Ron Paul Critique

[quannum]

Not exclusively, you're right. I'm just saying that as long as there are other potential "answers" you cannot scientifically consider something a fact.

Personally I consider evolution to take the same amount of faith as creation. You just place bets on everything just happening and beginning somewhere for an unknown reason instead of a supernatural being setting things up this way. For my personal creation vs evolution beliefs I believe in evolution and that it was the method God used to bring us to life. I think the thing I dislike most is the people that scream and kick about only one method having any chance to have happened and not something in between.

you have a fundamentally misunderstanding of what the word theory means in the context of science. it's not a probability that an event happens, it's the process of explaining observed phenomena. it does not mean guess, estimate or hypothesis. Someone can categorically be called full of shit once they utter the phrase "it's just a theory" or any of its derivatives.

do yourself a favor and go to http://www.google.com/webhp?complete=1
type in "theory of" (without the quotes), none of the suggested results in a scientific context are "scientists are placing bets that _____ happens"
we have a theory of gravity and a theory of germs too. evolution happens just as factually as gravity. yes evolution is a fact. the theory comes in when you try to explain the mechanism or process of how these events happen.

if you're still not convinced, try reading: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

[Eaglestrike]

Did you not just read my post where I said I believe evolution is the way we got here? I also know what theory means, and in regards to stuff like evolution/gravity it basically just means "We can't qualify this to be labelled as a fact, but we personally think it should be".

[quannum]

Did you not just read my post where I said I believe evolution is the way we got here? I also know what theory means, and in regards to stuff like evolution/gravity it basically just means "We can't qualify this to be labelled as a fact, but we personally think it should be".

evolution happens just as factually as gravity. yes evolution is a fact. the theory comes in when you try to explain the mechanism or process of how these events happen.

if you're still not convinced, try reading: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

/facepalm

[Plow]

Did you not just read my post where I said I believe evolution is the way we got here? I also know what theory means, and in regards to stuff like evolution/gravity it basically just means "We can't qualify this to be labelled as a fact, but we personally think it should be".

"We can't qualify the theory of relativity as a fact, but we personally think it should be."


No. Not how it works.

[Charla]

Completely relevant!

[guartz]

Morality is relative to a culture. True universal morality comes from basic human interaction and learning to live together, a basis of "do unto others" that has formed out of obvious needs between people in order to live together. i.e. "I wont kill you and rape your wife if you dont do the same to me".

The only thing religion has done for morality is warped it into a corrupt set of values set on benefiting those who created them.

But I dont care for my parents too much, so would have to agree with you. (they dont have big insurance though).

True universal morality? Oh man, you been reading Kierkegaard eh? Maybe not, nobody ever gives Kierky credit when it's due.

Well, since I know where you are coming from, I think maybe I should present my reasons behind, well, the original topic.

It's really obvious that people favor ethics over reason, say for example, if you gave a person a choice between an ethical decision and a logical decision, it's safe to say that most people would pick the ethical one. It's the same for efficiency, happiness, well, because if we picked efficiency we wouldn't have children then, lol. We'd just work 16hrs a day for all our lives if that wasn't true.

It all works out somehow, you know, we get this constant bombardment of empirical sensory data, and our mind instantly translates this into what we know as reality, (dismissing the idea of solipsism) and that reality is integrated with our ethical and moral understanding. As long as that understanding isn't contrary to our sensory data /chemical reactions, etc, we tend to be happy and have successful social structure as a result.

Also people don't really believe in God like they used to 1,000 years ago, if you didn't pray, the sun wouldn't rise the next day. That sort of belief doesn't really exist anymore, even with the super religious right-wingers. So you can easily dismiss the idea that majority of people will believe that the world is flat/square/on a giant turtle - at least nowadays.

For now, the idea of God is entrenched with the idea of morality, instead of physical reality. This is why people still believe in God, and really, what a clever move by the organized religion. Whether it was actually planned or not, lol. You can see, really, why evolution had such friction with the religious people, not only is it taking away (from those who still believe in god as physical reality) the physical reality, but it's dual attack on their morality too, and this is precisely why a scientist would never convince a religious person that the bible is mistaken, not because it's contradictory tangible reality, but because it's a choice of ethics. as I said, people will take ethical choices before reason.

