Support NeoGAF

[KHarvey16]

Dawkins claims that evolution reduces the probability of the commonly held representation of God existing to practically zero.

Is "practically zero" your words or his? Even if they are his, the distinction between that and declaring proof of evolution is proof god doesn't exist is very important.

 

[benita]

Which is an entirely reasonable thing to say, and enormously different from what you claimed before.

Not really, no.

Evolution does not in any way diminish the probability of an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God.

Is "practically zero" your words or his? Even if they are his, the distinction between that and declaring proof of evolution is proof god doesn't exist is very important.

Ok that's fair. I'll rephrase and say that a great many atheists - Dawkins included - use the proof of evolution as evidence against the existence of the Christian representation of 'God'.

They're his words by the way.

 

[speculawyer]

Dawkins claims that scientific evidence reduces the probability of the commonly held representation of God existing to practically zero.

He does not claim that. He claims it for him personally and for many people. But he knows that many people believe in evolution yet still believe in a god(s).


I don't think it reduces the probability of any god to zero . . . a Deist may not be affected by evolution as much as a person who follows a religion that has a creation myth that is inconsistent with the scientific evidence.

I'll rephrase and say that a great many atheists - Dawkins included - use the proof of evolution as evidence against the existence of God.

That's much more accurate. And I agree that it does act as evidence against many gods as I pointed out above . . . they have creation myths that are utterly inconsistent with scientific evidence. Thus, you must either ignore the scientific evidence or believe in the great 'prankster god' that gave us a book that says one thing and a world filled with evidence that points to something else.

 

[Uchip]

how did i know this would have turned into a religious debate before even clicking

 

[KHarvey16]

Not really, no.

Evolution does not in any way diminish the probability of an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God.

Sure it does. Every living thing we see around us is subject to evolution, so god either skipped that process or is not "god" as most religions portray him. One more reason a god is special relative to everything else we know reduces the probability one exists, absent proof.

how did i know this would have turned into a religious debate before even clicking

Because it's an evolution thread. Perhaps the only opposition to general evolution is always religious in nature.

 

[benita]

He does not claim that. He claims it for him personally and for many people. But he knows that many people believe in evolution yet still believe in a god(s).

What does that mean? Of course you can claim one thing while knowing that people that believe the other. I'm not sure I see your point.

I don't think it reduces the probability of any god to zero . . . a Deist may not be affected by evolution as much as a person who follows a religion that has a creation myth that is inconsistent with the scientific evidence.

Neither do I. But many atheists do.

 

[Zaphod]

how did i know this would have turned into a religious debate before even clicking

It was doing fine until a slight derailment occurred in the last few posts. I'm sure it will return to normalcy shortly.

 

[slidewinder]

They're his words by the way.

What words?

You correct yourself

Dawkins claims that scientific evidence reduces the probability of the commonly held representation of God existing to practically zero.

and then in the next instant you're right back posting the same old malarkey

Evolution does not in any way diminish the probability of an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God.

(I.e., implying that Dawkins and "many atheists" believe otherwise.)
Just find the quote and post it if you really want to start parsing things this way.

Neither do I. But many atheists do.

Horseshit. Just ugh.

 

[benita]

I just want to make clear that I didn't intend to inspire a religious "debate". I was just replying to a post asking why there is so much controversy around evolution and it went from there.

For the record I absolutely "believe" in evolution.

I'll now go back to reading the rest of this fascinating thread

Edit: Slidewinder you're not quite comprehending my posts. And are you seriously going to claim bullshit on the fact that many Atheists use evolution as an argument against religion? Come on now.

 

[Zaphod]

Neither do I. But many atheists do.

That has nothing to do with the actual theory of evolution though. It's a side argument that has nothing to do with evolution as a scientific theory.

I do get the point though. I hate it when a needlessly abrasive attitude can get in the way of a good explanation.

 

[benita]

That has nothing to do with the actual theory of evolution though. It's a side argument that has nothing to do with evolution as a scientific theory.

