FACEOFF: Science VS Evolution

[WildWeazel]

OK This is it.

This thread is for those of us who like a good scientific debate. This is NOT another religious thread. I believe those have been taken care of...

I am calling this science vs evolution because so many people think that evolution is a scientific fact. The truth is, the whole idea is a massive web of modern mysticism.

Some basic rules:
No religious arguments.
No rude or insulting attacks on the opposition.
No twisting it into another topic.
Please do not post unless you have:
a. Evidence for or against evolution
b. A question or clarification

The purpose of this thread is to provide scientific evidence which either supports or denies the theory of evolution, including the big bang, origin of life, advancement of species, etc.

I know, I've just opened a HUGE can of worms...

 

[Perfection]

You didn't open a can of worms, you opened a barrel of snakes!

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

The whole premise of this argument [that evolution is unscientific] is flawed.

There's no discussion to be had here.

 

[WildWeazel]

Originally posted by Perfection
You didn't open a can of worms, you opened a barrel of snakes!

Pandora's box, anyone...?

 

[WildWeazel]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
The whole premise of this argument [that evolution is unscientific] is flawed.

There's no discussion to be had here.

OK, we'll see about that later- I'm going to post a few interesting facts tomorrow. Meanwhile, why don't you see if you can gather up some supporting evidence?

 

[nihilistic]

Q: Do I believe in evolution?
A: It is not a believe, per se.

Q: How sure are you of the validity of the current state of the TOE?
A: I am sure that in general it is wrong. I am sure that the world does not work exactly as the current theory states. However, with respect to the current state of knowledge we have on the world, TOE is correct and justified.

Q: What if somenody proved TOE wrong?
A: Cool, that would probably mean another breakthrough in science that gives us a whole new dimension of insight about the world around us. Please do try.

 

[Perfection]

Well Nihilistic, I'll agree with you on all points, except the idea that it is wrong, my gut tells me it's probobly correct, as it is logical and fits everything relatively nicely.

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by Perfection
Well Nihilistic, I'll agree with you on all points, except the idea that it is wrong, my gut tells me it's probobly correct, as it is logical and fits everything relatively nicely.

I meant to say that it is definitely nto completely correct, since there will probably be something that we either didn't consider yet or we missed. I mean, consider Newtonian physics. It's logical and everything fits nicely, that is, until we begin to measure stuff moving at very high speeds. We can never be sure that we have the whole picture, but that should not stop us from framing the most reliable and consistent picture/theory we know.

 

[Perfection]

Okay, you were scaring me with that first post, but now it fits exactlt with my opinions!

 

[Wyrmshadow]

The problem with argueing for evolution has got nothing to do with its scientific merits or even established facts. The audience that needs to be convinced of it's theoreticaly accuracy will NEVER accept it. Have you ever tried to debate face to face with a Creationist? It is frustrating to say the least! They are pigheaded, stubborn, REFUSE to accept ANYTHING contrary to what they have been taught their entire simple lives.

Bible Thumper "Show me a transitional fossil!!!"
Evolution Proponent "Here's an animal that is halway between a wolflike creature and a dolfin."
BT "That's not a transitional fossil! Don't lie!. That's just some animal or its fake. Geology has PROVED the earth is only 6000 years old and that the Grand Canyon was made during Noah's flood and the earth is flat and its' my God given right to marry my sister" and so forth and so on.

Well I may have paraphrased the last part tongue in cheek, but the rest was accurate to an arguement I had a long time ago. I sat in on an Apologist's lecture one time. They are BT's that use biblical text to disprove anything science has shown us. He blabbed for over an hour, bragged about how he had debated evolutionary proponents in obviously rigged debates, yet in all that bragging he never once mentioned any sort of fact, just a braggard. By rigged debates I mean he only held them where the auditorium was packed with a hostile BT's who had no intention of listening to a proper debate. I stormed out of his lecture.

 

[puglover]

forget it

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by Wyrmshadow
The problem with argueing for evolution has got nothing to do with its scientific merits or even established facts. The audience that needs to be convinced of it's theoreticaly accuracy will NEVER accept it. Have you ever tried to debate face to face with a Creationist? It is frustrating to say the least! They are pigheaded, stubborn, REFUSE to accept ANYTHING contrary to what they have been taught their entire simple lives.

