Printable View
If there is no more reason to believe in God than pixies or leprechauns or whatever, then it is a great coincidence that He has so many followers.
When I was an atheist I thought religion was stupid, but at least I admitted there was something behind it, even if it was just an evolutionary function.
Well, beating an amoeba in intelligence will hardly make intelligence a remarking trait that makes humanity special so I'll think I go with the most intelligent animals, like dophins, apes, parots, crows (they're surpricingly intelligent) and simular.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
How much more intelligent must humans be to be special compared to the rest of the animals? Do they need to break the average human intelligence or simply to most stupid humans? Is there's an average amoung the specie or only the most brilliant mind that's needed?
Personally I would go with the complex language, but like with all human traits, the basic framework excist in other animals, only expressed much stronger in humans.
Are blue whales special because they're huge?
So does Shiva. Pixies and leprechuans have the downside of actually needed to leave some physical proof behind, at least occationally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Anyway, the elusivness of the gods by being poor of true supernatural miracles leaves at least the religion and science free from eachother. If the way any god work is thruogh natural means, then science works great to describe the world, no matter the existance of any god. The downside is of course proving that they exist, but it's fairly certain that they don't plan to make it easy on that matter.
btw, self-restraint is the framework whom Stoism stands on. Without it, you're slave under your passions. And animals do show self-restraint for other things than food, it's just that it's the easiest and most non-personal thing to test.
Did you know that (at least some) religious experiences seems to be located into a speciffic center of the brain? For whatever reason, but it certainly indicates that religiousity has an evolutionary function.
Seamus, evolution and big bang theory thrown together? :shame:
If I understand correctly you are making a demarcation criterion based on a certain metaphysical axiom (i.e: naturalism among many). Is this correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
If so then I would certainly agree with you that this is a much better demarcation than say a naive testability or falsification. :yes: I gave this and another criterion based on the consensus of the scientific community as alternatives to the testable/falsifiable distinction.
Of course there remain problems with such an attempt (I nuanced it to avoid the charge of blatant circularity that a scientific theory is one that relies on the scientific axiom) and it may not eliminate all forms of "psuedoscience" but I feel that alternative criteria like these are the much sounder way to go, as opposed to what is generally argued in court cases today (relying on the testability/falsifiability criteria).
One day, should the creationist lobby not botch the case badly and get a guy who can argue convincingly against this usually used but fatally flawed demarcation principle, it would be an embarrassment for evolutionary biology...
This is an journal article from Science, Technology, and Human Values following up on a certain court decision on creationism a while back that talks about this issue pretty concisely and convincingly:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/688928
(might not be viewable in public domain)
Special is a vague word. Restaurants have specials.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
You're questioning the anthropocentric view, yes? Rather than asking about the differences between people and animals your asking what the significance of the differences is?
@ Sasaki Kojiro:
Yes, you do. It's called thinking, and my Species (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) is particularly good at it (hell, it's in our name! Sapiens = wise). We have in fact, over the years developed a couple of remarkable ideas: logic and reason. Work very well in rooting out faeces of a bovine nature.
@Rhys
No, it's not a coincidence, it's just that your imaginary friend happened to be a cosmic Jewish Zombie whose views at the time were very liberal, and so a large amount of followers surrounded him and his legacy. They only worshipped him because that's what people tended to do at the time: worship people who did good, and there is no doubting that Jesus, historical or not, but probably historical, did some good.
The sole reason that your version of lunacy was adopted by Constantine the *ahem* Great, the leader of the biggest single nation in the world at that point, and so got some influence out.
So yes, it is entirely coincidental that so many believe in your Cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his Own Father (and yet also not his own father, whilst still being... you can see where that's going).
To believe otherwise is a mixture of two logical fallacies, and is, therefore, insubmitable as an argument: Argumentum ad numerum, and Argumentum ad antiquitatem. I also notice a nice icing of Argumentum ad ignorantiam, to add to the sponge sandwhicch of the previously mentioned logical fallacy recipes.
Oh, and +5 points if you have any idea where I was going with that last analogy.
I wouldn't normally quote from this site, but it came up on a Google search and it seemed pretty funny.
It does raise some good points - surely the fact that we even question the meaning of our existence seperates us from the animals?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Che Roriniho
For someone who loves pointing out logical fallacies... :bounce:Quote:
Originally Posted by Che Roriniho
Since you like logic...
"The past controls the present and future.
You can't control the past.
Also, you can't control the way the past controls the present and future.
So, you can't control the present and future."
So, how did you choose to be an atheist?
Btw, do you think saying "99% of climate scientists believe global warming is caused in part by man" to be a rational argument?
I so want to participate here, but I have no access to the org at work except via my cell phone. Yes I am typing this on a mobile.
Just to put the animals vs. Humans to rest, the bible ( the proclaimed sole source of doctrine in Christianity ) distinguishes humans and animals on one parameter only. It says that man was made in the image and likeness of God. Interpret it however you want.
