Evolution and Religion

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by dusken All of that has nothing to do with what I said. I am not going to be dragged into this. However, if you are going to argue, then argue. Do not finger point, name-call, and make vacuous insults to the idea of science or evolution. Calling something arrogant is meaningless and so is claiming that they have all of the answers. It is evasive posting. If there is nothing left to say but vacuous insults then give the thread a rest.

I didn't vindicate the thread, loser did, and the first insults that have ever been hurled have been from those that defend evolution, nevermind your insults towards Christians, or religious folks in the other thread. The same goes for your insults so stop being a hypocritical nerfbrain. Those who started the thread cannot seem to offer evidence of how we evolved, or on what empirical evidence they lay the basis of their belief. It is simply asserted and you added nothing more than loser, essentially more words. Now if you want to go back to the initial points of the theory, we can do that, until then, if you don't want to get into this argument, then don't, but don't pretend you didn't want to, when you did. It's simply tiring hearing the same hypocritical double speak.

[dusken]

Originally posted by Anonymouse I didn't vindicate the thread, loser did, and the first insults that have ever been hurled have been from those that defend evolution, nevermind your insults towards Christians, or religious folks in the other thread. The same goes for your insults so stop being a hypocritical nerfbrain. Those who started the thread cannot seem to offer evidence of how we evolved, or on what empirical evidence they lay the basis of their belief. It is simply asserted and you added nothing more than loser, essentially more words. Now if you want to go back to the initial points of the theory, we can do that, until then, if you don't want to get into this argument, then don't, but don't pretend you didn't want to, when you did. It's simply tiring hearing the same hypocritical double speak.

If loseyourname tossed around stupid insults then he is at fault as much as you are. It does not matter what I have said in another thread. I am not being hypocritical by pointing out the state of this thread. What I am saying is this thread has gone stale for that reason. I did not participate in this thread much because I did not care and I certainly did not make useless insults in here. Saying "those who started the thread cannot seem to offer evidence of how we evolved, or on what empirical evidence they lay the basis of their belief" has nothig to do with my claims that the thread on both sides is becoming cyclic and resorting to insults; as a matter of fact, that quote is just there to draw out more arguments.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by dusken If loseyourname tossed around stupid insults then he is at fault as much as you are. It does not matter what I have said in another thread. I am not being hypocritical by pointing out the state of this thread. What I am saying is this thread has gone stale for that reason. I did not participate in this thread much because I did not care and I certainly did not make useless insults in here. Saying "those who started the thread cannot seem to offer evidence of how we evolved, or on what empirical evidence they lay the basis of their belief" has nothig to do with my claims that the thread on both sides is becoming cyclic and resorting to insults; as a matter of fact, that quote is just there to draw out more arguments.

Okay, fair enough. All topics are eventually cyclic, as is the case. If you don't want to discuss in this thread, fine, but let's restart the discussion, from the points raised in the earlier part of the thread.

Loser made mention of the fossil record. He claims, and it is indeed evident, that the fossil record shows a gradual progression of species, into more complex species. Now, he states this is indisputable evidence of us evolving. I have replied saying that whereas it does show that to our eye, it is not however, in scientific terms, showing how we evolved, nor is there evidence to suggest that one species evolved and led to another. It only appears so to our eyes. It is obvious there is "evolution" presented by the fossils. There are however, no intermediate forms. Up until Gould and Eldrige, this presented a bad case for evolution, as Darwin himself stated the lack of intermediates. Gould's 'punctuated equilibria', essentially fixed this problem, since now we didn't need intermediate forms.

Throughout this I have maintained there is no reason to suggest we evolved, aside from a belief that we did because that is what the fossil record shows. There is nothing wrong with believing in evolution, what's wrong is when scientists claim, or as loser didi in the beginning of this thread, that it is some holy law, and incontestable.

[dusken]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Okay, fair enough. All topics are eventually cyclic, as is the case. If you don't want to discuss in this thread, fine, but let's restart the discussion, from the points raised in the earlier part of the thread.

