Which Theory of Evolution do you Believe?

[ImmortalFlame]

3. Further, if you don't know how to compare designed with undersigned things, you have not earned the right to say the universe is undersigned/random OR designed/created.

So how do you do it, then? Let's say I present you with two items that you have never seen before, and you have no idea of the function or the method used to produce these items, and I tell you that one of these items is designed and the other isn't. What could you do to determine which was which?

 

[jeager106]

Name something that is random, and not designed.

^^^"snow flakes" rain drops, weather, earthquakes, tornadoes, PEOPLE'S ACTIONS!
and dice, poker, ad nauseam.
The list could take a loooooong time but I hope the point is made.
I don't believe intelligent life evolved from pond scum any more than I believe
the encyclopedia came into existence from an explosion in a print shop.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I think we all came from monkeys. I monkey around myself sometimes so that proves it.

 

[Valjean]

^^^"snow flakes" rain drops, weather, earthquakes, tornadoes, PEOPLE'S ACTIONS!
and dice, poker, ad nauseam.
The list could take a loooooong time but I hope the point is made.
I don't believe intelligent life evolved from pond scum any more than I believe
the encyclopedia came into existence from an explosion in a print shop.

So what's your alternative explanation for the diversity of life and our own existence?

 

[jeager106]

So what's your alternative explanation for the diversity of life and our own existence?

Cheesh! I ain't got no explanation.
You gots one maybe?

 

[Kapyong]

Gday jeager106 and all

Cheesh! I ain't got no explanation. (for the diversity of life and our own existence)
You gots one maybe?

Well, allow me to point out that yes, there is a clear explanation.

It's called evolution.

The essence of it is - Descent with Modification.

Everyone is descended from their parents,
and everyone is slightly different than their parents.

Would you like to learn more about it ?


Kapyong

 

[jeager106]

"The essence of it is - Descent with Modification.
Everyone is descended from their parents,
and everyone is slightly different than their parents.
Would you like to learn more about it ?"

Ah, that'd be no. I've studied that ^^^^^^^^^^^^ and find it interesting.
Frankly your comment was at least sophomoric and cretinous.
Please don't take my signature line too literally.
Religious I am, stupid I'm not.
( I find Jehovah to be "God's" proper name in English and does not indicate
that I am a member of any denomination. To every supposition there is a quick,
easy, and WRONG conclusion.)
This is a religious forum you see thus my interest in being a member.
You might be surprised to learn that there are MANY intelligent and educated
members here whom I have great respect for.

revoltingest is among the best of the best.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

and everyone is slightly different than their parents.

Something for which I am eternally grateful.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, everywhere. Ergo there is nowhere things that are undesigned. So, how do you know how undesigned things look like if design is everywhere? How did Paley know the watch on the beach was designed if the sand surrounding is designed too? Why didn't he use the beach instead of the watch for his analogy?



I am not ceding anything, I just told you it was not my point. But if are really so obsessed about this design thing, I give you one undesigned thing: God. Am I right?



Well, I think you are unable to do that. Necessarily, since you never saw an undesigned thing in all your life, if we take at face value your claim that design is everywhere.

By the way, the dichotomy random/ undesigned contains so many fallacies that it is a pain to count them. For instance, that would entail that God is random, by being undesigned, allegedely. And physics is full of true random things that would automatically provide you evidence of undesigned things, if random = undesigned.

By the way, what do you mean with random? Do you have a particular probability distribution in mind? Random does not mean anything without specfying the set of possible outcomes and the experiment to reach one of them. And this specification must be exact and unambiguous. Otherwise it is just nebulous and fuzzy thinking, even thought I am aware of its great importance in order to be "spiritual"

Ciao

- viole

I'm going to say your post is just a lot of air. I say that respectfully, because you have created a straw man argument around taking my statement "everywhere" more than literally. So let me help you:

*we see tremendous logical order already there in every field of science - inductive observation shows tremendous design
*organic life is designed at levels of tremendous complexity far beyond modern design or AI
*the universe at every level shows elements of beauty, order and design

Do you disagree? And if so, one what basis are you comparing?

 

[BilliardsBall]

So how do you do it, then? Let's say I present you with two items that you have never seen before, and you have no idea of the function or the method used to produce these items, and I tell you that one of these items is designed and the other isn't. What could you do to determine which was which?

"Designed by people or designed by God?" is the question I would ask. The watch argument is based on the understanding that the Arabic letters, Roman numerals, fact that it fits on my wrist, measures an Earth day, etc. are clear indications that it was designed by humans.

But we can use your example. If I present you a pocket watch you've never seen and a rock you've never seen...!

What would be an example of two items you could present that I would have no idea of their function nor of the method used to produce them?

 

[metis]

Just a reminder that there are far more sub-atomic and chemical reactions that produce different combinations on a basis daily that are so vast that they are impossible to estimate.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"Designed by people or designed by God?" is the question I would ask. The watch argument is based on the understanding that the Arabic letters, Roman numerals, fact that it fits on my wrist, measures an Earth day, etc. are clear indications that it was designed by humans.

