So you agree then, that considering the statistical probability of an event is useful if a matter is not known or is in dispute - even if the event has taken place?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution and Theory of Evolution
- Thread starter Gabethewiking
- Start date
So you agree then, that considering the statistical probability of an event is useful if a matter is not known or is in dispute - even if the event has taken place?
McBell
Unbound
No, especially if the event has already happened.
Thanks for you reply mestemia.
So do you disagree that the probabilities approach used in forensics is scientific?
McBell
Unbound
let me be much more specific:
I believe that using the "odds" of something that has already happened happening as "proof" that it could not have happened, is worthless.
as to the probabilities approach you speak of in forensics, I have no idea, I am not familiar enough with that which you speak to give you a valid answer.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Definitely. If we don't know whether something happened, then it's a good idea to use probability to figure out whether it did.
I agree. So if someone has a reasonable doubt that un-directed chance can account for the origin of life's complexity, how is the component of your argument that i quoted In my first reply relevant?
Thanks, i'll clarify: 'not directed by an intelligent agent'
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
No one is asserting that undirected chance accounts for anything, so your question is irrelevant.
We know that life exists. Therefore the chances of life coming into existence are 100%.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I'd have to see the math on that.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Me too. I'll be curious to see how one quantifies "an intelligent agent", as well as how other assumptions are handled.
Thought Criminal
Member
It may be undirected, but it's not random. Evolution works through natural selection among random variants. The variation is random, but the selection is not.
TC
Gabethewiking
Active Member
The problem seems to be that they, just as with Theory, do not understand the usage of the word, they get hung up on the word "random" or "chance" not understandign the context, I think you should start from there and explain it really really slowly else you will end up as you always do with people ignorant or not wanting to know, they will simple ignore the facts.
gnostic
The Lost One
Gabethewiking said:
No, it's not going to happen.
You can explain it slow, you can say it fast, you can say it normal. You can even explain it backward, or do hand-stand while you explain it. You can explain it in plain English, without all the techno-jargons. You can provide all the physical evidences to them, and explain some more...
- ...they simply won't understand evolution (nor can they ever understand how theory is fundamental to scientific knowledge, nor why evidences that clearly support and validate the theory).
- Or because they don't want to understand it.
If they fall under (2), then they are just willfully ignorant, because they think they know more than they really do, and if desperate enough, they will lie to prove themselves right no matter how many evidences you put before them...like the way Intelligent Design (IDs) and Young Earth Creationists (YECs) do. Both of these groups continue spit out fake evidences and with pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo, trying to prove their creationism being credible scientifically.
Last edited:
Evolution and the theory of evolution. Evolution can be many things. It can be change,grow develop age,ect. Get out an old picture of your self when you were young. Look it over real good and then go see if you can find that person. You can not. That particular person no longer exist An older version if that person exist. Everything in the universe is evolving even God. The universe has been evolving for ever and it will be forever. Our religon has evolved from pre-historic man to the point we are today. Pre historic man worshiped everything that he feared.He feared everything he didn't understand,and he understood very little. Man had not evolved much past a 8 to 10 year olds inteligence when the Bible was written. Was it inspired by God. Yes it was but an 8 year old kid can not be inspired to do College subjects. Try to imagine a kid getting a reading book in the second grade and must keep it and that be the only book he has all through college. This is what we are doing with the bible. I would like to thank that we have evolved to a somewhat higher level now than people were 2500 years ago yet we have the same book to guide us. Thats all for tonight, Amadon
logician
Well-Known Member
They really are the same thing. Evolution is fact, there are various theories that explain the mechanics of evolition, such as punctuated equlibria by Gould and Eldridge. But that evolution has occurred is unquestioned by any serious scientist.
Gabethewiking
Active Member
I see.
So exactly what is the Theory of Evolution then? You say it is an "unproven belief", what does this belief consist of and how is the Fact of Evolution related to this belief?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
For your education....
Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories - The Scientific Method
This may help you in the prevention of making incorrect assumptions about the scientific method.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I have to say that I am growing tired of correcting creationist ignorance.
1. Science is never proven. Science isn't about proof. Before you try to argue science, I suggest you learn what it is.
2. Evolution is observed. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) explains how it happens.
3. No, that is not evolution in the sense we are talking about here, which is Biological.
You're doing a great job of packing the errors into a single short post.