the theory of evolution ...

[tonorator]

If you want to come at it from that angle ton, this might be a good place to start. Anthropic Principles

Most arguments for intelligent design are borne out of various anthropic principles, but their MO is not to push a deity, but to enphasize the statistical unliklihood in the universe unfolding in such a way as to produce us. (intelligent life)

 

I think it's far more likely that the creationist/intelligent design community would try and make people of faith beilieve that science is out to undermine their religion than it is that scientists are bringing such grand presuppositions into their work. While it's certainly not a flawless process, the whole pupose of science is to eliminate assumptions and only derive knowledge from that which can be observed, proven and predicted.

 

 

wow, that's great stuff billay. kind of supports my sig in fact. i love this:

 

"We must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers."

[Yukon Cornelius]

 

[wiegie]

Your soul is what's let over after you're dead. If you believe it's nothing, then you don't believe you have a soul.

That seems to be a reasonable definition to me.

 

:highfive:

[tonorator]

Side note – The debate usually (and is now) introducing Christianity as the “God” variable. “God” can be defined by whatever the individual interprets as an entity, but steering the conversation towards Christianity will ultimately introduce the secondary agenda of debating left vs. right wing politics. For argument’s sake, I contend that God is defined only as an entity.

 

good point here.

[McNasty]

Your soul is what's let over after you're dead. If you believe it's nothing, then you don't believe you have a soul.

 

well, then. That clears that up.

 

 

This thought process defines a lot of the arguments in here. Take the data you have, and find the most plausible answer. To say that a random mixing of chemicals created a life form so complex it eventually evolved into humans, is really just assuming it’s the only possible scenario that can be derived based on the existing data. For the record, it’s not a fact and IMO highly improbable, but it is variable #2 in the argument (variable #1 would be where the chemicals came from).

 

To summarize the high points of the argument, the focus keeps coming back to what can and can’t be proven. Regardless of the end result, the full extent of the question (having answers for all the variables) must be answered to make a foundation in logic. The foundation in logic places either a belief in God for the creation of the universe, or a belief in nothing turning into something and eventually “creating” us by means of chemical happenstance. There’s faith in either opinion, though the faith in God is defined, the faith in a theory that can explain the infinite variables can be put on the shelf for further scientific research. A conclusive answer cannot be reached, as time an anti-matter are both infinite variables. When forming a logical base of opinion, one answer is God did it, and the other answer is "I don't know, but we're working on it." One logical base answers the question regarding the infinite variables (and therefore forms its base in logic) and the other ignores it, having no foundation in its logical base other than to assume it will be answered later.

 

Side note – The debate usually (and is now) introducing Christianity as the “God” variable. “God” can be defined by whatever the individual interprets as an entity, but steering the conversation towards Christianity will ultimately introduce the secondary agenda of debating left vs. right wing politics. For argument’s sake, I contend that God is defined only as an entity.

 

PS – You have a finite thought process and cannot now, nor ever will be able to put time or anti-matter into a factually proven argument as both are infinite. The scientific method being used as the base of the argument is the same variable that will ultimately negate the answer being proven as factual, which is why the question keeps being defined on what’s tangible. How the matter came to be is a variable and has weight in answering the question, and if you ignore it because it cannot be proven/theorized then the opinion’s base in logic becomes distorted. Bottom line… you either believe that a higher entity (God) created the universe, or you believe that science will someday theorize an answer to an infinite question that cannot be proven.

 

This is not an argument without some merit, but I think you make a lot of assumptions, the clearest being that you're trying to use a logical argument to refute the basis of all logic, and then coming to a conclusion based on your logical argument, and passing that conclusion off as an answer. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If logic is limited, then a logical argument about that fact is a solipsism, or a tautology, or some other big word that basically means, it holds no water.

 

Science is science, just that. Using science as a tool to find or assign "meaning" to life is like using a chainsaw to pick your tetth after eating corn on the cob... you can do it, but it's a suboptimal use of the tool.

