BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 11:54 AM

lighter, if evolution were irrefutable there would be no deniers of its dogma. but the fact is there is considerable doubt about it , wholesale and in particulars. and it is not just fundamentalists either.
shimrod, I suspect that your continuous persistence in espousing evolutionism is betokening more than mere acceptance.
no, I have not read dawkins et al books, but there is a good chance that I have read/viewed more of it than you have of creation.
and why should I read it ? it has not helped you to come up with any arguments, other than assertions that is!
definition of faith? assuming that you don't want a theological answer, i shall take you as an example. you can present no evidence for your position but you believe it anyway. is that a faith position ?. sure is, just not in anything substantial. of course if your religion has given you an experience that instilled that assurance in you.........!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 12:21 PM

...if evolution were irrefutable there would be no deniers...

Of COURSE there would be, pete. You can always find ignorant close-minded idiots who will not accept any and/or all aspects of reality.

They're a growth industry in the U.S. at present.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 12:24 PM

> lighter, if evolution were irrefutable there would be no deniers of its dogma.

Science, for the umpteenth time, has no "dogma."

Also, I believe my post explained why evolution *is* irrefutable. Or it is if you recognize change in anything in response to inner and outer conditions.

Your statement, of course, would be fine if you'd said, "...no rational and informed deniers of it."

Because there are none.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 01:00 PM

just had a read about neural pathways on brittanica. it did not even mention evolution, as far as I could see

I think you expect a little much of brittanica! One of the most common way of training neural networks in computing is to generate a number of small variations from a 'parent', test each and eliminate those that are less successful at matching. This is then repeated over a large number of generations until one is found that is a good recogniser of whatever it is being trained for. Totally inspired by Darwinian concepts.

If you want me to give you a title for some books discussing the topic in rather more detail than Britannica, let me know.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 01:11 PM

If you want me to give you a title for some books discussing the topic

No chance. Apparently you missed this in 25 Sep 14 - 11:54 AM
no, I have not read dawkins et al books...and why should I read it ?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 01:33 PM

Well yes Greg, but maybe we have an opening here. It is evolution in action and demonstrating its effectiveness in a part of the real world (say number plate recognition or other image processing) which isn't directly threatening the microbe-to-man stance. Of course, once you accept it works very effectively in one scenario it makes it that shade harder to reject in others.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 02:28 PM

"I have not read dawkins et al books, but there is a good chance that I have read/viewed more of it than you have of creation.
and why should I read it ?"

Because you might learn something you don't want to know?

If you think I'm going to expend good effort producing chapter and verse on evolutionary biology just so that you can shout "oh no it isn't!" you've got another think coming! I've seen the way you respond to people like Stu and sciencegeek. You don't hear a word they say because you've made up your mind already - on the basis of rubbish churned out by a small minority of close-minded religious fanatics.

Oh yes (for the second time), if scientists make assumptions about the 'unobservable' they are just plain wrong ... but if biblical fundamentalists do so, that's OK because they have something called 'faith'? Have I got that right?

Remember that anyone can assert that they have 'faith' i.e. claim that they unquestioningly believe in something invisible for which there is no evidence. But to be a scientist you have to train bloody hard for years and you have to have above average intelligence, imagination, a disciplined approach to your work and an open mind. So who am I most likely to believe: a real scientist or a religious nutter ... who has faith?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 02:55 PM

but maybe we have an opening here

About as likely in pete's case as my being able to fly thru interstellar space.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 03:17 PM

While we know Pete is, shall we say "of settled opinion" on biological evolution, we haven't yet found out how he reacts to demonstrable non-biological evolution
Can it fit into his thinking or will he, as I anticipate decide it isn't evolution but be at a loss to explain why.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,DMcG
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 03:20 PM

Bloomin' cookies: me above

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 04:07 AM

it's all about ego... the "sin" of pride is what lies behind the creationist rejection of evolutionary theory.

What upset people about Darwin's work was twofold... he included humans along with the rest of the animal kingdom AND worse yet, believed us to be related to apes. gasp... horror!