If any of you remember I did an exercise with Genesis ( again the proclaimed sole source of creationist doctrine ) and showed how you could interpret it very close to the scientific theory of how our world was made. What the young earth creationists are thinking, is beyond me. They have absolutely no suport for their ideas anywhere in the Bible.
I want to make a longer reply, but there is just no more time today.
The stars in the heavens, the sun and the moon (lesser light? It's just a light-reflecting surface, not a light source) came after the plants and fruits and grasses and seeds?Quote:
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
What drove their photosynthetic processes, if there was no sun? Granted, the simple cure-all answer is "God did it, that explains it, that's the end of it" but that's absolutely inverted from the scientific theory of the origins of the universe.
That is what the Young Earth literalist creationists are on about; they think it happened precisely as it is written, in the exact order of Genesis. And of course they have to believe that because if Genesis was wrong about the order of creation, it's not the word of God.
*sigh* Maybe Moses made a typo? Editor's error? Or non-literal interpretation might work...
Asking which bibile I always find is a good place to start.
Odd that the absolute and irrefutable works of God can have so many different absolute and irrefutable ways of being written, often contradictory.
~:smoking:
If I could have linked the thread in question I would. Genesis speaks only about the creation of this world and possibly this solar system. I am sounding like a believer aren't I?
The order of things can seem confusing, but I did explain a possible solution.
The entire creation is viewed by Moses with an earthly perspective. The first light in verse 3 is the ignition of the Sun, while the later verses speaks of seasons and earthly motions. The stars, which existed prior to this solar system, become visible when at last the sun has pushed all the dense dust and ice away for them to become visible from this planet. And there is waters in the deep which is uncreated. Check verse 1. You do know what the ancients called Hydrogen?
Sigurd, you're a wise fellow and a respected friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
I find that this explanation however, is grasping at straws. There's far, far more in Genesis that doesn't make sense, and even if we create wild theories as to how it does, the criticism is not with people who make the Bible adhere to science, it's people who make science adhere to the Bible. Changing the order of things so that it matches their interpretation of Genesis is entirely unscientific, and they create entire museums dedicated to showing how men walked with dinosaurs 6000 years ago.
That is the real problem. I honestly, honestly don't care about the rationalizations ex post facto making the Bible conform to science. (especially when the Bible is full of supernatural miracles and amazingly, the human species being viable after the first two people had a bunch of male offspring. Not only is that genetically unhealthy, but you really have to wonder where all the women came from, and why they weren't worthy of having a backstory) At that point it is religion, and religions can say whatever they please.
What I care about is when people take a great idea like science, and then take a big poop all over the concept of science by mixing it with religion by making science conform to religious texts even when it's completely wrong to do so. It's not science, it's fairy tales at that point. There's a Biblical explanation, yes.... and a scientific one. Where they are compatible, fine they are. However, there are places where they aren't, and rewriting science to make it seem kosher doesn't make any sense. If science has to conform to the Bible, why have science to begin with? Since everything can be explained by prophets, why bother learning anything else, I wonder?
Respect right back at you ATPG.
That was the point I was trying to make last time too. You can't really use anything in the bible as "evidence" for reality. The creationists use Genisis as basis for their arguments against what they call Darwinism. I used the same record to show that it does in fact conform to the last scientific theory we have on the origin of our solar system. Some believers evem aplauded it. And some non believers got offended. It was a typical exercise in what is commonly kmown as the Aquinqas fallacy. Which you incidently descibe in your last paragraph. They forget that religion is more about faith than evidence and that religion and science never mix well.
The Bible does not support creatio ex nihilo. Nor does it support a metaphysical deity or a young earth theory. And as you pointed out, it does not really support an orgin of man with Adam, Eve and Cain. Abel was slain, remember? besides, Cain was cursed.
I never chose to be an athiest. In fact, I contend that we are both, and in fact all athiests. When you realise why you ignore other deities, then you will realise why I reject yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
And even if I did, then as I said, it would be through reason:
People say that god exists.
God is against Nature (Natural sciences)
People are Nature
Therefore is against people, and therefore irrational.
Not brilliant, I know, but I'm tired so can't becopulated to make anything more advanced.
The human mind has remarkable decision makin properties, and the decision (or not, see above) to become an athiest is because of the frankly utterly ridiculus ideas from the other side.
Let me get this right: You think that there is a Jewish deity-figure who is his own father that lives in the sky and watches everything we do because... well, no reason is given as to why this God would want to care 2 cents about some insignificant collections of Carbon-based self-replicating molecules on some rock orbiting a fairly boring and average star in a forgottten corner of a galaxy that itself is fairly boring, average, and unimportant.
And while that argument could not be used as an argument in itself (argumentam ad numerum and argumentum ad verecundiam), it COULD be used in argument, provided that was not the only evidence submitted, and that the evidence given justifies the use of a line. On it's own, however,it is insubmittable.
My thoughts exactly. If we accept the King James version, then we must asume that James I was a messiah. Otherwise, how could he translate it from latin perfectly, and still contain the word of god?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I've always been an atheist...I'm not arguing for the existence of god. For all we know, if one did exist, he'd send all the atheists to heaven and the religious people to hell :driver:Quote:
Originally Posted by Che Roriniho
But I think taking a holier-than-thou attitude towards all religious people paints them with too broad a brush. First I would say it's hypocritical.
