It's really funny how people can disbelieve scientific discovers from mere will.

Based on what are we disproving carbon dating techniques, and the research done by fellow scientist and archeologist? How do we readily disbelieve them??

If there are any doubts regarding the archeological findings or the scientific methods, they would be disproved by their fellow scientist. But they can't.

Now everyday people like us, are trying to denounce them, not based on hard evidence but merely 'belief'

Seriously, the current critism for evolution is creationism. While evolution have some evidence, creationism has none. So how do you use creationism to prove that evolution is wrong??

Can evolution be reproduced? The answer is yes, on a micro scale, as pointed out by some posters, through virus and pets. But macro evolution is not reproducable, as it would take millions or billions of years, for any difference to be visible.

But lets look at what we know so far. Evolution happens on a small scale, if we take a longer time span.... what is to stop it from having major changes??

As to the evolution of humans, I think we should be concerned, because in our modern era, selective criteria is based on social smarts, rather than physical built or general intelligence.

This is concerning, because, we'd evolve in any direction as long as we retain our social smarts. Anything here refers to either becoming, blobs or skeletal beings, and the main concerns will still revolve around what others think of you, and not what you're made off.

Just look at Nikolai Tesla, he was a brilliant man, but he was over shadowed by Thomas Edison, because of his social smarts. Tesla died childless because of his anti social behaviours.

---

Added on October 24, 2009, 1:36 pmExplanations are not sufficient, we need evidence.

Once upon a time, religious people used what they knew at the moment, that the world is flat, to justify their Text is true "God spread them to the 4 corners of the world"

They then used their religious text, to prosecute thinkers like galileo.

Now that we have confirmed that the world is spherical, they say that "4 corners" is just a methaphor. and quote that "the world hangs on nothing". Tada... still correct wor.....

This is happening again with evolution.

The Catholic church has now acknowledge evolution, but there are still many Christians out there who choose to disbelieve it. Why is that?

If anything that involves explanations and not evidence is sufficient, then we'd also have to believe other origin stories, I'm sure there are tons, just less popular.



This post has been edited by TheDoer: Oct 24 2009, 01:36 PM

Ah, you're mistaken, I do not believe evolution 100%. It is the best theory we have today, and because of this I stand by it. It's like penicilin, as of now, it's the best medicine. because of this I stand by it. Is it possible that better alternatives maybe created? Sure why not, but prove it to me, before you open your mouth.

Now, your telling me, that some bomoh can cure you, so you don't believe in penicilin. That's ridiculous, and as you can see this is what religious types are saying about evolution now...

What evolutionist faith are you talking about? Are you trying reverse psychology? How do you measure, who has greater faith?

I'm sorry, if you don't know how things are created via randomness, you should look at the world around you. Alas, if your religious you'd say things you see that was created out of randomness, was actually created by God (Intelligent Design), it was all God's plan, so it is not random.

Eg. the sands on the beach, you'd think how wonderful it is, but how was it created? From mindless water pouring against rocks, erodding lighter substances, leaving sand. Religious type will say, God made it that way.

Yeah yeah.... those things... exactly what I mean, was just simply blurting out an example, of how common everyday things which occurs randomly becoming beautiful, will be taken to be signs of God's design.

God, must have made water that way, God must have made rock that way, God must have made the sun that way, and the atmosphere that way, all in his grand design of things....

Everything that is random, has already been tagged, as "God did it". How can you ever see it as random?

Please enlighten me, about faith then.

How then do you define random (occurance without Intelligent design)? Are you saying that randomness does not exist? Or that if things did not turn out to a meaningful outcome, only then it is random?

Taking gambling as an example: Are you saying that, all dice falls are preplanned by God? or that those that don't roll to the number you bet are random, but those that made you win are God guided?

This is something you have to understand...

Human beings tend to find association within their surrounding, and because of this, they'd find everything beautiful.

Whether you're born a chinese, a malay, an indian, an african, or white man, you'd still be grateful that you were born as such. And that God, must have done it, and it was not mere coincidence.

If you don't like it, then you're just being ungrateful, or God is testing you.

Is there ever a chance for things to occur without design? Putting it in another way, if God didn't come to office one day, would people be born as races they should not?

Edit:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you agree with me on randomness thus far?

Now about the probability, of life being created without a creator. I know it is slim. But consider this, a lightning striking a given spot is also very slim, however times that by a long duration of time (eternity), I can tell you it has occured plenty of times.

Even if the universe was not eternal, the fact that something seemingly slim occuring does not mean that it CANNOT occur. That would be like being struck by lightning and disbelieving that you are that 1 in a few hundred million people to be struck.
-------------------------------------------------------------------


Ah, then I think you have unjustly labeled me something for nothing. I never claim to have any loyalty or allegiance to the Evolution theory.