Loser made mention of the fossil record. He claims, and it is indeed evident, that the fossil record shows a gradual progression of species, into more complex species. Now, he states this is indisputable evidence of us evolving. I have replied saying that whereas it does show that to our eye, it is not however, in scientific terms, showing how we evolved, nor is there evidence to suggest that one species evolved and led to another. It only appears so to our eyes. It is obvious there is "evolution" presented by the fossils. There are however, no intermediate forms. Up until Gould and Eldrige, this presented a bad case for evolution, as Darwin himself stated the lack of intermediates. Gould's 'punctuated equilibria', essentially fixed this problem, since now we didn't need intermediate forms.

Throughout this I have maintained there is no reason to suggest we evolved, aside from a belief that we did because that is what the fossil record shows. There is nothing wrong with believing in evolution, what's wrong is when scientists claim, or as loser didi in the beginning of this thread, that it is some holy law, and incontestable.

Loseyourname also mentioned that God and evolution are not mutually exclusive and that God's hands may be in evolution but there is evolution nevertheless. In that sense, whether I agree or not, theoretically it does not matter that there are no intermediates.

My belief that evolution is a scientific phenomenon, stems from a due thought process. The only reason the origin of species is attributed to God is because God preexisted as an idea that was created without the threat of evolution. If it did not exist as an idea and the problem of evolution came up, we would not resort to the idea of God being responsible and just assume we do not have all of the facts to explain what we see. There is nothing wrong with not being able to explain something and not having all of the facts. At any given time in scientific history, there was something like that and it was eventually explained. I do not think that the attitude "I am right until proven wrong" is the right attitude to have when seeking empirical truths. And of course you are going to say that evolutionists do the same, but the only reason it appears that they do do that is because they are being attacked by a philosophy that does that even more heavily.

I cannot believe I was dragged into this again. But what I am stating is a basic idea that makes it ok to accept evolution, whatever the mechanism by which it occurs is. If you disagree with me it is because you have a different opinion about what is more plausible as a basis to build your thoughts and that cannot be argued.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by dusken If loseyourname tossed around stupid insults then he is at fault as much as you are. It does not matter what I have said in another thread. I am not being hypocritical by pointing out the state of this thread. What I am saying is this thread has gone stale for that reason. I did not participate in this thread much because I did not care and I certainly did not make useless insults in here. Saying "those who started the thread cannot seem to offer evidence of how we evolved, or on what empirical evidence they lay the basis of their belief" has nothig to do with my claims that the thread on both sides is becoming cyclic and resorting to insults; as a matter of fact, that quote is just there to draw out more arguments.

I don't understand how you can separate the blaim in two equal part when baby anon slander everyone everywhere and claim later to be slandered and attacked... one just has to see his cheap trick to answer my every single posts when he knows that I won't even answer him.

One wonder how someone can have his position when beside the fossiles in our own DNA there is traces of our bacterial encestory... but again, what can we expect from someone that consider Earth revolving around the Sun as much supportable as Earth being the center of the Universe.

[dusken]

Originally posted by Fadix I don't understand how you can separate the blaim in two equal part when baby anon slander everyone everywhere and claim later to be slandered and attacked... one just has to see his cheap trick to answer my every single posts when he knows that I won't even answer him.

One wonder how someone can have his position when beside the fossiles in our own DNA there is traces of our bacterial encestory... but again, what can we expect from someone that consider Earth revolving around the Sun as much supportable as Earth being the center of the Universe.

By posting this you are being no better. If you want to be respected, be respectable. Everyone, including you, me, and lyn, throw out unintellectual comments. If they are infrequent and in moderation, it has no bearing. But this thread became insults and redundancy.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by dusken Loseyourname also mentioned that God and evolution are not mutually exclusive and that God's hands may be in evolution but there is evolution nevertheless. In that sense, whether I agree or not, theoretically it does not matter that there are no intermediates.

My belief that evolution is a scientific phenomenon, stems from a due thought process. The only reason the origin of species is attributed to God is because God preexisted as an idea that was created without the threat of evolution. If it did not exist as an idea and the problem of evolution came up, we would not resort to the idea of God being responsible and just assume we do not have all of the facts to explain what we see. There is nothing wrong with not being able to explain something and not having all of the facts. At any given time in scientific history, there was something like that and it was eventually explained. I do not think that the attitude "I am right until proven wrong" is the right attitude to have when seeking empirical truths. And of course you are going to say that evolutionists do the same, but the only reason it appears that they do do that is because they are being attacked by a philosophy that does that even more heavily.