Silly right?

But if you wanna win an argument about evolution, you first gotta make sure that person understands that people who don't believe in God can still have ethics/morals.

So in public arenas (like presidency) people will say Yes I believe in God, because that instantly tells our right brains "Yes I have morals". Which is an unfortunate position for Evolution because of it's correlation against God (or morals).

Also, another interesting tidbit about creationists/religion, etc. Is that they constantly push to have religious principles taught in schools, you know why? eh, because they know, if you get 'em young, they are yours for life! lol. But seriously, this sort of "moral dilemma" is adopted at young age and mostly stays with you.

[Eaglestrike]

Did you not just read my post where I said I believe evolution is the way we got here? I also know what theory means, and in regards to stuff like evolution/gravity it basically just means "We can't qualify this to be labelled as a fact, but we personally think it should be".

"We can't qualify the theory of relativity as a fact, but we personally think it should be."


No. Not how it works.

I was trying to paraphrase in non-scientific terms. I know that in a classroom (or a lab) that's very incorrect but going on a general basis I don't see how it's not. Just that there's enough belief within the science community for it to be just as trusted as a scientific fact.

[Neosutra]

Did you not just read my post where I said I believe evolution is the way we got here? I also know what theory means, and in regards to stuff like evolution/gravity it basically just means "We can't qualify this to be labelled as a fact, but we personally think it should be".

"We can't qualify the theory of relativity as a fact, but we personally think it should be."


No. Not how it works.

I was trying to paraphrase in non-scientific terms. I know that in a classroom (or a lab) that's very incorrect but going on a general basis I don't see how it's not. Just that there's enough belief within the science community for it to be just as trusted as a scientific fact.

No, in your last post you said that evolution took as much faith as creationism thereby removing all credibility in anything you will ever say in this post, or your entire life.

The concept that humanity evolved is a F A C T. Say god(s) create it if your too weak to concieve of anything past that (not going to get into a string theory, big bang, or solar system formation argument with someone who doesnt even understand evolution).

The -theory- (compounds of empirical data, experiments, and research) of evolution is an explaination of that F A C T.

Evolution takes no faith, it just requires you to learn above a 5th grade level.

Dont go through your life being this stupid.

[Eaglestrike]

Did you not just read my post where I said I believe evolution is the way we got here? I also know what theory means, and in regards to stuff like evolution/gravity it basically just means "We can't qualify this to be labelled as a fact, but we personally think it should be".

"We can't qualify the theory of relativity as a fact, but we personally think it should be."


No. Not how it works.

I was trying to paraphrase in non-scientific terms. I know that in a classroom (or a lab) that's very incorrect but going on a general basis I don't see how it's not. Just that there's enough belief within the science community for it to be just as trusted as a scientific fact.

No, in your last post you said that evolution took as much faith as creationism thereby removing all credibility in anything you will ever say in this post, or your entire life.

The concept that humanity evolved is a F A C T. Say god(s) create it if your too weak to concieve of anything past that (not going to get into a string theory, big bang, or solar system formation argument with someone who doesnt even understand evolution).

The -theory- (compounds of empirical data, experiments, and research) of evolution is an explaination of that F A C T.

Evolution takes no faith, it just requires you to learn above a 5th grade level.

Dont go through your life being this stupid.

At no point in any of my posts did I say that because I believe God had something to do with us getting here that evolution does/did not happen. And I've never heard/seen proof that the Big Bang or such thing happened, just that it's the best explanation science has come up with. Considering the massive amounts of data still being collected how do we know such a thing won't change? How do we know that as we advance in technology and can collect more accurate data that another theory won't spring up which has more basis than Big Bang? How do we know some of our scientific theories won't turn out to be like we were in the middle ages when people thought the earth was the center of the universe (granted this might not be the best example to bring up considering religion was a big proponent of that concept...) only to be proven to be totally incorrect?