But we can use your example. If I present you a pocket watch you've never seen and a rock you've never seen...!

What would be an example of two items you could present that I would have no idea of their function nor of the method used to produce them?

Why have you not answered my question and instead asked me a completely different one?

But, heck, let's use your example since you seem to know it so well. Let's say I present you with a rock and a watch, and you have no prior knowledge of the function or production process of either, and I tell you "One is created by man, and one is created by God", what methods could you use to determine which is which?

Please note that if you cannot answer this question this time, I can only assume that you don't actually have a method by which to distinguish naturally occurring phenomenon from non-naturally occurring phenomenon, and therefore any distinction you attempt to make between them is baseless.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday jeager106 and all

"The essence of it is - Descent with Modification.
Everyone is descended from their parents,
and everyone is slightly different than their parents.
Would you like to learn more about it ?"

Ah, that'd be no. I've studied that ^^^^^^^^^^^^ and find it interesting.
Frankly your comment was at least sophomoric and cretinous.
Please don't take my signature line too literally.
Religious I am, stupid I'm not.
( I find Jehovah to be "God's" proper name in English and does not indicate
that I am a member of any denomination. To every supposition there is a quick,
easy, and WRONG conclusion.)
This is a religious forum you see thus my interest in being a member.
You might be surprised to learn that there are MANY intelligent and educated
members here whom I have great respect for.

revoltingest is among the best of the best.

Ah I see.
Just another creationist who hides their ignorance with abuse and insults.

Creationists do not understand evolution at all, unfortunately.
Nor does this one even want to learn about it.

They also do not appear to understand how to quote people on forums - it's quite odd.


Kapyong

 

[jeager106]

Gday jeager106 and all
Ah I see.
Just another creationist who hides their ignorance with abuse and insults.
Creationists do not understand evolution at all, unfortunately.
Nor does this one even want to learn about it.
They also do not appear to understand how to quote people on forums - it's quite odd.

I am not a "Creationist".
Kapyong

I am not a "Creationist".
creationism
play
noun cre·a·tion·ism \-shə-ˌni-zəm\
Popularity: Bottom 30% of words
Simple Definition of creationism

• : the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect.
  

I subscribe to the theory of evolution.
I have NO IDEA how man was "created or evolved".
Is it possible God let evolution takes it's natural course and that is how mankind arrived?
Beats me.
I'm not an expert.
My college degrees aren't in that field.
Special creation vs. evolution? I don't know.
I can't begin to rule out that "God" was the mastermind behind evolution.
I believe in an all powerful being of the universe.
The noun "God" works quite well for me.
"Faith" works quite well for me also.
Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)


I like those quotes.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday jeager106 and all

I am not a "Creationist".
I subscribe to the theory of evolution.

Well, you may claim not to be a creationist, but you espouse creationist beliefs,
and
like creationists, you have confused the two meanings of the word "theory".

In popular terms, "theory" means a guess, or speculation. Thus the common phrase "just a theory" meaning "just speculation", or "just an untested guess".

But,
in scientific terms, there is another, very different meaning to the word "theory" - it means an EXPLANATION.
(i.e. a detailed scientific explanation.)


Theories EXPLAIN facts

Scientific theories explain the facts we observe :

Gravity is a fact, we observe its effects.
Gravitational Theory describes how gravity works.

Electricity is a fact, we use it everyday.
Electromagnetic Theory explains the details of how it operates.

Germs are a fact.
Germ Theory explains how they cause disease.

Evolution is a fact, it is observed.
The Theory of Evolution explains how it works.


The ToE is an EXPLANATION, NOT speculation

The Theory of Evolution is NOT "speculation about evolution" - that is NOT what the phrase means at all.

Rather -
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION for how evolution works, it models the behaviour of the FACTS of evolution, and allows predictions to be made.

Just as Electromagnetic Theory is the explanation or model of how electricity works.
Would one say "electricity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Gravitational Theory is the explanation or model of how gravity works.
Would one say "gravity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Germ Theory is the explanation or model of how germs cause disease.
Would one say "germs are just a theory" ?
Of course not.

So,
claiming "evolution is just a theory" indicates a lack of understanding of the word itself - and that the Theory of Evolution is a scientific explanation for the observed facts of evolution.


Kapyong

 

[jeager106]

Gday jeager106 and all



Well, you may claim not to be a creationist, but you espouse creationist beliefs,
and
like creationists, you have confused the two meanings of the word "theory".

In popular terms, "theory" means a guess, or speculation. Thus the common phrase "just a theory" meaning "just speculation", or "just an untested guess".

But,
in scientific terms, there is another, very different meaning to the word "theory" - it means an EXPLANATION.
(i.e. a detailed scientific explanation.)


Theories EXPLAIN facts

Scientific theories explain the facts we observe :

Gravity is a fact, we observe its effects.
Gravitational Theory describes how gravity works.

Electricity is a fact, we use it everyday.
Electromagnetic Theory explains the details of how it operates.

Germs are a fact.
Germ Theory explains how they cause disease.

Evolution is a fact, it is observed.
The Theory of Evolution explains how it works.


