Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,321
- Location
- Woking
Richard Dawkins sums up religion
- Thread starter Merlin5
- Start date
All I'm saying is which side do you believe?
Do modern organisms evolve from older ancestral organisms or are modern species are continuing to change over time?
Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact.
It can be demonstrated today but what is the exact mechanism of evolution? none knows.
theory is just an imperfect fact and nothing more. We are still understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred.
until someone invents a time machine to see what really happened it's all hear say imhoa.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,482
Yes but the act of assimilating ideas/imagination once there are tangible fruits does not change that the starting point of much of todays science and technology is in someones head. If we only ever followed a path where science already points based on existing data we would be making fewer discoveries and break throughs. Instead, a person imagines what they wish to achieve and sets about making it happen.
I never said the idea of a Creator is special, only that to rule it out with such limited knowledge of our universe is premature.
All are possibilities, agreed, and whilst some things may be more likely than others, until we know for sure they cannot be ruled out. Most of the things you experience in your daily life were at some point an idea, mere fiction. Many discovered by pure accident (some happier than others). If our ancestors had your attitude, nothing would ever develop and our progress would be stunted, perhaps irreprably. That is because some of what we now take for granted was developed based on a wild idea, or in some cases a complete accident! People who worked on some of these things were shunned, or derided yet now they are praised.
How do you know that you are the only person who knows that truth? What foundation do you base that assertion? Present reality? The problem with reality is it is subjective and limited to the beholder. We all think we are the dominant species and we have the answers of X Y Z but from what reference point? Only our own, and therefore it is biased. Therefore it is limited.
They should not be dismissed, as until proven otherwise they are possible even if unlikely. This seems to be a hard concept for you to grasp, which I find interesting considering you can accept the unlikely survival and development of our species over the last few million years. Many ideas have no basis in reality because they are ahead of their time. If all of our inventors thought like you, I think we would be struggling as a race. Think outside the box is a cliche phrase but so true.
Firstly, cavemen had no real need for missiles. Secondly the concept of a missile to a caveman was so ahead of his time he would not be able to comprehend it, let alone know the first step to take in order to create it. Yet here we are several thousand years later, the same species and the same planet and we have missiles. Why is that? Because people had an idea, and made it happen. Now, is it feasable that there are scientific, or other truths that to us now seem unfathomable? The idea of a city sized space ship with light speed capability, for example. Our mind boggles. We look at our knowledge and our technology and we say "thats impossible". Just like the caveman would have done when comparing his flint axe to a missile. My point is reality develops and changes. It seems to me we are dismissing ideas or imagination based on things we don't know which to me seems the very antithesis of what science is about.
I know of no discoveries based on a divine source, however, that still does not mean that a Creator does not exist. I agree, observation is essential, but we need the tools to do it. There are some things that are so far beyond our current capability they appear impossible, or far fetched. But we base our judgment on the reality of our current knowledge. We also arrogantly believe that science will provide all answers. Whilst I do thik science is an increadibly useful tool, I am not certain it can or ever will answer all questions. In an odd kind of way, what you are proposing is that a God/Creator does exist, but science has not made him/it yet. Let me ask this - do you think time travel, or faster than light travel is possible? As a person who likes science I am guessing you dont. That is because we think fundamental laws of physics preclude it - in the very same way I expect a caveman would feel the same about travelling at 500MPH, 35,000 up in the air inside a metal bird. The thing with knowledge is it exists, it is out there if a person has a receptive and open mind and the ability/tools to discover it. What I am saying is we currently dont have either with regards to our Creation. Therefore, disbelieving a Creator exists is premature. It is a bit like trying to prove photosynthesis without sunlight, or trying to produce a sonic boom event on a push bike. Doomed to failure by limitations of the method and tools. Also, I suspect there are some things that can only be seen or found with certain tools or using certain methods. Without these we are blind to them. Perhaps, just perhaps, faith is the tool needed and without it we will be blind to any Creator that may exist. Sounds far fetched doesen't it? I'm sure the caveman in the aeroplane would agree
No it doesen't, it offers what it believes is the truth on how we came to be based on extrapolating observations of evolution but it does not provide all of the answers, nor will it ever, so at best it should be split. The actual existence of evolution is of course sound theory, but as to whether it answers the questions of our origins, I feel that is still hypothesis. But to use your argument, if a Creator does exist, we could say it also matters not whether you or I believe in it, the truth simply is. If we apply this to evolution, the discovery and thus far proof available is relatively modern and we do not know where future discoveries will lead us (particularly when coupled with DNA/genome research). But let me ask this: Is the existence of evolution and a Creator mutually exclusive?
I never said cold fusion should be dismissed, I said at present it is merely an idea. Fiction. One that we cannot bring into our reality, but one which we believe will become possible. Much like the fish glimpsing that 2nd room for the first time but realising he needs to forge a key to get there.
