|
Author
|
Topic: Evolution: Natural selection vs. Godly guidance
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 303 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
The evidence has been available since Darwin came up with the idea. Darwin's Finches * coughs * That's something of a non sequitur. Darwin didn't know that his finches were a good example of adaptive radiation through natural selection, and never used them as such.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 32 by hooah212002, posted 10-28-2010 3:11 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 820 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
I never said Darwin used them as evidence for NS. All I meant was that they are evidence for NS and, as evidence, have been available since the inception of the idea by Darwin.
"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-28-2010 3:03 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2952 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: 08-31-2010
|
Dawkins, Dennett et al. are trying to convert people to atheism, thus evangical.
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1273 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: 02-26-2006
|
|
Message 34 of 154 (588833)
10-28-2010 3:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 21 by shadow71
10-28-2010 12:09 PM
|
|
So I guess I am going back to the origin of the univese to argue that science is merely the investigation of what has been created and nature w/o a supernatural being would not exist.
When in my post I referred to "proof" I am using the term as a trial lawyer uses the term. There must be cause for example in a Medical malpractice case for the injury to the patient. In Science I belive there must be cause for what is happening in this universe, and I don't believe Science can prove that cause is natual. Here's an interesting fact. Lawyers talk about evidence, not proof. I know this because I am one. As far as your apparent conclusion that there must have been a cause for the origin of the universe, we don't know that. We know that most things in our universe have a cause because that's what we observe. We have not observed the origin of the universe, and the evidence that is left behind that we can see is not sufficient for us to conclude that there must have been a cause. And, if there were a cause, we have no evidence that we can examine that would tell us anything about that cause. Thus, if part of your argument is that there must have been a god because there must have been a cause for the origin of the universe, this is an unevidenced supposition with no real reason to accept it as accurate.
My belief is that "natual selection" is a term coined by scientists to describe what God has and is continuing to create. And I ask again, what observational consequences should we look for to determine whether your belief more accurately describes the real world than the Theory of Evolution?
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by shadow71, posted 10-28-2010 12:09 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 38 by shadow71, posted 10-28-2010 5:20 PM | | subbie has replied |
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1273 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: 02-26-2006
|
|
|
Message 35 of 154 (588836)
10-28-2010 3:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 24 by shadow71
10-28-2010 1:34 PM
|
|
Why is belief in a supernatural so threatening to Science? Belief itself isn't. It's when someone tries to enact policy based on beliefs which have absolutely no evidential support that scientists get upset, as should all people who want policy based on reality rather than whatever fantasy happens to hold a majority view at a particular moment.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by shadow71, posted 10-28-2010 1:34 PM | | shadow71 has not replied |
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1273 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: 02-26-2006
|
|
|
Message 36 of 154 (588837)
10-28-2010 3:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by shadow71
10-28-2010 3:36 PM
|
|
Dawkins, Dennett et al. are trying to convert people to atheism, thus evangical. I'd actually be willing to accept your use of evangelical to include anyone trying to convert someone else to their belief system. Can you quote anything that they have actually said to support the belief that they are evangelical?
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by shadow71, posted 10-28-2010 3:36 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 40 by shadow71, posted 10-28-2010 5:38 PM | | subbie has seen this message but not replied |
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 820 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
|
|
Message 37 of 154 (588844)
10-28-2010 4:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by shadow71
10-28-2010 3:36 PM
|
|
Dawkins, Dennett et al. are trying to convert people to atheism, thus evangical. Perhaps you've some quotes or video of them doing as such? You should note that pointing out the idiocy of faith is not the same as evangelizing. You will also note that I responded to your whole post.
"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by shadow71, posted 10-28-2010 3:36 PM | | shadow71 has not replied |
|
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2952 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: 08-31-2010
|
|
|
Message 38 of 154 (588846)
10-28-2010 5:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 34 by subbie
10-28-2010 3:37 PM
|
|
Any lawyer who has ever tried a lawsuit knows he or she must sustain the burden of proof. Civil in Illinois is "more probably true than not true". The evidence determines whether you have sustained your burden of proof.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by subbie, posted 10-28-2010 3:37 PM | | subbie has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 41 by Iblis, posted 10-28-2010 5:43 PM | | shadow71 has not replied | | | Message 43 by subbie, posted 10-28-2010 5:52 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 39 of 154 (588849)
10-28-2010 5:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by shadow71
10-28-2010 3:36 PM
|
|
shadow71 writes: Dawkins, Dennett et al. are trying to convert people to atheism, thus evangical. Even if true, where is the problem in that and what does it have to do with Natural Selection?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by shadow71, posted 10-28-2010 3:36 PM | | shadow71 has not replied |
|
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2952 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: 08-31-2010
|
|
|
Message 40 of 154 (588851)
10-28-2010 5:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 36 by subbie
10-28-2010 3:44 PM
|
|
"If this book works as I intend, religious readers will be atheists when they put it down."
