Atheist claim: War is caused by religion if participants are religious.

[Kidlicious]

Outside of Maths virtually nothing in science is going to be a "Known Truth" to the point that there is literally nothing more we can know about a subject, but Evolution is as close to a "Known Truth" as any other theory in science. We may not have dotted all the Is and crossed all the Ts about the entire evolutionary history of all life on earth but we know evolution happens, how it happens, why it happens, have observed it happening, have made it happen. It has made many predictions which have later been substantiated and none of its predictions have been disproved.

We are at the point where any discoveries are going to enhance what we know, or show us that what we've seen so far is only part of the picture or maybe that it doesn't apply in some extreme circumstances, but there's no question it's the mechanism by which life on earth arrived at it's current state.

You're contradicting yourself. If it's not a known fact then there are questions about it. In fact, there have ALWAYS been reputable scientists who have questioned the theory of evolution, from the beginning until the present day. The fact that most scientists accept it means absolutely nothing.

edit: And I'm not questioning the evolutionary mechanism. I'm questioning the assertion that life was created by lightning and ended up in all this because of evolution.

[MikeH]

You're contradicting yourself. If it's not a known fact then there are questions about it.

That's as meaningless as the demand for it to be a "known fact" it's as close to a known fact as you get in science. The fossil record is incomplete, that's the nature of the beast.

In fact, there have ALWAYS been reputable scientists who have questioned the theory of evolution, from the beginning until the present day. The fact that most scientists accept it means absolutely nothing.

No there aren't. Not reputable ones, not now. There are religious paid stooges with impressive sounding credentials who are mouthpieces for intelligent design institutes, but I don't consider them reputable.

The problem with science is that for people who don't understand it those people might sound like reputable scientists. Science doesn't market itself as well as it should.

This is a good summary of the consensus with scientists:

Francisco Ayala, a renowned evolutionary biologist, recipient of the National Medal of Science and the 2010 Templeton Prize (and a former Dominican priest), recently stated the consensus of the field in these terms [Ayala2010, pg. 49-50]:

The overwhelming majority of biologists accept evolution. Those who know professionally the evidence for evolution cannot deny it. Scientists agree that the evolutionary origin of animals and plants is a scientific conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence is compelling and all-encompassing because it comes from all biological disciplines including those that did not exist in Darwin’s time. … Since Darwin’s time, the evidence for evolution has become much stronger and more comprehensive, coming not only from traditional sources but also from recent disciplines such as genetics, biochemistry, ecology, ethology, neurobiology, and molecular biology. … Because the evidence is so overwhelming, … evidence for evolution no longer engages the interest of biologists except when explaining evolution to the public or arguing with those who refuse to accept evolution. Although not sought and no longer needed, the evidence for the fact of evolution continues to accumulate.

[MikeH]

Ok so it is a known fact.

[kentonio]

edit: And I'm not questioning the evolutionary mechanism. I'm questioning the assertion that life was created by lightning and ended up in all this because of evolution.

Then you're questioning the wrong theory. Evolution says absolutely nothing about the creation of life, you're talking about Abiogenesis. If you want to be skeptical about that, then you'll find yourself in much wider company, though personally I think it's probably right.

[Kidlicious]

That's as meaningless as the demand for it to be a "known fact" it's as close to a known fact as you get in science. The fossil record is incomplete, that's the nature of the beast.

Interesting choice of words, "the nature of the beast." The nature of the beast is the tendency for human beings to believe things that aren't true, and this does not exclude scientists. It's one thing that we can know for sure, that human beings think they know things that they don't know.

When Darwin developed the theory he assumed that the fossils would be found that would complete the record. It was more reasonable to assume the theory being correct on that basis. But as time passes it's more evident that those fossils will not be found, because they aren't there. What we have today is herd mentality, people believing because others believe, because it is an accepted known thing, not because of skepticism.

No there aren't. Not reputable ones, not now. There are religious paid stooges with impressive sounding credentials who are mouthpieces for intelligent design institutes, but I don't consider them reputable.

Bull****. Your opinion of them means nothing. This statement, that some are reputable and others aren't doesn't mean a thing. You're again, merely stating that popular opinion is always true.

And no they aren't all religious, and it shouldn't matter if they are? You are an atheist. Does that mean that you believe in the theory because you are an atheist?

The problem with science is that for people who don't understand it those people might sound like reputable scientists. Science doesn't market itself as well as it should.

The problem is that SCIENTISTS past and present have questioned the theory.

This is a good summary of the consensus with scientists:

Consensus among scientists =! truth.

[MikeH]

Then you're questioning the wrong theory. Evolution says absolutely nothing about the creation of life, you're talking about Abiogenesis. If you want to be skeptical about that, then you'll find yourself in much wider company, though personally I think it's probably right.

Yeah, I don't think there is a commonly accepted model for that, we don't know enough yet although we're progressing well in that area.

Evolution kicks in at the point there is some simple life and demonstrates how you get from the simplest organisms to what we have now.

[kentonio]

When Darwin developed the theory he assumed that the fossils would be found that would complete the record. It was more reasonable to assume the theory being correct on that basis. But as time passes it's more evident that those fossils will not be found, because they aren't there.

That is not true. Every fossil found to date has fit into a predictable geological record. No-one, least of all Darwin ever thought that every one of the billions of variants of life that have ever existed would turn up in fossil form, the very idea is ridiculous. Do you realize how unlikely it is for a dead creature to become fossilized?

Not finding particular fossils is completely to be expected. It's also irrelevant. All you need to do to disprove evolution is to find fossils in the wrong geological levels, and to date absolutely no-one has managed to do so.

