Irrefutable proof of Evolution.

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by rstones199, Jul 29, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I sort of agree with you. Why isn't evolution in the science part of this forum not in the religion part? Probably because this forum is about debating stuff, and most debate against evolution comes from the religious perspective. But you still have a good point.

    I sort of think that religion would do well with a little science, as long as they didn't try to twist it.


    Who says religion can't make factual claims about the world? Many religions do make these claims. I disagree with their claims, but they still are religions.

    Are you against skepticism or something?


    How do we know it was from revelation? What if it was made up like all the other creation myths?

    Probably not. These people had no idea about what the big bang was.

    Well, actually it says God made the earth. And plus we have daylight being made before the sun.

    It also talks about all land plants being made before sea creatures which contradicts the fossil record.

    It talks about birds being made before land animals which also contradicts the fossil record.

    I guess you could say that genesis is talking about some sort of evolution, although there are some contradiction in the fossil record as I have metioned above. Also the days decribed in genesis are 24 hour periods because genesis defines a day as a period between when the sun rises and sets. This short time scale makes evolution impossible.
     
  2. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hmmm. Good idea. I will still try to play this out until I get bored of this nonsense.
     
  3. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ahh! Planning on leaving the battlefield when a question is placed before you?
    A question that might have a bad reflection on your abilities?
     
  4. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While I certain agree that your belief is based on faith, you are wrong that scientific theories are based on faith. I will repost the definition of a scientific theory.

    Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.

    You are talking about a theory used in a colloquial sense. I am talking about at theory used in a scientific sense. A theory in the colloquial sense is more of a hunch while in a scientific sense it is a statement that made up of hypotheses that have been confirmed by the evidence and has been verified multiple times. A theory is based on mountains of evidence, not faith. This is science we are talking about here.
     
  5. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    None. What about you?
     
  6. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I will admit that I am not perfect at the grammar thing, although I do write short pieces for the newspaper at my college. I am more into the conputer science, science in general, and mathematics.
     
  7. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48

    No no no. I am referring to the question asking what contributions you have made to that collection.
     
  8. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have made no contributions. Can we debate the merits of the theory of evolution now?
     
  9. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Thank you for that clarification. You see, that wasn't so hard. It also allows you to see now, first hand, that when a term such as 'we' is used without clarification, can be misleading. I mean, I was actually beginning to think that you, personally, might have contributed something to that collection; in which case, the use of the word "we" would have been properly associated.

    As for the 'debate' on "the merits of the theory of evolution"; Your use of the word "theory" pretty much sums it up. What else (factually) is there to discuss. As long as evolution is a 'theory' then everything else pertaining to that subject is purely subjective... basing those subjective things on another subjective thing.
     
  10. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ummm... no. You are using theory in the colloquial sense, I am using it in the scientific sense. Here is a scientific definition of a theory:

    Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.
     
  11. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And a great deal of support for evolution also comes from religion. Why is it continuously introduced by the same posters when it is not a topic commonly introduced by religion people?

    In this context, evolution is not about science at all, it is about trolling for people to insult. That is not science at all. But there it is.



    Oh, and how will science help us better understand the message of Jesus? Help us refine and hone our relationship with God? How will science help us deal with contextual wisdom and moral questions that have no clear right or wrong? Will science build families? Friendships? Charity? Service?


    Who said that? I believe the question was whether or not CReationism is nherently at odds with evolution, and the point made was that any creation narrative from 5-8,000 years ago is not going to stand up to straight faced literal interpretation.

    If by skepticism you measn the one sided attack of a position, then yes. Skepticism means the application of standards to all positions. I do not see atheists doing that - not at all.



    Because that is what is claimed in the history. Once again, you are asking us to go back and prove something for which there can be no proof and then scoffing. Can you disprove it? Should we call you an idiot? Question your entire atheism? Dehumanize and insult you? Shove the ten commandments into a physics class of friction? That would be acceptable would it? A reflection of skeptical science would it?