I completely agree with this.

However the post I initially responded to was asking specifically about said side argument.

I'm sorry I entered into the debate. I didn't mean to derail the thread at all. Like I said, i'm in no way arguing against evolution.

I was just answering one dude's question...

 

[Mario]

Edit: Slidewinder you're not quite comprehending my posts. And are you seriously going to claim bullshit on the fact that many Atheists use evolution as an argument against religion?

Evolution (plus geology, cosmology etc) certainly walks all over a literal Biblical account of creation. Much less so against the possible existance of a god and religion at a high level.

 

[Zaphod]

I'm sorry I entered into the debate. I didn't mean to derail the thread at all. Like I said, i'm in no way arguing against evolution.

I was just answering one dude's question...

I'd rather people post their opinions than not, so please continue to post.

I think we got confused with the use of the word controversy. To me when I see the word controversy and evolution together it is a code word from creationists to say that there is some actual debate in the scientific community about evolution. Then they use that to say that somehow creation and evolution are on equal footing.

I see you did not mean that.

Stupid words and their occasional loaded meanings...

 

[mclaren777]

I do hope the dogpile on mclaren777 did not scare him off.

I'm not going anywhere.

 

[speculawyer]

What does that mean? Of course you can claim one thing while knowing that people that believe the other. I'm not sure I see your point.

The "probability of the commonly held representation of God existing" is a personal subjective calculation. There are no objective standards or statistics that can be applied.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Sure it does. Every living thing we see around us is subject to evolution, so god either skipped that process or is not "god" as most religions portray him. One more reason a god is special relative to everything else we know reduces the probability one exists, absent proof.

This is just nonsense, first the concept of God (whether it/they exist or not) is by pure category different than everything else. Comparing superficial difference to "other stuff" as in any way being an indication of probability is not even pseudo-science or logic, its just nonsense.

If there is one thing in common between Atheists and theists is a complete lack of understanding of religion,logic and science. But they sure do like to talk.

 

[NullPointer]

Evolution does not in any way diminish the probability of an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God.

This. People have to learn to separate the concept of God from the various representations and dogmas.

Science won't destroy God, but it certainly undermines dogma and taboo.

 

[KHarvey16]

This is just nonsense, first the concept of God (whether it/they exist or not) is by pure category different than everything else. Comparing superficial difference to "other stuff" as in any way being an indication of probability is not even pseudo-science or logic, its just nonsense.

If there is one thing in common between Atheists and theists is a complete lack of understanding of religion,logic and science. But they sure do like to talk.

And the length and breadth of that "difference" is a factor in how likely or unlikely a god or gods is based on the sum of human knowledge up to that point. The more things I know about the rest of the world that god is excepted from, the less probable god becomes; the more god has to overcome to exist. In other words, the more different god(in whatever specific form being discussed) is, the less probable it is god exists in that form.

It makes perfect sense.

 

[wolfmat]

Instead of God, say magic. That's the proper category after all.

 

[jaxword]

I'm not going anywhere.

Why are you avoiding the questions presented to you?

 

[danwarb]

Evolution does not in any way diminish the probability of an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God.

It could force us to realise that, because of the evolution of our social human brains, most of us might be naturally giving too much weight to the idea of an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Mclarren, could please answer this question I posed a few pages back.

"Lets make the assumption that I have now disregarded Evolution and I'm looking for a scientific theory that explains the biological diversity here on earth.

Could you please detail the case for Creationism/Intelligent design, explain the evidence for it, and its explanatory power as a scientific theory."

 

[HeadlessRoland]

And the length and breadth of that "difference" is a factor in how likely or unlikely a god or gods is based on the sum of human knowledge up to that point. The more things I know about the rest of the world that god is excepted from, the less probable god becomes; the more god has to overcome to exist. In other words, the more different god(in whatever specific form being discussed) is, the less probable it is god exists in that form.

Let me count the ways.

