45% of Americans are Morons

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Last time I checked, those two fields encompass the study of how we got here.

I'll waste some time on you here just for the hell of it.

The initial debate was whether or not there is proof of the ToE. Besides the fact that it's a THEORY, now people are talking about Occam's Razor, which is the same as saying there is no proof. If Occam's Razor applies the most likely thing is that man evolved from lower life forms. What's the probability? No one has said anything about it. I asked it of one person. So all we have established is that evolution is the most likely thing to have happened, which was never the argument. But you keep on and on as though evolution of man was a fact. That's not only spiritual, it's religious in nature, because you refuse to accept that someone can disagree with you on spiritual matters. The way you are acting and thinking has nothing to do with biology or cosmology. It's about psychology.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kidicious
What's the probability? No one has said anything about it. I asked it of one person.

98.73561%

You ask a question that can only give a nonsensical answer. (not just in relation to the Theory of Evolution, but of pretty much any major theory)

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kidicious
[snip]
it's a THEORY
[snip]

Please, not this again. This argument leads to a sure pwnage.

A "theory" in its scientific meaning, doesn't mean that the claim is unproven. In science a "theory" is a set of "hypotheses", which are causalities the scientist expects to observe.
When the hypothesis or when the theory is verified (i.e. when the theoretical model corresponds to observation), the "theory" continues to be called like that even if it has been repeatedly verified.
That's because science, in the future, could possibly falsify it under more modern observation methods, or by observing some yet-undiscovered phenomenon that doesn't behave at all like the theory posits.

So far, evolution is an observed fact. Heck, there are bugs which feed exclusively on nylon, a material that didn't exist a few decades ago. The "theory" is not about whether evolution takes place (this question is as absurd as to wonder if rain really falls), but about how it works.

[Dauphin]

The 'theory' argument is as unfortunate as the use of the term 'prove', which classically only ever meant 'to test' (think proof reading).

Which is why so many people look stupid when the say the 'exception that proves the rule' to somehow wash away the dislike for the exception.

[Mr. Harley]

Kid - I don't think we are using terms the same way. Let's try this again. In science - I have been talking science, not the "Why" issue - you take a fact, and then the existing postulates try to explain it. Those that work become theories, so to speak. Those that consistantly work over time become part of science. Occasionally, as in Continental Drift, many centuries of science get overturned.

However, that very seldom occurs without warning, the old "holes in the theory bit." Now, I've granted your spriritual postulate - God could have been the guiding hand in evolution. From my vantage, it seems you are, like many Americans today, letting your science and spirituality overlap. Now grant me the courtesy of dealing with the science part.

Your are essentially defending the "Adam and Eve" premise, man made from the clay of the earth. Give me the courtesy of explaining the scientific FACTS brought up by all the posters.

1) 98% genetic similarity between Chimps and Humans.

2) Boris even more germane post on the mitochondrial DNA. Kid, they are very similar to ours, and more similar than other creatures on earth.

3) Mathematical matching between mitochondrial DNA drift, i.e. random non-lethal mutations and the fossil record.

4) The fossil record itself. Google ONA for the various types of Homo Sapiens fossils. Some really good info has come to light in the last several years. The fossil record includes dates from radioactive based dating, again - facts.

Now, explain - as in science - how the Adam and Eve hypothesis can explain all those facts. "God just did it" is not an explanation, that gets into religion/spirituality. Evolutionary biology explains every one of those facts, consistantly and with better and better matching of various facts, i.e. the fossil record and DNA drift, as our technology improves.

Again, and note that many if not most Evolutionary Biologists believe in God (I saw some kind of survey many years ago), that this does NOT deal with the fact of why these changes occur. I'm trying to find a common ground here, I'm not seeing why you seem to have an issue with the Theistic Evolutionary types who say God essentially guides the mutations. Good God, literally as well as figuratively, they agree with you spiritually, and they also support the science.

Now, if you are saying they don't support the Bible - then you've purely gone into religion versus spirituality and belief in the Divine. Kid - if you accept the premise of Divine Inspiration of the Bible - do you believe God is going to tell a group of herdsman in 3000 BC that I created these little thingies called genes, and they mutate, and that is all started 500 million years ago - note people don't even the concept of a zero yet, I don't know when the first time the concept of million existed in human mathematics, etc.

God isn't stupid - though sometimes I am beginning to have my doubts if we are his ultimate creation. Everything is context. If God created us, he certainly understands our limitations. He gave us our minds to use, not to fall back onto something he said 5000 years ago to some herdsmen who didn't even have iron tools yet! None of this I'm bringing up is original, some of the ideas date back at least to St. Thomas Aquinas.

