Evolution and Creationism

[TMC]

Meet more people and include some atheists.

Same applies to atheists. I am sure there is the rare unicorn atheist who also rejects science. Haven’t met one.

 

[Kei]

So to say that the odds of reaching a point where man has evolved are fantastic is only valid if that’s the result you want.

I understand, but my point is that if we would ascribe great value to finding life evolved to any certain point, it would be to intelligent life much more so than to non-intelligent life. So, for instance, if you find single cellular life or even small mammal-like creatures on other planets and verified they did not originate from Earth, oh my golly! That’s amazing! Wondrous!
But if you find not only that but intelligent life, that’s even much more superlative!

 

[Freddy]

o_mlly:

Using the quote utility, cite in this thread where I used Scripture or religion as an argument.

I have never met anyone who denied evolution that did not have a religious basis for doing so.

Indeed. One only needs to ask: ‘What is your alternative theory for how we came to be here?’

 

[buffalo]

Same applies to atheists. I am sure there is the rare unicorn atheist who also rejects science. Haven’t met one.

Because one challenges the scientific establishment they are science deniers? Thinking people should challenge. Human reasoning is the flaw in science. If what they put forth is true it will stand the test of time. Otherwise it goes in the trash heap. You must be aware science is provisional, right?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So to say that the odds of reaching a point where man has evolved are fantastic is only valid if that’s the result you want.

I understand, but my point is that if we would ascribe great value to finding life evolved to any certain point, it would be to intelligent life much more so than to non-intelligent life. So, for instance, if you find single cellular life or even small mammal-like creatures on other planets and verified they did not originate from Earth, oh my golly! That’s amazing! Wondrous!
But if you find not only that but intelligent life, that’s even much more superlative!

I agree, Kei. But if you made up a graph showing life on earth then it would be a very flat gradient indeed for many billions of years. Very slow, incremental steps from single cell to multicellular etc. Then the graph would rise steeper and steeper as more types of life emerged because there was more options for variety.

Once life starts, if the conditions are suitable, then natural selection will get you anywhere you’d like to go in a very short time (biologically speaking). In fact, if the conditions were suitable it would be puzzling if intelligence of some sort didn’t arise.

 

[Freddy]

TMC:

Same applies to atheists. I am sure there is the rare unicorn atheist who also rejects science. Haven’t met one.

Because one challenges the scientific establishment they are science deniers? Thinking people should challenge. Human reasoning is the flaw in science. If what they put forth is true it will stand the test of time. Otherwise it goes in the trash heap. You must be aware science is provisional, right?

But you reject basic science. And I mean basic science. You believe the planet is only thousands of years old. How can anyone have a sensible discussion about evolution with someone who holds to that?

 

[Kei]

I am also surprised that such a pro-ID paper (look at the references) quotes Behe and Snoke

Iirc it did seem to distance itself from that particular paper’s analysis.

 

[buffalo]

But you reject basic science. And I mean basic science. You believe the planet is only thousands of years old. How can anyone have a sensible discussion about evolution with someone who holds to that?

There was a man that rejected the basic science of uniformatarianism. He was ostracized by folks like you. Science now agrees with him.

You must realize that any dating of the earth young or old is based on foundational assumptions. I understand you must cling to those assumptions or your own world view will be turned upside down. Pretty religious like…

 

[Kei]

I agree, Kei. But if you made up a graph showing life on earth then it would be a very flat gradient indeed for many billions of years. Very slow, incremental steps from single cell to multicellular etc. Then the graph would rise steeper and steeper as more types of life emerged because there was more options for variety.

Once life starts, if the conditions are suitable, then natural selection will get you anywhere you’d like to go in a very short time (biologically speaking). In fact, if the conditions were suitable it would be puzzling if intelligence of some sort didn’t arise.

By “intelligence”, I am referring to the type we have whereby we can grasp abstract concepts and grasp the concepts involved in our discussion. There are, of course, arguments that would say such consciousness cannot arise by materialistic means.
But we are here, sadly or gladly without hyper-intelligent fish people.
But now, note that you are taking intelligence as some sort of value, indeed you say it would be puzzling if intelligence didn’t come about, as though there is some inherent value that was denied not so long ago. It is assumed this is like other attributes.
So it would appear this worldview poses a different question, not how or why intelligent life is, but rather why it is so very rare (us and whoever we can have fertile children with).

 

[TMC]

Because one challenges the scientific establishment they are science deniers? Thinking people should challenge. Human reasoning is the flaw in science. If what they put forth is true it will stand the test of time. Otherwise it goes in the trash heap. You must be aware science is provisional, right?

Yes. I am also aware that science is a process of challenging theories, and that goes on all the time. Evolution has been challenged perhaps more than any other theory, and has stood the test of time.

 

[buffalo]

Yes. I am also aware that science is a process of challenging theories, and that goes on all the time. Evolution has been challenged perhaps more than any other theory, and has stood the test of time.

Macro has not stood the test of time. The top evo’s already know this. Why don’t you?

 

[TMC]

Macro has not stood the test of time. The top evo’s already know this. Why don’t you?

This is nonsense, which you do know.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But you reject basic science. And I mean basic science. You believe the planet is only thousands of years old. How can anyone have a sensible discussion about evolution with someone who holds to that?

