athiests and agnostics know more about religion than churchgoers

#426
#426
To the fossil gap question:

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This took about 10 seconds to find on the web.

...but it doesn't really matter, now does it? It is almost pointless having these discussions with the crowd that doesn't want to accept that maybe...just maybe...there wasn't a divine hand guiding everything. The problem is this line of evidence will never be good enough for the naysayers. Once one transitional fossil is shown, then it will inevitably be asked for a transitional fossil between that one, creating two more "gaps". This will continue ad infintium. More evidence effectively creates more gaps. The fossil record, by far, is the weakest attempt and the anti-evolutionary crowd to dispute the theory. Even still, the independent evidence from other areas of biology, microbiolgy, genetics, chemistry, even mathematics and probability theory have shown that basics of evolutionary theory is strong. If by some reason it turns out to be false, then the evidence against would have to be really strong, because again, mother nature would a a lot of explaning to do.

All the other silliness about rationalization of evidence and assumptions, etc...is just more of the same. It's pointless to argue, because despite whatever claims you want to make about being objective, if you really knew what you were talking about then this wouldn't even be a question. There is obviously some other motive with you keeping this "open mind" because if you were literate on all studies and research it is just about case closed.

Don't get me wrong, the specifics are still largely in question, and should be vigorously tested. But just like with the "ultimate" type questions (how the universe started, why we are here, etc) just because a specific mode of thinking cannot (and maybe will never) be able to give reasonable answers, doesn't say a damn thing about metaphysical claims being any different. In that sense, both schools of thought are indistinguishable.
 
#428
#428
rjd970 said:
This is where everything breaks down and we get mired in arguments over what we don't know. Bottomline, unfalsifiable claims do not mean a thing. Science, afterall, hasn't refuted the existence of unicorns or astrology either. That is hardly good enough evidence to say such claims have any intellectual merit.

And, if one wants to claim a creator, then the obvious observation is they are, at best, an underachiever. We live on a small planet, in the middle of nowhere in the universe, on the edge of a non-descript galaxy, in ordinary solar system, on a planet that supports life some of the time on some of its surface, only to be engulfed by an exploding sun in 5 billion years. This is to say nothing of the fact that greater than 95% of all life that has ever lived on this planet is now extinct. And, for some non-existent explanation, said creator decided to implant 400,000 different species of beetles on said planet.

Right...none of that exudes radomness. It was all designed. :ermm:
Click to expand...

Anyone that believes God is the creator is an underachiever ?
 
#430
#430
IPorange said:
No, he is saying a creator would be an underachiever.
Click to expand...

I realize that the scientific method operates differently but in order to believe this it seems you are dismissing many possibilities here. First that we are alone in the universe despite ample evidence that life (as we know it) is a distinct possibility in a vast number of places. That the galaxy we live in is really nondescript when we actually know so very little about it to begin with etc. It just seems like a cop out which is the very thing the scientific side of the debate so often throws at the religious.
 
#431
#431
GVF said:
The time frame of the apostles and their teachings and biblical writings only confirm that God's teaching continued after Christ's death and christianity grew.
Click to expand...

you realize that to a non beleiver that this explanation sounds pretty convienent. what possible reason would god have to wait? if he wanted the bible written as it was wouldn't you want it out as soon as possible?
 
#432
#432
KB5252 said:
I realize that the scientific method operates differently but in order to believe this it seems you are dismissing many possibilities here. First that we are alone in the universe despite ample evidence that life (as we know it) is a distinct possibility in a vast number of places. That the galaxy we live in is really nondescript when we actually know so very little about it to begin with etc. It just seems like a cop out which is the very thing the scientific side of the debate so often throws at the religious.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the point of the argument. No one is saying the universe isn't vast and amazing. What an atheist is saying is it is clearly not inherently organized in it's design, and we are clearly not organized in our place and station within it.

Life and all that is amazing, but it's also highly random and yet not extremely diverse.
 
#433
#433
IPorange said:
I don't think you understand the point of the argument. No one is saying the universe isn't vast and amazing. What an atheist is saying is it is clearly not inherently organized in it's design, and we are clearly not organized in our place and station within it.

Life and all that is amazing, but it's also highly random and yet not extremely diverse.
Click to expand...

We know so very little about our universe that any statement as to it's randomness is at the very best a reach. It seems to me from what little I have seen from Hubble and read about that our universe is very diverse. Maybe I did misunderstand, is their position that mankind isn't diverse?
 
#434
#434
KB5252 said:
We know so very little about our universe that any statement as to it's randomness is at the very best a reach. It seems to me from what little I have seen from Hubble and read about that our universe is very diverse. Maybe I did misunderstand, is their position that mankind isn't diverse?
Click to expand...

Life on Earth, in the grand scheme of possibilities, is not very diverse. Higher organisms are all bilaterally symmetrical and all chordates.
 
#435
#435
IPorange said:
Life on Earth, in the grand scheme of possibilities, is not very diverse. Higher organisms are all bilaterally symmetrical and all chordates.
Click to expand...