Bible Thumper "Show me a transitional fossil!!!"
Evolution Proponent "Here's an animal that is halway between a wolflike creature and a dolfin."
BT "That's not a transitional fossil! Don't lie!. That's just some animal or its fake. Geology has PROVED the earth is only 6000 years old and that the Grand Canyon was made during Noah's flood and the earth is flat and its' my God given right to marry my sister" and so forth and so on.

Well I may have paraphrased the last part tongue in cheek, but the rest was accurate to an arguement I had a long time ago. I sat in on an Apologist's lecture one time. They are BT's that use biblical text to disprove anything science has shown us. He blabbed for over an hour, bragged about how he had debated evolutionary proponents in obviously rigged debates, yet in all that bragging he never once mentioned any sort of fact, just a braggard. By rigged debates I mean he only held them where the auditorium was packed with a hostile BT's who had no intention of listening to a proper debate. I stormed out of his lecture.

One of the more humourous posts I've seen in a while.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by puglover
forget it

What in not-God's green earth are you talking about?

 

[puglover]

Originally posted by newfangle


What in not-God's green earth are you talking about?

I said something and edited it out.

 

[CurtSibling]

Despite it's audacious drive, this thread is hamstrung like all other Evolution vs Creation threads.

The two areas of thought are utterly different realms.

The stasis of faith and the quest for fact.
They move in two different directions.
And may the twain never meet.

One is the desperate belief of a myth in the face of everything else.
The other is a theory, that doesn't presume anything more than that.

I fail to see the issue.

If you think a large old man with a beard created the species on this world, fine.

My view, this is a rock populated with animals, all adaptable products of an extended existance in a changing environment.

While some are less adaptable than others, some of these animals have advanced minds and bestowed themselves with all manner of very odd ideas.

While I doubt this thread will ever come close to making any progress in the great debate, (and to be fair none ever have)

I do think we all have the right to think what we wish, so I stick with the evolutionary theory.

A theory it may be, but I find the alternative too ludicrous to be even considered.

 

[Maj]

Creationism is built on faith, which is an emotion, or complex milieu of emotions if you want to be more specific. There is a "feeling" of being correct, of possessing a specific knowledge.

Theory of Evolution is built on empiricism, which is the idea that only our senses can discover/'create' knowledge since they are the only reliable systems of measurement that all humans possess (so it is assumed).

Since all humans (yes, yes, there are the blind, deaf, etc. but they all have/had the equipment) possess the five senses but not all possess the 'sense' of faith (which is often developed, not inherent, in humans) the Theory of Evolution is considered the more likely explanation of life and its direction.

Grossly simplistic but I never claimed to be anything more

 

[Kryten]

As I posted in another thread:-

Who do you think is more likely to be right?
* Modern palaeontologists, who spend their whole working career going out into the field, digging up fossil remains, categorising them, studying them, and subjecting items to the full rigours of modern science, and all under the full scrutiny of their peers?
* Or a bunch of primitives, several thousand years ago, living in mud-brick huts, who never thought to look for themselves, had no concept of modern analytical methods, and simply made 'guesses' about how the world was organised?
(And if your answer is the people several thousand years ago, then can I assume that you also don't believe in modern doctors, surgeons and medicine?
Because that is another field that has been built upon categorising, studying, and subjecting items to the full rigours of modern science, instead of making 'guesses' about how things are organised in the real world.)

Also, if you don't believe in "The Theory of Evolution", then do you also disbelieve in "The Theory of Gravity", and thus face the risk of floating off the earth?

 

[CurtSibling]

Nice one, Kryten.

And all damn true.

 

[Archer 007]

Yep, Kryten, we should all buy you a steak.

 

[puglover]

Originally posted by Kryten
As I posted in another thread:-

Who do you think is more likely to be right?
* Modern palaeontologists, who spend their whole working career going out into the field, digging up fossil remains, categorising them, studying them, and subjecting items to the full rigours of modern science, and all under the full scrutiny of their peers?
* Or a bunch of primitives, several thousand years ago, living in mud-brick huts, who never thought to look for themselves, had no concept of modern analytical methods, and simply made 'guesses' about how the world was organised?

The primitives weren't actually guessing. They saw with their own two eyes and made religion. Also, paleontologists can be just as stupid as primitives.

Frankly, both beliefs are faith-based. Neither has actual evidence to back up their claims. We were never there when these things happened.

Originally posted by Kryten
Also, if you don't believe in "The Theory of Evolution", then do you also disbelieve in "The Theory of Gravity", and thus face the risk of floating off the earth?

WTH? How does not believing in the Theory of Evolution imply that I don't believe in the Theory of Gravity?