If you go back 200 years you see that the people then believed all sorts of silly things, yes? So why would you assume that 200 years from now people won't be laughing at your beliefs? Also, most people are atheist because of their upbringing. Either their parents were atheists or they were overbearingly religious.
Secondly, you can't simply say "that which is rational and logical is better that the irrational and illogical". Humans are naturally irrational--it is essential for our mental well being.
DOES NOT COMPUTE. DOES NOT COMPUTE. HTTP 404. REJECTING PARADOXICAL STATEMENT. PURGING MEMORY FILES. PURG-Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
Now THIS is a guy you should pray to.
:bounce:
Prayers are fine, but I prefer cash.
How about virgins Blood?Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
I drink a nice cold glass of it every day. Keeps my hair shiny and manageable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Che Roriniho
I can't speak for Seamus, but personally I think this line of argument is irrelevant. Retreating to a 'God of the Gaps' mentality is silly, but the argument that it's either God or science is a false dilemma. In my personal belief, God is responsible for the creation of everything in the universe. Science is a vessel to better understand his methods and perhaps learn something transcendent in the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Did God create the universe? Sure. How? Well, let's study it and find out. Looks like it may have been through some kind of 'Big Bang.' Did God create humans? Sure. How? Well, let's study life and find out. Looks like it may have been through divergent evolution, probably powered by natural selection. Etc.
A person can choose to believe in God (any variety), or not to believe. That's a matter of faith, to be neither proved or disproven by scientific inquiry. Regardless of their faith, however, science is still the place to turn for explanations about the natural world. (edit: after all, revelation is filtered through all sorts of fallible humans. The natural world is created directly by God, the Bible only indirectly. I'll put my trust in the primary source, and look to the secondary sources for interpretation and opinion, as in any manner of study)
Unfortunately, as you point out, religious people are even more prone to the above false dilemma than nonreligious types.Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
Ajax
The key is to not be Christian, but to be Christ-like.
And these are mutually exclusive?Quote:
Originally Posted by Che Roriniho
Ajax
Often, they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
The key is to not be a banker, but to be honest. Because, . . . often bankers are dishonest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Che Roriniho
Couldn't that be simplified to the key is to be honest? Even if you are a banker?
Ajax
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Good post. :bow:
I'm not so sure if people can choose what they belive in. Schopenhauers free will and all...
In order for two "things" to be mutually exclusive, it must mean that one absolutely cannot ever happen if the other does. Thus, it is literally impossible for two objects to be "often" mutually exclusive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Che Roriniho
Yes. I don't deny that we are more intelligent than animals one average, but I won't say that this difference is enough to say that humanity is somehow special compared to the rest of the living beings on earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Well... I guess one has to define intelligence...
We live in small appartments, wage war on each other and develop nukes...
Dolphins swim around in the ocean and have fun...
How do you know they are not questioning our intelligence?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBQRy0aV3P4
:square:
edit: be aware of foul language, you 13 year old kids on this board.
I missed this post, sorry. Without humans there is no "special"; it's a human concept. I feel like this is the line of thinking that leads to radical environmentalism and the animal rights movement. You can't say the earth would be better without humans, because without humans there is no "better".Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Your point is that animals are unable to think, or to define things as "good and bad" or "better and worse"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
It would be interesting to see you back that up with a fact or two.
Just saw this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124235632936122739.html
Quote:
In what could prove to be a landmark discovery, a leading paleontologist said scientists have dug up the 47 million-year-old fossil of an ancient primate whose features suggest it could be the common ancestor of all later monkeys, apes and humans.
Anthropologists have long believed that humans evolved from ancient ape-like ancestors. Some 50 million years ago, two ape-like groups walked the Earth. One is known as the tarsidae, a precursor of the tarsier, a tiny, large-eyed creature that lives in Asia. Another group is known as the adapidae, a precursor of today's lemurs in Madagascar.
Based on previously limited fossil evidence, one big debate had been whether the tarsidae or adapidae group gave rise to monkeys, apes and humans. The latest discovery bolsters the less common position that our ancient ape-like ancestor was an adapid, the believed precursor of lemurs.
A fossil discovery suggests humans may be descended from an animal that resembles present-day lemurs like this one.
Philip Gingerich, president-elect of the Paleontological Society in the U.S., has co-written a paper that will detail next week the latest fossil discovery in Public Library of Science, a peer-reviewed, online journal.
"This discovery brings a forgotten group into focus as a possible ancestor of higher primates," Mr. Gingerich, a professor of paleontology at the University of Michigan, said in an interview.
The discovery has little bearing on a separate paleontological debate centering on the identity of a common ancestor of chimps and humans, which could have lived about six million years ago and still hasn't been found. That gap in the evolution story is colloquially referred to as the "missing link" controversy. In reality, though, all gaps in the fossil record are technically "missing links" until filled in, and many scientists say the term is meaningless.