Evolution takes just as much faith as any creation theory does. There is not enough proof that everything "just happened" because of matter and energy forming together and exploding just like there's not enough proof that God did or did not make that all happen. I'm in no way saying any certain religion is correct in their beliefs, just that science cannot and will not explain EVERYTHING and there's no possible way to show that a supernatural being didn't do it all. You believe there is no such being and everything happened anyway, I believe there is such a being and he made all the scientific facts which caused everything to take place. When you go back to the very beginning no matter what you believe it takes the same amount of faith to accept it. You seem to be of the belief that religion and science are mutually exclusive, which I am not.

[Demosthenes11]

I hate atheists who think they are better/smarter than everyone

[Blarg]

Did you not just read my post where I said I believe evolution is the way we got here? I also know what theory means, and in regards to stuff like evolution/gravity it basically just means "We can't qualify this to be labelled as a fact, but we personally think it should be".

"We can't qualify the theory of relativity as a fact, but we personally think it should be."


No. Not how it works.

I was trying to paraphrase in non-scientific terms. I know that in a classroom (or a lab) that's very incorrect but going on a general basis I don't see how it's not. Just that there's enough belief within the science community for it to be just as trusted as a scientific fact.

No, in your last post you said that evolution took as much faith as creationism thereby removing all credibility in anything you will ever say in this post, or your entire life.

The concept that humanity evolved is a F A C T. Say god(s) create it if your too weak to concieve of anything past that (not going to get into a string theory, big bang, or solar system formation argument with someone who doesnt even understand evolution).

The -theory- (compounds of empirical data, experiments, and research) of evolution is an explaination of that F A C T.

Evolution takes no faith, it just requires you to learn above a 5th grade level.

Dont go through your life being this stupid.

At no point in any of my posts did I say that because I believe God had something to do with us getting here that evolution does/did not happen. And I've never heard/seen proof that the Big Bang or such thing happened, just that it's the best explanation science has come up with. Considering the massive amounts of data still being collected how do we know such a thing won't change? How do we know that as we advance in technology and can collect more accurate data that another theory won't spring up which has more basis than Big Bang? How do we know some of our scientific theories won't turn out to be like we were in the middle ages when people thought the earth was the center of the universe (granted this might not be the best example to bring up considering religion was a big proponent of that concept...) only to be proven to be totally incorrect?

Evolution takes just as much faith as any creation theory does. There is not enough proof that everything "just happened" because of matter and energy forming together and exploding just like there's not enough proof that God did or did not make that all happen. I'm in no way saying any certain religion is correct in their beliefs, just that science cannot and will not explain EVERYTHING and there's no possible way to show that a supernatural being didn't do it all. You believe there is no such being and everything happened anyway, I believe there is such a being and he made all the scientific facts which caused everything to take place. When you go back to the very beginning no matter what you believe it takes the same amount of faith to accept it. You seem to be of the belief that religion and science are mutually exclusive, which I am not.

The big bang is -not- evolution, where life FIRST started is -not- evolution, its abiogenesis.

It really does not take just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does creation (that is the creationist view, not the god started the process of evolution). If you see an apple on the edge of a desk, then turn your back for a second and it's now on the floor, you didn't actually see how it fell. You could conclude, based on evidence that since the apple was so close to the edge a vibration knocked it off and through gravity it fell to the floor, OR, you could assume that the apple grew legs and jumped off your desk in an attempt to commit suicide. These 2 theories don't take the same amount of 'faith' to believe in even though you can't rule out the possibility of apples growing legs and killing themselves.

[Eaglestrike]

Yeah I am terrible at these types of conversations because I suck with words, always choosing the wrong ones. I mean specifically that it takes the same amount of faith to believe in creation as it does for Big Bang / abiogenesis /what have you. I've not denied evolution as existing, just the big "macroevolution" as was being mentioned before. I however still believe (mostly) in that, I just think all the theories and rules and facts were created by God and used by him in the creation of everything, while also holding on to the belief that at any point God may have just placed us here with those scientific facts present anyway.

[Jimmayus]

But then you have to explain god and you come to a scientific dead end, so that's most peoples' problem with trying to unify them.


Time for me to run away :rocl:

[Eaglestrike]

But then you have to explain god and you come to a scientific dead end, so that's most peoples' problem with trying to unify them.