Yes, in our reality, cold fusion is a possibility we are trying to make real. All we need to do is figure it out. Now, to a caveman, is cold fusion a possibility in his reality? No, not for a very, very long time. Yet here we are on the brink of figuring it out. Who is to say in another few thousand years we will not be in a similar situation with questions of our Creation? Can you categorically say with certainty our journey to that discovery will debunk the possibility of a Creator/God? The key is knowledge. Cold fusion to a caveman would have no foundations in science at all. Nor would fission. Nor would petrol, or aircraft or computers. None of these things would warrant any attention or scientific focus because they are so far ahead of his capabilities - so far ahead in fact they would have no grounding in his present reality as he understands it. As his capabilities grow, so does his means do develop and discover and invent things. We are still in the same boat, but are too arrogant to accept it is a possibility (or so it would seem). This is why I mentioned previously that I think we need to be at a certain level of understanding and technology before some answers can be tackled. Cold fusion to a caveman is so improbable it becomes an impossibility. To us? Hard work, still very unlikely until we have a different power source but within reach. Answering the question of our existence? I think we are still a long way off that yet. We have neither the tools nor the comprehension to fully answer it.
I think there are elements to our existence that we have not begun to unravel.
It is short sighted, and I never have dismissed any other possibilities. Sure, some are more likely than others but this is what fascintaes me on this topic - we simply dont know and the journey to discovery is full of twists and turns. Compare our world to that of a caveman. Same species, same planet. Look at the difference. Is it such a leap of faith to think that maybe we are set to make even more radical progress and discover even more truths that to us, at this time, seem unfathomable or merely imaginary?
I dont think it is, but that is just me.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,614
Nah, not you.
Are you asking.
Did modern organisations evolve from older organisms? - Yes, this is what happened.
Are modern organisms continuing to change over time? - Yes they are.
Yes. modern organisms evolved from ancestral ones and are continuing to change over time.
No I'm sorry, we do know the mechanisms behind evolution. I'm no expert but I have a decent understanding of it. Evolution has two aspects which drive change overtime within an organism. Firstly there is the random mutation of genes. Sometimes such a mutation is beneficial to the organism and so the organism reaches maturity and breeds and in doing so passes the genetic change to it's offspring.
The second mechanism is natural selection. This is NOT random. There are various selection pressures which can come to bare upon an organism. Sexual selection being one. Take peacocks as an example. Over many generations, female peacocks have chosen the males with the largest brightest tail feathers during courtship. This sexual selection means that males with larger, brighter feathers get to pass on their genes. Over time, this means that male tail feathers tend to get larger, where as males with less impressive tail feathers tend not to mate and so their genes gradually die out. Another selection pressure is environmental selection. There are others but I'm not an evolutionary biologist so don't press me. Read some Richard Dawkins, he explains it infinitely better than me.
That is an argument from ignorance. Evolution is a fact, there is no debate amongst learned people. All you are doing is refusing to acknowledge the facts. The only real debate is abiogenesis, but that is separate from evolution as it concerns origins and not evolution it's self.
Last edited:
What I quoted was from Stephen J. Gould and J. Peter Zetterberg and one other.
Why? because I knew if I posted what other scientists thought but in my way you two would argue with me
Which proves my point no one knows what they are on about even when they think they do
Hook line and sinker
edit=unless you can prove Stephen J. Gould and J. Peter Zetterberg wrong?
What I quoted was from Stephen J. Gould and J. Peter Zetterberg and one other.
Why? because I knew if I posted what other scientists thought but in my way you two would argue with me
Which proves my point no one knows what they are on about even when they think they do
Hook line and sinker
edit=unless you can prove Stephen J. Gould and J. Peter Zetterberg wrong?
You do understand that within the scientific community, there are scientists who disagree on nuanced arguments within the theory don't you ?
And lol at your hook line and sinker remark. You went fishing and caught nothing. Well done you. Now go and collect your Nobel Prize for overturning the Theory of Evolution.
You really should read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. He explains everything very well.
Hardly, what you posted was incoherent in the first place & poorly written in terrible English - if that what constitutes 'in your way' then fair enough, but if you are going to write in such a way the person has to determine the actual question (along with confirm in the reply as I had to) - then you will get people making assumptions on the meaning of your posts.What I quoted was from Stephen J. Gould and J. Peter Zetterberg and one other.
Why? because I knew if I posted what other scientists thought but in my way you two would argue with me
Which proves my point no one knows what they are on about even when they think they do
Hook line and sinker
edit=unless you can prove Stephen J. Gould and J. Peter Zetterberg wrong?
"Do modern organisms evolve from older ancestral organisms or are modern species are continuing to change over time?" - is what you wrote.
Can you show us where this was written?.
What I find most amusing is that you present a poorly written & grammatically challenged false dichotomy on a subject you clearly don't understand, then proclaim some fantasy of a victory off a result of your own inability to write.