I said :

Not that the current theories are indeed CORRECT, beyond question, but rather, please disprove it with evidence and not from the assumption that God exist, and God says he created everything and that's that.

How did you ever come up with such a preconceived notion of me??

Were you presenting, what I meant by religious people believe what they want from nothing but their own will?

Just wondering, are you a creationist or a fence sitter? Which god do you have faith in?

This post has been edited by TheDoer: Oct 25 2009, 03:20 PM

hum... putting it in your perspective indeed nothing is random; in the sense that everything happens due to certain conditions, and the only reason we call them random, is because we are unable to control their outcome.

Note my definition of randomness : occurance without Intelligent design.
What randomness, in the context of creation, is that things occur not from purpose, or an intelligent design. Basically not "God did it!".

Looking at the dice throws, it occurs based on naturalistic laws, and no indication that divine will was at play.

It is through this randomness, that anything within the given laws are possible. It is just a matter of time, and probability.

So based on my explanation in my previous post, does it make sense to you?

And about pattern, our brain works to see paterns in things, two people look at the clouds, one sees a rabbit, another sees an old man. Our brains are constantly, trying to associate things.

We have the tendency to love any environment that we live in. Love who we are. The people in asia, thank God, that they can harvest year round crops, people in the cold countries, thank God for beautiful snow. The people in the desert thank God for the golden sand.

Those who do not see the beauty of the world around us, are considered either, ungrateful, or psychologically ill.

Beauty is actually, in the eyes of the beholder, it is a state of mind, we find ourselves in. There is no real design in anything and to prove this, consider if God was not around for a day, will these laws still be able to produce the current wonders?

If you bring the question to which is easier to believe then of course,"God did it!", is much simpler than randomness, like, the pagan norse who believed that thunder was caused by Thor hitting his hammer.

But, if we look at logic, we would see it is plausible for us to be created outside the influence of a divine being, provided that the laws and existence, were forever here.

The God idea however, is a complete shot in the dark, As of present there is no way this could happen, based on our observation of the natural world around us. Therefore reason tells us, that Randomness is more plausible.

Ah, I suspected as such; you're a fence sitter. Fair enough. Just wanted to know where your arguments are coming from. Discussion with fundies, often end up with, one word: "Belief".

This post has been edited by TheDoer: Oct 25 2009, 11:47 PM

We know what evolution is. (the struggle for equivalent/equibilum).

The question is, what is our desired result for evolution?

The Ultimate being?

Is there even such a thing as the ultimate being?

Should we determine the path of evolution?

This post has been edited by TheDoer: Oct 26 2009, 10:36 AM

Well, we can attempt to.

Even if the sea will continue to reclaim the land, we could still reclaim the sea.

Currently, the main factors of evolution for human beings, is culture. And culture can be molded through philosophy, government policies,etc.

I agree with your original definition, but, as I said in the context of the creation of things:
and as you agre with me, there is no need for divine intervention, for things to occur, then this is the randomness which we are discussing, with the context of creation.

Putting it back into context. The original discussion about patterns, is that beauty, what people use as proof that God exist. Is all in their heads. Patterns is a method, of grouping things together, it does not exist on it's own. We used the grouped patterns to prove God and that is false.

"I rubbed a penny, I hit jackpot", some people will make associations that the action of rubbing the penny, caused windfall. And that is simply not true.

"The sky is blue, it is beautiful, God must have created it." This is just as absurd, because for one thing the colour blue, and being beautiful is subjective, and an association which the person makes based on their upbringing and personal experience. Second, making the association of beauty = God, is unsound.

Do you need scientific proof, that things was always here? We know that things exist, there is no reason why it should not. The onus is on those who think otherwise.

How do you place that which you can see and that which you can't see on par? That's amazing.

There is indeed alot for us to learn, infact it's infinity. But that does not mean, we cannot base our ideas on the basic info that we can look at. There is no 100% certainty in this world, but that doesn't stop us from calling a flower we perceived red, to be red, until proven otherwise.

I know what you are now, your a deist.

If we keep saying we can't control then we can't. Same as our current political situation, we keep saying we can't get a consensus, so just quit voting.

In order for us to achieve anything, we need to first have a target, then work to acheive it. Not the other way around.

Not that I am saying we should do anything about controlling evolution. Just that we discuss whether we need to, how do we achieve it and what are the ethical implications.

thank you.

---

Added on October 28, 2009, 10:58 amAh sorry, need to clarify some things on the relationship between mutation and evolution.

Mutations are changes in ones, genetic codes, which makes one different from their parents. but it does not mean drastic changes. It is probably the combination of gene's which causes a person to be better than their parents. Example: have a US engine designer, and a Japanese engine designer share their ideas. This might create an engine which is both fast and fuel efficient. Overall the engine will be better, probably even faster than its predecessor. If it takes all the bad traits, then of course, it could be even worse than the original engine.