When Darwin pointed out that humans had the closest ties to apes, he based it on physical characteristics. Later discoveries dealing with blood typing and the occurrence of the Rh factor... so named because the research was based on work using the Rhesus monkey. Later work in genetics has found that humans and chimps share over 98% of our genetic makeup.

Now pete's main gripe is the thought of being related to pondscum, however distantly...   he just can't get past that. His problem is vanity...

He completely ignores plate tectonics and continental drift... ask scaarpi about spreading plates for a first hand account... it's happening right under our noses...

if Genesis is so accurate... how come it ignores this major feature of the so called firmament? 150 million years ago the hill I live on was part of Wales... before seafloor spreading started and the Atlantic Ocean opened up. Why would god leave out something so important in his little book? For that matter, why leave out dinosaurs?

Darwin's reading of important, new geological theories of the time were critical in providing a timeline that supported his theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 06:02 AM

Getting close I see...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 06:03 AM

...to that dreaded mark of Revelation 13:18...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 06:06 AM

...whin in the context of this thread must, I suppose, be taken as LITERALLY as the other damned books of the bible. So...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 06:07 AM

...allow me to nudge you just that little but closer! Who will be The Beast?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 06:53 AM

Of relevance to this discussion is this paper about the dinosaur-bird transition, the fact there are no missing links and of course that birds are dinosaurs: From T. rex to treecreepers.

I'm sure there are plenty more articles about on the subject if you Google it.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 08:40 AM

> Why would god leave out something so important in his little book? For that matter, why leave out dinosaurs?

Because the bible is about man's relationship to God in human history; it isn't about geology or dinosaurs or aerodynamics.

Why don't any of the posts on this thread mention ISIS or ebola?

Because they're not relevant to this particular discussion.

(Of course, *I* just mentioned them, but that was only by way of contrast.)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 08:54 AM

Theres another reason the bible didnt mention dinoaurs, despite apparently naming lots of animals and types of animals in the book.

The people who invented God hadn't heard of dinosaurs because we hadnt evolved to the stage of discovery and question, preferring the lazy superstitious route to explaining the world around us, in line with the standard of intelligence and understanding we had back then. The Greeks had a stab but were shouted down by those who needed imaginary friends in order to control others.

The bible, if what I hear is true, certainly does cover geology. All within six days apparently.

If relevance has to dictate the thread, then why put superstition and the real world in the same thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 09:02 AM

The Greeks had a stab but were shouted down by those who needed imaginary friends in order to control others.

The Greeks were and are a very religious people.

The bible, if what I hear is true, certainly does cover geology.

It certainly does not.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,John P
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 09:28 AM

Genesis 1:1, 1:2, 1:9, 1:10

Geology
noun, plural geologies.
1. the science that deals with the dynamics and physical history of the earth, the rocks of which it is composed, and the physical, chemical, and biological changes that the earth has undergone or is undergoing.

Astronomy, zoology, and botany are also covered in the same range of verses.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 09:32 AM

"Because the bible is about man's relationship to God in human history"

Apart from all the talk of creation in Genesis. And except for the nasty little line about giving man dominion over all living things. A real pearler that one.

As for ISIS, that is the natural result of the abandonment of reason that is fundamentalism and literal readings of religious texts. It's another reason why creationism is to be thundered against.

In the case of ebola, one can openly presume that God is having a laugh over that. More dead innocents, suffering horribly because they ate contaminated bush meat he said they were entitled to from which they caught a virus he created. It's left to those awful scientists to ease the suffering and attempt to contain and eradicate this particular wonder of his creation.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 10:00 AM

So geologists, astronomers, biologists, etc., need only consult the bible to do their work?

Oh. I see. A put-on. Good one!

Around here it's hard to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 10:18 AM

if evolution were irrefutable there would be no deniers of its dogma. Boy, is that sentence full of evidence that its writer has no idea what science is, so no wonder they don't understand something as fundamental as evolution. I repeat, American education is child abuse.