So let's recap. The Young Earth Creationists ignore so many facts as to be articles of derision when other countries look at their influence in the US. The ID people, i.e. Adam and Eve types, arguing that various forms were created in totality in a single moment by God, again are ignoring substantial amounts, if not most of, what we now consider the fields of Molecular Biology and Genetics. The Theistic Evolutionary types admit to ALL THE KNOWN FACTS, and their theory/science is consistant with them. This also applies to the Atheistic Evolutionary types, because as I keep stressing - Science answers HOW, not WHY. Can you give any more coherent argument than simply you don't believe they are right? That's what seems missing here, they have evidence, and you have opinion.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor
So far, evolution is an observed fact. Heck, there are bugs which feed exclusively on nylon, a material that didn't exist a few decades ago. The "theory" is not about whether evolution takes place (this question is as absurd as to wonder if rain really falls), but about how it works.

I know evolution is a fact. I'm not debating that. I'm debating whether or not there is proof that man evolved from a lower life form. If there's no proof of something we're free to decide for ourselves. Calling people stupid for believing something that isn't likely doesn't make sense, because people have gut feelings, at least some people do.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm debating whether or not there is proof that man evolved from a lower life form.

Ah well, this is out of my league, as it's completely out of my knowledge. I trust some of our posters will provide you with the current state of research in that matter (actually, Shawn might have just done so, I've just skimmed his post )

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Now, explain - as in science - how the Adam and Eve hypothesis can explain all those facts. "God just did it" is not an explanation, that gets into religion/spirituality. Evolutionary biology explains every one of those facts, consistantly and with better and better matching of various facts, i.e. the fossil record and DNA drift, as our technology improves.

My belief isn't based on scientific verification of the Adam and Eve explanation. It's based on a gut feeling and lack of proof for any other theory. Do you have a gut feeling on the issue? Does it affect your decision? Do you ever go with your gut feeling? When I make a decision I think about the evidence and then my gut feeling. They both weigh in. In this case my gut feeling is very strong. The evidence is also strong. I don't know what to tell you. You can try to give me more evidence, but I doubt you will be changing my decision unless you give me proof.

Now, if you are saying they don't support the Bible - then you've purely gone into religion versus spirituality and belief in the Divine. Kid - if you accept the premise of Divine Inspiration of the Bible - do you believe God is going to tell a group of herdsman in 3000 BC that I created these little thingies called genes, and they mutate, and that is all started 500 million years ago - note people don't even the concept of a zero yet, I don't know when the first time the concept of million existed in human mathematics, etc.

I'm not even arguing about anything regarding the subject of the origin of man. I really don't care too. My purpose here is the discussion of how someone could not believe that man evolved from lower life.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't know what to tell you. You can try to give me more evidence, but I doubt you will be changing my decision unless you give me proof.

What's the use? We've been giving it to you, you haven't even addressed it, you've just ignored it. At least you're not even pretending your belief is in any way based on rational thought or a serious look at the evidence. Your stance is little different than that of the Catholic Church towards Galileo. Screw the facts, you'll believe what you want.

That's your right, but it's our right to call that mentality stupid, because it is.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
That's your right, but it's our right to call that mentality stupid, because it is.

On the contrary. You're the one who doesn't understand me. So I'm not the one who's stupid.

[Kuciwalker]

This is like how, since no one can make sense of his arguments in cap/com threads, he must be right.

[Boris Godunov]

"I know you are, but what am I?" is your response?

I didn't call you stupid, I said this particular position is. You yourself admit that you're just going with a gut instinct and are dismissing the evidence because it doesn't jive with said gut. You even accept evolution occurs for everything else, but think it's "incredible" for us to be a part of it? That certainly doesn't make much sense, especially given the above cited DNA relationships among the primates.

No, I don't understand you, but that's because your position lacks any sort of coherence or rationality.

[Kuciwalker]

Clearly, Boris, it's because you're an idiot with no knowledge of biology

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
"I know you are, but what am I?" is your response?

I didn't call you stupid, I said this particular position is. You yourself admit that you're just going with a gut instinct and are dismissing the evidence because it doesn't jive with said gut. You even accept evolution occurs for everything else, but think it's "incredible" for us to be a part of it? That certainly doesn't make much sense, especially given the above cited DNA relationships among the primates.

No, I don't understand you, but that's because your position lacks any sort of coherence or rationality.

I haven't dismissed any evidence. I've put it in it's proper place. Irrational yes. I've already admitted that. My decision is based on a gut feeling in that absence of proof. We can either discuss the probabity of each possibility of each idea or we can discuss the nature of believe, but I'm sick of being called stupid for believing differently from people when they can't prove me wrong.

[Kidlicious]

Ok. I'm done with this thread. Some people using it were already on my ignore list and I don't wan't to get in any other conflicts so that others end up on it.