Evolution and a supreme being.

Monty Burnz

mickrock wrote: »

Would you care to expand?

I don't think I can make it any more clear: your question suggests you don't understand the theory of evolution. Where is your evidence of 'direction' in evolution that implies intelligence behind it?

Monty Burnz

Robdude wrote: »

Except science has shown that man hasn't always existed. Man can't create man. And without the existence of man, man can't create God.

Great point. All we need to do now is explain who created the gods and you're half way to explaining your position. Who created Thor? Who created Zeus? Who created Yaweh? Who created Zoroaster?

Guill

Pedant wrote: »

"Everything is a theory and its up to you what to believe"

Well, the notion of a spherical earth is a theory that we know to be fact. You're confusing "theory" with "hypothesis". Evolution is a theory that has been proven fact time and time again by evidence. You can't be democratic about these sort of theories.

Everything is theory, like theory of reletivity, theory of gravity, theory of evolution. If you cut science back to the bare bones everything is a theory, some are accepted a fact and become the paradigm. A true scientist will understand this.


Don't answer the questions, question the answers.

Littlehorny

Littlehorny wrote: »

Saw a documentary on Darwin once and he sat on his theory of evolution and natural selection for ten years because he knew the church would attack him because he effectively said that god was not mans creater. Was Darwin religous himself ?

His wife was. She was also his editor (or something to that effect, possibly proof reader extraordinaire) which is why there was no mention of the implications for the origins of man in the first edition.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't think I can make it any more clear: your question suggests you don't understand the theory of evolution. Where is your evidence of 'direction' in evolution that implies intelligence behind it?

mickrock never claimed that intelligence was implied, that's why there was a question mark.

Robdude

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Great point. All we need to do now is explain who created the gods and you're half way to explaining your position. Who created Thor? Who created Zeus? Who created Yaweh? Who created Zoroaster?

Man has certainly created fictional works of art. I'm not denying that. I'm not saying that everything anyone has ever claimed to be a god is a god.

I am saying that there is a god and that god created man.

Man was then free to exercise his free will and imagination. Thor is no more or less real than Batman.

Monty Burnz

Robdude wrote: »

Absolutely - scientific evidence supports your claims. I'm not refuting that for a second.

I'm saying the best scientific minds have a long history of being wrong....

http://top5s.net/index.php/2012/04/top-5-debunked-scientific-beliefs-of-the-past/
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php
http://listverse.com/2008/04/09/top-10-scientific-frauds-and-hoaxes/
http://www.cracked.com/article_18822_5-famous-scientists-dismissed-as-morons-in-their-time.html

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
-- Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949

I think you'll find this scientist was actually correct.

Robdude wrote: »

"I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling on his face not Gary Cooper."
-- Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in "Gone With The Wind."

To be fair, I doubt even Gary Cooper would have claimed that he was one of 'the best scientific minds'.

Monty Burnz

Robdude wrote: »

Man has certainly created fictional works of art. I'm not denying that. I'm not saying that everything anyone has ever claimed to be a god is a god.

How can you be sure?

Robdude wrote: »

I am saying that there is a god and that god created man.

Which god?

Robdude wrote: »

Man was then free to exercise his free will and imagination. Thor is no more or less real than Batman.

That is a rather offensive statement to make and will no doubt offend practitioners of traditional Norse religion, but I'll let it slide I suppose as we should have no sacred cows here.

But I suggest that I can prove Thor's existence just as well as you can prove any of the other gods.

Pedant

Guill wrote: »

Everything is theory, like theory of reletivity, theory of gravity, theory of evolution. If you cut science back to the bare bones everything is a theory, some are accepted a fact and become the paradigm. A true scientist will understand this.


Don't answer the questions, question the answers.

Yes and some theories are more fact than others. There's a scale between fact and hypothesis. The spherical Earth theory can easily be proven fact if I went up into a spaceship and viewed Earth from a distance. There isn't even the slightest possibility of the flat Earth theory being correct. Spherical Earth theory is more fact than, say, the theory of relatively which may or may not be continuously refined to include extra unknown parameters.

Deus Ex Machina

FatherLen wrote: »

evolution vs religion round 12

ding ding

Thrill wrote: »

Evolution comes out swinging, delivers low blow to religions nether regions.

