DeitySlayer
President of Chindia
Who said anything about probability?
-
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!
The Theory of Evolution is supported by the evidence.
- Thread starter Autodidact
- Start date
Who said anything about probability?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
What assumptions are you questioning?
Danmac
Well-Known Member
Macroevolution is like saying, "I have a million dollars, and I can prove it, but I can only show you one dollar at a time."
SHOW ME THE MONEY
DeitySlayer
President of Chindia
No it's not.
As a very loose, crappy and unscientific analogy, evolution is like addition. You can't have 'micro' addition and 'macro' addition. Addition is addition. Evolution is evolution.
Evolution doesn't happen that way. You're making a strawman of evolution that doesn't exist. You've done basic geography, I presume? You know how a meander forms- erosion on one side, deposition on the other, over time, sinuosity increases? You're not going to see a river going from straight to meandering in a lifetime. It's impossible. That does not mean that given time, the river is unable to form a meander.
Also, this thing of 'I need to see it to believe it!' is a very **** argument. Perhaps we need to see God magic-poofing things into existence before we believe it? Backfires on you, Danmac, because whereas evolution has other proof than visually seeing an amoeba going to an elephant, Creationism has jack**** going for it, other than visual confirmation.
Danmac
Well-Known Member
Should science assume that there are no more cures for diseases to be discovered. And if science continues to search for cures that do not exist, are they not exercising some faith in that which does not presently exist? You are making assumptions that cannot be ruled out, because science does not know what they will discover in the future. Science continues to search for that which does not presently exist. You on the other hand do not practice the scientific method which you say you trust.
Wotan
Active Member
"You are making assumptions that cannot be ruled out, because science does not know what they will discover in the future. Science continues to search for that which does not presently exist. You on the other hand do not practice the scientific method which you say you trust."
In the strictest sense that is NOT true and it is interesting you apparently believe it. Interesting because it is the SAME error you make about ToE.
At it purest science isn't looking for anything in particular. It has no pretested goal no holy grail to be found no PARTICULAR thing at all. It simply asks questions and notes carefully the answers. From this process ideas emerge that are often quite useful. But they were not the purpose of the questions. The purpose was merely to learn.
ToE works much the same way. The is no goal to be reached, no deign requirements to be met, no feature to be created. Life simply goes on. And in that process things emerge. But they were NOT intended. Anymore than Galileo INTENDED to prove the earth goes around the sun. He simply asked questions and noted the answers. And from those answers the fact of a sun centered system emerged.
At its best EVERY science experiment is a success if we LEARN something. Even if it was not what we thought.
In the strictest sense that is NOT true and it is interesting you apparently believe it. Interesting because it is the SAME error you make about ToE.
At it purest science isn't looking for anything in particular. It has no pretested goal no holy grail to be found no PARTICULAR thing at all. It simply asks questions and notes carefully the answers. From this process ideas emerge that are often quite useful. But they were not the purpose of the questions. The purpose was merely to learn.
ToE works much the same way. The is no goal to be reached, no deign requirements to be met, no feature to be created. Life simply goes on. And in that process things emerge. But they were NOT intended. Anymore than Galileo INTENDED to prove the earth goes around the sun. He simply asked questions and noted the answers. And from those answers the fact of a sun centered system emerged.
At its best EVERY science experiment is a success if we LEARN something. Even if it was not what we thought.
DeitySlayer
President of Chindia
We continue to apply the scientific method and see no sign of God. Humanity has had 7,000 years to prove he/it/they exist. No-one would be searching for a cure to a disease after 7,000 years of searching.
Danmac
Well-Known Member
How did you come to the 7000 year conclusion?
DeitySlayer
President of Chindia
Sumerians were worshipping Creator deities in 5,000 BC.
Danmac
Well-Known Member
That is so absurd. So science isn't "looking" for a cocktail that will cure Parkinson's disease? Science looks for what does not presently exist. Like life on other planets.
Every individual begins with his or her own presuppositions, and they look for ways to support them.
What we call rational grounds for our beliefs are often extremely irrational attempts to justify our instincts. -Huxley
I can't argue with that.
Danmac
Well-Known Member
Humankind is 6000 years old. The Earth is older than humankind.
Danmac
Well-Known Member
Any thing beyond that?
Noaidi
slow walker
Humankind is certainly not 6000 years old. More like 150,000 - 200,000 years old. My post above was tongue in cheek (as I hope your answer of 6000 was...)
Edit: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-where-did-homo-sapiens-come-from-457807.html
Last edited:
DeitySlayer
President of Chindia
Cave paintings, fertility statues, etc. but due to the lack of written records we are unable to confirm whether these were merely spiritual/supernatural cultural elements or an actual Creator being that was being worshipped.
Furthermore, Danmac, humanity is much older than 6,000 years. Traces of agriculture and civilization, ignoring even hunter-gathering, have been traced back all over the world to older than 5,000 BC or 7,000 years back. Hunter-gathering evidence stretches back a good few hundred thousand years more.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
What assumptions are you questioning?
It also might help if you explained what you mean by the odd term, "macro-evolution." Was my explanation correct?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Definitely not.
Well, in a completely different sense of the word "faith," than religious faith. A more accurate term would be confidence.
Yes, your point?
In what way?
btw, did you forget that you also said you trust the scientific method?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Take it to another thread. This thread is not about theism, and in fact is premised on the assumption that God exists and created all things. The only question this thread addresses is: how?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
FIFY
So actually, you don't understand what science or how it works?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Danmac, do you have anything at all to say about the evidence presented so far? I have definitively destroyed your only objection to ToE, which is the putative limit of "kinds." Do you see that? Do you want to respond to it in any way, or just ignore it?