I thought he made a powerful point. I wondered if anyone had watched the video.
The interviewer used logical fallacies as his arguments. For example, his logic leading to a creator was based on the questions posed, such as, can you make a grain of sand? If not, then a creator exists. Have you ever stolen something? Then, you are a thief and a sinner, Jesus died for your sins. Can you give me one example in which science observed one species evolving into another? No? Then a creator exists.
It's silly logical fallacies like this we see here on these forums, too. They are no more valid coming from an interviewers catching people off guard in the streets.
Indeed, considering some of those ppl's backgrounds (and ages) one would think they would have been able to better answer the questions. However, I didn't feel his point was 'because you have no observable evidence of evolution, there is a Creator.' I feel his point was clearly, 'Because you have no observable proof of evolution, will you admit you have accepted evolution on faith?'
He did a very good job pointing out, respectfully, that they believe in books of the past and teachers of the past, having *no observable proof of evolution and not being able to give one example of any animal who has changed in "kind" as Darwinian evolution suggests.
If a person steals or lies, they are a liar and a thief, of course his only point there being to help a person see, that even when one thinks one is a good person, we are all, in fact, not really good according to God's laws, or man's.
You don't seem to get it, the questions were fallacies, they weren't valid questions to begin with They've been asked before in one from or another and are still not valid.
No, we can't make grains of sand, but that question completely ignores the comparisons of time.
Could a scientist, given millions of years and a laboratory the size of the earth create things like living cells and grains of sand? Probably.
Can we watch as one creature evolves into another? Of course not, but that too ignores the comparisons of time. Could we watch one species evolve into another over millions of years? Probably.
You can easily see how his questions are invalid.
Here, he is trying to make the distinction that faith in hard evidence is the same as faith in religious beliefs, but that's just another fallacy. Everyone who understands evolution understands it the same way as everyone else, but that isn't the case at all with religious faith.
We have many examples, some of those were presented in the video, only to be shot down with the ongoing fallacy by the interviewer, the deceitful comparison of time.
Bullocks. That is another fallacy. It judges a person by rare acts of immoral behavior in their lifetimes, often never repeated and despite the fact those acts are overwhelmingly insignificant by the many ongoing, daily acts of compassion and good those same people exhibit the rest of their lives.
So to be clear you are saying that perhaps, given a live, intelligent designer, (the scientist), and the existing laboratory with all of it's different resources, we might be able to create sand, given millions of years to do it? Doesn't your theory remove all of that? No life, no intelligent designer (scientist), and no raw materials or at best a molten mess that came from nowhere? How is that a viable answer? How exactly is the "exploding dot from nowhere to life, given enough time" premise superior or more logical than a Creator?
An Atheist's entire argument is that God cannot be seen or touched so He cannot be proven. He is simply stating you have based your belief on the testimony of men... who by the way also have no observational examples. I did find the (un-observable) examples given to be as ludicrous as you find the idea of a supreme being to be.
That would be untrue.
God cannot be detected by any method known to mankind - not just our 5 senses. God's actions, if any, cannot be correctly attributed to Him. Descriptions of God vary so widely most have to be lies. God's location, although given definitively, is unknown. God requires another universe, also undetectable by any method known to man.
There is thus zero evidence, whether through our senses, our mechanical senses, observed results of His actions or any circumstantial observations. He thus not only cannot be proven we cannot find the smallest bit of evidence to show He might be there. Just claims from various people that their "feelings" say He exists.
That would be untrue.
It is such a bummer though to take part in these "conversations" cause they play out in your head in the instant you go to type your response. 'I will say this, then you will say that.'
That's why it's not a real conversation, it's a circular argument. I remember when I went to Africa, I shared the gospel with ppl who had not yet heard. They were so grateful that someone had come and told them about God sending His son so that we might be saved (and yes I hear you saying they are simple or we were conniving... etc.), but their hearts were so un-jaded. I remember a very old man, he was fairly crippled and walked with a cane. We were baptizing ppl who had given their hearts to God, and he walked something like 25 miles b/c it meant so much to him. Again, I can hear the things you're saying, but it was extraordinarily lovely. It's a simple truth, it's a beautiful truth and scoffing can't change that.
"their hearts were so un-jaded" = "they were so gullible", just in different words.
But, if it makes them happy, there is little wrong with being like that.
As I said, I heard your words ahead of time, but I shared anyway. That's the way it is I spose.
I spose it is - the more one talks, the more we recognize and expect their response.
While I would not have predicted you mentioning your evangelism, that you would use "their hearts were so un-jaded (un-jaded, yet!)" as a euphemism for "gullible" or "unsophisticated" but without the negative connotations sounds exactly like something you would say.
I did not make that comparison, you did. I don't know why you assume a ppl group to be gullible or unsophisticated, but that was your claim, not mine.
Since I spent a couple years in Africa with tribal people - they are not the least bit gullible when it comes to the "message of Christ". They had questions, and most of them chose NOT to convert - which seemed like an abysmal failure on the part of my parents, but a victory in keeping their own culture and traditions alive and well - something that they are struggling to maintain with the encroachment of technology and city boarders.
Some of the people who DID convert are now hunting child-witches and torturing and burning people alive. Due to Christian missionaries in Uganda, gays were thought to be put to death - but now just sentenced to life in prison. How lovely for them. All because of the anti-gay propaganda of three US evangelicals, traveling to Africa to teach the heathens.
Deplorable. Absolutely deplorable, immoral and ignorant.
Yes, I know you had a terrible experience in Africa. Im sorry about that.
Mine was very meaningful. The ppl I met there were amazing. The African Christians we met there were deeply spiritual and devout. I admired them greatly. The churches that we helped plant, the last we heard were going strong. I got pregnant as soon as we got back and they named one of the churches "ndani ya" or "something inside" after this event (our son Sam). To us, this was very special.
No, Africa was a wonderful experience. What happened afterwards was a travesty. Are your churches witch hunting now? There's a problem with going in and evangelizing and then not following up with education and explanations and knowledge of basic human rights. Otherwise they revert back to the dark ages and all hell begins. Why would you think that my experience was horrible?