• You have absolutely no knowledge of what God is to determine how it is different than anything else. Let alone the "probability" of its existence based on that entirely speculative difference. Its a factor in your attempt to rationalize your beliefs, but this has nothing to do with statistical chance of its existence.
  
• You have a negligible amount of knowledge and understanding of the single planet that is the entirety of your possible experience. Let alone the sum of human knowledge. And even if you did it would not change anything.
  
• God by deffinition is something that exists beyond the bounds of the "normal" it is a metaphysical concept. So it being hypothetically different does not denote its nonexistence. If God was something that could be empirically verified or refuted it would not be a metaphysical concept. And in fact your attempted rationalization is tautological in nature.

A similar argument would be to speculate on the probability of invisible three headed aliens based upon your lack of having seen one.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Let me count the ways.

...

A similar argument would be to speculate on the probability of invisible three headed aliens based upon your lack of having seen one.

Not quite, since God often gets used as a stop-gap explanation for why things are the way they are. The Cosmological argument is a similar sort of thing but taken to the ultimate conclusion. By explaining away God as "unnecessary" and providing anthropological explanations for why people believe in God(s), you eliminate any reason to believe there is a god to begin with.

By eliminating God as a necessary component of a rational worldview you lower the chances of God existing from "certain" to "unknowable possibility level". If you want to talk about specific gods, such as "the god of the bible" it makes it even worse because it directly falsifies numerous claims made in the bible, and makes it almost certainly not exist.

 

[Nocebo]

Science won't destroy God, but it certainly undermines dogma and taboo.

I disagree. I think psychology and neuroscience have the potential to destroy God if they really wanted to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFJPtVRlI64

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Not quite, since God often gets used as a stop-gap explanation for why things are the way they are.

What God is often used as has no bearing on anything. Refuting specific claims about God(s) actions is possible. But that has nothing to do with the "probability" of its/their existence. In the same way a lack of seeing invisible aliens on earth is not a valid means to determine their existence elsewhere. But if for example I said invisible aliens built the empire state building THAT can be refuted.

 

[iapetus]

Could you please detail the case for Creationism/Intelligent design, explain the evidence for it, and its explanatory power as a scientific theory."[/B]

And there's the rub. Creationism/ID does not have explanatory power as a scientific theory, because it is not a scientific theory.

 

[iapetus]

This is just nonsense, first the concept of God (whether it/they exist or not) is by pure category different than everything else. Comparing superficial difference to "other stuff" as in any way being an indication of probability is not even pseudo-science or logic, its just nonsense.

If there is one thing in common between Atheists and theists is a complete lack of understanding of religion,logic and science. But they sure do like to talk.

This man speaks sense.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

What God is often used as has no bearing on anything. Refuting specific claims about God(s) actions is possible. But that has nothing to do with the "probability" of its/their existence. In the same way a lack of seeing invisible aliens on earth is not a valid means to determine their existence elsewhere. But if for example I said invisible aliens built the empire state building THAT can be refuted.

You seem to be missing my central point - if god is necessary, then the probability of him existing is 100%. By demonstrating that he is not, we lower the possibility of him existing to some unknown value less than 1 but more than 0.

 

[iapetus]

You seem to be missing my central point - if god is necessary, then the probability of him existing is 100%. By demonstrating that he is not, we lower the possibility of him existing to some unknown value less than 1 but more than 0.

Except, of course, that by demonstrating that a god isn't necessary for a particular purpose doesn't avoid the possibility that there's another purpose for which one is. All we can say is that we've gone from certainty to unknowability.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

You seem to be missing my central point - if god is necessary, then the probability of him existing is 100%. By demonstrating that he is not, we lower the possibility of him existing to some unknown value less than 1 but more than 0.

