So, what's the general consensus here on evolution?

[bsd777]

Looks like you guys where preaching to the choir and throwing about plenty of assumptions, after I left. Assuming advocates of creationism are Christian and that anyone who belives in intelligent design must also beleive that God created man in his image etc.. They go well with the other asumptions required to maintain faith in the religion of evolution e.g. fosiles exist, we just haven't found them yet or they're buried too deep or were destroyed, micro-organisms "evolve" therefore higher forms of life must too. Guys, I don't believe I've ever stated I belive in Intelligent design or that I do not beleive in evolution. I think my arguement has been two fold; Intelligent design is very plausable and evolution is a theory that is far from proven. That's it.
It's probably been two or three years since I read the arguments Coulter and Stein made. I can't do them justice, but I encourage anyone who is truly inquisitive to read for yourself. As I recall a few of the points included. No "half and half' species fosils have been found. A few of you have made claims to the contrairy. I think you are wrong as I've never seen any eveidence and I'd trust those two before an Internet blog. Ann also did a good job of covering various fraudulent "findings", hoaxes that were later disproven. They also covered the theory that becuase microorganisms "evolve" higher life forms must too, so I am familiar with these arguments. More "proof" that requires faith.

It's very hard to believe that something that works as perfectly, as it does, was an accident. It is so much easier to destroy than to build, or create, anything functional. I know of nothing functional that was created by accident.

Evolution makes sense on many levels, it's just not a proven fact. I think intelligent design makes sense too.

460 is a pretty big drop on the Nikkei or DOW. As luck would have it, the US markets weren't too bad today but I'd be nervous, if I were long.

[shikitohno]

I am a Christian. I believe in Creationism. I understand why so many believe in evolution and I don't belittle it. I just simply do not believe in it. Put yourself in a Christian's place, though. Try to explain to someone that you have a relationship with the creator and that they can have one, too. Christianity is a tough practice, my friends.

I've highlighted the part of your post that basically sums up my issue with religion. My actions and statements make it abundantly clear that I do not believe in a creator, and don't want a relationship with one should he actually exist. Religious people (not all of them, but there's a nice, fervent chunk of them) will not take no for an answer. If I meet someone in real life, the first time religion comes up I do my best to say that while I'm interested in the rituals and myths that make them up, but I don't believe in it and I'm quite content that way. Most people will accept this and let it be. Then there's the group that seem have decided their calling in life is to set me on the right path by converting me, no matter how many times I say no.

[deadohsky]

I personally believe in evolution. I also believe that christians should at least embrace evolution, if god were real, is it so hard to imagine that he designed evolution? Why believe that planet Earth was created in a week and is only around 10,000 years old when there is hard evidence that the planet was around LONG before then.

As Bill Hicks said, for you fundamentalist christians who believe the bible as 100 percent fact, i have a one word question for you: Dinosaurs?

I was raised in a very christian home. Went to church every Wednesday and Sunday until i was 16. I understand the bible and the theory of god. Upon getting older and gaining more (varied) knowledge through my own research and experience i have come to the conclusion that it's all fabricated. The bible is a story book. I have read it and do enjoy the stories, i just don't take them as infallible fact.

I don't like how many christians are so incredibly judgmental and force their beliefs down your throat. I think nothing less of my parents because they were christians. It made them happy, seemed to relieve their fears and concerns. I think that is great if it makes you feel better about the world and makes everything more comfortable for you. Go for it.

I would just rather know the truth and i can stand behind the evidence that science has provided.

[Joe234]

I am a Christian. I believe in Creationism. I understand why so many believe in evolution and I don't belittle it. I just simply do not believe in it. Put yourself in a Christian's place, though. Try to explain to someone that you have a relationship with the creator and that they can have one, too. Christianity is a tough practice, my friends.

Christianity is no reason to not believe in evolution any more than not believing the Earth revolves around the Sun.
How can you ignore science? Even the Pope has embraced a coexistence with evolution.

I know a priest who read The God Delusion.


Pope: Creation vs. evolution an ‘absurdity’


Benedict XVI also says humans must listen to ‘the voice of the Earth’
msnbc.com news services
updated 11:55 a.m. PT, Wed., July 25, 2007