Why can't all religious debates be conducted in this manner? It would be so much more interesting (incidentally, more interesting than debating the existence of God is the definition of damning with feint praise).

Atheist: Agnosticism tag teams Gnostic Christianity with militant atheism and then clothes lines him.

Theist: Yeah well, Deism responds with two sharp jabs and a right cross.

Pushtrak

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The second law of thermodynamics would imply that there is an outside force that organised things at some point.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

Life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still?

Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order.

In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

Grand_Rajnah wrote: »

Science has however, shown how man was created, ie evolution.

Careful now... Abiogenesis deals with the creation of life. Evolution is after that, and is about how life adapted, and, well evolved by speciation.

You can argue that it was all overseen by some mythical being till your blue in the face, but the evidence supports evolution, and how it all originated from the big bang.

And Big Bang cosmology is fascinating. I'd encourage people here to look it up. Can provide very informative playlists on it, abiogenesis or evolution should anyone want them.

Guill wrote: »

Everything is a theory and its up to you what to believe. Personally I believe that religion is a scam. I believe in evolution. I believe in the big bang. I believe in gravity.

What is a theory to you? Because from how you use it, I don't think you understand its meaning in a scientific context.

Robdude

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But I suggest that I can prove Thor's existence just as well as you can prove any of the other gods.

Sure - and if you used enough big words, cited other papers and tossed in some math symbols - you could get it published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal and it would be science.

Pace2008

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The second law of thermodynamics would imply that there is an outside force that organised things at some point.

This isn't the whole "order from disorder goes against the concept of entropy" thing, is it? I've nothing more than a rudimentary knowledge of physics but it would proabably be wise to ask a few questuions on physics forum before you go along with this one, as you're walking in the illustrious presence of guys who claim that men used to ride around on dinosaurs.

mickrock

Pedant wrote: »

"The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins (title for his 1986 book and 1987 documentary) is probably the most interesting documentary I've ever seen on evolution. It suggests that natural selection may be artificially reproduced to enhance design solutions and production mechanisms in industry. Controlled or simulated evolution could advance technology by leaps and bound in quite a short space of time. If used in this matter, the whole notion of "intelligent design" is thrown on its head because you're literally be using non-intelligent design to produce intelligent design.

The last sentence doesn't make any sense.

Why do you call the imitated process intelligent design but the original process from which it's imitated is not?

Pedant

mickrock wrote: »

The last sentence doesn't make any sense.

Why do you call the imitated process intelligent design but the original process from which it's imitated is not?

Well take a common example. The evolution of humans is not intelligent design, but humans can produce intelligent design. This is what I mean by non-intelligent design being the ultimate source of intelligent design.

Tonyandthewhale

Robdude wrote: »

Absolutely - scientific evidence supports your claims. I'm not refuting that for a second.

I'm saying the best scientific minds have a long history of being wrong....

http://top5s.net/index.php/2012/04/top-5-debunked-scientific-beliefs-of-the-past/
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php
http://listverse.com/2008/04/09/top-10-scientific-frauds-and-hoaxes/
http://www.cracked.com/article_18822_5-famous-scientists-dismissed-as-morons-in-their-time.html

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
-- Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
-- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year."
-- The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957
"But what ... is it good for?"
-- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968,commenting on the microchip.
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
-- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us."
-- Western Union internal memo, 1876.
"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
-- David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.
"The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible."
-- A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. (Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.)
"I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling on his face not Gary Cooper."
-- Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in "Gone With The Wind."
"A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make."
-- Response to Debbi Fields' idea of starting Mrs. Fields'Cookies.
"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out."
-- Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
-- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.

But they'd still be wrong.

Lol. So you reject the theory of evolution (despite the existence of observable evidence to support the theory and over a century of stringent research and testing aimed at debunking it) on the basis that sometimes people are wrong. Thing is, most of your examples of when 'great scientific minds' were wrong listed above are examples of people not familiar with some new technology, being presented with such technology and making pesimistic predictions about it. None of the above are examples of flaws in the scientific process.

The theory of evolution is not about someone making a guess at how the career of the Beatles or some cookie manufacturer is going to turn out and being wrong. The theory of evolutions is a theory based on observations which led to a hypothesis being developed and then objectively tested with the INTENTION OF DISPROVING IT. It was then re-tested, and re-tested again and again and research was carried out to explain the findings of these tests and hypotheses were developed from this research and these hypotheses were tested and researched and so on and so on. Not the approach taken by Gary Cooper by any means.