    I do. I would be 'these' people. Maybe you shoud call be 'boy' while you are at it

    No, we have light before the Sun. Once again, how would YOU explain evolution and the Big Bang to someone with a knowledge basis from 8,000 years ago? How would you express it in a single paragraph?

    Right. This is learned science of atheism that defiles all things is it?


    Not all of them. Whales and such re-entered the Ocean from land didn't they.

    The entire evolutionary cycle summed up in one sentence, and nitpicking has to be the way forward?

    Prove God was not involved in this process. Go ahead. Use your rational science.

    That is not what the Bible says is it? It says there are land animals and that these things evolve into higher life forms - which is exactly what happened.

    It comes down to exactly what I said. How do you explain billions of years to a man who has trouble comprehending a thousand years?

    Agh, well, I guess such a person should be chastized and held to the exacting standard of a modern 24 hour day.

    the message is simple, God did it.

    Your duty is not to scoff at a 8,000 year olf detail, it is to prove that the underlying message, that God created the universe, is false.

    Most Christians spend very little time on the first three pages of the Bible, and atheists appear to spend ALL their time on the first three pages of the Bible.

    You are fundamentally missing the boat.
     
  12. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Also please pay attention to what I do post. Admittedly it is sometimes difficult with the vast number of postings that are put on display each day... but here it is:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/4258424-post85.html
     
  13. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Like what?

    I meant that religious people should use science to form their religious claims about reality (creation of universe, existence of God, temptations come from Devil, etc).




    These verses really aren't going to stand up to the facts. The best we can do is to interpret them so they don't say anything about topics science can contradict religion on.

    Well we skeptics certainly do have our own opinions. We are just ready to consider views with evidence.

    Well it was also claimed in history that thunder comes from some bearded guy on some mountain in Greece. Extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence.


    If there is no sun, there will be no day and night. Period.

    People could have written that when God make the sun and the moon, then night and day happened. Instead they said night and day were made before the sun.

    Fair enough. What about sharks now? Salmon? Sting rays?

    Genesis 1
    21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it

    God is talking about all fish here.


    You are the one claiming God was involved in the process not me. The burden of proof is on you.



    You should try reading genesis 1 again. God made the birds on the fifth day, and God made land animals on the sixth day.

    You explain billions of years to early humans by calling it a long time period, not a day. And you certainly don't define this "day" as being between the evening and the morning. Don't you think this might cause a little confusion?

    Why am I the one who has to prove you wrong? You are the one who made the crazy claim, you prove it!
     
  14. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess that's settled then. So we can focus on evolution now?
     
  15. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Like all those Christians who support secularism? Maybe? Or, since we ae super majority in the country, do you really think that keeping Creationism and Evolution spearate in schools is the result of atheists alone?


    And I believe I asked you rather planely to demonstrate who science to eiminate God from Creation. Go ahead.

    Further, I asked you to point to sciences utility into the things that ARE central to religion.

    Oh well, I guess that is not what you meant, what you really meant was that we should adopt your positions of our faith based on your faith. Gotcha. Very scientific.


    No (*)(*)(*)(*). Nothing written about CReation from 8,000 years ago is going to. Talk about missing the point.

    The point is GOD DID IT. Prove the universe is not created by God scientist.


    And yet, here you are doing the opposite. Totally ignoring the transition taking place over thousands of years to arrive at an emotional position regarding religion.

    Further, your faith on God is not one supportable by evidence. Prove it. Use science to PROVE there is no God?

    And you say science is not your religion? Right.


    And for some reason, most educated people who use logic are capable of discerning why one is in the mythology pile and another is considered a valid religion.

    Super educated and super intelligent atheists thought, struggle with this? Are unable to grasp the concept that it is fllacious to simply compare tow things and declare them both false ..... without evidence - which you claim is what drives your atheism?

    I think atheists are very confused.



    Unless there is another light source, and the earth still spins. What happens in clouds that are producing stars? Is there light? is it possible that thepart of the earth would be shielded from the light generated in that process?

    Nah.