The ToE is an EXPLANATION, NOT speculation

The Theory of Evolution is NOT "speculation about evolution" - that is NOT what the phrase means at all.

Rather -
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION for how evolution works, it models the behaviour of the FACTS of evolution, and allows predictions to be made.

Just as Electromagnetic Theory is the explanation or model of how electricity works.
Would one say "electricity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Gravitational Theory is the explanation or model of how gravity works.
Would one say "gravity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Germ Theory is the explanation or model of how germs cause disease.
Would one say "germs are just a theory" ?
Of course not.

So,
claiming "evolution is just a theory" indicates a lack of understanding of the word itself - and that the Theory of Evolution is a scientific explanation for the observed facts of evolution.


Kapyong

Thank you for the detailed information.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday
jeager106 and all

Thanks, allow me to post some more (bits are cheap )


A theory, or explanation, can be wrong.

Consider these two theories for disease :

1. The Germ Theory (explanation) of Disease
Claims that disease is explained by germs - a fairly modern theory, supported by facts, and now considered correct.

2. The Demon Theory (explanation) of Disease
Claims that disease is explained by demons - a traditional theory, supported by church doctrine, no longer considered correct.

In this case we have two competing theories (explanations) for disease - one theory is correct, one theory is wrong.
A theory can certainly be wrong (or right, or not yet known, or even not ever knowable.)
Depending on the evidence.


Theories CAN be SPECULATION

A scientific 'theory' is an explanation for facts, and a theory can be wrong.

Another example of a wrong theory would be the Phlogiston Theory of Burning - which explained burning as the giving off of a substance 'phlogiston', when in fact it later turned out to be the addition of Oxygen.

The Phlogiston Theory (explanation) of Burning was speculation based on the idea that burnt objects seemed to have lost something - fair speculation for early chemists, but it turned out to be WRONG.

This speculative theory (explanation) was wrong.

More test and observations and experiments lead to the Oxygen Theory of Burning - this was based on careful observations of weights before and after burning. Later, much better tests confirmed this was indeed so.

But initially, we could say the Oxygen Theory of Burning was speculation - not fully confirmed.
Eventually this speculative theory (explanation) turned out to be CORRECT.

Theories explain facts.
Theories can be wrong.
Theories can be speculation.
Theories can be confirmed(*) with evidence.

(*) Best to avoid the word 'proof' entirely.

Kapyong

 

[Kapyong]

In fact, I will waste several more gazillion electrons to repost this too


Theories are accepted based on EVIDENCE

So,
why did the Phlogiston Theory of Burning get rejected in favour of the Oxygen Theory of Burning?

Why did the Germ Theory of Disease win out over the Demon Theory of Disease ?

Obvious isn't it?

Because we FOUND germs.
And we found Oxygen.
We OBSERVED them, and saw their effects.
(And we never ever found Demons or Phlogiston.)


Theories do NOT get promoted to laws or facts

A theory does NOT get 'promoted' to a law or a fact when it is confirmed (or 'proven' in layman's terms, which are best avoided.)

The Oxygen Theory of Burning did NOT become the 'Law' of Burning once oxygen was confirmed.
The Germ Theory of Disease did NOT become the Germ Law of Disease when germs were observed.

These days - scientists tend NOT to make 'laws' anymore - it's considered out of date, mechanistic, Victorian.
The 'Law of Gravity' is an example of an old classic - and it refers to a clear and specific simple mathematical relationship F ~ m / d^2

There is ALSO a 'Theory of Gravity' - well, there are TWO :

• Newton's Theory of Gravity
• Einstein's Theory of Relativity (which covers gravity)

One is about 99% accurate and stood for 4 centuries, the other is 100.000% accurate and is about one century old.


Evolution is 100% supported by evidence

So,
Darwin (and the poor forgotten Wallace) had a theory (explanation) to explain the origin of species.
(NOT the origin of life.)

Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection explains how species arise by a process of mutation and natural selection over relatively long periods of time.
Darwin proposed his theory based on his observations of living things, but of course initially it was speculation.

So why is it accepted?
Why is it considered true?
Why do we insist it's NOT speculation now?
Why is Darwin famous like Einstein?

Because we have OBSERVED that he is RIGHT, just like Einstein, every single time.

It's been 150 years now - in that time there have been MILLIONS of tests and observations and experiments by THOUSANDS of scientists in dozens of countries which could have either :

• supported evolution
• disagreed with evolution

The score so far is:

• MILLIONS - for evolution
• ZERO - against evolution.

THAT'S why Darwin is famous like Einstein.

And THAT's what some people don't seem to grasp - just how clear the result is - and just how VAST the amount of evidence that supports evolution is.

Evolution is an observed fact of nature.
It's not just some 'speculation', not just some ol' 'theory'.


Kapyong

 

[jeager106]

"Evolution is an observed fact of nature.
It's not just some 'speculation', not just some ol' 'theory'."

Of course. Is there a point?
You wear a really funny floppy hat by the way.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

You wear a really funny floppy hat by the way.

Oi !

It's actually firm, stiff, even crisp


Kapyong