Even if you take a slightly more scientific example of mere humans being wrong. You said 100 years ago the shape of your skull might be used to determine whether or not you are a criminal. This is the 'science' of phrenology (actually a pseudoscience since proper scientific processes weren't followed). In this case a hypothesis was developed that the shape of the skull reflected aspects of character and intellect. However, due to the lack of technology relating to brain scanning and standardised personality tests and the over-all infancy of experimental science at this stage the hypothesis was for a long time not objectively tested (at least not properly) and not fully explained or understood. Eventually it was tested, and disproved and it never got to be a proper theory.
This is not the case of evolution, evolution is not just a human 'idea' any more than the existence of gravity is an 'idea' or the fact that the world is round is an 'idea.' It's scientifically verified as an observable phenomena.

Pushtrak

mickrock wrote: »

The last sentence doesn't make any sense.

Why do you call the imitated process intelligent design but the original process from which it's imitated is not?

Luckily, Ireland doesn't have many young earth creationists. Still seems to be a lot of evolution deniers. See, the problem I have whenever I see "Intelligent Design" mentioned it is generally by those who'd advocate young earth, 6 day creation, Adam and Eve, no evolution. And if that was reality, that would be intelligent design.

But that is not reality. Instead, we know that humanity got to this point by the process of evolution. That life began with abiogenesis. That the planets are as they are due to big bang cosmology. If any of these steps, you stopped and said "We don't know that..." substitute "I" for we, and go off and learn about the particulars on whichever one you do not know enough on.

For Big Bang, I would recommend reading the book Big Bang by Simon Singh for starters. Great book. For evolution, well, there you could read some of Dawkins material. For abiogenesis, I don't really have good reading material to suggest here. I know what I know here due to videos on the subject. I'll get some links to great videos on these subjects and provide them in another post. Will take a bit to gather up the links.

Anyway, back to intelligent design... The only reason an intelligent designer is even brought in to the discussion is because there was the big bang, and people will ponder about what came before the big bang? Well, time started out at the big bang, so it isn't a sensible question. There is a hypothesis about the multiverse, but I don't feel in any way comfortable about the veracity about it. I know next to nothing on it, so I am not leaning one way or the other on the matter.

Anyway, we are to suppose that this intelligent designer should it exist created the universe 13.7 billion years ago, the planet is mid 4 to 5 billion years old. So, that's quite a while already. Then, add in the fact that homo sapien has been as it currently is for 100,000 years. That is a very small amount of the time for us to be as we are. Certainly no deity of an interventionist nature seems to be logical in light of what is seen of reality. Some would say the universe is fine tuned for life. Nonsense. Considering how there are [Carl Sagn voice]billions upon billions[/Carl Sagan voice] that are most certainly quite inhospitable, and we managed to live on this one.. It all screams God of the Gaps.

Tonyandthewhale

mickrock wrote: »

The last sentence doesn't make any sense.

Why do you call the imitated process intelligent design but the original process from which it's imitated is not?

The sentence would probably make more sense if the second use of intelligent design was also in quotation marks.

Pedant

Pushtrak wrote: »

Luckily, Ireland doesn't have many young earth creationists. Still seems to be a lot of evolution deniers. See, the problem I have whenever I see "Intelligent Design" mentioned it is generally by those who'd advocate young earth, 6 day creation, Adam and Eve, no evolution. And if that was reality, that would be intelligent design.

But that is not reality. Instead, we know that humanity got to this point by the process of evolution. That life began with abiogenesis. That the planets are as they are due to big bang cosmology. If any of these steps, you stopped and said "We don't know that..." substitute "I" for we, and go off and learn about the particulars on whichever one you do not know enough on.

For Big Bang, I would recommend reading the book Big Bang by Simon Singh for starters. Great book. For evolution, well, there you could read some of Dawkins material. For abiogenesis, I don't really have good reading material to suggest here. I know what I know here due to videos on the subject. I'll get some links to great videos on these subjects and provide them in another post. Will take a bit to gather up the links.

