Richard Dawkins sums up religion

[ChroniC]

Surely the proof of macro evolution is an invalid argument when you can see micro-evolution, imo microevolution is the proof of macro. If you are making changes at the micro level then it can only be assumed that eventually many many tiny changes will eventually and gradually grow into larger changes, a snowball effect if you like, resulting in a animal so different it can only be classed as a different species.

What would be a greater leap of faith, would be if you couldn't witness micro evolution and you had to assume 1 big leap to another.

 

[V-Spec]

Sorry but hybridisation isn't proof of macroevolution - good article here

Fine with me - just go on being wrong, and keep reading sources which are wrong, written by liars and shysters who don't know anything, nor care that they don't know anything - doesn't bother me in the slightest lol .

 

[Skunkworks]

Surely the proof of macro evolution is an invalid argument when you can see micro-evolution, imo microevolution is the proof of macro. If you are making changes at the micro level then it can only be assumed that eventually many many tiny changes will eventually and gradually grow into larger changes, a snowball effect if you like, resulting in a animal so different it can only be classed as a different species.

Quite. It's like believing in metres, but not miles.

 

[elmarko]

The anti macro-evolution debate is also flawed, as we've observed speciation in controlled conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Example_of_three-spined_sticklebacks

A good article on the matter.

(from another section, the shortest example I can find - but it has many others).

One example of evolution at work is the case of the hawthorn fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, also known as the apple maggot fly, which appears to be undergoing sympatric speciation.

Different populations of hawthorn fly feed on different fruits. A distinct population emerged in North America in the 19th century some time after apples, a non-native species, were introduced. This apple-feeding population normally feeds only on apples and not on the historically preferred fruit of hawthorns. The current hawthorn feeding population does not normally feed on apples.

Some evidence, such as the fact that six out of thirteen allozyme loci are different, that hawthorn flies mature later in the season and take longer to mature than apple flies; and that there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization rate) suggests that sympatric speciation is occurring. The emergence of the new hawthorn fly is an example of evolution in progress

Not that I expect creationists to read any of it, they stick to insular websites written by people with a clear pro-creation agenda. You can't use reason to drag somebody out of a position they arrived at without using it themselves.

 

[ChroniC]

Quite. It's like believing in metres, but not miles.

Exactly, but then it takes a certain level of stupidity to be so set in your ways, regardless of mountains of evidence against you. Sorry I mean "have faith".

 

[Skunkworks]

Not that I expect creationists to read any of it, they stick to insular websites written by people with a clear pro-creation agenda.

"But they're still the fly kind!"

 

[Gogl]

"But they're still the fly kind!"

It's God adapting them to changes in the environment.

 

[Zethor]

There are indeed ways to determine the intent of the author., analysis of the text is something I do everyday. What you stated in that post regarding the literal interpretation and intent of the words is demonstrably incorrect.

The rest of this post has nothing to do with what you originally stated so has no baring on it, other than to say that what you say about the dark ages assumes far too much and is again not supported by historical evidence. The teaching of Scripture historically doesn't support what you are saying, quite the opposite..allegory was widely used to convey complex theology in simple terminology.

I am not religious btw...your post seems to imply that I am.

No analysis can determine intent. There are huge debates on books written by people who are still alive, you're telling me you can determine intent on numerous, incomplete scattered notes written thousands of years ago? Also, are you saying that, until the 18th century, the Bible was generally considered allegorical? By whom?

My post implies that you are open to the philosphical idea of the supernatural, not that you are religious.

 

[deuse]

We do with regards to evolution, at least.

In theory they do but not fact. We will never know until someone invents a time machine.

I'm off to read the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy trilogy done is four parts it has all the answers you need

 

[Castiel]

No analysis can determine intent. There are huge debates on books written by people who are still alive, you're telling me you can determine intent on numerous, incomplete scattered notes written thousands of years ago? Also, are you saying that, until the 18th century, the Bible was generally considered allegorical? By whom?

It can, Semantics, Philology and the broader textual criticism are a valid scientific linguistic disciplines which are used, along with others such as historical and comparative analysis and how such manifested in both the cognition and practical aspects of the individual and their beliefs and any associative theology to determine the original intent and meaning of a text. Biblical textual analysis is not to be confused with a literary criticism of Ulysses by James Joyce for example.

