Believing what you know ain't so

I have to say that arguing about creation vs science is one argument.
But arguing about evolution having anything to do with the start of life itself is just wrong.
Its not even an argument. Its a waste of time.
What caused life to start is still a mystery, it has always been a mystery.
No one is right or wrong until we understand the process, so to argue about it is like pissing in the wind.

a reply to: OneManArmy

No really? Its a wonder no one has pointed this out to them or anything The Creationists here (oh sorry some don't want that label .....) want to make the link, seeing it as a weak point in evolution. All this shows is that these posters (and whatever Creationist sites they lurk in) are bad at critical thinking. Right up there with Kirk Cameron and his "Crocoduck" photo

a reply to: OneManArmy

Just like most Creationist arguments. It is a strawman designed to waste your time and prove nothing. This is why many respected people such as Tyson don't debate with Creationists anymore. Strangely, Creationists take this as evidence that they are scared to debate them instead of people like Tyson just not wanting to bother debating with a brick wall.

a reply to: peter vlar

I used to use the analogy of computer programming languages to illustrate this very idea.

When I started in the 1970s I was programming Basic, and my computer interface was command lines on my Apple II (number 4000). Today I program in pearl, and R, and my interface is a GUI (either Widows, a flavor of Linux, or Apple OS), my Phone went from rotary dial, to key pad, to a cell, to a smart phone (iOS).

If I stayed thinking like the kid I was in the 1970s I would assume all programs were like basic (that would kill me in R, which is all open source and regularly breaks the rules), and that to run my desktop I would type command lines.

The theory of evolution proves it self in some ways by having evolved. We discovered what DNA did, for as long as we could look down a microscope we wondered what the hell those squiggly bits in the nucleus were doing. Sure some thought it might be how heredity was passed along . Watson and Crick, solved that for us. But our understanding still evolves. People assumed once we mapped the Human Genome we had the keys to life. Wrong, epigenetics was discovered. I've personally worked with human genetics, and understand how much we do not know. I've constructed pretty phylogenetic diagrams to show relatedness between species. Knowing full well that will change the next genome sequenced. Its science, I evolve my ideas with the evidence.

Hell when I worked in the Pharmaceutical industry as a Process Improvement Scientist, it was my job to do itterative improvements. Its how I got my name on some patents, and how some of those are no longer worth the paper they were written on, I blew them out of the water with more work.

People here (and in churches) call Science a Religion. Which amuses me, if so, its the most honest one out there, it changes with evidence. There are no dietary taboos (well beyond "don't eat your own kind, which is common sense if you study certain diseases including CJD), there are no "its dirty if you sleep with XYZ in your own species". Nope, morality is based upon what is best for the species, and common decency. Not "God spake thus". If I was to inject my own spiritual imperatives into my science, well lets say it would be strange as hell.

a reply to: Noinden

There are many parallels to evolution you can find in day to day life. There are many things that develop in patterns similar to how evolution develops life. I'd reason that evolution (or the change over time of a concept) the universe's way of making things more complex. Even abstract things like the arts follow evolutionary patterns. New genres are created then subgenres of those genres are created. Then slowly smaller and smaller niche markets of subgenres are created.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Indeed so. You can ever construct the equivalent of a phylogenetic diagram aka a tree of life for Religion


source1


Which looks remarkably like an actual phylogenetic diagram that we are more often confronted with

Here is another version for our friends with ADHD on the other side



Source 2





source 3

Imagine that? Religion evolves too. I am sure they are setting the stake up to burn me at now. Shame I'm pretty flame proof

a reply to: Noinden

Good example. Even religion is bound by the rules of "change over time". To be honest, it makes a lot of sense. Take the older item, improve on it slightly to create a new generation. Keep repeating over and over. Eventually the product looks nothing like how it started even though it contains elements of that.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Noinden

Good example. Even religion is bound by the rules of "change over time". To be honest, it makes a lot of sense. Take the older item, improve on it slightly to create a new generation. Keep repeating over and over. Eventually the product looks nothing like how it started even though it contains elements of that.

Yes, I agree. Everything borrows from what came before. As a music producer that idea resonates with me a lot.

"There is nothing new under the sun"

a reply to: Noinden

I like the chart, but I don't get why Scientific method is on there, and is supposedly an evolution of Christianity. Then you have quantum mechanics as well. Just a little strange that's all. I'd consider the evolution of the scientific method to be more connected with the ancient philosophers than Christianity.

a reply to: Barcs

That chart was for those who have not patience, the first one is better

linkylinklink

It takes patience hence the other crappy one for our friends

It is disappointing to see the thread drift so much from the OP.

The video was quite good. Good enough that most of what was talked about was unwittingly demonstrated by creationist who didn't bother watching it.

I had to revisit the thread today because I was trying to remember a segment where he talked about solipsism and how apologetics will revert to attacking epistemology because the only way to defend beliefs not concordant with reality is to challenge reality itself.

A thread was started today where they were very long winded about it, but that was exactly what they were trying to accomplish.