I cannot believe I was dragged into this again. But what I am stating is a basic idea that makes it ok to accept evolution, whatever the mechanism by which it occurs is. If you disagree with me it is because you have a different opinion about what is more plausible as a basis to build your thoughts and that cannot be argued.

I have never brought forth religion into this discussion. Rather I have only tried to use criteria that any scientist demands of God, evidence. I am not harping on your belief in evolution, but rather the only thing I harped on was loser's maintenence that its some sort of fact. The fact that two people can look at the same thing and see totally different things, is the mystery of human human origin and creation, since I believe we are all created distinctly. With that said, if you admit God intervening in "evolution" then it becomes akin to creation, in my opinion, so evolutionists, or at least traditional evolutionists are right to exclude God or intelligence from evolution since they have to maintain it is a totally random and haphazard process.

[dusken]

Originally posted by Anonymouse I have never brought forth religion into this discussion. Rather I have only tried to use criteria that any scientist demands of God, evidence. I am not harping on your belief in evolution, but rather the only thing I harped on was loser's maintenence that its some sort of fact. The fact that two people can look at the same thing and see totally different things, is the mystery of human human origin and creation, since I believe we are all created distinctly. With that said, if you admit God intervening in "evolution" then it becomes akin to creation, in my opinion, so evolutionists, or at least traditional evolutionists are right to exclude God or intelligence from evolution since they have to maintain it is a totally random and haphazard process.

You have been arguing for creation. You cannot deny that. I am not going to go back and read the thread but it is there.

Again, I am keeping it basic. Like I said before, you have a different opinion about what is more plausible as a basis to build your thoughts and that cannot be argued. If someone approaches it as I do, it is factual as a general concept the minutia of which cannot yet be explained.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Loser made mention of the fossil record. He claims, and it is indeed evident, that the fossil record shows a gradual progression of species, into more complex species. Now, he states this is indisputable evidence of us evolving. I have replied saying that whereas it does show that to our eye, it is not however, in scientific terms, showing how we evolved, nor is there evidence to suggest that one species evolved and led to another. It only appears so to our eyes. It is obvious there is "evolution" presented by the fossils. There are however, no intermediate forms. Up until Gould and Eldrige, this presented a bad case for evolution, as Darwin himself stated the lack of intermediates. Gould's 'punctuated equilibria', essentially fixed this problem, since now we didn't need intermediate forms.

You need to read Dawkin's and Miller's debunking of punctuationism. You will see, that, in fact, it is Darwinism in disguise, no different. Gould and Eldredge thought that they had discovered some remarkable new principle, and they made celebrities of themselves, but in reality, they had nothing. It is unreasonable to expect that you would find all intermediate forms. Do you have any idea how unlikely it is that any given organism, upon death, will become fossilized? Especially in organisms that lack skeletons or shells of any kind, you find almost nothing. Every paleontologist expects this. You act like it is some astonishing fact that we don't find all intermediate forms, but what the actual researcher finds astonishing is that we find so many, especially among more recently evolved species. Go look up the evolution of the horse or the elephant. Those are two animals in particular where we have found every single intermediate species over the past 10 million years. It's hard to see what you are trying to advocate here. Did some species evolve, but those that show no intermediate forms were created separately? There is no reason to think something like that would have happened. Evolution makes perfect sense, and explains all observed biological phenomena, including geographic distribution, biodiversity, anatomical and molecular homologies, and vestigial features. No other theory can explain these, nor can any other theory explain how complexity can arise from an inherently simple and chaotic universe, without postulating pre-existing complexity.

I'm not going to say that this proves 100% beyond any doubt that evolution took place, or that chance mutation and natural selection alone can account for it, but the Bayesian probability is extremely high. Even the prior probability isn't as low as you seem to think it is to begin with. I have already debunked the mathematical calculations that you beloved Dr. Eden made, showed you exactly what was wrong with them, and you ignored it. If you knew anything about current research, you would know that nobody even brings this guy up anymore, he's been disproven so many times. You're getting hung up on objections that were raised forty years ago that have already been addressed numerous times.