Not only do I understand your point, I just refuted it. But on the other hand you do not understand mine. You can refute theological claims, you can provide scientific explanations for processes that contradict these claims, you can substantiate cultural and neurological mechanisms involved in the belief in God and Religion. But science will never be able to refute or verify a concept like God. Science can only examine a narrow spectrum of possible things, there are inherent limits to empirical substantiation and a metaphysical concept like God is one of them.

That people continually attempt to abuse what science is capable of examining goes back to my original point. Atheist and theist alike rarely have any fucking clue what they are talking about.

 

[Kinitari]

Except, of course, that by demonstrating that a god isn't necessary for a particular purpose doesn't avoid the possibility that there's another purpose for which one is. All we can say is that we've gone from certainty to unknowability.

I feel as though some people are arguing about two different types of deities here. I would agree that Evolution works against the Abrahamic, and probably most personal Deities - but a general, obscure deity of an undefined nature is immune to any such criticisms as associated with personal Gods.

At the same time, the absolute frivolity in considering, let alone discussing an undefinable, unmentioned and impersonal God is probably the best argument against such a being.

 

[KHarvey16]

You have absolutely no knowledge of what God is to determine how it is different than anything else. Let alone the "probability" of its existence based on that entirely speculative difference. Its a factor in your attempt to rationalize your beliefs, but this has nothing to do with statistical chance of its existence.

I didn't claim to have knowledge of what god is or how he is different, I'm only looking at how theists define god. I said that specifically. Given our current understanding a god that is defined to exist outside the reach of evolution is less probable, relatively speaking, than a god that is not.

God by deffinition is something that exists beyond the bounds of the "normal" it is a metaphysical concept. So it being hypothetically different does not denote its nonexistence. If God was something that could be empirically verified or refuted it would not be a metaphysical concept. And in fact your attempted rationalization is tautological in nature.

As soon as you define god as being supernatural you except it from many things, even things we currently have no concept of. We can say that and still lack full understanding of what exactly that exempts god from. The more we understand about the world around us the more we understand about the various definitions of god, even if it's just a compiled list of natural processes that god is not subject to. You can use this information to judge relative probability. A god who isn't subject to the forces we see around us affecting everything is more different and relatively less probable than someone or something that is.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I didn't claim to have knowledge of what god is or how he is different, I'm only looking at how theists define god. I said that specifically.

Well you did and are but I will address that in a moment. There are thousands of radically divergent concepts of God. So you cant really speak in generalities and then use specific scientific theories as an example of a contradiction. And in fact you are asserting all manner of specifics about God.

Given our current understanding a god that is defined to exist outside the reach of evolution is less probable, relatively speaking, than a god that is not.

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Here is the post I was responding to.

Sure it does. Every living thing we see around us is subject to evolution, so god either skipped that process or is not "god" as most religions portray him. One more reason a god is special relative to everything else we know reduces the probability one exists, absent proof.

This quote asserts that.

1. God is a biological living thing, when you have no basis for this assumption and are pulling it out of your ass.

2. Assuming that since God is a biological being also must be a biological being similar to those that evolved on earth. I have no idea what this has to do with anything.

3. Some more random stuff about reducing probability that I simply do not understand.

You sure seem to assume lots of particulars about God for claiming to have no knowledge of it.

As soon as you define god as being supernatural you except it from many things, even things we currently have no concept of.

The problem is the metaphysical concept of an omniscient and omnipotent being like God is not dependent, refuted or substantiated by objective science. I cant respond to the rest of your post because it makes no sense.

 

[KHarvey16]

Well you did and are but I will address that in a moment. There are thousands of radically divergent concepts of God. So you cant really speak in generalities and then use specific scientific theories as an example of a contradiction. And in fact you are asserting all manner of specifics about God.



I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Here is the post I was responding to.



This quote asserts that.

1. God is a biological living thing, when you have no basis for this assumption and are pulling it out of your ass.

2. Assuming that since God is a biological being also must be a biological being similar to those that evolved on earth. I have no idea what this has to do with anything.

3. Some more random stuff about reducing probability that I simply do not understand.

You sure seem to assume lots of particulars about God for claiming to have no knowledge of it.