[tonorator]

 

well, if we've accomplished nothing, at least we have entertained.

[TimC]

You all do know the aliens are the reason for life and not God or evolution, don't you?

[tonorator]

You all do know the aliens are the reason for life and not God or evolution, don't you?

 

did you see that the villian from the Heroes series (Sylar) is playing Spock in the new trek film? and i believe nimoy is making an appearance as well. they showed up together at comic-con to talk about the new movie ...

 

now we need to know who will play kirk.

[Thews40]

well, then. That clears that up.

This is not an argument without some merit, but I think you make a lot of assumptions, the clearest being that you're trying to use a logical argument to refute the basis of all logic, and then coming to a conclusion based on your logical argument, and passing that conclusion off as an answer. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If logic is limited, then a logical argument about that fact is a solipsism, or a tautology, or some other big word that basically means, it holds no water.

 

Science is science, just that. Using science as a tool to find or assign "meaning" to life is like using a chainsaw to pick your tetth after eating corn on the cob... you can do it, but it's a suboptimal use of the tool.

I understand your point, but mainly define my logical base. You could argue that evolution and God’s existence are two completely separate things, as there could be a God and the first form of life was created and we evolved from it (a lot of people believe this). My intent is not to refute that, but only to point out in answering the global question (answers to all variables) where the matter and the first forms of life came from are important variables that need to be answered in deriving a conclusion that makes sense (follows logic).

[Azazello1313]

that's a good site and i get your point. i'm not so much talking jihad or any overt crusade to disprove creationism or christianity. it's not recognized or stated as an objective, but yet it is in there by default.

 

only if you accept the proposition that science and faith are fundamentally at odds. i do not accept that proposition for a second, it is a foolish doctrine of foolish men. they deal with different questions entirely.

 

we are bound by the scientific method to understand what is happening around us and to try and determine how we got here. from everything we understand today, matter cannot be created from nothing, but yet we know we are here somehow. so right off the bat, the scientific method could discount the supernatural option because it cannot be observed or verified. since it cannot be, then you could start all of your research under the presumption that creationism is not an option. this really isn't anyone's fault, it's just how it is.

 

this is one of thews' favorite bogus muddling tactics. again, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the creation of matter. the creation of matter, the creation of the universe...these are questions of cosmology. the best current scientific evidence points to an expanding universe, finite in space and time. to me that is strong evidence SUPPORTING the idea of some sort of "creator". some numinous power filling the void....sorta like what is mythologically described in the book of genesis, in fact.

 

but in any case, evolution is a theory which begins with events billions of years AFTER "the creation of matter". it makes no assertions whatsoever about the "creation of matter". no assumptions, no guesses, nothing. it simply attempts to explain what we can observe about life forms on earth changing over time. and it happens to explain these things very well. what good is a supernatural explanation when a logical, factually verified natural answer is sitting right in your lap? shouldn't all this be a clue that maybe the "supernatural explanation" is just another reactionary response by worldly "spiritual" leaders trying to cling to the vestiges by which they claim authority for their own doctrines?

 

in short, there are things we as human beings can observe, and things we can't observe. let science deal with the things we can observe, and men of faith can stand on the precipice, believing that we have some stake and some vital relation to what we can't observe. when religious doctrines impede on the province of science, they succeed only in creating artificial precipices designed to corral the herd.

[McNasty]

I understand your point, but mainly define my logical base. You could argue that evolution and God’s existence are two completely separate things, as there could be a God and the first form of life was created and we evolved from it (a lot of people believe this). My intent is not to refute that, but only to point out in answering the global question (answers to all variables) where the matter and the first forms of life came from are important variables that need to be answered in deriving a conclusion that makes sense (follows logic).

 

I see what you're saying, but i don't think there's anything definitive to be gained from it. Meaning, I don't think human knowledge will ever get to a point where we can just put a big line under the information gathered to date, sum it up and have a definitive answer. In my opinion, that approach to science is fallacious and breeds bad science, and dogmatism. Science is an approach to rigid, formal experimentation to see what kind of repeatable results you can get.