For starters, nothing scientific is irrefutABLE, or it isn't scientific. The thing about evolution is, no data have ever refuted it, so it's one of the strongest theories out there, along with gravity, speed of light, and other scientific certainties. What makes them certain is the tremendous lack of evidence against them, stacked up against the tremendous amount of data for them. But it remails refutable - find the preCambrian rabbit, and voila.

There ARE no scientists denying science. Only undereducated American children of christians, who were denied education because of their parents' faith and the incomprehensible US habit of allowing faith to interrupt knowledge, continue to fail to comprehend that evolution is as true as gravity or the speed of light. American education's kowtowing to faith is child abuse.

And, finally, there is no dogma involved. Nobody, not even a scientist, thinks that the Origin of Species had everything right, was inspired by the divine, or cannot be questioned and must be taken literally. Instead, the idea Darwin published has been refined and added to over the decades, we now have molecular evidence he could not have dreamed of, all of which continues to demonstrate the *fact* that life adapts through the survival of the genes that best fit the environment in which they were sexually combined.

Oh, maybe it's because it's about ess ee ex that nobody is allowed to learn about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 10:51 AM

> More dead innocents, suffering horribly because they ate contaminated bush meat he said they were entitled to from which they caught a virus he created.

That may not say it all, but it does come close.

Those who find "Original Sin" to be a satisfying explanation, though, will nit change their opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 11:01 AM

Yup - Randy Newman had it pretty close to rights, didn't he?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 12:03 PM

Do you deny Greek religion?

And, what "geology" were the writers of Genesis aware of?
None Musket.
That is why there is no geology in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 12:23 PM

If science is enslaved by "dogma," how'd they ever let this out?

http://www.inquisitr.com/1499174/chinese-discovery-puts-evolutionary-accuracy-in-question/

And when will the biologists involved lose their jobs for being "heretics"?

Wait, I know the answer: "They probably won't, because their findings are still safely within the mistaken framework of evolution."

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 05:34 PM

My posts refer to deleted posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 05:38 PM

Interesting......lighter says evolution is irrefutable.....and mrrzy says nothing in science is irrefutable.   Now, I wonder who is going to refute who.    They do both believe evolution is true, and both believe the evidence says so.   Marry seems to blame American education for me being a biblical creationist, even though I,m English. She is certain we won't find a pre Cambrian rabbit, but the Cambrian explosion strongly suggests no evolution prior to this supposed era. And then, I have not forgotten all that perishable stuff surviving supposed myo. Who is not facing up to the evidence?          I think science geek may be behind the times in her claim that there is evidence of kinship between man and monkey. The nature of that two or more percent difference is , I hear, much wider since more recent findings.   I also hear that we share 50 percent genetics with bananas.   I am tempted to a little joke here ! She also thinks dinos ought to be named in the bible, but terrible lizards were not so named till more recent history, but they are included in what God created, and are described, in probability, in job, and elsewhere.                         Dmcg, not sure what your point is, except you seem to assume that adaption and variation is not part of the creation model. Creationists actually wrote about it before Darwin . I don't see how it has any bearing on goo to you via the zoo evolution.   I suggest it is observable and testable science,, rather than Darwinian concept.    But thanks for a civil post.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 05:56 PM

Evolution is a factual entity on the planet Earth. It is no more a piece of science than the fact that Liverpool are in the Premier League, or that (to me at any rate) my left eyeball is to the left of my right eyeball. All the science in evolution comes in its explanation, not in the fact of its existence (which is irrefutable). Every single piece of explanation of evolution must be, and is, vulnerable to refutation. Your piece of guff about the Cambrian explosion, along with everything else you say about science, demonstrates that you do not have the faintest inkling of what science is all about.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 06:04 PM

Your posts usually refer to your deleted intelligence.

No, in deference to the moderators, I take that back. There was no intelligence to delete.

Creating the world in six days and fuck all to do with geology eh?

That's Magic, that is. I wonder if he can use his magic to stop suffering?