Another reason for drastic changes, is recessive genes, that the offsprings inherit, if the child does not have a dominant gene, then that recessive gene will be apparent. Example, parents with thalassemia may not show the traits, until they bear an offspring together, that has both the recessive genes.

From what I understand, Evolution works on 3 things, reproduction, variance, elimination.

variance here, is achieved from mutations, elimination here refers, to controlling factors, such as age limit, and the environment.

I don't quite get what you're trying to say.




This post has been edited by TheDoer: Oct 28 2009, 10:58 AM

Ah not exactly... Though human beings are able to adapt to their environment, culture and trend, this is not what evolution is about per se.

Traits of using technology and handphones are probably similar as back then. It's just that practice makes perfect.

Evolution, is about genes that suits an evironment, appearing, more frequently, while the less adaptable traits gets wiped out. It's like shifting dirt for minerals, the heavier substances fall to the bottom,while the lighter stuff rises to the top and gets discarded. What is left is basically, stuff (traits) that fits the present environment.

Imagine the game Spores. Even though there are many different limbs and traits to choose from, people generally, keep on choosing the same body parts, over and over again, just to get the same optimum performance from their creature. This is what it is like in the real world to.

So this is like a chicken and the egg story question, which came first? The answer here lies in your definition of what is a chicken, and whether chicken egg, refers to an egg produced by a chicken, or an egg which a chicken comes from.

Our predecessor, creatures of the same species that can mate, will slowly gain traits that we have today. These traits gets passed around, the present day. The only smoking gun, is our definition of humans (having what collection of human traits).

The reason why we are fat, and unhealthy today, can actually, be blamed on Evolution. Back in the days of our ancestors, food was scarce and unpredictable. Because of this, only those that are always looking for food, able to extract every nutrients from food, and able to retain energy, these are the people that strive. Today this backfires because, food is readily available.

With regards, to IQ, IQ is actually relative. Did you know that with a lack of sleep our IQ will be considerably lower, and higher after a good nights sleep? This could be the case of early humans, probably the food they ate was inadequate to fuel their brains. Couple that with dogma, and ignorance causes them to be perceived less intelligent then ourselves.

This post has been edited by TheDoer: Oct 29 2009, 12:54 AM

Ah and neither have I, please read my posts again, I have been stressing that beauty is not proof that "God did it!", and not because "God did it!" it must be beautiful.

Again, are my points above insufficient to explain why we can't use beauty to prove God?

I had no interest in that, I had been proving that you can't use pattern or beauty to prove that God exist.

Remember the onus is on you to prove, how patterns prove that God is true.


Yes, and the onus is on you to prove it. We know that energy, particles exist. You need to prove that it wasn't so at one point.

huh? I'm not sure how you derived this from what I said. Do you mind quoting me.

Generally replying:
Of course we cannot use something which we are not sure, to make a conclusion. Alas we need to make a conclusion, otherwise, we can never decide what to do. And unfortunately nothing is 100% certain, there is always something outside of known knowledge that may occur.

So how do we make decisions? Simple, by eliminating, claims/information which are not readily available to us. (Ocham's Razor maybe helpful)

eg. If someone was to say they saw aliens in their room, is this proposition impossible? No it is not, there is no 100% certainty on the matter.
So if the person is unable to provide evidence, should we begin an alien hunt, or a "welcome to our planet" campaign?

No. Because the onus is on the claimant to provide the evidence. Otherwise it is consider false.

There are infinite possibilities, into our existence, we cannot believe in all of it at the same time. The most reasonable thing to do, is to believe, that which is present, until new evidence proves otherwise. In your case, that matter, energy, etc were once not here, but God was.

Yes, there is no relevance betweeen your religious beliefs and the truth in your arguments. It was just my own curiousity here. Your religious affiliations would tell me, where the discussion is leading to, so that I can reply them accordingly. As someone once said, "how can we discuss, if we are not on the same page?"

I was not jumping to conclusion, I wanted to see your reaction, to better gauge what reply will be more relevant to you.

Yes, and I am against the pessimistic view. Why must the discussion be killed off with "Communism"? After we have decided what is right, then we can talk about how we can achieve it.

To think that the only solution is communism, is to shut off ones mind.

This post has been edited by TheDoer: Oct 30 2009, 02:19 PM

Nicely put.

=.=||

Yes, it's just as difficult to understand, how a pen drop could create an entire library (God).

But, wondering aside, the theory of evolution still sticks.

I think one can also believe in God, while believing in evolution. But yet many disbelieve it because of religion. What does that tell us about that religion?