I still don't see that this is good reasoning to deduce God is an underachiever. Perhaps you can explain it to me?
 
#436
#436
Apparently I can not explain it to you. I do not possess the necessary supernatural abilities it takes to make a argument or even represent an argument that you could find compelling.
 
#437
#437
IPorange said:
Apparently I can not explain it to you. I do not possess the necessary supernatural abilities it takes to make a argument or even represent an argument that you could find compelling.
Click to expand...

You don't have to have spiritual or supernatural abilities. It is one thing to make an argument that is compelling and another to make general statements on that which we no so little of. I guess what I don't get is a lack of diversity in the fauna of earth being an argument or a component of an argument against the existence of a higher spiritual power.
 
#438
#438
rjd970 said:
To the fossil gap question:

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This took about 10 seconds to find on the web.

...but it doesn't really matter, now does it? It is almost pointless having these discussions with the crowd that doesn't want to accept that maybe...just maybe...there wasn't a divine hand guiding everything. The problem is this line of evidence will never be good enough for the naysayers. Once one transitional fossil is shown, then it will inevitably be asked for a transitional fossil between that one, creating two more "gaps". This will continue ad infintium. More evidence effectively creates more gaps. The fossil record, by far, is the weakest attempt and the anti-evolutionary crowd to dispute the theory. Even still, the independent evidence from other areas of biology, microbiolgy, genetics, chemistry, even mathematics and probability theory have shown that basics of evolutionary theory is strong. If by some reason it turns out to be false, then the evidence against would have to be really strong, because again, mother nature would a a lot of explaning to do.

All the other silliness about rationalization of evidence and assumptions, etc...is just more of the same. It's pointless to argue, because despite whatever claims you want to make about being objective, if you really knew what you were talking about then this wouldn't even be a question. There is obviously some other motive with you keeping this "open mind" because if you were literate on all studies and research it is just about case closed.

Don't get me wrong, the specifics are still largely in question, and should be vigorously tested. But just like with the "ultimate" type questions (how the universe started, why we are here, etc) just because a specific mode of thinking cannot (and maybe will never) be able to give reasonable answers, doesn't say a damn thing about metaphysical claims being any different. In that sense, both schools of thought are indistinguishable.
Click to expand...

Who says it has to be God, or a "god" - why not aliens, or self-learning, etc.?

Unlike most of the modern scientific community, I don't believe that the theory of evolution is inarguably true, at least in its current form of incompleteness, nor do I think it above intense scrutiny and close examination.

I'm sure that you - the one who assumes the conclusion at the cost of then aligning the facts toward that end - would find this to be a rather frustrating endeavor.

How will I know if your evidence is sufficient? As the fossil record continues to maintain extraordinary gaps, there's little to examine, is there? Or, do you suggest that I attempt to disprove that which you still cannot hope to prove exists......which is the very thing which you castigated the religous believers for doing, just earlier in this same thread.

"If you really knew what you were talking about, this wouldn't be a question." I hope you enjoy the irony of that statement as much as I did. I laughed, literally, out loud while reading it.

The evidence to overturn evolutionary theory would have to be extraordinarily strong - almost inconceivably so. You'll get no argument from me, on that. My point is that the assumption has been made that it's true, and that no possible alternative explanations are pursued - and in fact, those scientists who do are routinely ostracised from the field. Which begs another interesting question: If this is all so silly, and easily disproven, what are those proponents of evolutionary theory so scared of?

Don't get me wrong, the specifics are still largely in question, and should be vigorously tested. But just like with the "ultimate" type questions (how the universe started, why we are here, etc) just because a specific mode of thinking cannot (and maybe will never) be able to give reasonable answers, doesn't say a damn thing about metaphysical claims being any different. In that sense, both schools of thought are indistinguishable.
Click to expand...

I doubt IPO will agree that this last paragraph was very well said, at all, as it seems both confused and incongruent when compared to your previous posts on this subject. Forgive my ignorance (you knowing far more than I, admittedly), but could you clarify the following:

Would you consider the gaps in the fossil record to be a "specific" tenant of evolutionary theory? You're tired of hearing about fossils. I don't blame you. Ted Kennedy used to shudder at the mention of Chappaquiddick, even many years later.

So, let's tackle something else. How about:

The Law(s) of irreducible complexity?
The Cambrian explosion?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics?
The Law of Biogenesis (that life can only come from life)?

As for your continued insistence that no "real scientist" would dare challenge the "truth" of evolutionary theory, might I direct your attention to "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism", which states the following:

​
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

From the website dissentfromdarwin.org:

"Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines from such institutions as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Dartmouth, Rutgers, University of Chicago, Stanford and University of California at Berkeley. Many are also professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as Cambridge, Princeton, MIT, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania, University of Georgia, Tulane, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, and Ben-Gurion University in Israel."

Do you recognize any of those schools / academic fields, Charlie?

A link can be found here:
Dissent from Darwin

While you have, ostensibly (and sadly), formed your own final conclusions on the matter, thankfully many others - who I would wager are far more credible figures within the scientific community (certainly more accomplished, you must agree) than any group of people you have known, studied beneath, or will likely ever be fortunate enough to share their presence within the same room - have not.