The problem is the metaphysical concept of an omniscient and omnipotent being like God is not dependent, refuted or substantiated by objective science. I cant respond to the rest of your post because it makes no sense.

Are you not reading what you're quoting? I very specifically say "as most religions portray" god. I'm not claiming any absolute knowledge here, I can only judge definitions as put forward by those who believe.

 

[danwarb]

Not only do I understand your point, I just refuted it. But on the other hand you do not understand mine. You can refute theological claims, you can provide scientific explanations for processes that contradict these claims, you can substantiate cultural and neurological mechanisms involved in the belief in God and Religion. But science will never be able to refute or verify a concept like God. Science can only examine a narrow spectrum of possible things, there are inherent limits to empirical substantiation and a metaphysical concept like God is one of them.

That people continually attempt to abuse what science is capable of examining goes back to my original point. Atheist and theist alike rarely have any fucking clue what they are talking about.

Of course, science can't examine any number of wild ideas declared supernatural and unexaminable to science.

Where those ideas come from can be examined, and the real physical universe can be examined too. I don't think science is missing out.

 

[mclaren777]

Why are you avoiding the questions presented to you?

As I mentioned earlier, I don't have enough time to properly engage in this thread.

 

[Lesath]

As I mentioned earlier, I don't have enough time to properly engage in this thread.

For heaven's sake, if you are too busy to engage in this thread, leave it well alone. Don't pop in six hours after the last post like an attention-starved puppy just to tell us you exist and will continue your lack contribution to the discussion.

 

[FantasticMrFoxdie]

I find evolution a very funny argument among people, I dont know its because I have a scientific way of thinking (even though i'm not a scientist), but can someone convince me how evolution is NOT a real thing? I'm not talking whether God exists or not (I believe in God actually.), but whether evolution is NOT a real thing...

The laws of the universe, to the nature/effects of time, to the formation of Earth, to the principles in geography, to the development of ecosystems, to the adaptation of animals, to the development of tools and technology, to the advancements of those things, to video games...on and on...We are better off discussing Extinction and the kinds of effects it will have on ALL environments, biologies, and adaptation.


At THIS point in OUR human timeline, i just don't see how we say evolution does NOT exist. Our average life expectancy went from 20 to 40 to 60 in say 2000 years. How? did we magically just decide we should live longer?

So again, can someone convince how evolution does NOT exist?

why we still got monkeys?

Same reason we have VHS tapes, just not in video stores?

 

[JCRedeems]

I have a question for evolutionists. In what way can evolution theory can be falsified?

Just to be clear I'm talking about evolution that is all life forms evolved from a common ancestor. I'm not talking about genetic change through time. Even most IDers agree with the latter definition.

I ask this question because no matter what the evidence against it evolutionists would hypothesize something up to uphold the theory.

For examples, there really are huge gaps in the fossil record. Many scientists such as the renown Stephen Gould have openly admitted it. That is why he hypothesized Punctuated Equillibrium - that evolutionary changed happened very fast in short spurts.

There are numerous amber fossils, fully preserved organisms that are said to be millions and millions of years old but they are exactly the same as organisms today. You would expect at least some evolutionary change. But the Evolutionists will say some organisms don't evolve because they don't have to or some variation thereof. To me that's a cheap cop-out and goes to show how Evolutionary theory is not falsifiable.

There is the discovery of well preserved dinosaur cadavers by Mary Schweizter. She said she was completely shocked that it was so well preserved. They are supposedly 60+ million years old but she said she smelled the stench from it and she extracted blood cells from it. Scientists were expectantly incredulous so they said Mary didn't really find red blood cells but something else. But she later proved it was red blood cells. I mean if you believe it is really 60+ million years old then I really question your sanity. Now Mary hypothesized that flesh can be preserved for millions of years. What does this have to do with evolution? You see, instead of changing her evolutionary model she is trying to shoehorn the the dino cadaver inconsistency within the model. It's like no matter what they find you can't falsify it. The refutation of the "vestigial organs" and "Junk DNA" or "Noncoding DNA" as evolutionary leftovers sure didn't falsify it. So what will? Honest question.