Nonetheless, the latest fossil find is likely to ignite further the debate between evolutionists who draw conclusions based on a limited fossil record, and creationists who don't believe that humans, monkeys and apes evolved from a common ancestor.
Scientists won't necessarily agree about the details either. "Lemur advocates will be delighted, but tarsier advocates will be underwhelmed" by the new evidence, says Tim White, a paleontologist at the University of California, Berkeley. "The debate will persist."
The skeleton will be unveiled at New York City's American Museum of Natural History next Tuesday by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and an international team involved in the discovery.
According to Prof. Gingerich, the fossilized remains are of a young female adapid. The skeleton was unearthed by collectors about two years ago and has been kept tightly under wraps since then, in an unusual feat of scientific secrecy.
Prof. Gingerich said he had twice examined the adapid skeleton, which was "a complete, spectacular fossil." The completeness of the preserved skeleton is crucial, because most previously found fossils of ancient primates were small finds, such as teeth and jawbones.
It was found in the Messel Shale Pit, a disused quarry near Frankfurt, Germany. The pit has long been a World Heritage Site and is the source of a number of well-preserved fossils from the middle Eocene epoch, some 50 million years ago.
Prof. Gingerich said several scientists, including Jorn Hurum of Norway's National History Museum, had inspected the fossil with computer tomography scanning, a sophisticated X-ray technique that can provide detailed, cross-sectional views. Dr. Hurum declined to comment.
Although the creature looks like a lemur, there are some distinctive physical differences. Lemurs have a tooth comb (a tooth modified to help groom fur); a grooming claw; and a wet nose. Dr. Gingerich said that the adapid skeleton has neither a grooming claw nor a tooth comb. "We can't say whether it had a wet nose or not," he noted.
Since the fossilized creature found in Germany didn't have features like a tooth comb or grooming claw, it could be argued that it gave rise to monkeys, apes and humans, which don't have these features either.
Lemur. Why did you never tell me? Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! *falls of the cliff*
I think Lemur needs to be informed that he's our daddy. Someone forward him the link.
So the hierarchical trees need to be adjusted again like so many times before.
Does this prove that humans descended from monkeys? No it doesn't. This is the problem with this theory. Yes there have been found countless remains of hominid creatures that are very similar looking to humans. The fact that they are similar or appear logically connected does not prove that one is ancestor to the other. Similarity does not prove decent.
If so we could conclude that a '92 Volvo 240 descended from the '75 Volvo 144.
But it doesn't prove it to be wrong either.
But one can conclude that a 92 Volvo and the 75 Volvo both come from the same original design; an vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine. Without the one, you could not have the other two. We can conclude that all domesticated dogs came from the same root animal, the wolf. We can conclude that all bunny rabbits came from the same common ancestor rabbit. We can conclude that many different mutations of a virus came from the same strand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
My question is; if one is to be called a scientist, or if one is to enter into a scientific discussion, one has to agree that it is possible that the theory is correct. And, if one were to be impartial, one would understand that there is overwhelming evidence that this theory is closer to being the truth than all other theories, especially ones with little or no scientific basis.
While the theory isn't 100% proven, it is a valid theory, and there is no reason to simply disbelieve it because it isn't 100% proven. Most scientific theories aren't 100% by such standards of proof. But to just dismiss it as unproven and therefore unreasonable is wrong. We will make no scientific progress if we simply brush aside mountains of evidence and reasonable conclusions as being wrong because it doesn't necessarily lead to those conclusions... what other conclusions could it lead to?
If new species don't evolve from older ones, then why have there been multiple mass extinctions, yet there's an extreme diversity of life on this planet? Why do species die out at a rate of hundreds or thousands per year, yet there are still millions of differing species on this planet? Why do we detect new species all the time, and how have we ourselves created new species using various natural methods?
Why do new species appear at times in the fossil record? Where did they come from? Why did they suddenly appear and disappear? If they were all "created" at once, where did the new ones come from and why did it take so long for them to get here?
Why did human beings only arrive in the fossil record recently? Why do they look very similar to many other forms of hominids? Why do they resemble various species on this planet genetically and physically in a pattern which matches the arrival of those species in the fossil record, according to present theories of evolution? How do we explain all of those coincidences if we are to assume that creatures do not evolve or that humans have not?
There is no other scientific explanation that I can see. We weren't beamed here by aliens, or at least there is zero evidence of that, and we are not significantly different in terms of biology from other animals, and we are part of nature and part of the fossil record as well.
If one is to seriously challenge this theory, one must bring more to the table than mere skepticism and/or religious texts. There needs to be contrary theories based in science, and right now, there aren't any. Until then, perhaps we should consider this our best working theory.
You have one massive problem with that position. DNA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Since extant primates share substantial DNA, one can track the branching very easily. Thus creatures that have similar skeletal structures in the fossil record can be fitted quite neatly into a taxonomy.
This may not be proof in the mathematical sense, but it is a huge weight of evidence - evidence that no other theory comes close to explaining. Again, few dispute this clear taxonomic relationship when it applies to bivalves, but get terribly wound up when it comes to hominid ancestry.