There was a man that rejected the basic science of uniformatarianism. He was ostracized by folks like you. Science now agrees with him.

You must realize that any dating of the earth young or old is based on foundational assumptions. I understand you must cling to those assumptions or your own world view will be turned upside down. Pretty religious like…

When every single science accepts the figures then I kinda tend to accept them as well. But you need to reject them all. Biology, physics, geology, astronomy, chemistry…the list is all encompassing.

Well, to be fair, you only reject those aspects of all the sciences that disagree with your religious views and call them ‘assumptions’.

 

[buffalo]

When every single science accepts the figures then I kinda tend to accept them as well. But you need to reject them all . Biology, physics, geology, astronomy, chemistry…the list is all encompassing.

Well, to be fair, you only reject those aspects of all the sciences that disagree with your religious views and call them ‘assumptions’.

Ahhhh - science by consensus. Is that how we do it?

The Royal Society motto is Nullius in verba

 

[Freddy]

By “intelligence”, I am referring to the type we have whereby we can grasp abstract concepts and grasp the concepts involved in our discussion. There are, of course, arguments that would say such consciousness cannot arise by materialistic means.
But we are here, sadly or gladly without hyper-intelligent fish people.
But now, note that you are taking intelligence as some sort of value, indeed you say it would be puzzling if intelligence didn’t come about, as though there is some inherent value that was denied not so long ago. It is assumed this is like other attributes.
So it would appear this worldview poses a different question, not how or why intelligent life is, but rather why it is so very rare (us and whoever we can have fertile children with).

The argument wasn’t that it was vastly improbably for intelligence to arise. But specifically for us to arise. It could be that a random occurence a few thousand million years ago would have given rise to intelligent reptiles. And then your comment might have been: ‘Here we are without hyper-intelligent ape people’.

But your point that we value intelligence is taken. Personally speaking I think it’s a natural outcome of the evolutionary process. Intelligence of some sort is a monstrously advantageous ability to posess in the survival process so I see it arising (where conditions are favourable) as a matter of course. Just like flight or locomotion.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

When every single science accepts the figures then I kinda tend to accept them as well. But you need to reject them all . Biology, physics, geology, astronomy, chemistry…the list is all encompassing.

Well, to be fair, you only reject those aspects of all the sciences that disagree with your religious views and call them ‘assumptions’.

Ahhhh - science by consensus. Is that how we do it?

The Royal Society motto is Nullius in verba

Yes, Buff. Didn’t you know? That is how it’s done. When various scientists, using all available evidence, propose theories to explain that evidence and all theories agree with each other as they relate to the various branches of science then that is indeed classed as a consensus.

So if biological theories and geological theories and physics theories and chemistry theories and astrophysical theories and astronomy theories (etc etc etc) all agree on the age of the earth, then we call that a ‘scientific consensus’.

And they don’t just take each other’s word for it (hence ‘nullius in verba’). In fact they do their very best to dismantle the other guy’s theories. Only the robust ones remain. And a consensus of some of those robust ones tells us the age of the planet.

So yeah. That’s actually how science does work.

 

[Freddy]

Thanks for your insight.

I admit, I’m still conflicted about it.

I’m as reasonably sure there’s no god as I am there’s no Tooth Fairy.

But I still use the Tooth Fairy in my house.

Is the joy created by the lie a better or worse thing than not teaching them the happy lie in the first place?

I have no answer, there.

Thoughts?

Tough call. But which might be answered by the question: ‘If it could be known beyond any doubt whatsoever if God existed or not, would you want to know?’

I tend to think most atheists would want to know. Most Christians would not.

 

[Kei]

Tough call. But which might be answered by the question: ‘If it could be known beyond any doubt whatsoever if God existed or not, would you want to know?’

I tend to think most atheists would want to know. Most Christians would not.

I highly disagree, I would most certainly love to be able to have such knowledge. The only reason I would maybe decline would be if I thought that knowing beyond a shadow of any doubt whatsoever would somehow bring greater responsibility to me or be against the Wise Will of God. The flesh is weak and (in my own experience) lazy. But I would very much want to know.

Who wants to live life with the wool pulled over their eyes and follow a false worldview (as I would say atheism is)? Who would give up finding the Truth?
But I must wonder how such a test could even be given, especially to the hyper-uber-skeptical.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Tough call. But which might be answered by the question: ‘If it could be known beyond any doubt whatsoever if God existed or not, would you want to know?’

I tend to think most atheists would want to know. Most Christians would not.

I highly disagree, I would most certainly love to be able to have such knowledge. The only reason I would maybe decline would be if I thought that knowing beyond a shadow of any doubt whatsoever would somehow bring greater responsibility to me or be against the Wise Will of God. The flesh is weak and (in my own experience) lazy. But I would very much want to know.

Who wants to live life with the wool pulled over their eyes?
But I must wonder how such a test could even be given, especially to the hyper-uber-skeptical.

Would you be worried that your concept of God might be completely wrong? That He might be a deist God as opposed to a personal one? I think that the question would always be interpreted as: ‘Would you want to know if your idea of God is correct ot not’. Or that at least everyone would assume that if He existed then He’d be the one they always envisaged.

 

[buffalo]

So yeah. That’s actually how science does work.

Theories should be challenged.