G, S, M to true scientists, I suppose.
 
#439
#439
droski said:
you realize that to a non beleiver that this explanation sounds pretty convienent. what possible reason would god have to wait? if he wanted the bible written as it was wouldn't you want it out as soon as possible?
Click to expand...

I agree, however begrudgingly.
 
#440
#440
IPorange said:
I don't think you understand the point of the argument. No one is saying the universe isn't vast and amazing. What an atheist is saying is it is clearly not inherently organized in it's design, and we are clearly not organized in our place and station within it.

Life and all that is amazing, but it's also highly random and yet not extremely diverse.
Click to expand...

If the intricacies of our world were not so overwhelmingly exampled at every level of nature - be it either within and beyond both the universe and the cell, fully and equally - I might agree. But it is, and I cannot.

However, I trust that you would not make such a pronouncement without having first established a known standard by which to measure it? So, what is that standard of "inherently organized", exactly?

In other words, to say that something is not up to par seems to require a knowledge of exactly what "par" might be, wouldn't you agree?

But, suppose being so simple-minded in all of this, you could help me to better understand your more learned position, far above my own. So, let's assume that I simply believe your claim that the world in which we live is not "inherently organized" - could you tell me what would a more (properly or inherently) organized universe appear to be, in comparison to that which we now reside?

If you cannot provide the standard by which you have measured the current state of organization, nor could you establish how a more organized universe might appear - how could you possibly form any conclusion as to our current universe, at all......outside of personal opinion and/or belief?
 
#441
#441
IPorange said:
Apparently I can not explain it to you. I do not possess the necessary supernatural abilities it takes to make a argument or even represent an argument that you could find compelling.
Click to expand...

It is not your task to be compelling, only genuine and truthful.

You'd give up the chance for an honest (and friendly) dialogue to simply insult him and withdraw.

I don't know if that's more tragic or cowardly.

Likely, equal parts of both.
 
#442
#442
Tenacious D, for someone that needs 100% indisputable evidence for absolutely everything, I find it kind of ironic that you have zilch, zero, nada evidence for the "theory" of intelligent design.

Why is that?
 
#443
#443
By the way, again I ask you to please study the scientific method.

It's hard to have a constructive debate on the issue with someone that says things like :

". My point is that the assumption has been made that it's true, and that no possible alternative explanations are pursued"

That is just not true. On many different levels.
 
#444
#444
I don't understand why he thinks I am "withdrawing" from this exchange. Anyone who posts or reads here knows I hang around these threads like a cop at a donut shop. That's the REAL tragedy.

It's also funny that he describes the dialogue as honest and friendly, then calls me cowardly. It's cool though.


It's ironic that the critiques of evolution revolve around a critique of positivism in general, and yet many Christians on this forum structure their own arguments around positivist sentiments. So it goes.
 
#445
#445
Tenacious D said:
While you have, ostensibly (and sadly), formed your own final conclusions on the matter, thankfully many others - who I would wager are far more credible figures within the scientific community (certainly more accomplished, you must agree) than any group of people you have known, studied beneath, or will likely ever be fortunate enough to share their presence within the same room - have not.
.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a "final conclusion" in science, I don't know where you're getting this stuff from.
 
#446
#446
VolBurgers said:
Tenacious D, for someone that needs 100% indisputable evidence for absolutely everything, I find it kind of ironic that you have zilch, zero, nada evidence for the "theory" of intelligent design.

Why is that?
Click to expand...

I am no more a proponent of intelligent design than I am of your sister's chastity, your father's sobriety, your mother's fidelity or her boyfriend's employability.

My aim was merely to respond to oft-stated fallacy that the theory of evolution was beyond continued skepticism and investigation. I don't even argue that it's untrue - nor that any other theory is more compelling.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#447
#447
VolBurgers said:
There is no such thing as a "final conclusion" in science, I don't know where you're getting this stuff from.
Click to expand...

I agree, both with the content of your post, and the irony of your attributing that fallacy to me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#448
#448
Tenacious D said:
My aim was merely to respond to oft-stated fallacy that the theory of evolution was beyond continued skepticism and investigation.]
Click to expand...

That's not oft-stated. I've never heard anyone that has a 10th grade level understanding of science say anything like that.

You're making that up.

You were so quick to respond earlier I thin you may have missed something important.

rjd970 said:
Don't get me wrong, the specifics are still largely in question, and should be vigorously tested.
Click to expand...
 
#449
#449
VolBurgers said:
By the way, again I ask you to please study the scientific method.

It's hard to have a constructive debate on the issue with someone that says things like :

". My point is that the assumption has been made that it's true, and that no possible alternative explanations are pursued"

That is just not true. On many different levels.
Click to expand...

I am more than willing to be corrected.

Please tell me the most recent alternative explanation proposed to explain the origins and adaptations of life - either in addition to or in opposition of the theory of evolution.

Perhaps they exist, but unlike evolutionists and the fossil record, I won't simply believe that they must, in absence of empirical proof.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top