Last edited:
It's not good when you two members can't admit they got it wrong...so sad.
I got the quotes from the top guys and posted it as if I was saying them.
You two said it was WRONG! which goes to prove that you pick out a person to have a go at with no basis what so ever.
You got caught out and yes hook line and a very big sinker. But it was fun watching you two argue against two of the best people in science
and still think you're right
Can't wait for your come back.
It's not good when you two members can't admit they got it wrong...so sad.
I got the quotes from the top guys and posted it as if I was saying them.
You two said it was WRONG! which goes to prove that you pick out a person to have a go at with no basis what so ever.
You got caught out and yes hook line and a very big sinker. But it was fun watching you two argue against two of the best people in science
and still think you're right
Can't wait for your come back.
Nonsense. Nothing I have said in this back and forth is wrong. Please correct me if you can. Pick something I or Elmarko has said which you feel is wrong and then tells us both why it's wrong. You don't get to quote creationist friendly scientists who hold non mainstream views as your own views and then say: ' I won ! '
I don't care who said what. If something is true then it's true no matter who said it. Likewise if something is false. Arguments from authority are fallacious and this is just one of several fallacies that you have thrown out thus far.
You didn't get the quotes did you, you re-wrote them messing up the grammar, unless of course these two people you reference can't speak basic English.It's not good when you two members can't admit they got it wrong...so sad.
I got the quotes from the top guys and posted it as if I was saying them.
You two said it was WRONG! which goes to prove that you pick out a person to have a go at with no basis what so ever.
You got caught out and yes hook line and a very big sinker. But it was fun watching you two argue against two of the best people in science
and still think you're right
Can't wait for your come back.
But you go ahead, you have your little victory.
Now we know (that you know nothing).
So funny
, I've highlighted in bold to help you along (as I'm nice that way, consider it care in the community)."long with many other researchers in the field, Gould's works were sometimes deliberately taken out of context by creationists as "proof" that scientists no longer understood how organisms evolved.
Gould himself corrected some of these misinterpretations and distortions of his writings in later works"
Last edited:
Yup. I was hoping he would be swayed by evidence but he doesn't want to know.
I'm bored now. I'll come back in a few days and see if the argument has moved on.
@deuse
It is the festive season and so in the spirit of good will, I hope the yule tide log slips from your fire and burns down your house ! Merry Xmas - and Go Lewis in 2014 !!!
You didn't get the quotes did you, you re-wrote them messing up the grammar, unless of course these two people you reference can't speak basic English.
But you go ahead, you have your little victory.
Now we know (that you know nothing).
So funny
"long with many other researchers in the field, Gould's works were sometimes deliberately taken out of context by creationists as "proof" that scientists no longer understood how organisms evolved.
Gould himself corrected some of these misinterpretations and distortions of his writings in later works"
Yup. I was hoping he would be swayed by evidence but he doesn't want to know.
I'm bored now. I'll come back in a few days and see if the argument has moved on.
@deuse
It is the festive season and so in the spirit of good will, I hope the yule tide log slips from your fire and burns down your house ! Merry Xmas - and Go Lewis in 2014 !!!
Is that the best you can do? Well you was right on the Lewis part
It was like sending a newbi for a long weight or a right handed screw driver you fall for it then try to make out you didn't
Thanks guys it was so much fun and I got the idea from the HHGTTG book
Is that the best you can do? Well you was right on the Lewis part
It was like sending a newbi for a long weight or a right handed screw driver you fall for it then try to make out you didn't
Thanks guys it was so much fun and I got the idea from the HHGTTG book
These guys are actually trying to help and educate you, you should really pay attention to what they're saying instead of either ignoring it or flippantly disregarding it... You're coming off as a complete idiot.
The mechanism and principle behind evolution is pretty simple and as far as I know isn't really in contention.
Random mutation in cell replication occurs in all living things which causes change - it mutates because a cell is a chaotic mass of stuff, with all manner of chemical processes taking place, at enormous speed and in billions of places inside an organism at any one time.
Random mutation is basically chaotic chemistry, which is powered by physics, which if you keep drilling down you end up at the molecular level and the various forces involved - all of which converge to power the whole thing.
I'd say the only bits which are up for debate, are the very deep and complicated genetic questions which explain more about us and different lifeforms, and how genes translate into disease or not - the mechanisms behind how it works are pretty well understood.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 15,788
- Location
- Outside in the bushes
I'm a Stevologist
I believe I am Stev
I know that I know nothing in the grand scheme of things
I'm Happy with this!
You See I unlike the rest have based my religion on things that everyone can actually agree with
I believe I am Stev
I know that I know nothing in the grand scheme of things
I'm Happy with this!
You See I unlike the rest have based my religion on things that everyone can actually agree with
Last edited:
Change into what?.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,321
- Location
- Woking
Ah kedge, you've read your head. Hopefully you've read my essay on your idiocy.
What the?, lol.