Well it take genetic analysis to falsify it? Just other night I was listening to Dr. Paul Nelson on Youtube and he references scientific papers that show that genes pop out of nowhere which contradicts Darwin's Tree of Life.

I was also listening to Dr. Sternberg and Dr. Meyer debate Michael Shermer and Dr. Prothermo about the inadequatcy of a mechanism for whale evolution (awesome debate by the way... highly entertaining).

I'm always skeptical of things. Is that a bad thing? But what do I know. I'm not a scientist and not as smart as you evolutionists.

 

[Korey]

I find evolution a very funny argument among people, I dont know its because I have a scientific way of thinking (even though i'm not a scientist), but can someone convince me how evolution is NOT a real thing? I'm not talking whether God exists or not (I believe in God actually.), but whether evolution is NOT a real thing...

The laws of the universe, to the nature/effects of time, to the formation of Earth, to the principles in geography, to the development of ecosystems, to the adaptation of animals, to the development of tools and technology, to the advancements of those things, to video games...on and on...We are better off discussing Extinction and the kinds of effects it will have on ALL environments, biologies, and adaptation.

At THIS point in OUR human timeline, i just don't see how we say evolution does NOT exist. Our average life expectancy went from 20 to 40 to 60 in say 2000 years. How? did we magically just decide we should live longer?

So again, can someone convince how evolution does NOT exist?

There are people who believe the world is less than 10,000 years old, so.

 

[Pandaman]

Ok that's fair. I'll rephrase and say that a great many atheists - Dawkins included - use the proof of evolution as evidence against the existence of the Christian representation of 'God'.

you are wrong, atheists, specifically atheists like dawkins, use evolution as part of their reasoning behind not believing in god, but they do not use at evidence against the actual existence of god.

its a very important distinction.

 

[DarthWoo]

I have a question for evolutionists. In what way can evolution theory can be falsified?

It's really quite simple and has been stated by many biologists already: fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.

In other words, finding fossilized remains of organisms that can be irrefutably dated to a time when they should not be expected to have yet existed would be fairly contradictory to current evolutionary theory.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Of course, science can't examine any number of wild ideas declared supernatural and unexaminable to science.

Where those ideas come from can be examined, and the real physical universe can be examined too. I don't think science is missing out.

You are exemplifying the problem I was pointing out.

Metaphysics extends a bit beyond wild supernatural concepts like Gods and theology. This is also a problem with most of those who use science without understanding it. Science is a tool with limited application, the things it cannot examine are not lesser because science cannot examine them. Believing that if a topic or experience extends beyond objective science as being inherently false or meaningless is the deepest kind of ignorance.

The problem is that most (see thread for the examples) don't understand science, don't understand its methodology, don't understand how to critically analyze its claims. They accept science as "believers" accept religion and God, by appeals to authority and dogma. And this is why both sides often display the same level of derp derp stupidity. One claims to believe in God the other claims to believe in science. Yet neither has any understanding of theology,science or critical thought.

I very specifically say "as most religions portray" god. I'm not claiming any absolute knowledge here, I can only judge definitions as put forward by those who believe.

You seem to believe this somehow changes something? There are thousands interpretations of what "God" is. You are not judging anything, you make a series of inane statements under the false belief you are putting fourth a rational argument, you are not.

 

[JCRedeems]

It's really quite simple and has been stated by many biologists already: fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.

In other words, finding fossilized remains of organisms that can be irrefutably dated to a time when they should not be expected to have yet existed would be fairly contradictory to current evolutionary theory.

Something like that has been discovered. I can recall reading stories like these several times over the years. Does it falsify evolutionary theory? Nope. All you have to do is say " that aspects of flowering plant biology began to develop much earlier than the 125 million years ago that we previously thought."

