dawkins doesn't either; and something he explains in his book. Perhaps you should take the time to read his entire book instead of taking a quote that someone else took out of context and regurgitating it.

To say that "it gets into semantics a little" to state that humans are apes and Neanderthals are sapiens; such a philosophical position is vague, nonspecific and somewhat arbitrary. However, what is not vague, nonspecific and arbitrary is that we share DNA, morphological, taxonomic, etc. similarities with Neanderthal. We are closely related to these ancestors, irregardless of what semantic one chooses to place on them and us.

same may be said of a carrot, we share a lot of common building blocks, but the result is far different

 

[Yerda]

If it's not by design, we have to evoke chance making all those millions of improvements do we not?

No, I don't think that's the case. The variable survival of forms of differing fitness isn't completely chance. It isn't determined but it isn't random either.

Again I take the majority position; that we may have had ancestors, though obviously that part of natural history is still very cloudy- but that either way humanity is a distinct creation by design-

I'm not sure I follow.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, I don't think that's the case. The variable survival of forms of differing fitness isn't completely chance. It isn't determined but it isn't random either.
.

the survival of an improved species is of course not chance, we agree there!, I'm talking about that improvement which gave it superiority in the first place, design or chance?