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.
“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’”
Benedict also said the human race must listen to “the voice of the Earth” or risk destroying its very existence.
The pope is wrapping up a three-week private holiday in the majestic mountains of northern Italy, where residents are alarmed by the prospect of climate change that can alter their way of life.
“We all see that today man can destroy the foundation of his existence, his Earth,” he said in a closed door meeting with 400 priests on Tuesday. A full transcript of the two-hour event was issued on Wednesday.
“We cannot simply do what we want with this Earth of ours, with what has been entrusted to us,” said the pope, who has been spending his time reading and walking in the scenic landscape bordering Austria.
Our Earth is talking to us
World religions have shown a growing interest in the environment, particularly the ramifications of climate change.
The pope, leader of some 1.1 billion Roman Catholics worldwide, said: “We must respect the interior laws of creation, of this Earth, to learn these laws and obey them if we want to survive.”
“This obedience to the voice of the Earth is more important for our future happiness ... than the desires of the moment. Our Earth is talking to us and we must listen to it and decipher its message if we want to survive,” he said.
Last April, the Vatican sponsored a scientific conference on climate change to underscore the role that religious leaders around the world could play in reminding people that willfully damaging the environment is sinful.
Reuters contributed to this story.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/

[shikitohno]

Looks like you guys where preaching to the choir and throwing about plenty of assumptions, after I left. Assuming advocates of creationism are Christian and that anyone who belives in intelligent design must also beleive that God created man in his image etc.. They go well with the other asumptions required to maintain faith in the religion of evolution e.g. fosiles exist, we just haven't found them yet or they're buried too deep or were destroyed, micro-organisms "evolve" therefore higher forms of life must too. Guys, I don't believe I've ever stated I belive in Intelligent design or that I do not beleive in evolution. I think my arguement has been two fold; Intelligent design is very plausable and evolution is a theory that is far from proven. That's it.
It's probably been two or three years since I read the arguments Coulter and Stein made. I can't do them justice, but I encourage anyone who is truly inquisitive to read for yourself. As I recall a few of the points included. No "half and half' species fosils have been found. A few of you have made claims to the contrairy. I think you are wrong as I've never seen any eveidence and I'd trust those two before an Internet blog. Ann also did a good job of covering various fraudulent "findings", hoaxes that were later disproven. They also covered the theory that becuase microorganisms "evolve" higher life forms must too, so I am familiar with these arguments. More "proof" that requires faith.

It's very hard to believe that something that works as perfectly, as it does, was an accident. It is so much easier to destroy than to build, or create, anything functional. I know of nothing functional that was created by accident.

Evolution makes sense on many levels, it's just not a proven fact. I think intelligent design makes sense too.

460 is a pretty big drop on the Nikkei or DOW. As luck would have it, the US markets weren't too bad today but I'd be nervous, if I were long.

They're hardly assumptions that creationism goes with Christianity. If you were given a week, I doubt you could find 10 non-Christian scientists who supported it, nor could you find more than 5 scientists supporting it who had no religion. It's a conservative Christian attempt at putting God back in the classroom, and this time he's to be treated equal to that pesky science that keeps stealing his thunder. As for your outright dismissal of the chance that any fossils could exist that haven't been found, sorry but you're going to have to brush up on that logic you were harping on about evolution lacking. Talking about hybrid fossils in transitional stages, here's an entire list, once again showing what I've said before: Ann Coulter doesn't know what she's talking about with science. Hoax finds are misleading and can mess with science for a long time if they aren't found quickly enough. However, hoax fossils do not render all legitimate fossils and palaeontology irrelevant.

Also, as far as your argument that Ben Stein and Ann Coulter are legitimate sources, I repeat, they are not. You don't seem to get this, but you don't have to be a genius to write a book. You need to be able to fill 150+ pages and if your writing skills are lacking, have the charisma to get stupid people to buy it anyway. Having your editor read a book and say "Yeah, sounds about right." is a hell of a lot easier than getting a research paper published in a peer reviewed journal. If you want to talk current events, there's nothing wrong with them. But you don't cite your maths book to prove the you spelled a word correctly, and likewise you don't cite grossly unqualified people's opinions to validate your stance on a scientific matter. Any way, your mind seems made up and not about to change no matter the evidence placed in front of you. Your old arguments have been demonstrated to be errant, and you've provided no new ones. Either give some sort of rebuttal (reminder, logic necessary in this thread) to what has been said about your previous arguments, or provide new ones. Just posting them same tired ones is simply spam.

[justintempler]

I gave up having "relationships" with invisible friends when I was about 5.

[Snusdog]

Guys ya’ll really need to read more than just blogs. I am not dressing BS in a technical language. I am using terms that a first year student of philosophy would know.

By fact I mean a particular of existence: a pin, head of lettuce, mars.
You want technical- by fact I mean an ostensive reference viewed in terms of its unity and distinction from other ostensive references without at this point defining the nature or the possibility of such identifiable unity-
But let’s not go there for this discussion. We’ll just stick to “a particular of existence” and be happy with that.

The question is:
Are the facts of existence determined by a set of laws, such as causation? In this view the Universe is rational (regardless of where you locate the origin or source of that rationality). In this case you would trace the whole of western thought back to Plato

Or

Are the facts of existence the product of chance? Here there is no overriding deontic necessity (i.e. no system of natural laws that determine what will happen next and what in all likelihood happened before), no intelligent design, or plan of God. The universe is random (thus randomly generated factuality). In this case you would trace the whole of western thought back to Aristotle.