 

I don't think there's an end to knowledge, it's infinite. The more we learn, the less we know, because every "answer" breeds ten more questions.

[TimC]

did you see that the villian from the Heroes series (Sylar) is playing Spock in the new trek film? and i believe nimoy is making an appearance as well. they showed up together at comic-con to talk about the new movie ...

 

now we need to know who will play kirk.

 

Not Matt Damon. I was reading an article just this morning on it.

[tonorator]

only if you accept the proposition that science and faith are fundamentally at odds. i do not accept that proposition for a second, it is a foolish doctrine of foolish men. they deal with different questions entirely.

this is one of thews' favorite bogus muddling tactics. again, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the creation of matter. the creation of matter, the creation of the universe...these are questions of cosmology.

 

if evolution and common descent prescribe that we did indeed all originate from the same goo, aren't we allowed to ask where the goo came from?

 

what good is a supernatural explanation when a logical, factually verified natural answer is sitting right in your lap? shouldn't all this be a clue that maybe the "supernatural explanation" is just another reactionary response by worldly "spiritual" leaders trying to cling to the vestiges by which they claim authority for their own doctrines?

 

so you don't think the scientific community clings to any vestiges by which they claim authority for their own doctrines? and that certain presumptions they have help them to fill in the gaps when needed? zero possiblity of this?

[cre8tiff]

There are zealots for every theory out there, religous, scientific or otherwise.

[Big Country]

Working my way through a couple of pages still, but a link to recently observed evolution in other species

 

Samoan Butterfly

[Azazello1313]

if evolution and common descent prescribe that we did indeed all originate from the same goo, aren't we allowed to ask where the goo came from?

 

do you think you can study chemistry without asking where the chemicals came from? or study optics without asking where light came from? should we throw our hands up and give up trying to understand things we can study and observe, under the premise that, if we don't have an answer to the unknowable EVERYTHING, we'll never know anything? because that's the premise behind this theworator "origin of matter" argument with respect to the theory of evolution.

 

 

so you don't think the scientific community clings to any vestiges by which they claim authority for their own doctrines? and that certain presumptions they have help them to fill in the gaps when needed? zero possiblity of this?

 

science's only doctrine is to observe, theorize, verify, falsify. often the scientific community can, and does, leave that cold, hard rationality behind to become almost a proseletyzing religion itself. sure that happens, and i suppose i could see how it might seem like that's what's going on with the theory of evolution, if you didn't understand the overwhelming evidence very well and you started from the presumption that evolution and God are somehow directly competing ideas. it's ultimately up to our own powers of discernment, i suppose.

[tonorator]

theworator

 

i hear that guy is pretty sharp.

[alexgaddis]

Did God make Kimo Von Olhoffen fall on Carson's knee?

[tonorator]

overwhelming evidence

 

you must admit that there is no overwhelming evidence for macroevolution. you can call it a supposition derived from applying the scientific method to microevolution, but that hardly represents overwhelming evidence.

[tonorator]

Did God make Kimo Von Olhoffen fall on Carson's knee?

 

 

i certainly hope not. our run defense is bad enough without the almighty stepping in to help bring us down.

[alexgaddis]

 

i certainly hope not. our run defense is bad enough without the almighty stepping in to help bring us down.

 

Don't worry, God only hates the Vikings for some reason...

Edited August 9, 2007 by alexgaddis

[Azazello1313]

you must admit that there is no overwhelming evidence for macroevolution.

 

nope. the evidence is indeed overwhelming.

[tonorator]

nope. the evidence is indeed overwhelming.

 

any specific references would of course be appreciated.

 

[Azazello1313]

any specific references would of course be appreciated.

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution

Edited August 9, 2007 by Azazello1313

[Yukon Cornelius]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html

must be fuzzy science