BTW chaps, Lemur is not the daddy. Adapids are clearly not lemurs, which is why they are so exciting. (Not to say that prosimians are unexciting, but in a different way). :beam:
The DNA evidence is a stretch.
How do you tell one descended from the other? The can't even tell if Neanderthals is the forefather of humans because the DNA evidence is ambiguous. They can't tell if The Neanderthals, our supposedly closest ancestor is related to us or is a completely different species
As to my Volvo analogy, it should be clear that cars don't reproduce. That was the whole point.
BTW, I do not offer any alternative theory. I am just stating the problem with hominid descent theory trough putting bones from different strata into hierarchy trees and conclude that this one is a descendent from that one. Similarities do not equate decent.
The debate about Neanderthals is whether it should be Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. It is really just details as to when the split happened because either way we share a common ancestor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
CBR
Well there you go , its obviously another hoax by the so called "scientists" .Quote:
the 47 million-year-old fossil
Everyone knows the world was only created 6000 years ago on a tuesday afternoon and fossils like this are a result of the big flood 4400 years ago .
There you go - and what is the current status in this debate? And we have DNA samples of this common ancestor which proves that both Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens are descendants of this common ancestor?Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
The Creationists can't deny the fact that there are fossils in the stratas of this earth. IF most of the creatures including dinosaurs and evil men died in the great deluge, it would follow natually that their bones would be found in the same strata. Is this so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
And the Bible does not really support any of what the young earth creationists have to say about the matter anyway.
I could postulate that God created the earth and withdrew Deist style and then let the clockwork earth run its due. Multimillion years later he revisits and finds mr. and ms homo sapien evolved from life in clay and blows spirits into their frames. I could do this and back it up with scriptures from the KJV Bible.
Well I agree you don't have to believe the earth is just 6,000 years, I don't believe that anyway. But it is stretching it to say God created us through evolution. IMO God created quite a lot of people out of dust/whatever and Adam was the patriarch of them.
But it is stretching it to say God created us through evolution.
Why ?
I assume your argument is along religious lines as you admitted yourn not to hot on the science of evolution...
What is there in the bible that paticularly rules out evolution, that is if you interpret it a certain way (because its all about interpretation right ?) could Gods creation of man not been an event spanning millions of years, with God being somewhat an entity outside our universe time means nothing to him...
Couldn't it come under the 'God works in mysterious ways' such as breaking someones x box so they'll spend time with friends and family for example ?
Yeah when I said that I was, of course, meaning from a Biblical perspective. I try not to make "private interpretations" of the scripture as it warns me against, instead when it put things bluntly I accept it.
Also, I don't think God works in mysterious ways. My take on it all is very straight-forward and kind of morbid as some people say but hey.
The Bible is a bigger stretch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Radiocarbon technique allows dating back to 45.000 years ago, which should put a definite lid on the 6000 years old earth crap.
As for DNA: it proves kinship between species, not descendance. DNA specimens prove that the dodo was a close cousin of the pigeon, not that the dodo was the pigeon's predecessor or that the dodo and the pigeon have a common ancestor. DNA also proves that humans are related more closely to chimps than to mice, even though we share about 95% of our genome with both species - the difference being in the kinds of genes we share with either.
Hence phylogenetic trees do not flawlessly represent species evolution. However, other forms of tracing and sequencing (proteins, molecules, morphology, physiology) plus dating methods like radiocarbon have enabled scientists to come up with more a than tentative picture of historic speciation. New research (such as the recent massive sequencing of bird dna across a large range of bird species) constantly produces new insights on phylogenetics. Even so, every phylogenetic tree remains a hypothesis. That's how science works.
Do you have a better hypothesis? Bring it on.
For reference, I point the honourable gentleman from Norway (whose independent thinking I have always respected and welcomed) to a brilliant essay by Stephen Jay Gould. One quote deserves to be highlighted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Jay Gould
Fellows, it's clearly obvious we were poofed into existence from the massively hot breath of the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun, lucky be thy name. IMO we were fashioned together out of horseshoes and rabbits feet and four-leaf clovers. Then the Magic Box closed and we can no longer see the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun. However, he placed a symbol in the sky to remind us of our true origins: The Rainbow. It is said that at the end of the Rainbow, you will find the Pot 'O Gold and become rich beyond mortal dreams. It's clear that the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun created two people, and only two people, who then had a bunch of sons. Those sons then reproduced with what I assume to be unicorns, because there were no women besides their mother. And that is why men have a prominent "unicorn" below their stomach. My guess is that the women were just unlucky and theirs fell off somehow. Probably from kissing the Blarney stone.
I present this as the "Lucky Design" theory, as an alternative to Intelligent Design and Evolution.
However, beyond the physical evidence of the Rainbow, the Clover, the Horseshoe, and Rabbits, not to mention gold and blarney stones, there's no scientific basis for this theory, and I readily admit it is far, far more of a stretch to conclude that everyone was created by a divine being in a supernatural method which directly contradicts fossil and DNA evidence, and using a family tree which could only result in incestuous couplings and severe birth deformities and infertility, involving imaginary women.
