arghh.. work mate keeps trying to convert me

[BobMonkhouse]

Not this again. Evolution has been proven so it is true.

I agree with the sentiment, but to say Evolution has been proved is almost as stupid as those who go around saying Evolution is theory not fact (they're stupid because they clearly don't understand the huge weight of evidence that is required of something to make it a theory, and try to play on children in schools not understanding this either to further their own agenda).

 

[BobMonkhouse]

Yes it does, humans evolved by the same mechanism as every other organism on this planet.

As basic example of Micro Evolution is this; a species of green butterflies lives in a forest of green trees. Something happens to the leaves that permanently changes their color to brown. After a few generations all the butterflies are now brown.

The butterflies evolved via survival of the fittest and changed to match the environment. However the species was not changed, so not full Evolution.

 

[robmiller]

I agree with the sentiment, but to say Evolution has been proved is almost as stupid as those who go around saying Evolution is theory not fact (they're stupid because they clearly don't understand the huge weight of evidence that is required of something to make it a theory, and try to play on children in schools not understanding this either to further their own agenda).

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is an observed fact that what we call "evolution" occurs. The theory of evolution by natural selection is our current (and continually modified) theory of why evolution occurs.

It's just like disease. What we call "disease" is an observed fact, and the germ theory of disease is the current best theory to explain why disease occurs. We operate the entirety of modern medicine based on the truth of the germ theory of disease, which has the same level of "proof" as the theory of evolution by natural selection.

"Evolution" has been proved; there is a mountainous amount of evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection, but it's not something that can be "proved" since it's just a model.

As basic example of Micro Evolution is this; a species of green butterflies lives in a forest of green trees. Something happens to the leaves that permanently changes their color to brown. After a few generations all the butterflies are now brown.

The butterflies evolved via survival of the fittest and changed to match the environment. However the species was not changed, so not full Evolution.

For god's sake read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

 

[Dingo]

For god's sake read this:

Now that's just vindictive Rob!


To OP
If I were you I would agree to listen to his Sermon on the Mount........provided he agreed to listen to your "beliefs" in exchange.........and then tell him you are a Satanist!!


I do it all the time when the Jehova's come around, and having told them, politely invite them in for a chat.......bizarrely I haven't had a taker as yet

 

[Angilion]

As basic example of Micro Evolution is this; a species of green butterflies lives in a forest of green trees. Something happens to the leaves that permanently changes their color to brown. After a few generations all the butterflies are now brown.

The butterflies evolved via survival of the fittest and changed to match the environment. However the species was not changed, so not full Evolution.

That distinction smacks of a fallback position:

Group A: Evolution is twaddle!
Group B: Here is a huge amount of evidence showing evolution occuring.
Group A: That's micro evolution, not full evolution!
Group B: Excuse me, what are you talking about? I haven't heard those terms before.
Group A: You haven't got videos of things happening over tens of thousands of years.
Group B: We never claimed to. That would be silly.
Group A: Therefore, evolution is twaddle!

 

[Angilion]

hes actually a nice guy, apart from the whole religious side. the problem is, its either the bible, or its utter tosh. When you try to give him a reasonable debate, it just gets dismissed as rubbish .

Your mistake is to try to give him a reasonable debate. He has faith, not reason. You're using the wrong tool for the job.

 

[Dolph]

Ask him if he's read the sermon on the mount and why he is ignoring jesus' teachings.

I wish everyone with faith (including the atheists and the scientific faithful) would remember that they shouldn't preach, it would be much better all around.

 

[Van_Dammesque]

I wish everyone with faith (including the atheists and the scientific faithful) would remember that they shouldn't preach, it would be much better all around.

Let me understand you correctly: You say the world would be a better place if people didn't preach evolution as a scientific fact to those who do not understand/"believe" in evolution?

(Evolution is an example of the "scientific faithful".)

 

[hp7909]

You know that he'll never stop trying? The Bible 'teaches' him/them to do so & if he is one of those deeply into it, will be even more persistent

 

[Dolph]

Let me understand you correctly: You say the world would be a better place if people didn't preach evolution as a scientific fact to those who do not understand/"believe" in evolution?

(Evolution is an example of the "scientific faithful".)

No, I think the world would be a better place if people understood where their facts ended and faith started. If you want to declare evolution true or factual, lock stock and barrel, it can only be done on faith. Science does not and never has dealt with truth, it deals with prediction, to be exact, the simplest prediction that can generate the given data.

You cannot present the mechanism for evolution as fact, because it is not. The observed data could be regarded as factual, but you cannot claim you know how that data occured, you can only theorise and predict. Anyone who presents evolution as fact is wrong, and not very scientific.

Nothing in evolution precludes the existance or involvement of a higher being, unless you place faith in the predicted mechanism as being more likely than any other, even though it's only gained it's place through the assumptions of the method that derived it.