I am telling you that Genesis was (and remains for the majority of Christians and Jews) a largely allegorical text presenting a universal truth. It is not, and historically never has been determined to be a literal account of creation, that is a new position seen as I have previously stated...the original Hebrew texts for example had no comprehension of such a literal interpretation in any case. Augustine of Hippo amongst others also illustrate their contemporary understand as being allegorical....The evidence supports this. There is also significantly more texts than the 'scattered notes' you suggest...you are simply repeating commonly held misconceptions Zethor.

My post implies that you are open to the philosphical idea of the supernatural, not that you are religious.

I'm not sure what that means...if it means I am open to believing in Ghosts etc, then I am of the opinion that no evidence suggests their existence or non existence so I have no objective position on the subject. If it means I study such then I am not a parapsychologist.

 

[elmarko]

In theory they do but not fact. We will never know until someone invents a time machine.

I'm off to read the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy trilogy done is four parts it has all the answers you need

Theory's explain facts, you seem to be misunderstanding scientific terminology.

 

[deuse]

Theory's explain facts, you seem to be misunderstanding scientific terminology.

But who's Theory do you believe? with out evidence or fact it will always be "just a Theory"
a scientist will say "this is the way it happened" until someone proves him wrong wash rinse repeat.

 

[Skunkworks]

These threads are always good for making mental notes on who has no understanding of science.

 

[Sliver]

But who's Theory do you believe? with out evidence or fact it will always be "just a Theory"
a scientist will say "this is the way it happened" until someone proves him wrong wash rinse repeat.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

A scientific theory is NOT 'just a theory' as you put it. It's the graduation point of a hypothesis, a framework which makes testable predictions based on the laws upon which it is constructed.

mavity is NOT 'just a theory,. Evolution is NOT 'just a theory'. Theory's in science are valid, sound, peer reviewed frameworks for explaining phenomena and making testable predictions about said phenomena.

A good example is the former planet Pluto. Pluto was discovered in 1930. It's predicted orbital path around the Sun takes 248 years. We have not yet seen Pluto complete one solar orbit. Yet we know this and thanks to the Theory of mavity, combined with it's velocity, we know how long it will take to complete one solar orbit, even though we have not observed a complete solar orbit yet. We are sure about this because of the predictions made be the Theory of mavity.

 

[elmarko]

But who's Theory do you believe? with out evidence or fact it will always be "just a Theory"
a scientist will say "this is the way it happened" until someone proves him wrong wash rinse repeat.

Without evidence?, are you saying the theory of evolution has no evidence?.

Are you comparing an unsupported hunch with no evidence, to a fully support scientific theory with a whole host of evidence & predictive use?.

correct post

Exactly.

I can't believe how many people misunderstand what science is, do they honestly think it's a bunch of guys in white coats rolling dice?.

 

[Sliver]

I can't believe how many people misunderstand what science is, do they honestly think it's a bunch of guys in white coats rolling dice?.

I know. It's a shame. People who are not well read on scientific methodology often misrepresent the word 'theory'. They think of it in everyday terms.

Like:

'I have a theory why Arsenal are top of the Premiership right now'

The above is one use of the word, but in science the word carries a different context.

I argue with the religious about this all the time. It's very frustrating when you keep hearing things like:

Evolution is just a theory man !

Oh well.

 

[MikeTheNative]

This thread still going? I find it amazing that people still disregard basic scientific facts because a book written over a thousand years ago tells them otherwise.

 

[Gogl]

These threads are always good for making mental notes on who has no understanding of science.

If that is at least in part directed at me for this reply to you:

It's God adapting them to changes in the environment.

I was just fishing for elmarko, but maybe because I said I liked his drawing he decided to let it slide. Or perhaps he has a good memory and knew better... or just thought obvious troll is obvious.

I have a booklet here I got a couple of weeks back from a Jehovah's Witness which might have provided some great quotes, but he's ruined it now

If I happen to be God with this as an unaware extension of my heavenly being, someone is definitely taking the down elevator for this.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

This thread still going? I find it amazing that people still disregard basic scientific facts because a book written over a thousand years ago tells them otherwise.

I'm quite enjoying the discussion it's not got out of hand like others, as well.

 

[Castiel]

This thread still going? I find it amazing that people still disregard basic scientific facts because a book written over a thousand years ago tells them otherwise.

They think a book written over a thousand years ago tells them otherwise.