Have a pint anyway. :medievalcheers: Surely there is room enough for our personal religious views AND science in this world, but we have to admit, they are based upon different ideas: One is the idea that we know something we cannot possibly know except "with our hearts", and the other is the idea that we don't really know anything, but we have strong evidence which leads to some fairly reliable conclusions. The two ideas do not mix and cannot be compared to one another, otherwise some fairly ridiculous notions can be associated falsely with science, such as the idea that some ethnicities are not human beings because they look slightly different from us, and we know this because we looked at them and saw a slight difference and so therefore they aren't human beings.
As sad as that theory is, it's very similar to the idea that human beings are completely disassociated with the animal kingdom, because we are more intelligent. Nevermind our biological processes are nearly identical, we share almost identical DNA with a very small margin of difference, in our embryonic state we develop almost exactly the same way as other vertebrates, our fossils appeared in the record millions of years ago along with many others, the fact that we are born and then we die... in other words, virtually identical in every way to the nearest primate, but some believe we were given different, exclusive to human-beings, otherworldly supernatural origins poofed out of dust, rather than evolving like all other species have done, in spite of a lack of supportive evidence and physics that doesn't involve what amounts to magic.
By the way, Adrian II, your signature is offensive to me. It shows that Mohammed had two left feet, when it is patently obvious he was an awesome dancer.
:laugh4: :medievalcheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
What we need is a poll for this, over 200 posts is just getting too rambly.... :P
Yawn the old randrom diety stories are fun to make up but they don't help much, nobody has felt the fiery presence of the leprechaun god.
I wonder what the opinion of the man from officialy the most atheist city in the UK might be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fwapper
I have. I am witness to the awesome power of His Lucky Charms. I know it to be true. Random Deities beat randrom diety any day of the week. :bounce: And it's not random, it's LUCKY. There's a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
One, two, three, four, I declare a holy war! :charge:
God is a bit dull on the fiery presentations nowadays isn't he? A shame as large scale miracles would be really convincing stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Instead he goes around, poking around in the "godly presence center" in the brain for people to feel his fiery presence.
Makes sence if He planned to get to humans through evolution, how else would He keep humans to be prone to belive in Him while keeping the low profile he does by not doing obvious wonders.
HEY!!
Hey, hey hey. They found Jesus on a Cheeto. Don't tell me there aren't miracles.
:angel:
If you were being genuine, there would be no reason not to go with it. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
I have already declared a Chee-had against the infidel. However, just like in other religions, when you declare a Chee-had, it is instead an inner, spiritual struggle. We fight using our minds.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Argumentum ad Hominem with the sub fallacy; Refutation by Caricature.
:smartass2:
I hope you haven't abandoned the fiery little leprechaun god.Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
Pizza, you have some strange beliefs :shrug:
HE ABANDONED ME FIRST!!! I leave him messages on his answering machine saying things like:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
As you can see, since he doesn't return my phone calls, he abandoned me first. Or he's dead. But the important thing is that even though he doesn't talk to me, I continue to pray to him and ask him to change his Divine Plan, even though it wouldn't be much of a Divine Plan if he changed it to suit my whims.
Much of the religious argument against evolution comes from the argument from ignorance. See also "God of the Gaps".Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Heh, well Yahweh is very real to me, in everything I do. It follows that since the message of the New Testament is so real to me, so is that of the Old Testament, Jesus was fulfilling those scriptures after all. Plus, you've got to admit, Daniel didn't do bad predicting the year of Jesus' death, and all the prophecies concerning Israel etc.
On a side note, if you were comparing your prayer to the Christian version, it's not quite like that. Trying to work through prayer is like trying to do stuff in the Matrix - Jesus says you have to know your prayer will be answered, otherwise you were not in accordance with God's will in the first place! Stop trying to hit me and hit me... see what I mean?
Argumentum ad Hominem Tu Quoque :wiseguy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
I always knew Christianity was like the Matrix. Thanks for clearing that up. :bounce:
I'm just having fun, I believe that the real arguments have been passed back and forth, and ultimately since Creationism is a religious argument not based upon science but upon Scripture, there is nothing that can be said to change one's mind.
:shrug:
To call it a debate is silly because there is one side of the issue which won't budge regardless of evidence or argument, if it is based upon religion, because religion requires faith and faith isn't really evidence, and is considered superior to evidence by the faithful. I'm willing to discuss the real facts, but there is no alternative theory at the moment grounded in science and based upon evidence. There is only religion and skepticism. Skepticism I buy, because that is simply the position that we cannot know. However, even then, one should not totally dismiss evidence. As for religion, it hasn't advanced our knowledge of the universe, only our belief in aspects of it, and beyond, so they are different unrelated things.
As for prayer, in all honesty it can't hurt. However, it shouldn't be relied upon instead of medicine, for example.
You win the argument by default because your vocabulary is superior to my own. Curse my distaste of Latin! :grin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
That's fair enough, but remember a lot of people who argue against religion do so because they don't like some of its (debatable) effects. Things like holding back science, causing wars etc don't really do anything to prove whether the belief system is right or not.