A cousin of this debate would be to ask, do you believe that man has free will (free from what?) or do you believe choice is determined by an interconnected web of causation (be it existential, chemical, or etc…?)

Here is the point

If you choose option [A] a rational Universe- then to know any particular you must know every particular at once for all times or your knowledge will always be partial and thus falsified (why? because the universe is a connected whole in which every particular is what it is because of its relation to the other particulars. To know one particular then means you must know all of its definitive relations both actual and potential).Guys this is not a radical or even new. It is simply basic epistemology 101. It is exactly why Hume destroyed the Continental Rationalist of his day and why Kant said burn all the books on Metaphysics.

If you choose option [B] a Universe derived by chance - then the laws of science have no relevance (tell us nothing about) the particulars of existence. Again this is basic epistemology 101. It is the entire premise behind Derrida’s work and the dilemma to which his project of Deconstruction seeks to offer a solution (there is no overarching unity to the universe. All existence is in a constant and random state of change. Therefore, we can only know a thing by an ever changing comparison with other things- Guys this IS the philosophical basis of pluralism that not only dominates western thought but dominates THIS THREAD— "if it works for you good"…."how we believe shapes how we picture reality"……we are dealing not with truth but ever changing perspectives...get it there is a entire philosophy behind what you utter so casually). It is also what prompted the “linguistic turn” in philosophy and has lead to the “fictive view of science” (I’m giving you terms to google here guys and big boy books to read)

Bottom line: nothing that I said was BS

Rather

IT IS THE CENTRAL DISCUSSION THAT HAS DOMINATED EVERY FIELD OF STUDY (INCLUDING SCIENCE) SINCE THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT FELL APART.

But don’t worry it’s not like your thinking is missing anything pertinent to the conversation.

My intention here is not to play a game of who the f*@k is smarter than who

Nor is it to suggest that all epistemology ultimately digresses into nihilism or some variant form of deconstruction wherein knowledge is a constant flux of fiction. I hold to neither of these views.

My intent was simply to push the conversation past the polemics and blogs and to suggest that there is a level of consideration going on that nothing in this thread has touched on or even guessed.

Don’t be so smug………………don’t chide………….you position is anything but stable.

[texasmade]

I know of nothing functional that was created by accident.

Microwave Ovens
The microwave oven is now a standard appliance in most American households, but it has only been around since the late 1940s. In 1945, Percy Spencer was experimenting with a new vacuum tube called a magnetron while doing research for the Raytheon Corporation. He was intrigued when the candy bar in his pocket began to melt, so he tried another experiment with popcorn. When it began to pop, Spencer immediately saw the potential in this revolutionary process


Saccharin
Saccharin, the oldest artificial sweetener, was accidentally discovered in 1879 by researcher Constantine Fahlberg, who was working at Johns Hopkins University in the laboratory of professor Ira Remsen. Fahlberg's discovery came after he forgot to wash his hands before lunch. He had spilled a chemical on his hands and it, in turn, caused the bread he ate to taste unusually sweet.


The anti-cancer drug cisplatin was discovered by Barnett Rosenberg. He wanted to explore what he thought was an inhibitory effect of an electric field on the growth of bacteria. It was rather due to an electrolysis product of the platinum electrode he was using.


Coronary catheterization was discovered as a method when a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic accidentally injected radiocontrast into the coronary artery instead of the left ventricle.


Safety glass, by French scientist Edouard Benedictus. In 1903 he accidentally knocked a glass flask to the floor and observed that the broken pieces were held together by a liquid plastic that had evaporated and formed a thin film inside the flask.


Smallpox vaccine:
Over the centuries, smallpox may have killed more people than all other contagious diseases combined, according to the National Institutes of Health. It was a particularly deadly disease in the 18th century--until British scientist Edward Jenner stumbled upon the vaccine. Jenner had overheard a milkmaid say the people who had cowpox, which was relatively harmless, never contracted smallpox. Armed with this information, Jenner experimented by infecting an 8-year-old boy with cowpox and then exposing him to smallpox. Thanks to Jenner's vaccine, smallpox has been virtually eliminated today.


Coumadin:
The blood thinner warfarin, also known by its brand name Coumadin, has an interesting history. It was once also used in rat poisons, discovered when farmers noticed that their cows were dying after eating a type of clover. It was later realized that a particular chemical in the plant prevented their blood from clotting and caused them to hemorrhage. Since the chemical was capable of killing cows, they began using it to kill rats. However, it was later discovered that in proper doses, warfarin could be beneficial to people who are at risk of blood clots, and in 1952, it was first used as a blood thinning agent on humans.


