|
Quote: Or are you claiming that evolution happens in animals, but not in humans because we're special?
Sure. Why not?
We also have DNA in common with tomatoes. So? Sharing DNA does not mean we evolved from a common anything. That is one theory. Another "theory" is that we were created by the same creator. Both have the same exact amount of evidence to support. So, why does science favor one over the other?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: Sharing DNA does not mean we evolved from a common anything.
Go back far enough, and we did.
RyanDev wrote: Both have the same exact amount of evidence to support.
Really? Where's the scientific evidence to support a creator?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Go back far enough, and we did.
OK. But again, it's just a theory. There is also a theory that we were all created by the same creator which is why our DNA is similar. There is also a theory that aliens baked us in an oven which is why our DNA is similar. There is also a theory that we are all software programs which is why our DNA is similar.
The point is there are lots of theories that are supported by the one piece of evidence, common DNA.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: supported by the one piece of evidence, common DNA
Common DNA is a good start, but it's far from the only evidence supporting common descent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
True. My point is there is not enough evidence to rule out all other theories leaving evolution as the lone standing theory. Therefore, it remains just a theory.
In an alternate universe, perhaps the common "rationality" there has science believing we were all baked by aliens. Just as a baker makes donuts, cakes, pies, etc, a large variety of items but with commonalities, perhaps their logic says that is the theory that makes most sense.
Evolution makes the most sense to the most number of scientists and that is the only reason it is "accepted" as being true, even though it can't be proven. Then again Obama was voted in by the majority and look how well that went.  Great, now you really got me violating Lounge rules and I was behaving so well.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Common DNA is a good start, but it's far from the only evidence supporting common descent:
All science is based on assumptions. Every single piece.
If I start with the assumption that there is no supernatural explanation then Evolutionary Theory pretty much follows.
If I start with the assumption that there is a God (Judeo-Christian in this case) and that the world was created 6000 years ago I can explain every single piece of evidence that you can produce now and in the future and still remain consistent with the assumption. I wouldn't be refuting it merely explaining how it exists with respect to the assumption.
The only difference in the above is the assumption.
I can do the same with Noah's Ark for that matter.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: The only difference in the above is the assumption.
And it's a pretty big assumption.
The idea that a supernatural entity created the world 6000 years ago, and deliberately planted evidence to suggest that it was far older just to test its own creations, is an extraordinary claim, and thus requires extraordinary evidence.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: The idea that a supernatural entity created the world 6000 years ago, and deliberately planted evidence to suggest that it was far older just to test its own creations,
First off, most Christians and as far as I know, all other religions, do not believe this. So, those that believe this are very few. Most Christians recognize that time is relative and that time to us is not the same as time to our God and the fact is we really have no idea how old the earth is. Science might be correct, we don't know. We know Adam left the Garden of Eden about 6000 years ago and so some people assume that is how old the earth is but it could have been millions of years that Adam spent in the garden. It could have been billions of years between the time that God called the fifth "day" and the time He called the sixth "day." Anyway, we don't really know.
However, I know you did something like this when you were a kid. You would trap ants into your own little dug out creation in your yard or you would trap a lizzard and then see if they would eat an insect, etc, etc. Of course I don't believe personally that God is like that at all but the idea you proposed is not far off since you yourself likely did something similar, just on a smaller scale.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: We know Adam left the Garden of Eden about 6000 years ago
I thought that most religions had agreed that the Garden of Eden was an allegorical story, not to be taken literally?
RyanDev wrote: However, I know you did something like this when you were a kid. You would trap ants into your own little dug out creation in your yard or you would trap a lizzard and then see if they would eat an insect, etc, etc.
Actually, I never did anything like that. Who needs ants and lizards when you've got toys to play with? 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: I thought that most religions had agreed that the Garden of Eden was an allegorical story, not to be taken literally?
Not that I was aware of, but perhaps.
Quote: Actually, I never did anything like that. Who needs ants and lizards when you've got toys to play with?
You poor kid. No toy can substitute for digging in the dirt.
You must be too young to remember days before video games.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: You must be too young to remember days before video games.
Just about, but I'll take that as a compliment! 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: The idea that a supernatural entity created the world 6000 years ago, and
deliberately planted evidence to suggest that it was far older just to test its
own creations, is an extraordinary claim, and thus requires extraordinary
evidence.
Nonsense.
I don't need to prove God exists when the very basis of the argument is that existence in the first place.
If I said I was going to prove God exists then that would be a different thing.
You are entirely free to refuse to accept the assumption in the first place. But it is a logical fallacy to accept the assumption and then attempt to refute the argument based on rejecting the assumption.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. Because one has consequences now, the other does not.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly.
You can get a bunch of 'scientists' in the room declaring that the earth's atmosphere was X,Y, & Z 100 million years ago - calling anyone who disagrees an ignorant moron - until you bring a time machine into the room and offer to send someone back without a gas mask.
Suddenly everyone is interested in running a few 'tests' first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: When I worked in the pharmaceutical industry
However probably not the best candidate when attempting to justify the scientific method.
|
|
|
|
|
I only use my experience there to illustrate the contrast between the sort of science that must occur when someone is going to inject themselves with a drug vs. the kind of science that occurs when someone is waxing nostalgic about unobserved, unrepeatable, unfalsifiable events of 1 billion years ago.
People get really picky about what is and what is not science when lives are on the line.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: People get really picky about what is and what is not science when lives are on
the line.
Again not the best argument. Especially in terms of the medical industry. Since there are failures. And thus based on your argument one can infer that there are even more problems in science where lives are not at stake.
As an example of that...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_touch#Therapeutic_touch_and_nursing_education[^]
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: it cannot be repeated
That doesn't mean there's no evidence that it happened.
The US War of Independence (aka "Kerfuffle in the Colonies") cannot be repeated, and there's nobody alive who remembers it. Does that mean you don't believe it happened? 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
That's the difference between scientific proof and historical evidence.
If evolution is proven by historical evidence then you've placed the theory into the same category as religious claims. If you remove the repeatable, observable, and falsifiable it becomes not a scientific theory but a historical claim.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: That's fine. As OG said earlier[^], evolution will continue whether you believe in it or not.
Now see, I can be cool (1) with that attitude.
I do find fundamentalist scientists to be a bit exhausting at times.
NOTES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Oh dear, does he deny global warming as well?
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: I do find fundamentalist scientists to be a bit exhausting at times.
I know Richard Dawkins isn't the most popular person with either side, but I do think he summed it up quite well:
Richard Dawkins:
Maybe scientists are fundamentalist when it comes to defining in some abstract way what is meant by "truth". But so is everybody else. I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere. We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to dispute it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, Richard is a fundamentalist.
He's also a very poor scientist if he doesn't understand the difference between the truth claim about New Zealand (observable, repeatable, falsifiable) and the evolution of man from an ape (not observed, not repeatable, not falsifiable).
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: the evolution of man from an ape (not observed, not repeatable, not falsifiable).
And again, not claimed. Nobody has ever claimed that humans evolved from apes, with the possible exception of drunken students with a very poor grasp of evolution.
The fact is that we have observed evolution in other animals, albeit over a short time-frame. To assume that humans are somehow special and not subject to this same process is rather arrogant.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: The fact is that we have observed evolution in other animals, albeit over a short time-frame. To assume that humans are somehow special and not subject to this same process is rather arrogant.
I'd agree.
I don't know anyone who believes humans don't change over time.
If I meet someone like that, I'll give you a call and we can mock them together.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