Pity he doesn't exist then. Just think, you could use Sunday mornings to read up on everything you embarrass yourself with when you spout off Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 06:05 PM

Interesting again.....just looked at lighters link. And as he suggests, any evidence that throws the evolutionary story into disarray will just mean yet another adjustment of the storyline and timeline......of course, this is hailed as science being open to new evidence.....but it is also evolutionism being unfalsifiable. Even should the pre cam bunny be found, that will be slotted in to the story, I predict.               Oh yes, shimrod.....not offering any evidence, because I will probably be able to challenge it.   Fair enough......it was enough to have you confess that your science qualifications had nothing to do with evolution !.    I know of a few scientists whose faith in the bible fits with observable science though !.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 06:21 PM

What's "observable science" when it's at 'ome? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 06:43 PM

You don't see my point, Pete? It is that we can build devices that with no human intervention can develop from just identifying light and dark to reading licence platea as accurately as humans using the exact process Darwin Described: the interplay of inheritance, variation and differential survival. And you are really saying you see no connection? Honestly?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 08:20 PM

I am surprised you're English, you're right. Very few Europeans are ignorant enough to deny science. At least I think you meant me (Marry for Mrrzy is an interesting typo, projective test anyone?).

The *evidence* for evolution is certainly irrefutable. But it's a pendantic quibble of mine to prefer to phrase it that way. I am a scientist, we quibble pedantically a lot. Also pedagogically, as seems to be required here.

Later (microscopic) of the Burgess Shale does indicate a whole lot of evolution before the Cambrian explosion, which was of forms you could see with the naked eye. Now that we can clothe our eyes with lenses there is a lot of pre-Cambrian change in form leading up to the once-called Explosion.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 02:42 AM

pete, you keep banging on and on and on and on ... etc. about my lack of qualifications in evolutionary biology, always conveniently forgetting that you have no scientific qualifications whatsoever! And to quote Steve Shaw above: " ... everything ... you say about science, demonstrates that you do not have the faintest inkling of what science is all about."

You also demand that I provide you with evidence that evolution is true. For a start, you DO NOT give me orders you pompous, ignorant little shit, and secondly there are volumes and volumes of evidence out there that you could consult if you really wanted to! And it's you that is in an indefensible position and needs to provide evidence to support your absurd notion that everything was created, in seven days, by some big beardy bloke in the sky - just because it says so in some old book of myths. Oh, but I forgot, you have something called "faith", don't you? And possessing faith means that you can just declare something true (however absurd) whilst those without faith have to provide evidence ... have I got that right, pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 02:55 AM

The other thing that I should point out, pete, is that if the creationist idiots that you parrot ever succeed in discrediting the vast edifice of modern science (LOL!) that still won't mean that the myths recounted in the Bible are true. Not only do you not understand science but you don't understand logic either, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 05:38 AM

"And as he suggests, any evidence that throws the evolutionary story into disarray will just mean yet another adjustment of the storyline and timeline"

So you're saying we should look at the available evidence, then formulate hypothesis and never attempt to disprove that but assume we got it right first time and stick to it regardless of further evidence coming to light as technology and understanding advances? That's an insight into your mindset to be sure Pete.

The research discussed in Lighter's link does not challenge evolution at all; it's talking about the emergence of multicelluar life. This is an important question and is part of a far wider field of research that looks into the rate of evolution and speciation; a question palaeontologists tend to be very interested as our work has bearing on the rate of evolution and our research specimens were subject too.


"but the Cambrian explosion strongly suggests no evolution prior to this supposed era"

How the heck did you come to that conclusion? Where is your evidence to support such a claim? What do you think was actually going on before the Cambrian explosion?

That said Pete, you appear to have accepted the Cambrian explosion was an actual evolutionary event so that's a start. This means you acceptant the conclusions of palaeontologists and geologists and molecular biologists etc. Nice one! I do believe you're beginning to see reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 07:52 AM

> possessing faith means that you can just declare something true (however absurd) whilst those without faith have to provide evidence ...