 

[Van_Dammesque]

No, I think the world would be a better place if people understood where their facts ended and faith started. If you want to declare evolution true or factual, lock stock and barrel, it can only be done on faith. Science does not and never has dealt with truth, it deals with prediction, to be exact, the simplest prediction that can generate the given data.

You cannot present the mechanism for evolution as fact, because it is not. The observed data could be regarded as factual, but you cannot claim you know how that data occured, you can only theorise and predict. Anyone who presents evolution as fact is wrong, and not very scientific.

Nothing in evolution precludes the existance or involvement of a higher being, unless you place faith in the predicted mechanism as being more likely than any other, even though it's only gained it's place through the assumptions of the method that derived it.

Fair enough, however what is a fact if science cannot handle it (granted a "fact" may change due to more evolved (pun intended) theories)?

 

[Dolph]

Fair enough, however what is a fact if science cannot handle it (granted a "fact" may change due to more evolved (pun intended) theories)?

Very little is fact, observed data and known interactions (such as laws of mavity etc) are about the lot, and even they are only factual from our observational stance, which we cannot know is correct, only that it's our only one, so you can treat it as the only one to all intents and purposes.

Those who demand 'facts' from science are those who wish for science to be another religion in many ways, they want it to be something that provides answers, rather than just predictions that prove to be accurate. There is no correct tool for providing answers or the truth, and to pretend that the truth can be found in a predictive method packed with assumptions to make it predictively useful is no more logical or rational than taking the words in a book as the provider of truth. It's a faith based position, not that there's anything wrong with that, as long as you're aware of it.

 

[Teslahed]

Anyone who doesn't believe in the facts of evolution should, if they ever have to go to hospital, ask their doctors to treat them with the antibiotics that they would be using assuming evolution does not occur. As they lay dieing from some simple bacteria that has evolved an immunity to the 1930s drugs coursing through their veins they may have a brief moment to reflect on their folly.

Yes it is true that in science nothing can ever be fully proven, only disproven. In practical terms we can say that the 'theory' of evolution is as real as the 'theory' of mavity. There may be a few details left to clear up but we know that things fall downwards (or evolve upwards).

 

[Dolph]

Anyone who doesn't believe in the facts of evolution should, if they ever have to go to hospital, ask their doctors to treat them with the antibiotics that they would be using assuming evolution does not occur. As they lay dieing from some simple bacteria that has evolved an immunity to the 1930s drugs coursing through their veins they may have a brief moment to reflect on their folly.

What of the above requires a factual, rather than a predictively accurate, understanding?

Yes it is true that in science nothing can ever be fully proven, only disproven. In practical terms we can say that the 'theory' of evolution is as real as the 'theory' of mavity. There may be a few details left to clear up but we know that things fall downwards (or evolve upwards).

That's predictive understanding, not factual truth. Just because you can predict what something will do consistantly does not mean you know how it works.

 

[MHayes]

It is impossile to prove either but science is based on facts, it might not be 100% correct but if a theory is proven wrong it is updated. Evolution has been proven fact as much as it can be, obviouslly it can't be proven fully.

Evolution doesn't disprove God but it goes against most major religions.
Relgion is science from a few 1000 years ago.

 

[Teslahed]

That's predictive understanding, not factual truth. Just because you can predict what something will do consistantly does not mean you know how it works.

Well in an infinite universe where all things effect each other we will never have an absolutely perfect understanding of anything.

This doesn't mean that scientists don't have a reasonable working understanding of either evolution or mavity or that there isn't a great deal of evidence for them both. Modern antibiotics and both designed and used in a way that is supposed to minimise the chances of bacteria evolving an immunity to them.

If you have some dogmatic religious text that you are sticking to regardless of all evidence to the contrary then there will always be some tiny loophole you can stick your head in to ignore reality. no one can prove you wrong because there will always be the get out clause of 'what about this thing that doesn't quite make perfect sense'.

 

[Dolph]

Well in an infinite universe where all things effect each other we will never have an absolutely perfect understanding of anything.

This doesn't mean that scientists don't have a reasonable working understanding of either evolution or mavity or that there isn't a great deal of evidence for them both. Modern antibiotics and both designed and used in a way that is supposed to minimise the chances of bacteria evolving an immunity to them.

If you have some dogmatic religious text that you are sticking to regardless of all evidence to the contrary then there will always be some tiny loophole you can stick your head in to ignore reality. no one can prove you wrong because there will always be the get out clause of 'what about this thing that doesn't quite make perfect sense'.

I don't have a religious text, I have a scientific education that was sufficiently deep to teach about the limitations of the process and methods. If the best defense you have is the one you've posted, then that doesn't bode well.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

I thought this thread was going to be about bum sex. I am relieved it isn't

 

[Tom0]

Just tell him you're a devil worshipper and spit in his face.

 

[PinkPig]

You can't stop him talking about his faith. Smile and nod and be friendly - it doesn't sound like he's really causing you any trouble. (Why get annoyed by religion? He's got just as much right to be annoyed by your atheism)