 

[KHarvey16]

I have a question for evolutionists. In what way can evolution theory can be falsified?

Many ways. A fossil found in the wrong strata could do it or if we couldn't find an explanation for why we are missing a pair of chromosomes compared with apes.

Just to be clear I'm talking about evolution that is all life forms evolved from a common ancestor. I'm not talking about genetic change through time. Even most IDers agree with the latter definition.

I ask this question because no matter what the evidence against it evolutionists would hypothesize something up to uphold the theory.

Absolutely false.

For examples, there really are huge gaps in the fossil record. Many scientists such as the renown Stephen Gould have openly admitted it. That is why he hypothesized Punctuated Equillibrium - that evolutionary changed happened very fast in short spurts.

"Very fast" meaning thousands of years. The reason it is very fast is because of those gaps in the fossil record...many years in time can seem extremely fast when looked at through fossils.

Also, no scientist should ever hesitate to tell you that the fossil record has gaps. No one is afraid to admit this because it's not a problem for evolution in any way. It is also not true, as far as I know, that punctuated equilibrium was proposed in light of these gaps. That doesn't make too much sense.

There are numerous amber fossils, fully preserved organisms that are said to be millions and millions of years old but they are exactly the same as organisms today.

Examples?

You would expect at least some evolutionary change. But the Evolutionists will say some organisms don't evolve because they don't have to or some variation thereof. To me that's a cheap cop-out and goes to show how Evolutionary theory is not falsifiable.

Huh? If there are no selection pressures on a species there isn't much reason for them to change. This isn't a cop out, it's how evolution works(and has always been explained to work).

There is the discovery of well preserved dinosaur cadavers by Mary Schweizter. She said she was completely shocked that it was so well preserved. They are supposedly 60+ million years old but she said she smelled the stench from it and she extracted blood cells from it. Scientists were expectantly incredulous so they said Mary didn't really find red blood cells but something else. But she later proved it was red blood cells. I mean if you believe it is really 60+ million years old then I really question your sanity. Now Mary hypothesized that flesh can be preserved for millions of years. What does this have to do with evolution? You see, instead of changing her evolutionary model she is trying to shoehorn the the dino cadaver inconsistency within the model. It's like no matter what they find you can't falsify it. The refutation of the "vestigial organs" and "Junk DNA" or "Noncoding DNA" as evolutionary leftovers sure didn't falsify it. So what will? Honest question.

She did not find red blood cells(nor does she mention blood cells in that video). The soft tissue residue inside the bones was preserved only by the rarest of scenarios - fast burial, unbroken bones and deep under ground. You should read her paper.

Well it take genetic analysis to falsify it? Just other night I was listening to Dr. Paul Nelson on Youtube and he references scientific papers that show that genes pop out of nowhere which contradicts Darwin's Tree of Life.

Which papers? We can go look at them.

You seem to believe this somehow changes something?

Yes?

There are thousands interpretations of what "God" is. You are not judging anything, you make a series of inane statements under the false belief you are putting fourth a rational argument, you are not.

You don't even understand what I'm trying to say, and you've demonstrated that by continuing to get almost all of it completely wrong.

If two people each propose a god where one is subject to the effects of gravity and the other is not, I can very rationally say that the latter is less probable given what we know about science. If some day we discover that objects can be made of matter that is not effected by gravity, that latter example is not as improbable as it was before that discovery. The same is true of evolution and in exactly the same way. We know of absolutely no source of intelligence other than evolution. A god that possesses an intelligence and is not subject to evolution becomes less probable in our current understanding than if he was subject to the process.

The argument is perfectly rational and makes perfect sense. I'm not sure what your deal is.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Not only do I understand your point, I just refuted it.

You didn't refute jack. You're saying that you "can't comment on the probability", and I'm saying you can, because by showing that something is not necessary you can set the limit of probability at <1.