[kentonio]

Yeah, I don't think there is a commonly accepted model for that, we don't know enough yet although we're progressing well in that area.

Yeah, it's going to be one of those shockwave moments when someone actually manages to demonstrate it. Not sure there's enough Nobel prizes in the world for a discovery like that.

[MikeH]

Interesting choice of words, "the nature of the beast." The nature of the beast is the tendency for human beings to believe things that aren't true, and this does not exclude scientists. It's one thing that we can know for sure, that human beings think they know things that they don't know.

When Darwin developed the theory he assumed that the fossils would be found that would complete the record. It was more reasonable to assume the theory being correct on that basis. But as time passes it's more evident that those fossils will not be found, because they aren't there. What we have today is herd mentality, people believing because others believe, because it is an accepted known thing, not because of skepticism.

1. We find more fossils all the time.
2. We know a lot more about fossilisation now. The reason you can't always find fossils is that only a tiny fraction of habitats create fossils and most animals don't live in those habitats.
3. DNA analysis and genetic advances are helping is fill those gaps in other ways.
4. Not finding all the links doesn't disprove the mechanism.

Bull****. Your opinion of them means nothing. This statement, that some are reputable and others aren't doesn't mean a thing. You're again, merely stating that popular opinion is always true.

Despite being funded by tons of intelligent design money, they still haven't managed to disprove evolution. They just trot out misleading bull**** and try to muddy the waters. In the mean time the proper scientists are publishing paper after paper in field after field that backs up evolution. I feel the same way about oil company funded climate change deniers. Nothing to do with religion there.

The problem is that SCIENTISTS past and present have questioned the theory.

Consensus among scientists =! truth.

It's as close as you are ever going to get in science.

[Kidlicious]

That is not true. Every fossil found to date has fit into a predictable geological record. No-one, least of all Darwin ever thought that every one of the billions of variants of life that have ever existed would turn up in fossil form, the very idea is ridiculous. Do you realize how unlikely it is for a dead creature to become fossilized?

Not finding particular fossils is completely to be expected. It's also irrelevant. All you need to do to disprove evolution is to find fossils in the wrong geological levels, and to date absolutely no-one has managed to do so.

You mean to say that the EVIDENCE is irrelevant? I don't care how hard it is to find fossils. WE HAVEN'T FOUND THEM, none, or not enough, that would be significant evidence to prove that species have evolved into other species, and certainly not that we have evolved from single cells.

[Kidlicious]

That is not true. Every fossil found to date has fit into a predictable geological record. No-one, least of all Darwin ever thought that every one of the billions of variants of life that have ever existed would turn up in fossil form, the very idea is ridiculous. Do you realize how unlikely it is for a dead creature to become fossilized?

Not finding particular fossils is completely to be expected. It's also irrelevant. All you need to do to disprove evolution is to find fossils in the wrong geological levels, and to date absolutely no-one has managed to do so.

I didn't claim that he believed that we would find every fossil. He definitely thought we would find more than we have. The fact is, no one can say with certainty that Darwin would believe his own theory if he were alive today, confronted with the fact that we have not found significant evidence to support his theory.

[Kidlicious]

Then you're questioning the wrong theory. Evolution says absolutely nothing about the creation of life, you're talking about Abiogenesis. If you want to be skeptical about that, then you'll find yourself in much wider company, though personally I think it's probably right.

The two are similar enough. It's the believe that all of this just happened without an intelligence designer. So I don't see the problem with talking about both together.

[Kidlicious]

1. We find more fossils all the time.
2. We know a lot more about fossilisation now. The reason you can't always find fossils is that only a tiny fraction of habitats create fossils and most animals don't live in those habitats.
3. DNA analysis and genetic advances are helping is fill those gaps in other ways.
4. Not finding all the links doesn't disprove the mechanism.



Despite being funded by tons of intelligent design money, they still haven't managed to disprove evolution. They just trot out misleading bull**** and try to muddy the waters. In the mean time the proper scientists are publishing paper after paper in field after field that backs up evolution. I feel the same way about oil company funded climate change deniers. Nothing to do with religion there.




It's as close as you are ever going to get in science.

So a theory that isn't disproven is a known truth? That says a lot.

[kentonio]

You mean to say that the EVIDENCE is irrelevant? I don't care how hard it is to find fossils. WE HAVEN'T FOUND THEM, none, or not enough, that would be significant evidence to prove that species have evolved into other species, and certainly not that we have evolved from single cells.

What the hell are you talking about? Found what? We've found vast numbers of fossils, and each one has fit within a framework of evolution, each of them showing the evolution of species over time. Do you even understand what you're asking for, because I'm damned if I do.

I didn't claim that he believed that we would find every fossil. He definitely thought we would find more than we have. The fact is, no one can say with certainty that Darwin would believe his own theory if he were alive today, confronted with the fact that we have not found significant evidence to support his theory.

Have you lost your damn mind? Vast, vast amounts of evidence have been found to support his theory, including immense quantities of fossils. What's even more striking is that we've seen evolution actually happening! Seriously, saying there is no significant evidence is just ridiculous. Feel free to question that evidence of course, but to call it not significant is just mental.

[kentonio]

The two are similar enough. It's the believe that all of this just happened without an intelligence designer. So I don't see the problem with talking about both together.

Ahah, so now we get to the bottom of it. You believe God did everything and anything that disagrees with you can be lumped together as 'Evil science lies'. How you people have the bare faced cheek to talk about 'evidence' bemuses me.