Preface to THE GOD DELUSION P.28
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 36 by subbie, posted 10-28-2010 3:44 PM | | subbie has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 44 by nwr, posted 10-28-2010 6:08 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
|
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3914 days) Posts: 663 Joined: 11-17-2005
|
|
|
Message 41 of 154 (588853)
10-28-2010 5:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 38 by shadow71
10-28-2010 5:20 PM
|
|
10. Shifting the Burden of Proof a.k.a. You can't prove God doesn't exist, False criteria fallacy, fallacy of questionable criteria Premise: I know God exists. If you disagree, prove otherwise. Oh you say you can't prove God doesn't exist? That's because you know he does! Critique: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is the way the real world and science work. When you say God exists, you are making an extraordinary claim; therefore, the burden of proof is on you to back up your claim. A position that God doesn't exist is not a "belief," it's the standard position we all start out with until we're indoctrinated into religious schools of thought. People aren't born believing in Jesus. They start out atheist: lacking belief. There is no counter-claim necessary. Nobody has to prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist either. Furthermore, it's technically impossible to prove a negative of this nature. I can no easier prove God doesn't exist than you can disprove my claim that I have an invisible, ethereal unicorn in the trunk of my car. I say I do. It's not my fault he disappears when you look there. Prove he isn't there. You can't. A famous counter-spin on this argument is the Russell's teapot claim. How do you know there isn't a magical teapot hovering around earth that is responsible for creation? Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Top ten arguments for the existence of God - FreeThoughtPedia Again I ask, what does your unsubstantiated opinion have to do with science? Falsifiable hypotheses, logical predictions, actual experiments, replicable results. Not "beliefs".
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 38 by shadow71, posted 10-28-2010 5:20 PM | | shadow71 has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 42 of 154 (588854)
10-28-2010 5:48 PM
|
|
|
The Topic shadow, do you have anything related?
Even if "The Shadow knows" you are not helping any of us understand. What does even one of your posts so far have to do with evolution, Natural Selection or even a single example of Godly guidance?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 48 by shadow71, posted 10-28-2010 7:51 PM | | jar has replied |
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1273 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: 02-26-2006
|
|
|
Message 43 of 154 (588855)
10-28-2010 5:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 38 by shadow71
10-28-2010 5:20 PM
|
|
Yes, in court it's called burden of proof. In Illinois, the standard is actually called "preponderance of the evidence." It's met by presenting what? Evidence. I'll ask a third time. Are there any observational consequences that distinguish your belief from the Theory of Evolution so we can evaluate them versus one another? If you ignore this question a third time, I'll have no choice but assume that you have no answer.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 38 by shadow71, posted 10-28-2010 5:20 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 47 by shadow71, posted 10-28-2010 7:16 PM | | subbie has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 44 of 154 (588858)
10-28-2010 6:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 40 by shadow71
10-28-2010 5:38 PM
|
|
shadow71 writes:"If this book works as I intend, religious readers will be atheists when they put it down." Preface to THE GOD DELUSION P.28
I have never read that book, nor have I ever felt any pressure to read it. If writing that book counts as evangelizing, then it seems to be a very weak version of evangelizing. I have never had an atheist ring my door bell so that he could talk to me about atheism. However, I have had door bell rings from Baptists, Mormons, Lutherans, Seventh Day Adventists, JWs, and probably several others.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by shadow71, posted 10-28-2010 5:38 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 45 by subbie, posted 10-28-2010 6:34 PM | | nwr has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 46 by shadow71, posted 10-28-2010 7:09 PM | | nwr has replied |
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1273 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: 02-26-2006
|
|
|
Message 45 of 154 (588859)
10-28-2010 6:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 44 by nwr
10-28-2010 6:08 PM
|
|
After doing a brief survey of different online resources, the most common definition of evangelism is spreading or teaching the gospel. But, some sites do offer a more general secondary definition of trying to persuade others to share enthusiasm for specific beliefs and ideals. Obviously, under the predominant definition, evangelical anything other than Christian is oxymoranic. However, under the more generic, it seems that shadow's use is not inapt. Of course, your point is also well-taken, in that atheists tend to be more passive and simply put their positions out for people to take or leave as they see fit, while the highest profile evangelists are more in your face, preaching in public and bothering people in their homes and so forth. Whether shadow intended to imply that Dawkins, etc, are as virulent and obnoxious as Christian evangelicals can be is not obvious.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by nwr, posted 10-28-2010 6:08 PM | | nwr has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2