Not quite. "However absurd" implies there's no limit, which may be true in the abstract.

But in discussions of religion, "faith" gains credence for some because it's widely shared in a community of believers, each of whose faith reinforces everyone else's. Consider the Raelians.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 10:54 AM

Thank you 'Lighter' - but I find myself somewhat underwhelmed by your qualification.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 11:26 AM

Consider the Raelians.

Oh yeah. Lunatics par excellance. Hale-Bopp to you, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 02:50 PM

Creating the world in six days and fuck all to do with geology eh?
Correct.
Nothing at all to do with geology.
To a fundamentalist, just a miracle.
To the rest of us, just an ancient creation myth.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 04:30 PM

Far too sensitive, shimrod. I am not banging on about any lack in your qualifications. Quite the reverse. I am applauding your science qualifications. You admitted they had no bearing on evolution.......contrary to most others who infer science depends on it.             Stu, you are right to correct me, inasmuch as what I should have said was, that ,as I understand it , the major life organisms appear fully formed without transitional evidence beforehand. When I use your term....Cambrian.....it is for convenience. Rather, I view the supposed geological column as roughly equating to order of burial in the noahic deluge disaster.    No, I am not saying that you should stubbornly hold on to something once it has been shown wrong, and i know that is the scientific method to continually reexamine . However, it also has the advantage to evolutionists of their belief being unfalsifiable. Wrong ideas can be recast, and anything that conflicts with here and now science can be shelved in the hope of future resolution in favour of evolutionism !.            Mrr.....the marry was a I pad wrong correct.   Maybe it was just like all those Americans you think are ignorant !                   Dmcg ....it is certainly interesting that such things can be achieved , but do you think your device is going to develop into something else....?? Yes, I think I do see the connection, but how does demonstrating that in device or living organisms support goo to you evolution.......honestly ?,!.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 04:43 PM

Right, so now you've decided to stop belittling my hard won qualifications, pete (don't do it again because a punch in the teeth often offends)let's get back to this question of faith vs science. Am I right in thinking, that you think, that those who possess faith can just declare something true (however absurd) whilst those without faith have to provide evidence? You seem reluctant to answer this question, pete ...?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 04:48 PM

When I use your term....Cambrian.....it is for convenience.

It isn't his term. It's everybody's term. Like when I use the term "Bible" I'm not using it "for convenience". And I dislike the Bible (fables) at least as much as you dislike the Cambrian (reality). Arrogant tosser.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 07:44 AM

No Musket, I was just making a reasonable and sensible point.

You said, "The bible, if what I hear is true, certainly does cover geology."

I told you that it does not.
Just an ancient creation myth.
Creation myths do not incorporate any geology.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 07:47 AM

....or any other Science.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 01:04 PM

Well, Pete, it does depend on what you are prepared to accept as something else. I would say that since the same device can be trained to recognise other things - Musical scores, say, or faces it is perfectly capable of evolving into something else. It is also capable of speciation since it van separate into different co-existing "species" each self selected to recognise a different format of licence plate say, or one for licences and one for music


But that is fine detail. The salient point is that using just the Darwinian rules the device has evolved from nothing beyond a light and dark detector into a full blown efficient image recogniser with no human intervention
Do you agree? Because to do so is to agree the Darwinian process works in at least this limited context

Let us get this settled before we get onto goo to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 02:12 PM

,just lost a post........short version!      Dmcg, if it is trained it may be tec evolution but not Darwinian.          Shimrod, you have not demonstrated that yours is not a faith position, since you admit your training has no relevance, so I think it may be bluff and bluster from you.   I reckon ,I present more evidence than you.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 02:56 PM

Parroting stuff from a dodgy website is not 'presenting evidence', pete!

Anyway, where were we? Oh yes, I know, am I right in thinking, that you think, that those who possess faith can just declare something true (however absurd) whilst those without faith have to provide evidence?

And someone with no qualifications is still belittling my qualifications!