Anyway, back to intelligent design... The only reason an intelligent designer is even brought in to the discussion is because there was the big bang, and people will ponder about what came before the big bang? Well, time started out at the big bang, so it isn't a sensible question. There is a hypothesis about the multiverse, but I don't feel in any way comfortable about the veracity about it. I know next to nothing on it, so I am not leaning one way or the other on the matter.

Anyway, we are to suppose that this intelligent designer should it exist created the universe 13.7 billion years ago, the planet is mid 4 to 5 billion years old. So, that's quite a while already. Then, add in the fact that homo sapien has been as it currently is for 100,000 years. That is a very small amount of the time for us to be as we are. Certainly no deity of an interventionist nature seems to be logical in light of what is seen of reality. Some would say the universe is fine tuned for life. Nonsense. Considering how there are [Carl Sagn voice]billions upon billions[/Carl Sagan voice] that are most certainly quite inhospitable, and we managed to live on this one.. It all screams God of the Gaps.

This doesn't answer mickrock's question to me.

BTW, I'm no advocate of the intelligent design hypothesis - I just like the phase "intelligent design".

areu4real?

Robdude wrote: »

Except science has shown that man hasn't always existed. Man can't create man. And without the existence of man, man can't create God.

I don't know if you actually realise this but you've just used science to explain the fact that man didn't always exist. You then completely ignore science for the proof of your god.
There's a "Your argument is invalid" meme in there somewhere

Robdude

Tonyandthewhale wrote: »

Lol. So you reject the theory of evolution (despite the existence of observable evidence to support the theory and over a century of stringent research and testing aimed at debunking it) on the basis that sometimes people are wrong. Thing is, most of your examples of when 'great scientific minds' were wrong listed above are examples of people not familiar with some new technology, being presented with such technology and making pesimistic predictions about it. None of the above are examples of flaws in the scientific process.

The theory of evolution is not about someone making a guess at how the career of the Beatles or some cookie manufacturer is going to turn out and being wrong. The theory of evolutions is a theory based on observations which led to a hypothesis being developed and then objectively tested with the INTENTION OF DISPROVING IT. It was then re-tested, and re-tested again and again and research was carried out to explain the findings of these tests and hypotheses were developed from this research and these hypotheses were tested and researched and so on and so on. Not the approach taken by Gary Cooper by any means.

Even if you take a slightly more scientific example of mere humans being wrong. You said 100 years ago the shape of your skull might be used to determine whether or not you are a criminal. This is the 'science' of phrenology (actually a pseudoscience since proper scientific processes weren't followed). In this case a hypothesis was developed that the shape of the skull reflected aspects of character and intellect. However, due to the lack of technology relating to brain scanning and standardised personality tests and the over-all infancy of experimental science at this stage the hypothesis was for a long time not objectively tested (at least not properly) and not fully explained or understood. Eventually it was tested, and disproved and it never got to be a proper theory.
This is not the case of evolution, evolution is not just a human 'idea' any more than the existence of gravity is an 'idea' or the fact that the world is round is an 'idea.' It's scientifically verified as an observable phenomena.

"We're right! Except when we're wrong. But this is totally different from that other time when we were wrong."

People in the 1400s had lots of observable evidence of a geocentric solar system. They were still wrong.

Part of believing in the scientific method is accepting that, at any time, a better theory can come along and be more correct.

We know Newtonian physics was wrong. But it still has a lot of solid evidence. Hell, it's even TAUGHT because it's pretty darn right in a lot of cases.

Einstein came along with a better theory that was more right. But it still doesn't explain everything. Then we've got quantum mechanics that, again, still doesn't explain everything.

I'm sure, eventually, we'll accept that all three are backwards and wrong as soon as someone comes up with something that is more correct and accurately describes MORE observable data.

Robdude

areu4real? wrote: »

I don't know if you actually realise this but you've just used science to explain the fact that man didn't always exist. You then completely ignore science for the proof of your god.
There's a "Your argument" is invalid meme in there somewhere

In exactly the same way an Atheist uses quotes from the Bible to disprove religion....right?

Pushtrak

Pedant wrote: »

This doesn't answer mickrock's question to me.

BTW, I'm no advocate of the intelligent design hypothesis - I just like the phase "intelligent design".

When I see intelligent design, I see intelligent designer as the thought behind it. So I address that. Anyway... Some vid links for anyone interested... Will be a while to get through all this. Would be worth bookmarking some of this stuff for later, anyone interested.