Time for me to run away :rocl:

Explaining God isn't too different than explaining how things came to be before the Big Bang. Last I checked the explanation was basically just "it was just there". Personally I think God being there is more logical, though obviously less scientific.

[Jimmayus]

The way I've always seen it reasoned, is that every time you say "God did this", then you have to explain how he did it within the context of natural physical laws, because something created not adhering to them wouldn't make sense within our universe. Generally speaking, the difference between this and scientific methodology is that science will continue to attempt to explain and re-evaluate their explanation, whereas a God-based explanation has no empirical evidence, nor way of obtaining more empirical evidence, to re-evaluate the claim.

[Neosutra]

Yeah I am terrible at these types of conversations because I suck with words, always choosing the wrong ones. I mean specifically that it takes the same amount of faith to believe in creation as it does for Big Bang / abiogenesis /what have you. I've not denied evolution as existing, just the big "macroevolution" as was being mentioned before. I however still believe (mostly) in that, I just think all the theories and rules and facts were created by God and used by him in the creation of everything, while also holding on to the belief that at any point God may have just placed us here with those scientific facts present anyway.

Even macroevolution takes no faith what so ever and is simply the massive amount of research/evidence we have gathered on relative species developments, fuirther compounded with lab verifiable microevolution.

No.

There is no way you can word this to be correct, evolution in -any- since takes no fucking faith, it takes scientific evidence. Stop trying to compare it to such trivial things to make yourself feel better. I dont give a flying fuck if you want to put god there as 'the one that made the rules' or whatever your feeble attempts at explaining what your too lazy to research. Just stop fucking comparing scientific evidence and fact to faith.

Yes, you beleive god did all this, I dont give a shit, thankyou for playing. My only concern is that you get the facts straigt, namely: Humanity did evolve, and science =/ faith.

[Neosutra]

But then you have to explain god and you come to a scientific dead end, so that's most peoples' problem with trying to unify them.


Time for me to run away :rocl:

Explaining God isn't too different than explaining how things came to be before the Big Bang. Last I checked the explanation was basically just "it was just there". Personally I think God being there is more logical, though obviously less scientific.

You need to check again, youve apparently been out of the physics loop for the last 70 years.

Again, you being ignorant of facts does not equal facts being there.

The books are at your library.

[Araius]

The people who make the rest of us theists look like idiots are the ones who truly don't "believe" in any form of evolution. It's like not believing in gravity (lol Mel Brooks Family Guy ep), it's just ignorant. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that God started the whole process and allowed it to take its course, that's a personal belief that people can choose to hold or not. Personally, I do. But don't lump all the people who believe in some form of creation in with the idiots who refuse to acknowledge evolution ever happened. Some of us actually aren't that naive, believe it or not :bagel:

[Charla]

Aww, how come nobody wants to talk about solipsism? That way, everything requires faith and we can all be faithful together!

[Neosutra]

The people who make the rest of us theists look like idiots are the ones who truly don't "believe" in any form of evolution. It's like not believing in gravity (lol Mel Brooks Family Guy ep), it's just ignorant. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that God started the whole process and allowed it to take its course, that's a personal belief that people can choose to hold or not. Personally, I do. But don't lump all the people who believe in some form of creation in with the idiots who refuse to acknowledge evolution ever happened. Some of us actually aren't that naive, believe it or not :bagel:

Good post.

Contrary to what my antagonistic counterposts may portray, I have a deep respect for my fellow colleagues that are religious (in my research field and army career since I work as a physicist normally but currently in NG as well so see both sides of the religious gambit). About 40% of the physicists I work with are theist and I dont think any of them are "less intelligent" then me. I may disagree with their reasoning, as they dont apply scientific logic to their beliefs, but its -their- reasoning so its really none of my business.

The only time I get upset is when people misrepresent fact, equate faith to scientific evidence, and make wild assumptions on what humanity can prove based on their own extremely limited knowledge base. "ZOMG MISSING LINKS?!?" (there is no missing link)

I am not arguing wether someone should/shouldnt beleive in god, I could care less. I am arguing that it is not acceptable to say humanity did not evolve and expect to be taken seriously in any conversation (or as a political canidate).