I thought the ppl you went with... family and church, mistreated you.
No, there is follow-up with those churches, making sure they are doing well.
My family did. My church did. Not while we were there.
I see... I just kind of have always pictured them as being awful. I hope that isn't offensive.
They were. When we were in Kenya, it was inclusive ina larger group, and most of the time it was easy enough to stay busy and out of the way. It wasn't like it was at home. It was different
it was an amazing experience. I got to learn another language. (two, partially). I got to interact with a completely different culture that had no concept of phones, electricity or computers. I got to see how people lived on the other side of the planet - and I got to do it in a place where, on any given day, an elephant could walk right by you, or you could hear hyenas cackling at night and lions on the hunt. It was beautiful. I wouldn't trade it for the world - but it wasn't miraculous. And I do feel that it's kind of sad that American Missionaries find it necessary to travel all over the world, erect churches and school buildings solely in the name of religion - to spread what they think is correct and COMPLETELY destroy thousands of years of culture and tradition in the process. They aren't out there building wells or schools without preaching. In order to get the benefits, they have to listen repeatedly to Christian propaganda and messages, and if they don't accept it, they don't get any help at all. Not many people are interested in going over there just to make a difference and make life better, ensuring that people have clean water to drink just to be decent human beings. It all has an ulterior motive of proselytizing and spreading a religious belief that THEY think is correct, with no regard to the religious beliefs that have existed for hundreds of years or the cultures that those beliefs have created.
Yeah, I had a similar experience. We were in Kenya, went into Uganda, but mostly Busia. It was very much for us, like walking out the scriptures b/c their world isn't much different than it was in biblical times.
We did not go to erect churches, just to share the news that God loves them, tell them about salvation and give them Bibles. We just walked from village to village and hut to hut. The ppl were extraordinarily kind. They were a beautiful ppl.
Did you do anything to actually HELP them? Dig wells? give them food or medicine?
?? I took your word for it. I just recognize and accept that "un-jaded heart" means "gullible". "Will accept an emotional appeal for belief", "wants a father figure enough to swallow a myth without questioning". "Is in enough despair to accept any wild story of help" are all other ways of putting it, but "gullible" covers it all if one is honest enough to recognize it.
Tell me, when you go out proselytizing, do you look for and approach educated, well to do people that have a good handle on how the world works or do you look for the uneducated, poor people despairing of ever turning their life around and grasping for anything that might make them feel better? Having been trained in the MLM field at one time, I know which one we were taught to approach; the descriptive word was "gullible", whether it sounds nice or not.
LOL. There are actually people in Africa who haven't been evangelized?
You might want to pay attention once in a while to know that isn't an atheists entire argument, far from it.
That is where he is wrong.
That is entirely false, there is plenty of observational evidence for evolution.
That is because you have no understanding of evolution, just like the interviewer in the video and the people who run the website you posted.
No one has ever observed the earth making a revolution around the sun, and no one has observed atoms either. The inability to view protons, electrons and neurons in atoms hasn’t invalidated atomic theory.
Fossils have been discovered for transitional organisms. The Archaeopteryx from 60 Ma was intermediate between reptiles (dinosaurs) and birds; it had feathers, while the skeleton is reptilelike, tho the skull & beak are birdlike. Tiktaalik was intermediate between fish and tetrapods (amphibians). Numerous hominids have been discovered between apes and Homo sapiens.
So someone makes a video of questions asked to Atheists and edits and only reveals the clips he likes and you think that is revealing. I couldn't get past the first few minutes and I personally can name evidence for evolution that we can see today. I imagine he edited those out of his film. Rather misleading. Off the top of my head the horse, donkey and Zebra are examples of species becoming other species as is the African and Asian elephants.
A systematic and total destruction of an arrogant lie....
Only to replace it with another.
More than the theory I liked the creation Museum ad
I got as far as five minutes before I lost interest. Soooo asking a number of science students to describe a specific evolutionary event who then fail is somehow evidence against evolution? Try the same tactic on a Southern Bible Fundy regarding some random passages of the OT, and they will similarly flounder.
Evolutionary science is a complex thing, not a subject that can be explained to the cynical and scientifically illiterate in a 30 second sound bite. Do you seriously think that the interviewer would be interested in a scientist explaining some complex detail for 30 minutes? How long before the interviewer got bored or the scientist got bored with dumbing down a response to a clueless idiot? The interviewer is just trying to catch people out on the spot, which proves nothing but immaturity.
No doubt this film was selectively edited to remove anyone who could satisfy the interviewers childish whims.
How about a fairer challenge: ask those being interviewed to put together a report in 24 hours outlining the evidence for evolution, then compare the report quality to those from a bunch of creationists outlining the evidence for creationism?
So then that would be 5. Thank you for commenting.
It can easily be seen in less than 5 minutes the dishonest tactics of the interviewer, no need to go on from there.
One might assume such a thing if one were not to watch something in its entirety.
Assumptions are of course not intelligent info, they are assumed intelligent info, making them, in actuality... empty guesses.
I did watch it, that's why I know it fails from the first 5 minutes.
Do you even know what you're talking about?
Yes, Im talking about commenting on a subject you are knowledgeable about and one you pretend to have knowledge of. The noticeable difference would be engaging conversation and hot air.
The interviewer is certainly spewing hot air, there is no engaging conversation going on in that vid and we know you have no clue about evolution, so that too would be just hot air.
Why did you post that link? Did you not know it was rubbish or did you actually believe they had valid arguments?
You're somewhat like a child in your desire to incite quarrels. I don't feel the need to argue. I enjoyed the video and shared it. Some will like it some will not. Your response has been recorded for posterity and I thanked you. I don't see what there is left to say. Have a good day?
What's there to enjoy? Dishonesty? Deceitful tactics? What exactly could anyone possible enjoy in that?
What's to like? The dishonesty by the interviewer?
More petty insults. You just can't seem to put together a post without tossing out personal insults.
You're so lonely aren't you?
That makes me sad. What shall we chat about? What's your favorite color? (colour).
Can I interview you? I would enjoy that.