Big Bang
Abiogenesis vids
Evolution 1
Evolution 2

Guill

Pushtrak wrote: »

What is a theory to you? Because from how you use it, I don't think you understand its meaning in a scientific context.

Something that is supported with testing and is considerd correct and valid until prooved otherwise.

How does that not fit with what i was saying?

Tonyandthewhale

Robdude wrote: »

"We're right! Except when we're wrong. But this is totally different from that other time when we were wrong."

Well you were using examples of people NOT using the scientific methods to explain how the theory of evolution is wrong. So really this is more of a case of
'we're right, they were wrong but they were talking about the potential success of doughy versus crispy cookies in a future market based on market research on a market not previously exposed to doughy cookies so that's not really admissable.'

Pedant

Pushtrak wrote: »

When I see intelligent design, I see intelligent designer as the thought behind it.

In the example I gave a few posts back, I posed man as an intelligent designer that was created by a "non-intelligent designer" (i.e., natural selection, evolution). That is all. Sorry for the confusion.

Pushtrak

Guill wrote: »

Something that is supported with testing and is considerd correct and valid until prooved otherwise.
How does that not fit with what i was saying?

It came across like your meaning was in the sense of something being only a theory. As in, the commonly heard one mistaking theory for hypothesis. Oh, and your definition is wrong, anyway. It isn't something that is supported with testing yada yada...

A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses.

In other words, you have the phenomenon, and the theory explains how the phenomenon works. So, that is why the theory of evolution by natural selection was commonly used.

Worth looking at Germ Theory and Theory of Gravity.

areu4real?

Robdude wrote: »

In exactly the same way an Atheist uses quotes from the Bible to disprove religion....right?

I wouldn't say exactly the same way, no. I don't try to disprove religion and I'm an atheist. If someone called me and said they had rock solid evidence of the existence of a god I would be the first person at the door. I was simply pointing out that you are using science selectively.
Just ignore the fact that there is a bible, imagine it got lost somewhere before anyone ever seen it. Now show me one tiny piece of evidence that there is a god... one piece that is not written word, word of mouth, carved in a stone, etc. There are museums that hold fossilised remains of early man right through to what we are now. I can go look at that. I can touch it if no-one is looking. I can follow a pattern of how we came to be. That, my friend, is evidence.

mickrock

Pushtrak wrote: »

When I see intelligent design, I see intelligent designer as the thought behind it.

I don't see a supreme being as necessary to explain so-called intelligent design.

Science and the human mind have their limits and will never be able to fully comprehend ultimate reality.

Guill

Pushtrak wrote: »

It came across like your meaning was in the sense of something being only a theory. As in, the commonly heard one mistaking theory for hypothesis. Oh, and your definition is wrong, anyway. It isn't something that is supported with testing yada yada...

A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses.

In other words, you have the phenomenon, and the theory explains how the phenomenon works. So, that is why the theory of evolution by natural selection was commonly used.

Worth looking at Germ Theory and Theory of Gravity.

I can google too:

1. 1. The final step of the scientific method is to construct, support, or cast doubt on a scientific theory. A theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word "theory." A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena. Scientific theories explain nature by unifying many once-unrelated facts or corroborated hypotheses; they are the strongest and most truthful explanations of how the universe, nature, and life came to be, how they work, what they are made of, and what will become of them. Since humans are living organisms and are part of the universe, science explains all of these things about ourselves.
      These scientific theories--such as the theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, evolution, genetics, plate tectonics, and big bang cosmology--are the most reliable, most rigorous, and most comprehensive form of knowledge that humans possess. Thus, it is important for every educated person to understand where scientific knowledge comes from, and how to emulate this method of gaining knowledge. Scientific knowledge comes from the practice of scientific thinking--using the scientific method--and this mode of discovering and validating knowledge can be duplicated and achieved by anyone who practices critical thinking.

I say again, everything is theory as above.

Pushtrak

mickrock wrote: »

I don't see a supreme being as necessary to explain so-called intelligent design.

I presume you are thinking something along the lines of a sentient race, a matrix type scenario or some other non-interventionist type thing... Is that so?

Science and the human mind have their limits and will never be able to fully comprehend ultimate reality.

That may very well be true.