Penicillin:
Alexander Fleming's unexpected discovery of penicillin is possibly one of the most famous. Fleming was conducting research on the flu and notice that mold was growing in one of his petri dishes. Upon closer inspection, he realized that the area with the mold had no bacteria. After further tests, Fleming determined that penicillin could be used to fight bacterial infections, and it is still used today to treat pneumonia, and ear, skin, and throat infections.




Serendipity = accident = unintentional

[wa3zrm]

God created the heaven's and the earth...
Then he made woman from man's rib... a "cheaper cut."

[shikitohno]

Dog, not being smug, not chiding, I'm just not a philosophy major. I enjoy reading it from time to time, but I'd like to have a career outside of teaching at universities. Don't expect everyone to know every specific term you learned in college.

Also, dog, the situation you present basically gives us two equally hopeless options. It's impossible to know all things at all times, so you may as well say screw it in a rational universe. In the second situation, nothing can be known for sure, so again one may as well say screw it. So, I see what you meant about assumptions in the first post now, but I still don't see how that helps to resolve anything. I see both random chance and science applied day to day in the real world. It's things like this black or white painting that occasionally turn me off from philosophy as being something utterly disconnected with the real world. Who knows, maybe I just haven't read enough philosophy and I'm not quite smart enough to grasp how to reconcile the contradictions in what philosophers say with what I see in life.

[Darwin]

Good lord dog you are penetrating much farther into the thickets of philosophy than most folks here are at all inclined to follow. I am somewhat more than a first year philosophy student but I also think one should know and consider one's audience. Examining the foundations, contingencies, and contradictions of the bulk of human philosophical explorations can be illuminating and endlessly challenging for those so inclined but is unlikely to bear anything but acrimonious fruit within a lay forum allegedly devoted to the simple joys of snus and tobacco. For the record I come down firmly on the side of Kant's injunction to burn all books on metaphysics. His mistake was not including "A Critique of Pure Reason" in the bonfire. But that's just me. I could be wrong. Heh.

[danielan]

I know of nothing functional that was created by accident.

You got your peanut butter in my chocolate!

You got your chocolate in my peanut butter!

[bsd777]

They're hardly assumptions that creationism goes with Christianity. If you were given a week, I doubt you could find 10 non-Christian scientists who supported it, nor could you find more than 5 scientists supporting it who had no religion. It's a conservative Christian attempt at putting God back in the classroom, and this time he's to be treated equal to that pesky science that keeps stealing his thunder. As for your outright dismissal of the chance that any fossils could exist that haven't been found, sorry but you're going to have to brush up on that logic you were harping on about evolution lacking. Talking about hybrid fossils in transitional stages, here's an entire list, once again showing what I've said before: Ann Coulter doesn't know what she's talking about with science. Hoax finds are misleading and can mess with science for a long time if they aren't found quickly enough. However, hoax fossils do not render all legitimate fossils and palaeontology irrelevant.

Also, as far as your argument that Ben Stein and Ann Coulter are legitimate sources, I repeat, they are not. You don't seem to get this, but you don't have to be a genius to write a book. You need to be able to fill 150+ pages and if your writing skills are lacking, have the charisma to get stupid people to buy it anyway. Having your editor read a book and say "Yeah, sounds about right." is a hell of a lot easier than getting a research paper published in a peer reviewed journal. If you want to talk current events, there's nothing wrong with them. But you don't cite your maths book to prove the you spelled a word correctly, and likewise you don't cite grossly unqualified people's opinions to validate your stance on a scientific matter. Any way, your mind seems made up and not about to change no matter the evidence placed in front of you. Your old arguments have been demonstrated to be errant, and you've provided no new ones. Either give some sort of rebuttal (reminder, logic necessary in this thread) to what has been said about your previous arguments, or provide new ones. Just posting them same tired ones is simply spam.

You're deciding the merits of an argument based on assumed motives? Coulter and Stein are geniuses, so I take their opinion on any subject seriously. But you're right you don't have to be a genius to right a book. Al Gore? I'll have to take a closer look at the list you provided. Somehow I suspect Stein and Coulter have also seen this list.

[bsd777]

You got your peanut butter in my chocolate!

You got your chocolate in my peanut butter!

Well there is that.

[shikitohno]

You're deciding the merits of an argument based on assumed motives? Coulter and Stein are geniuses, so I take their opinion on any subject seriously. But you're right you don't have to be a genius to right a book. Al Gore? I'll have to take a closer look at the list you provided. Somehow I suspect Stein and Coulter have also seen this list.

There are few individuals who are geniuses in any and all fields. You've again missed the point entirely. Like I said, if you don't have anything new, it's simply spam you're posting. You've already made your argument about geniuses, and you already know why it's faulty.