No, I'm not lonely, and your pathetic personal insults are getting tiresome. You really should grow up and try acting like an adult for a change.
Well that kind of hurt. I don't want to interview you now.
Ask me again later. Maybe I will have forgiven you by then.
Did I miss something? You tell him he must be lonely and you have pity for him. He says your personal insults are pathetic and tiresome and THAT's what kind of hurt you? Were you hoping your personal insults would be inspiring and riveting?
Trust in scientific theories (including evolution) is not based on faith. It is based on the fact that the method used to derive such theories (scientific method) has a proven track record. The knowledge that has been acquired through the application of scientific method, serves as evidence that this method is a useful way of acquiring such knowledge, or identifying inaccuracies in that knowledge. In contrast, there is no evidence to suggest divine revelation is a useful way of acquiring this type of knowledge. The title of the video is therefore misleading. It would be more accurate to call it: Scientific Method Vs Divine Revelation, as that is what the interviewer is ultimately comparing. In relation to gaining knowledge about how the world works, there is no contest between the two. Scientific method has simply proven to be the most useful way of acquiring such knowledge. However scientific method has so far been less successful in enabling us to gain other types of knowledge, e.g. whether there is an ultimate meaning to life. That is the domain of other philosophies (science is a type of philosophy) and religion.
It got a little loopy at the end there, but...who are you and what have you done with Don W?
Beth, what is your opinion of the video and why?
Aw, how sweet you are for asking. No one asked me what I thought of it. lol
Im sure this isn't a set up.
I have watched Ray C. for many years though haven't really read his stuff since the late 90s. I always like his approach. He has a main point to share and he sticks to it, thats ok with me, it's his prerogative. I know he believes with his whole heart that souls will be lost and he simply wants to make sure he's done his part to see that everyone has heard the good news and has considered both sides.
I do believe his point was not to say, "Hey, Im gonna prove your belief is false." His point was to say, "Your belief is as much faith as mine is." I believe he used the same kind of arguments that Atheists have used for years, which again, is not a bad thing. I really appreciated seeing the visuals of walking whales etc. b/c to me they very much looked as ridiculous to me as my faith looks to you.
That's about it radman... I appreciate you asking.
If you think he uses the same kind of arguments that Atheists do you really need to learn about the accepted rules for logic and evidence.
Not those used in religious arguments like his, those used in the sciences.
No, not really. I don't mean to be snarky or mean, but you really don't seem to understand that there is a difference in these things, let alone what it is.
Both sets of rules have a place and a use, but that place is not in a discussion in the "opposing" field. Neither set works when used in the wrong setting; what is acceptable and useful in one is not in the other and vice versa. Those religious folk that fail to understand that are often confounded and insulted when either they do not understand the rules in use or use the rules in the wrong setting (and so are the atheists, for that matter). You need to understand the difference.
The truth is, I don't feel like constantly defending my point of view. Life's too short... this particular point is not vital enough for me to drum up the effort. I prefer to save my arguments for things that are of more importance than why I believe the arguments Comfort used were similar to the ones Atheists use. Even the time I have spent on this short paragraph is slightly irritating to me, but it is my choice. I can only divide my attention in so many different directions and this is not one of the directions I want to spend a lot of time on. I respect that you disagree... maybe someday I will feel like discussing minute issues, this is not that day.
*shrug* Up to you, certainly - I'm sure not going to be the one to try and teach someone logic and rules of evidence.
I just see, over and over, that you and an "opponent" on these forums disagree because one or both of you are using incorrect logic/evidence in your arguments, whereupon it degenerates to a name calling match or some such.
But your choice, certainly - have at it!
So that we might all be clear, what do you consider the universal authority on logic and rules of evidence for use in a public, international forum? Who decides what those are so we can determine when folks are using the "fallacy" claim simply because they have no valid defense against an argument and hope invoking this provides an escape while at the same time implying some intellectual superiority via association?
Who does one appeal to if we disagree with the reasoning put forth in a rule and under what authority are they imposed? My recollection from college, (many years ago), is that there are many different forms of debate, different rules of evidence, different perspectives on what defines logic, etc. Which is being used here at HubPages?
You needn't teach me, simply direct me to the standard to which you and others here appeal. I admit it is difficult for me to avoid a facetious tone here, and don't deny there is a tongue in cheek aspect of it, however I assure you the underlying request is sincere.
Using the same set of logic rules as your listener would probably be valuable. Using something they are either unfamiliar with or find incorrect will not be of much use.
Usage on HP varies; in the discussion right here I am attempting to point out that two of the basic forms are incompatible.
Sorry about the request; there is no standard here. You must decide for yourself what your listener will find useful/acceptable. If the two of you cannot agree then communication isn't going to happen.
Wilderness, I appreciate the response. I wanted to point out discrepancies exist, or if there were some actual standard being employed that I was unaware of, be informed of it.
What I find annoying, (which I don't believe you usually do), is the frequent deferment to "fallacies" in lieu of presenting an actual defense to a point. I have seen it often played against others, and not stepped in because it just forces the bigger debate over their use of what often appears to me to just be a perceived, even if not validly applied, escape clause. It comes across to me as cloaked in arrogance, with a "so there" tone, when they really have done nothing but bow out with an excuse. For some here it is almost a default "go to" if any case can be made at all to utilize it.
Thank you for overlooking the tone I seemed unable to avoid in my query, and responding as you did.
Well, that deferment to "logical fallacy" is a part of the problem. One side recognizes a fallacy in logic as they use it; the other does not. To them, there is only an obvious, logical conclusion. So that deferment that you find obnoxious may be a perfectly acceptable response from your opponent according to their rules of logic, and the same holds even more true for what is considered evidence. Most logic is universal, although it IS only "most", not all.
I'm not sure why it would be irritating for you? It's an incredibly interesting topic to discuss. For instance the maker of the movie was misleading you to the fact that we do have many example of animals in evolutionary transition away from each other. Even me, in my limited knowledge of biology and evolution and find many examples. Do you think it's possible that the maker of the movie my have simply edited out the correct answers in an attempt to mislead?