In order to say "god certainly exists" (Probably of 1) you must prove that he is necessary. To say "god certainly does not exist" (Probability of 0) you must prove that the concept of god is incoherent or contradictory. By being able to provide scientific models backed up by evidence which explains how the universe could exist without a deity, you can cross out the former since God "might" have created the universe, but the universe could have existed even if he didn't.

You just keep saying "hurr science can't refute god" but I never said that it can! You think my position is something it's not.

 

[speculawyer]

Something like that has been discovered. I can recall reading stories like these several times over the years. Does it falsify evolutionary theory? Nope. All you have to do is say " that aspects of flowering plant biology began to develop much earlier than the 125 million years ago that we previously thought."

That really isn't like a rabbit in precambrian.


That is just saying that a particular chemical compound existed before flowering plants that are known to create that chemical. Thus, an earlier version of that plant . . . or a different plant/fungus/bacteria probably have made that particular chemical.

“These ambers do not suggest that flowering plants existed during the Carboniferous period, but they do suggest that aspects of flowering plant biology began to develop much earlier than the 125 million years ago that we previously thought,” he said.

A rabbit in the pre-cambrian would be rabbit (a complex animal life form) that existed before mammals existed. Some chemical compound? . . . well various chemical compounds can be made lots of different ways and by lots of different things.


(I hope I didn't screw that up, I'm not a biologist . . . just a Computer & Systems Engineer as far as science goes.)

 

[Pandaman]

Something like that has been discovered. I can recall reading stories like these several times over the years. Does it falsify evolutionary theory? Nope. All you have to do is say " that aspects of flowering plant biology began to develop much earlier than the 125 million years ago that we previously thought."

fossil rabbits in the Precambrian would be more analogous to finding flowering plants before plants actually evolved. fossil finds like this just push back a date in an encyclopedia, it doesnt actually change anything in relation to the theory.

 

[BronzeWolf]

This doesn't have much to do with evolution specifically but some people seem to think that scientists climb to theories because they are "blind" or "only see what they want to see"

Supersymmetry is a very beautiful physics theory that has been the funding, job and work of a whole bunch of scientists around the world. The specifics of said theory are much more complicated than evolution's since you actually need to have a PhD IN THAT PARTICULAR FIELD to understand it unlike evolution that ANYONE can easily understand. People have been trying to find evidence for it for a long time but they haven't been able to do so. Yet it remained a viable theory.

Well, after building a huge particle collider we still haven't found what the theory seeks to predict. Evidence STILL has not been found for this theory to work.

You know what are people doing? QUESTIONING AND DROPPING the theory. A theory that requires such vague evidence is not attractive. Here is a SUSY supported

"I wouldn't say I'm concerned," says John Ellis, a theorist at CERN, Europe's particle-physics lab near Geneva, who has worked on supersymmetry for decades. He says that he will wait until the end of 2012 — once more runs at high energy have been completed — before abandoning SUSY

It's not like he will drop SUSY because he wants to, or because he will lose his job. It's because that's his standard for evidence where he will no longer be able to accept such a theory as viable.

"This is a big political issue in our field," he adds. "For some great physicists, it is the difference between getting a Nobel prize and admitting they spent their lives on the wrong track." Ellis agrees: "I've been working on it for almost 30 years now, and I can imagine that some people might get a little bit nervous."

"Plenty of things will change if we fail to discover SUSY," says Lester. Theoretical physicists will have to go back to the drawing board and find an alternative way to solve the problems with the standard model. That's not necessarily a bad thing, he adds: "For particle physics as a whole it will be really exciting."

What is my point? Scientists don't cling to theories that don't have evidence (or they shouldn't do it). The fact that evolution is SO SIMPLE and is SO WIDELY ACCEPTED contrasted with the easiness with which scientists drop unobserved theories should tell you about the validity of evolution as a theory. An incorrect theory is still useful. It means that is not a path we must take again.

Evolution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SUSY as far as evidence is concerned