    It is relevant to the point being made? That God created the universe?

    Could have. But you have on paragraph to describe creation and all its intricasies. Go ahead, do so. I will happily nitpick the points of detail that you make in this process using the vast knowledge of biology and cosmoloy that have been amassed.

    Prove God was not involved in the process atheist.


    Agh, so in order to say, "God did it," we are required to provide the familial linegae of all species on Earth are we?

    Missing the boat - again.


    No, he is talking about a single point in time. He is not talking about all fish created ever through the process, as clearly, in other points, other higher life forms are created by God.



    You are claiming that there is not, that all your decisions are evidenced based. CLearly they are not.

    This is about (*)(*)(*)(*)ting on other people's faith, while basically ognoring their faith, to call them uneducated to make yourself feel better.

    God did it. We got it, we accept that evolution is a thousands of years olf detail that we expect to be inexact. We move onto what is central to our faith.

    ONLY atheists are stuck on the first page of the Bible demanding that modern standards and interpretations be used against a thousands of years old narrative.

    OK, so do so. Use modern science and understanding to prove that the universe is not created by God. Go.

    Wait, we, who acknowledge the need for faith have the burden of proof, you, who claim that all your decisions are evidenced based, have none whatsoever?

    Gotcha.

    LIke I said, the continuous introduction of evolution into religion has nothing whatsoever to with religion.


    It says God made MORE land animals the next day. Including Man. Man came AFTER birds in the fossil record does it not?



    Well, that is how YOU would do it. Others, were more interested in passing on the message - that God did it.

    Heh, if you want to hang your hat on applying 24 hours to the term day, you do that - that makes you as obtuse as the most fundamentalists of Christians and Muslims - like Osama Bin Laden.

    Most of know that the Gensis story is something that attempts to make something very complex and explain it in a an easily understandable format to a an audience that is often not educated at all.

    Not atheists though, it must be taken absolutely and strictly literally. And ONLY by doing so can we state that there is no way God can be in the creation process?

    Missing the boat.

    Because you state that I am wrong. You state that there is no God, and thus God cannot be in the Creation process. That your positions are all evidenced.

    Well, where is the evidence?

    "I want the term day to mean 24 hours only - phbt!!!"

    OK, very scientific and very evidential. No God is clearly the definitive conclusion from THAT! :ignore:
     
  16. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Focus on whatever you desire.
     
  17. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gee, it looks like everybody lost interest in this thread.
     
  18. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    meh...I find people would rather live in some fantasy world they create thru a book that was written 2,000 years ago by sheepherders, than find out the real truth.

    I guess the truth hurts too much. The Sheeple may find out that they are not special. Now we cant have that can we?
     
  19. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You mean like the truth found here:
    http://www.politicalforum.com/4952134-post2.html
     
  20. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
  21. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It has to do with your statement contained in that thread which stated:
    "meh...I find people would rather live in some fantasy world they create thru a book that was written 2,000 years ago by sheepherders, than find out the real truth. "

    You were speaking about real truth in the thread "irrefutable proof of Evolution" and I ran across another of your statements wherein you confessed to the truth... that every person has their own version of god. Every person would also include you and all Atheists and other non-theists as well as the theists, and according to you, we are all byproducts of evolution.
     
  22. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You stated that you thought everyone has lost interested on this thread. I gave you an explanation. If you do not like my explanation, that is not my problem.

    However, anything stated after my explanation would be off-topic.

    Please stay on topic by arguing Human Chromosome 2.
     
  23. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Then you introduced the off-topic subject of 'the real truth'.
     
  24. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Enough BS and trolling. Do you have anything to say about Human Chromosome 2?
     
  25. Jiyuu-Freedom

    Jiyuu-Freedom Keep the peace Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    16,174
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This thread is being closed because I don't want to go through it and do any deletions, nor do I want to infract anyone.

    If someone wants to start another thread on the topic is welcome to do so.

    Thank you to those who contributed in rigorous and civil debate.

    Jiyuu-Freedom
    Site Moderator
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page