LOL. If they were logical they would not be atheist, but would be agnostic.
Thanks, I didn't get as far as walking whale, but what I can do if you like is put together a list of mammals that are direct links between cows and whales in the evolutionary process. There are BTW many mammals that have evolved at intermittent steps between whales and land mammals.
I take it by your post you don't believe evolution is a possibility?
Less successful? What exactly is the meaning of life and how has the sciences not given you the answer. It may not be the answer you want but it is a valid and understandable, uncomplicated answer.
You are asking me the meaning of life? Is it 42? Sorry, but I have no idea. I do know that scientific theories do not, and cannot, address anything beyond what we are able to verify through observation. This is a strength because it makes science rigorous and so useful - a scientific hypothesis is elevated to a scientific theory only after it has been well substantiated (often over many decades) through observation and experiment - but it also means that if something is not observable, then it is not knowable (scientifically). God as a hypothesis is not falsifiable through the application of scientific method. Phenomenon attributed to god may be falsifiable and therefore within the domain of science, but the general concept of god as described in traditional Christian theology is not. Billions of Christians cite god as the ultimate meaning of life. Science simply cannot speak to that claim. There is no scientific theory that tells us the meaning of life, or whether there is any ultimate meaning. Sure, we have opinions on the subject, but opinions are all they are.
Yes, there are opinions on the subject and no, it is not the field of science. So what field DO those opinions belong to? Opinions that are purely subjective and without merit outside the individual?
I take issue with the assertion that opinions are without merit outside the individual. That statement needs to be qualified to be meaningful.
To which field do opinions about the meaning of life belong? Two spring to mind: Philosophy (specifically metaphysics and epistemology) and theology.
Science is not the end all answer to a full and meaningful life. We don't sit over morning coffee to discuss string theory. We don't go to museums to look at mathematical equations. We don't limit our purchases of cd's to scientists giving lectures.
Science broadens our understanding of the world about us. It plays an invaluable role in enhancing our lives. But, your statement shows a lack of understanding of all the things which add quality and depth to our lives. Were humanity to limit themselves solely to science we would be a very shallow species.
Consequently, if you feel that opinions on the subject lack merit outside of the mind, why do you express them?
What do you do when a hundred years of scientific evidence is proven wrong and all of science has to be re-proven using variables instead of constants?
Case in point, light has recently been proven to be of variable speeds instead of a constant like Einstein thought.
Everything based on Einsteins Theory of Relativity will have to be re-thought out. That means all previous evidence is called into question.
As it always is. I suspect you may have to learn a little more about Relativity before you rule it out.
This will always happen. What we thought was a general, universe wide absolute truth, turns out to be not so true in weird, different and exotic environments. Or just in something we never thought of or tested in.
We deal with it - it is completely normal and accepted.
Provide citation, please. Light is invariable.
Sorry, but Relativity is quite intact.
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-res … a-variable
This will give you a place to start, but there are many proven studies going on now that are stopping light for a period of time. Some of the papers have all ready been accepted by science journals.
Not sure about your link: key words are "theoretically" and "potentially measurable"; it does not seem that the hypothesis has been shown at all. It seems to be all just thought and idea at this point.
Sorry, not interested in some pop sci website, please provide the proper peer reviewed journals that show the evidence.
This is the type of thing that bothers me. The quick dismissal of ideas which run contrary to one's own. From what I've read the idea that light might not be constant is being explored quite vigorously within the scientific community. If so, all it would mean is that we have acquired another piece of information in the search for answers concerning our universe.
I suppose many are quick to defend current ideas against new ones simply because they fear what conclusions others might incorrectly jump to. Or, they fear the information might reinforce falsely held beliefs. But, is that prudent? Is it not simply mimicking behavior patterns? There's another thread going briskly where a Christian refuses to consider alternative information. I suppose, out of fear that to do so might alter already formed conclusions. The exchange here bears some resemblance.
Agree. I read the article and it sounds reasonable and nobody is making an absolute claims here. When physicists from Max Planck are looking into this, it is nothing tha can be simply dismissed. Better to wait for the grown-ups with letters after their names to do the peer reviews.
I notice though that even if true, it's not likely to have any great effect on cosmology, so quite why the poster who at a cursory glance appears to be a creationist posted it Im at a loss.
I wouldn't know why it was posted. I'd hate to make a judgment. I think, many make assumptions about why others make comments. Conclusions are not written in stone. Small pieces of information gradually come together and the individual can change their cosmological view.Attempting to bottleneck the free flow of information and the exchange of ideas serves no one, in the end.
Once again, perhaps you need to read the words that are in the post as opposed to making up something that isn't there and then commenting on your own words rather than the ones written.
There was no dismissal of ideas, there was a dismissal of a pop sci website in favor of a peer reviewed journal, that's actually how science works, Emile.
And, what have you read exactly? The same pop sci websites? Or, are you just making stuff up again?
Or, they would like to see the current ideas in scientific journals, not pop sci websites.
Yes, just keep making up bs there, Emile.
It would if that was indeed the exchange, but it wasn't, it was an exchange that YOU dishonestly made up yourself, either deliberately or as a result of poor reading comprehension skills. Which was it, Emile?
I think I've addressed most of this in a response to you on another thread. Should I repeat it, or simply let you rebut my rebuttal there?
All scientific theories, however well known and accepted, are only tentative. They are accepted only on the basis that they are currently the best explanation of a given phenomenon, as verified through observation and experiment. The modification of hypotheses is a fundamental part of scientific method. It's why science is so useful. Through this process, knowledge is built up incrementally and we gradually get a more accurate understanding of the different phenomena we observe in the universe. If we held on to scientific ideas just because they have been around for a long time, then science would loose its rigor and become less useful.
I don't think it's quite the case that "a hundred years of scientific evidence is proven wrong". The upshot of these studies is that there is a "theoretical possibility that the speed of light is not fixed". That's an interesting hypothesis, but it is only hypothesis. The scientific community will not accept something just because it's interesting. Theoretical results have got to be substantiated by others. These studies will need to be peer-reviewed and confirmed; Another aspect of scientific method that contributes to its rigor. Scientific knowledge is not based on the opinions and personality of an author. If no one can substantiate the theoretical results in these studies, then they will not be accepted. If the results can be substantiated then existing ideas (however widely accepted) will have to be modified accordingly. There are no sacred texts in science.