Whether it is right or not is not knowable by any living being.
If one can remain skeptical of science, one needs to rely on the argument that we don't know everything, which puts religion on equal or lesser footing than science, because science relies on a foundation of impartial reasoning and evidence rather than a series of unprovable assumptions involving the supernatural.
If we aren't discussing whether it is true or not, we can discuss that the unwavering certainty of any viewpoint, and the intolerance of those who hold that view to opposing viewpoints, does usually result in negative effects on mankind, regardless of the truth of the message.
If I were set out to prove that 1+1=2, regardless of how true it is, would I be right to go to war over it, or to attempt to stop all attempts to research alternative theories, or to persecute those who believe there could be other answers? No... even if we "know" we are right, we have to accept that "being right doesn't give us the right" to do wrong. One can freely argue for intelligent design, or debate any scientific viewpoint. However, it rarely stops there. It usually ends when the offending viewpoint is abolished or declared heretical or illegal, if we base this on historical precedent. In recent years, it has reared its head once more, to infringe upon the rights of the individual.
Science and religion can coexist, but just like voodoo and astrophysics, they belong in different books.
I think there's a bit of debate about whether or not it could be "knowable" by a little human such as ourselves. I came across a discussion once about whether religious experiences could be self-authenticating, in that they give a person 100% (no 99.999's) assurance of their truthfulness, beyond even the certainty you could place in your own minds reliability.
That's a horrendeously complicated debate, and again I suppose it wouldn't prove Christianity, just perhaps, if won, prove that some of its claims are possible.
If there was ever "design", it sure as hell was of the stupid kind.
Using the same argument some use against the idea of proof, how can you use a religious "experience" as evidence of anything? The mind can dream, the mind can forget, mis-remember, misinterpret, misdiagnose, not to mention hallucinate. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if someone has a religious experience, it doesn't count as scientific knowledge unless the results can be repeated, predicted, and observed by neutral observers. I can see that there are cheetos that look like jesus, and I can also see that a closet door once closed "on its own" and a light bulb coincidentally turned off "on its own" within seconds of one another. However, given the billions of cheetos out there, it is almost a certainty that some will resemble other things, and the closet door in question had slightly changed shape due to changes in temperature, and while it usually would experience little friction when opening or closing, on that particular day it was open but experiencing pressure, until it moved enough that it suddenly popped closed. Coincidentally, at the same time the light bulb in that room turned off because it was a bulb that was inside a small hollow part of the ceiling, and it overheated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
You can bet that odd coincidences like that make the hairs stand up on the back of my neck, because even though I'm a person who thinks scientifically I am just an animal with instincts and unintelligent fears and/or phobias. Until I figured out what was going on, I felt a little freaked out. And if "God" appeared before me and started raining lightning bolts on me, I'd feel freaked out too. But then again, if I regained my composure, I might think that it would be possible I ingested something hallucinogenic, and I'd still need more proof than that to say conclusively that God exists. Bottom line is that I could also be insane. Which, if you were, you would have no way of knowing conclusively. Maybe everyone else is insane and you're the only one who sees clearly. :bounce:
Things that we "know" and are certain of can be wrong as well. We might find out one day that we were adopted. We might find out our birth certificate gives our middle name as "Jose". We might discover that the mole on our neck isn't a mole after all, but a malignant tumor. We could also find out one day that our ideas about science and/or God are all total baloney. I am always leery of the idea that one person knows something with absolute certainty, because that is almost certainly wrong.
I place more trust in things that don't come from our little weak opinions, such as things we all agree we can see with our eyes, hear with our ears, taste, smell, touch, etc. I also trust when we can repeat an experiment over and over again with the same results. I also trust when we find stuff in the ground that was never touched by human beings before, encased in a layer of solid rock, that it is not a fabrication by someone trying to sell some crackpot theory. Especially if thousands of people across the planet can find similar rock pieces. I also trust what seems to follow from logical examples of something similar... bacteria and viruses totally changing randomly, such that the ones who survive in their environments are the ones who just happen to be more resistant to our medicines and our immune systems. From that, one might conclude that if the environment of an ecosystem changed that trees which once had white bark now had black bark, now certain color adaptations tended to survive because they were better hidden from predators than before. We observe key changes in the population of the species and each succeeding generation having differences which allow them to survive better, until the species flourishes and spreads across the planet and changes once again by natural selection and adapts to its new surroundings... until you have very different looking animals.
So, we have proof of natural selection, and we have proof of genetic mutation. And we also can see, just from changes in species over time, just from the time frame of our own human observations, that certain species change so much they can no longer mate with former members of their own species, and they are now considered different species.
Once we see this, and we add that to what appears to be billions of years of fossil evidence showing these changes, species appearing and disappearing, with logical steps being taken for one species to radiate and change into several over time, and some species going extinct... and of the surviving species, we can see that there is a genetic similarity between species which seem to have the closest ancestry, and a genetic dissimilarity between species which have more distant ancestry... we have ample evidence that species radiate, change, adapt, and become new species over time, and others disappear. Which directly contradicts the idea that all species were created at once using magic and dust.