Another thing for all of you: quit whining about the name calling. I've addressed every point made, and I'm not evading anything. I'm mean, and I'm just messing with you. Deal with it, and quit whining like a six-year old girl. Address my points as I've addressed yours.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname You need to read Dawkin's and Miller's debunking of punctuationism. You will see, that, in fact, it is Darwinism in disguise, no different. Gould and Eldredge thought that they had discovered some remarkable new principle, and they made celebrities of themselves, but in reality, they had nothing. It is unreasonable to expect that you would find all intermediate forms. Do you have any idea how unlikely it is that any given organism, upon death, will become fossilized? Especially in organisms that lack skeletons or shells of any kind, you find almost nothing. Every paleontologist expects this. You act like it is some astonishing fact that we don't find all intermediate forms, but what the actual researcher finds astonishing is that we find so many, especially among more recently evolved species. Go look up the evolution of the horse or the elephant. Those are two animals in particular where we have found every single intermediate species over the past 10 million years. It's hard to see what you are trying to advocate here. Did some species evolve, but those that show no intermediate forms were created separately? There is no reason to think something like that would have happened. Evolution makes perfect sense, and explains all observed biological phenomena, including geographic distribution, biodiversity, anatomical and molecular homologies, and vestigial features. No other theory can explain these, nor can any other theory explain how complexity can arise from an inherently simple and chaotic universe, without postulating pre-existing complexity.

"It makes perfect sense", is the phrase asserted. To a creationist, creationism makes perfect sense really. It's all about faith Mr. Loser. On the contrary, it is not an astonishing fact that the intermediate forms are missing. In fact, it is only to be expected as Mr. Darwin himself said that this would present a very grave danger to his theory. Gould and Eldridge, were only brought up as an example of how, when confronted with a need to explain, Darwinists will patch up the evidences and change it up to fit the theory. Whether punctuated equilibria or not, makes no difference, as Darwinism lacks the essential pedestal for it's theory. You can choose to marginalize it, it doesn't change it. The very respected paleontologist David Raup at the University of Chichago and Field Museum, wrote:

Darwin predicted that the fossil record should show a reasonable smooth continuum of ancestor-descendent pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups. Darwin even went so far as to say that if this were not found in the fossil record, his general theory of evolution would be in serious jeopardy. Such smooth transitions were not found in Darwin's time, and he explained this in part on the basis of an incomplete geologic record and in part on the lack of study of that record. We are now more than a hundred years after Darwin and the situation is little changed. Since Darwin a tremendous expansion of paleontological knowledge has taken place, and we know much more about the fossil record than was known in his time, but the basic situation is not much different. We actually have fewer examples of smooth transitions than we had in Darwin's time, because some of the old examples have turned out to be inalid when studied in more detail. To be sure, some new intermediate or transitional forms have been found, particularly land vertebrates. But if Darwin were writing today, he would still have to cite a disturbing lack of missing links or transitional forms between the major groups of organisms.

Now this is explained away by the lack of intermediates in three ways. To me there is no point in constantly marginalizing it and trying to dig up excuses when evidence doesn't yield your way. This is akin to constantly reshaping their position to hold fast to an immutable theory.

Originally posted by loseyourname I'm not going to say that this proves 100% beyond any doubt that evolution took place, or that chance mutation and natural selection alone can account for it, but the Bayesian probability is extremely high. Even the prior probability isn't as low as you seem to think it is to begin with. I have already debunked the mathematical calculations that you beloved Dr. Eden made, showed you exactly what was wrong with them, and you ignored it. If you knew anything about current research, you would know that nobody even brings this guy up anymore, he's been disproven so many times. You're getting hung up on objections that were raised forty years ago that have already been addressed numerous times.

Another thing for all of you: quit whining about the name calling. I've addressed every point made, and I'm not evading anything. I'm mean, and I'm just messing with you. Deal with it, and quit whining like a six-year old girl. Address my points as I've addressed yours.

You never addressed how evolution is mathematically improbable, you just gave an example of Dawkins and a monkey experiment playing the piano keys. Now the best you can do is to smear Eden and me for using him to state a position against evolution. If that helps reaffirm your belief in evolution, so be it, but it does remain a belief nontheless. I have also read a few essays on Lee Spetners probability analysis of evolution in his book Not By Chance. Evolution is not impossible, but it is improbable, and if you can't deal with that on it's face value, then you are trying too hard to believe, perhaps harder than I expected for a man of science.