Here ya go Beth: http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot … -tiny.html
Ive only read half of that so far... The human body is truly amazing. Yes, I do not see how it could be viewed as anything but a supernatural design... it is so completely complex. To this day, I hold on to the argument about sex feeling good. I can see how one might imagine that an evolved creature might procreate, but the fact that it feels good is, to me at least, the thing that suggests someone was giving us incentive to fulfill this purpose.
It's also full of completely useless things that make its designer look like a drunk!
The uvula, the tailbone, the appendix, wisdom teeth...
It would seem far more likely that those animals that are born without a strong urge, with lots of "It feels so good!" built in, don't procreate. They don't have a reason to.
So they have no offspring and their line quickly dies out - the root of evolution at work. No god necessary, just nerve endings in the right places.
However, *mankind is built that way, and according to your research on the specific animals that you claim don't orgasm(?), we would die out as well. So again, why would we be created with incentive to have sex? B/c we were designed that way. A creator had a plan, for us to procreate and He knew that we would need incentive and reward... without a designer, there is no explanation for the fact that sex brings great pleasure.
Or chance provided, on the 10,000th "try", the needed incentive, which has remained through all the (successful) changes. No god necessary, no "creation" in the sense you use it. Just another random chance.
Why? Why do you assume that the first try at bisexual reproduction was successful? It would seem much more likely that there were a great many failures before the first success. It would also seem quite likely that any future effort that removed the incentive would fail, resulting in a failed organism or species.
Understand that "try" and "effort" do NOT represent any intelligence; merely the random mutations that always occur in living organisms. Likewise, "failure" and "success" represent merely a living, reproducing organism, not a step towards a pre-ordained result.
You don't see how evolution explains why we enjoy sex? Are you serious?
We know that pregnancy can occur thru simple steps. The seed needs to penetrate the egg. But we were created in such a way that for the seed to get to the egg, both the man and the woman are able to receive great pleasure. This is an incentive based act. The theory of evolution does not allow room for this stipulation. It is only with a designer that this makes any sense at all.
The theory of evolution almost requires that kind of stipulation. Without it there is no reason to reproduce, after all, and the species quickly dies out.
"Only with a designer does this make sense" translates to mean that it's the only way you can imagine it making sense, which makes it the argument from ignorance/incredulity. It doesn't make it true. Since you know very little about evolution, and all you DO know about it comes from the likes of Ray comfort, I find it a little disingenuous that you're making claims about what evolution can and cannot explain.
I'm afraid you don't or won't understand evolution, I can't help you there, but I will tell that the women doesn't need to experience pleasure to become pregnant. The sexual urges do not fall in line with what the bible teaches. If God really wanted us to be monogamous we would be more like certain birds that mate for life. A look at the different sexual practices between chimps and bonobos may help you understand why these two closely related species are so different.
It seems quite the reverse to me. A mindless system causes those who enjoy sex to have more offspring. God could just make us so we copulate in any given circumstance. In fact many churches say that doing it just for fun is against (ergo not part of) his plan.
Well, the idea was that it's impossible for this system to 'evolve'…per any imagined sequence of event.
I find it interesting that an ad for an atheist dating site is often at the bottom of the page.
Nope. I opened it up and saw this:
"Commended by AFA, Ken Ham, Kirk Cameron..."
And then I laughed for about 2 minutes. And then I posted.
I was wondering if any grown ups had heard of it.
Yeah, that was my reaction... except I looked at the length of the video as well. I decided that I wasn't willing to give up 34 minutes of my limited life that I would never get back to watch idiots trying to do intellectual backflips to try to prove something that I don't give a crap about anyway.
thanks. i didnt really wanna waste 38 minutes of my life to hear the same old regurgitated information on evolution.
I spose since you didn't watch it, you wont have to worry about whether or not it offers anything of value. Thanks for commenting.
He is wrong as usual - You'll want to watch the video. Evolution doesn't win.
"Evolution doesn't win" translates into "due to my poor education, and the fact that I have a problem with rational thought, I'll stick to something that is easy for me to understand. For instance, how an invisible magic man created everything in six days and start life in a plush garden with a talking snake!" For those simple minded, brainwashed people, my advice is to stay out of discussions where big words like "evolution" and "big bang". Here's a link for something easier to understand www.disney.com
That makes four, at least, who have not watched it... that would make you an uneducated commentator, I suppose.
A common atheist approach.
It seems the only ones that "truly understand" evolution are the highly educated, rational, free thinkers. If you are not one of them, you are lost, and without hope in this world.
So, you are left with only two options;
1) Educate yourself, and become one of them, or
2) Believe what they tell/teach you (faith).
I watched the video, and, contrary to critics, Ray asks very poignant questions, that even the pHd's had difficulty answering.
Where does that leave "average Joe"?
It seems to me, from this and countless other forum discussions on the subject, that common sense has been discarded for elusive arguments which lead down "rabbit trails" from which no-one ever returns.
Ray Comfort lost all credibility to comment on evolution with his banana-gate incident.
However the irony still stands that whilst creationists demand ever more evidence for evolution, they singularly fail to provide a shed for creationism and do not believe they are required to do so.
Faith is faith.
One is directed at a designer (ID),
the other at evolution.
If you write someone off for one POV, you are indeed a shallow person.
Irrespective. The question remains.
Which "theory" better explains the evidence at hand?
There is no faith required in evolution, as it is based upon observable evidence, our genetc make up for example. You say it's faith based because you have never looked into it objectively, everything you know about it comes from creationists.
Ray Comfort is not a scientist and his banana-gate demonstrates a propensity to jump to unqualified conclusions.
Creation 'theory' (it does not really qualify as a theory, perhaps a hypothesis) provides no evidence, as exemplified by creationists like yourself.
Right there on your hand should be all the evidence for evolution you need. The colour of your skin will tell you which environment your ancestors have evolved to thrive. Skin colour as it turns out is a rather complex genetic process where many many genes are involved.
Evolution, obviously. To understand evolution requires thinking, not faith.
But it sounds so much better if the scientist can be accused of using faith instead of reason, just like the theologian does. If you can't make the believer into a scientist, equalizing the two, then drag the scientist down to the theology level of reason.
Both require faith.
Think all you want, but your conclusions will be faith based.
Sooner or later you will run into information supplied by others, and you will have to take their word for it (faith). Sure, it will be logical, for you, because, your worldview will (probably) support the concept.
There is a key difference here though. You call it faith when a supporter of evolution trusts the word of an evolutionary biologist, but that isn't faith really. It's an understanding that the scientist is far more qualified to speak on the subject, has rigorously carried out his research, and put it up for peer review for other scientists to dissect. Within the scientific community there is a desire to find fault in another's research, for personal fame and for the integrity of science. If no fault is found, the conclusions stand.
On the other side, creationists carry out no scientific research (at least none I'm aware of) they accept with blind faith the literal interpretation of Genesis, then search for 'scientific facts' to support that interpretation (a bit like reading a horoscope). When they do publish a paper it is never offered up for scientific peer review.
The former is about confidence in the scientific processes for research, the latter is blind faith in the word of a creationist without peer review.
But herein is another issue. For me to peer review an evolutionary biologists work is a non starter; I'm a thermal engineer not a professor with umpteen doctorates and 20 years of academic study on the subject. But you can easily peer review the claim of a creationist; all you have to do is pick up a few Jewish commentaries of the OT, work through a Hebrew interlinear bible and a Strong's concordance, or make an appointment with the rabbi at your local synagogue. So why don't you?
"So why don't you?"
Because faith has convinced that the words of the original writers/speakers were wrong; the correct worldview was achieved at Nicaea where the words revolved around the politics involved.
I think you've hit the nail on the head; Christendom has reinterpreted the bible to such an extent that it sees literal creationism, a hell and an arch fiend called Satan.
Constantine did not assemble the council of Nicaea for Christian or Christian's purposes; he did it to consolidate the people of Rome politically.
Neither did the "high priests"/VIP's that assembled/wrote that tome do it for Christian purposes; they mostly did it to consolidate their own political power. So current interpretations/words have very definitely been changed from original writings/stories.
small correction. The first council of Nicaea did not oversee the biblical cannon under the command of Constantine.
Main article: Development of the Christian biblical canon
A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the biblical canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council at all. The development of the biblical canon took centuries, and was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena, written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written.
In 331 Constantine commissioned fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople, but little else is known (in fact, it is not even certain whether his request was for fifty copies of the entire Old and New Testaments, only the New Testament, or merely the Gospels), and it is doubtful that this request provided motivation for canon lists as is sometimes speculated. In Jerome's Prologue to Judith he claims that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmen … ment_canon
Perhaps, for you, that may be true, but since you don't understand evolution, your point is moot.
Perhaps, for you, that may be true, but others don't operate on systems of faith like you do. That's why you're wrong about so many things.
Perhaps, for you, that may be true, but I don't just take the word of others on faith.
Perhaps, for you, that may not be true, because you don't operate on logic.
I am constantly amazed how well people (like you) know me, having never met me.
I recon you judge me by faith, because you (certainly) have not seen, met, heard or walked with me.
I mean, HOW else can you make the conclusions about me, as you have (above), any other way.
Actually, it doesn't require a whole lot of brain power or education to understand evolution, but it does require you do actually have to think. Is that where the problem lies, perhaps?
So, you aren't interested in educating yourself or not interested in thinking?
They lost me in the first 30 seconds when they all said Evolution is a fact. It is a theory.
So is gravity. A theory.
Do you doubt it as well?
To play Devil's (God's?) Advocate, gravity is a law, not a theory.
Heliocentrism, atoms, cells, bacteria, the Big Bang, and plate tectonics, on the other hand, are scientific theories, just like Evolution.
Uh Huh. And the concept of what is causing the attraction is a law? The thing we term "gravity"?
I don't think so...
Gravity is both law and theory. It's law because there are equations involved that provide accurate measurements. It's a theory because it's an explanation for how something works.
Yes, there are some things that are just laws and others just theories, but gravity is both.
It is also a fact. That's three.
Without fundamental forces we wouldn't exist, without the theory of evolution or the creation story we would still exist but life would be boring if we have nothing to argue about wouldn't it!
what does gravity have to do with evolution? evolution is a THEORY because it hasnt been proven. kind of like the THEORY of relativity that some hubbers were convincing me was fact, when it isnt. People are very good at takling about things like they are undisputed when that isnt the case at all.
LOL. Theories are collections of facts, dude.
Yeah, it is fact.
Um... do you realize that a theory in science is the graduation point? That it doesn't get any higher than a theory? It doesnt become law... laws and theories serve two different purposes. In order for something to become a theory, it is, in fact, proven - otherwise it's a hypothesis.
Do I really have to explain this again? Scientific theories are different from rhetorical theories.
In science, a theory is a collection of facts that coalesces into a larger truth that has been tested numerous times and has been found to be true. For example, evolution is a theory based on the many examples of transitional forms and prototype versions of modern animals (as well as a multitude without any modern equivalents) present all throughout the fossil record. Just like the Big Bang is a theory based on the facts of the universe's expansion, omnipresent radio static and heat signatures uniform all throughout it, and visual evidence of early stellar formations at the edge of the visible universe. Just like heliocentrism is a theory based on the fact that we orbit the sun and so do many other things. Just like atomic theory is a theory based on the fact that we can look through a powerful microscope and see the little buggers.
"Theory" as you know it, in the rhetorical sense, does have a scientific equivalent. In science, it's called a "hypothesis."
It has everything to do with gravity. Things falling is fact.. Gravity is a theory. Given this, are you a gravity skeptic too?
That's a false parallel. Gravity we can see. There is a Theory of Gravity and a Law of Gravity. There is a Theory of Evolution but not a Law of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution explains how evolution is supposed to work, but for those who believe it explains how this all happened without God usually have to start from idea that there is no God.
That's simply not true, Chris. No scientific theory "graduates" to become a law. In science, laws and theories are two distinctly separate things. A theory is the highest something can get. A law isn't "better".
No one has to assume that there is no god in order to understand and accept evolution. Thousands of believers accept evolution but believe that god put evolution in place and started it in motion. Evolution doesn't really address the beginnings of life. It addresses what happened once life was here.
I've met several people who claim that they can prove evolution to ANYONE'S satisfaction - and they've done it countless times - for believers of all faiths. There is no faith required. Just understanding and careful study.
We actually had the conversation before about Theory vs. Law and I did get it. I hope I didn't imply that I still think a theory graduates into a law. I was trying to say that while there is a Theory of Gravity (as wilderness pointed out) and a Theory of Evolution, there is also a Law of Gravity but there is no Law of Evolution. That's what I meant by it being a false parallel.
In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The question remains are there laws of evolution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_te … _evolution
I admit to copying and pasting a bit with that sorry. Less spelling errors for me.
And some of that comes awfully close to being a law for evolution.
The probability, for instance, of a mutation from a gamma ray. The math of basic genetics and results of gene combinations. Statistical analysis of survival rates for specific species attributes, along with prediction of long term survival.
One could almost say there are indeed "laws" for evolution - mostly statistical/probability based but still very much analytical statements backed by mathematics.
There are certainly facts of evolution as for the laws I'll have to leave that up to the people studying it.
Well, I understand that two blue eyed people will always produce a blue eyed child, unless a mutation occurs. And that two brown eyed people with brown/blue genes will produce a blue eyed child 1 out of 4 times on average. Would those not be laws of evolution? If, at least, they were tied to survival/reproduction?
You've caused me to think a lot about how skin colour and tone and evolution. We know skin colour is much more complex than eye colour in that many genes are involved and typically the child's skin colour is somewhere between the parents. But I wonder how many generation it took for dark skin to be replaced by light skin in northern climates? Are there laws involved in that process?
Pure guess on my part, but I would think not too many.
The reasoning being that it is such a major thing for survival, from either a sunburn or a vitamin D standpoint. Add in that likely all the genes are already there, it just needs a different combination like you say. And it is quite possible that at least some (most?) people will adjust (example of a tan) as they move from one climate to another - a built in genetic survival trait.
It would be an interesting study.
Dominant and recessive genetic traits are well understood and are not really argued by people. But those in and of themselves are not absolute proof that evolution from protozoan life-forms to the complex and multiform life on this planet today is a done deal.
Right, we have genetic and geological evidence for that.
We have some geological evidence that points in a certain direction but has large gaps.
The 'genealogical' evidence, if I understand it correctly, really goes to prove something I said earlier, which is that it proves something if you were inclined to believe it anyway. No one has ever told me how it precludes the possibility that God, like any artist, might have re-used some ideas that worked.
The gaps are getting fewer and fewer between.
You may want to study genetics and genealogy and how it can be used to trace where our ancestors came from.
That's a false analogy. I've said recently that dominant and recessive (I actually used the word 'regressive', oops) genetics are understood and not widely argued. What I was referring to is that so many people point to the amount of DNA structure shared by higher animals as proof that we all came from some common ancestor. And by we all I mean humans, apes, fish, parakeets and monitor lizards.
And the geological records may be closing but they ain't closed. Nevertheless, it doesn't in and of itself prove that God was not or could not be involved.
I didn't say God wasn't involved in Evolution. I just said Evolution is a fact back up by tonnes of evidence. If you want to insert God that's your prerogative.
Or, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and Zeus. In other words, all kinds of invisible beings could have been involved.
How is that helpful to the explanations?
But the discussion doesn't involve Santa Clause, Zeus or the Tooth Fairy. The discussion often involves whether God was involved in Creation or not.
Bring the other three in only obfuscates.
Exactly!!! Now, you can understand the point we are trying to make about any gods, including yours, they only obfuscate.
Wow. That was almost clever. But taking the point I'm making and then applying it to a point that not only was I not making but wasn't appropriate to the point at all is not the same making the point.
It's actually just simple logic. You happen to accept as valid one obfuscation more than I.
I doesn't matter, my point shows that your acceptance of one obfuscation over many others you don't accept is pure hypocrisy.
No, it shows that as far as you're concerned one is just as good as another and you don't feel the need to engage in actual debate or differentiate between actual human beings and cartoons.
Wow, the goalposts sure get shuffled around a lot.
We are not debating between human beings and cartoons, unless you consider your God a cartoon.
What is being debated are invisible entities that have never been shown to exist in reality, your God being one of many of them, along with those other entities, which you have called, "obfuscations"
To be fair, the image of yourself on your profile IS a cartoon
They're actually not. They are dark, but the light in my 'studio' makes them look more rose-colored for some reason. I don't actually like the way I look in pictures and wanted the glasses to cover my eyes.
Aww, Chris! Is that really you? You're absolutely huggable!
Hey, I like the beard. Is that new? I haven't seen it.
I love real profile pics. Nice to "meet" you!
Probably would be less scary if it were actually in profile, but thank you!
Excellent, I can assume you know agree with me.
You mean because I know you think of me as a cartoon then I must now agree with you?
Wow! Arrogance runs deep!
Yeah, but lots of things have statistical/probability mathematics, but that doesn't make them laws.
Oh? Is the rate of radioactive decay a "law"? Or a "theory"? I would have said "law", and it is purely a matter of probabilities, with the probability determined by the material itself.
There are equations for radioactive decay, hence it is a law.
Radioactive half-lives are truly just speculation, when they go beyond life spans. The same is true for carbon dating or any other radioactive decay. the farther we get away from the known, our speculation and errors grow exponentially. We don't actually know whether decay rate stays constant or becomes faster or slower with time, simply because it is a fairly new science that is constantly changing. I would tend to go along with theory more than law.
Suit yourself. Science doesn't agree with you, though.
Any idea what would cause the rate of decay to change? Are you assuming it might have change to suite your needs? Do you think it hasn't been studied?
You can take it near the event horizon of a black hole. Even taking it very close to a star will work, to a lesser degree, if you can stand the heat.
You can accelerate it to near the speed of light. Say .99C.
Other than that you can just say that we're not old enough to have seen a block of uranium turn completely into lead and thus will make an unwarranted assumption that the rate of radioactivity changes with time.
I'm not saying it hasn't been studied, I'm saying the studies have been very limited because of time.
Science is currently journaling and changing beliefs that have been held for over a hundred years, because of new technology, such as light being a variable speed as opposed to constant.
This and mathematics, which shows us the further out from a known that you get with extrapolation, the greater chances of error.
You can't separate science from mathematics when talking about dating of material. Sometimes I think we are so specialized we lose track of the bigger universal picture.
It's rather compelling though isn't it that we never hear of things like humans dated from the time of dinosaurs and we never hear of dinosaurs being dated in the last few million years. It's strange that we appear to be able to see galaxies from almost 14 billion years ago, but nothing beyond that. Light from almost 14 billion years ago just reaching us now, not 6,000 or 10,000 years ago but almost 14 billion years ago. How do you explain that?
Sorry, but that is entirely false, light is indeed invariable.
Thank you, although I did say I had the conversation before with JM and I did get it then.
There are equations for gravity which is why it is a law and a theory, there are none for evolution, which is why it is only a theory. There is no false parallel here.
You can see gravity? What color is it? Bright or dim?
You cannot see gravity but you can see the result of gravity; the ball falling for instance. You can see the result of gravity just as you can see the results of evolution; a giraffe with a long neck.
Where in that quote did I say we can see gravity?
From your post:
"Gravity we can see. "
Did I misunderstand (again!)?
That is their belief... he challenges this belief and asks them very good questions. You should watch it all the way thru.
He does no such thing, he doesn't challenge anyone or asks good questions, he delivers fallacies instead. Anyone watching this video would see the dishonest tactics used by the interviewer. it is pure rubbish. Only those who are steeped in Christianity and have no clue about evolution would likely see that as a challenge. It's laughable.
You know "rubbish" is a British word, for the most part. I have said for months that you were a retired, British school teacher. Science most likely. Am I right?
You still didn't share your favourite colour. (You all have done so much for the U. We Americans have totally under utilized it, but we tried to make up for it with our usage of the Z.)
Ive often wondered why you Americans can't pronounce the following words correctly either: aluminum, jaguar, Nissan, vitamins.
As an immigrant in the US I am just happy that no one cares how you pronounce things here. As long as the meaning gets across.
Vitamins always sounds so strange, but I always enjoy "lit trally." You all found a way to cut the syllables in half. It's very economical.
It is no more or less of a theory than God. So what has that got to do with anything?
Hi, I don't go on the forums often,but I like to follow some threads and this was interesting.
I have seen that video before myself; a friend challenged me to watch it. Like many others here, I found it nothing but flawed arguments (logical fallacies, misunderstanding of evolution, oversimplification of complex theories, etc.)
But I thought you guys might find this equally as interesting for the discussion:
It's a show where a group of creationists are brought on a tour to talk to scientists and see museums about evolution to be given a more in depth understanding of it.
I thought it makes some good counterpoints to the original video posted.
Thanks for that. Seems as though faced with the evidence only one person, maybe two said they may need to rethink and do some research. I enjoyed the guy calling the director a bully while telling everyone else what to say.
I've seen that before, thanks for posting though. It really is truely sad the depth of indoctrination.
I appreciate you sharing that video, and it is very interesting to watch how people handle the fact they are believing in something they have been told over and over is scientific, but turns out to be really a philosophy at play, and beliefs. (Even if Darwinian Evolution is 100% true.) In fairness, the question over the at least the first third of the video is a question that there isn't an answer to. I think they must have been trying to make a point though, and it seems to have done that.
Have you ever read a science book, or been listening to a science professor say that "here is where the science ends, and the philosophy begins?" There are many people willing to weigh in with their philosophy on what the evolution we do observe "must mean, or likely means." They went far past science to arrive at some big conclusions but presented it all as "science."
My point is that if philosophy, and personally held worldviews are allowed to be part of what explains what we DO observe, why can't all philosophies and worldviews take a stab at what would make the most sense while keeping with the science we DO know? Rather, it is secretly inserted and people are told how to believe and don't really often realize it until they are questioned or think hard for themselves about it. Just a very interesting thing to observe.
I have to say that I can't believe what all the people said about their dog or their neighbor drowning. It was tough to answer which they would save, and they thought hard about it, then went with saving the dog over their neighbor. To me, that is unbelievable.
by Ron Karn 10 years ago
If all life forms evolved from a single organism, where did the first organism originate from? It seems to me that to classify the science of evolution as scientific fact that they would need to establish a basis from where to begin, with an answer to this question. My research has led...
by olivertwisted 10 years ago
Can anyone back up the THEORY of evolution without junk science?"The vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the...
by Jenn 4 years ago
Has anyone had any paranormal experiences, whether they've seen or heard a spirit- or any other unexplained activity?I haven't had any as of yet. However, my mom says that she saw her father in church after he died, and we also smelled his cologne around the house. Also, my sister claims to have...
by CJ Simonelli 7 years ago
Through evolution theory the deceiver is attempting to silence the testimony of creation about the Creator, to destroy belief in the Word and to ultimately destroy faith in the true God, replacing him with nonsensical happenings that have no meaning, no need for good rather than evil, and no...
by Mark Knowles 11 years ago
Please keep out of this thread unless you are Mark Knowles or Gardner Osagie.We have both decided on a formal debate, structured as follows:Three rounds of:The Affirmative always goes first(that would be Gardner)Then the Negative gets to cross-examine and asks question to the affirmativeThen the...
by FitnezzJim 5 years ago
Has anyone heard that Trump will send Palin to represent for him at the January 28 debate?I laughed, but then thought, what a great way to encourage debate moderators to focus their questions on the topic rather than the person. I mean, if they are not sure who will show up, then how could...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|