If there were evidence that a trillion species appeared suddenly billions of years ago, and since then, they have done nothing but disappear, we might reach a different conclusion. Then creationism might have more merit. But as it stands, there is literally no evidence which supports that theory over the theory of evolution or natural selection.
One could pragmatically argue that a religious belief is 100% true.
Pizza, I see the problem with religion being that it is to dogmatic. That's the only real problem I can think of. But you are being quite dogmatic yourself...
I am arguing that you cannot know for certain something which is unprovable. I am also arguing that faith and science are different systems of thought. One exists in spite of evidence, the other requires evidence and often changes based upon that evidence. That's not a dogmatic viewpoint unless language itself and agreed upon definitions are dogmatic. In which case... praise the dogma!
We have a separation between art and science in our universities and so forth; painting for example is an art form, not a scientific discipline. While sciences and art sometimes overlap, they are distinct concepts. Religion and science have a similar relationship that art and science do; they are different schools of thought, based upon entirely unrelated things. If we teach religion as science, we are doing a disservice to both. If I take everyone's Bible and cross out everything which is not based in science, and try to pass it off as religion, that would also be a disservice to both.
Basically, they have no business intruding upon one another. What is dogmatic is trying to force one discipline upon another, and not respecting the boundaries of both, and the rightness of both existing independent upon one another. When you cross science with faith, you destroy both. Can they coexist? Sure! A religious person can easily be a scientist and believe in God and the afterlife and even Jesus' resurrection, because that is his personal belief. And at the same time, he can believe in evidence and science, and keep them separate in his mind. He could also hold out hope that one day science would conclude that his religious theories are correct, and not be necessarily wrong to do so. Or he might see it as a non-issue... it doesn't really matter if science validates his faith or not... he believes in it and that should be good enough for a person of faith. After all, it is faith.
Dogmatic is pushing your personal beliefs, in spite of evidence to the contrary and with a lack of a logical foundation or a lack of evidence, upon the scientific community. Dogmatic is attempting to abolish religion altogether or being intolerant of those of faith. I am not dogmatic. It is impractical to combine two unrelated things which are built upon foundations alien to one another to satisfy one's religious or non-religious convictions. I think you are confusing holding a strong opinion on an issue and believing in it strongly with being dogmatic. I readily admit the theories could be wrong, as all scientists do, and I am waiting patiently with an open mind for evidence to the contrary.
That's not dogmatic. Saying "I do not know" is the opposite of being dogmatic. I find often in these debates people use words which mean the exact opposite of how they are being used. If you want to say I am being dogmatic, you might do me the courtesy of saying how. :medievalcheers:
I think some of the latest would be from March this year:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...enome_released
And since the article use the term Homo neanderthalensis I guess they are considered a separate species.Quote:
Analysis of the genome reveals that humans and Neandertals share genetic roots stretching back at least 830,000 years.
CBR
Argumentum schmargumentum. Why don't you answer my post #208?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
I mean, I know Askthepizzaguy has been running circles around you, tying your shoelaces together and stealing your Volvo model 74. Or model 84. Or 92. But did you see where he crashed it?
That's right, into post #208. DA ROCK.
:laugh4:
Sigurd is one of my friends and a respected badass when it comes to mafia, so I hope he forgives Adrian II's exuberance.
:bow:
I am dead certain that in a highly formal, technical argument, Sigurd would utterly annihilate me. I believe I have the superior and correct side of the argument, however I am without the tools to defeat a master such as Sigurd. He would knock my head off with his awesome Battle Axe and feed my entrails to his pet dragon.
Au contraire, I bet you could make Sigurd laugh himself unconscious and then roll him off a cliff. In his Volvo 76. Or 91. I never figured out which was the ugliest. :bounce:Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
It was a rush job, there is only so much you can do in a week , after all god isn't infallible is she.Quote:
If there was ever "design", it sure as hell was of the stupid kind.
Give him a chance will ya , OK perhaps he can't answer that from the KJV of scripture but given enough time and enough versions of the one book an answer will be forthcoming.Quote:
Argumentum schmargumentum. Why don't you answer my post #208?
If you two are willing to debate, I would moderate. And I like both of you, and believe it or not I can be very fair and impartial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
*yawn* Is this thread still alive?
Has it moved forward since my post on page 1 explaining there is no way to debate evolution vs creation as one is based on facts and the other on faith?
No?
If all the combined evidence of evolution still does not satisfy the people who prefer to believe a 2000 year old book rather than modern scientifical research, then I am quite sure a topic in the backroom wont either.
You can never beat someone religious by using logic, as they don't see the world in a logical way.
And if you open up for a non-logical argumentation they already won.
But the debate is whether or not the knowledge can be self-authenticating. It wouldn't need to be proved or tested, but is instead made valid by it's own inherent truthfulness. I'm not arguing whether or not this has happened, but whether or not it is theoretically possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy