Evolution - Page 2

Hatuey · 12-11-06, 11:40 PM

[quote=Rhapsody1447;445404]

Quote:

It is sad to see the how far your points have sunken. You post blindly, with a closed mind, and a heart full of bigotry and hatred. I do have to say though that I am not suprised.

I'm crying now.

Quote:

I am arguing that evolution is an incomplete theory, and that it should not be taught as absolute. True, no one can disprove it, but then again no one can prove it. I am hardly whining your view is so contorted, and your mind is so closed that I think this debate is quickly coming to an end.

Wait...so if Evolution is an incomplete theory....what does that make Intelligent Design? Please awnser the question.

Quote:

Even if we had definitive proof that this fish evolved into a stable land animal, it still doesn't point to a common ancestor. Yet we do not have that proof, we have fossils of a ancient fish and we wrote a story.

OK - I'll agree with you that there is no definitive proof as of now that this fish evolved into a stable land animal but the evidence strongly points to the theory scientists have had all along about evolution. What evidence do you have that backs your theory? Just asking. Please awnser the question.

Quote:

Pardon me, but WTF? This doesn't even make sense. His ethic principles were clearly drawn from survival of the fittest. He believed in eridacting the weak and promote the stronger race. (As he percieved it)

Wow Adrian was right...

Quote:

10) WHEN REALLY CORNERED, CALL NAMES.

Asserting links between evolution and such movements as Marxism, Communism and Nazism is a popular form of mud slinging. If you have been making use of technique #7, accuse your opponent of being as bad as the people you've been citing.

This is even more effective if you can manage to goad your opponent into a display of impatience, disdain or temper using any of these techniques.

Quote:

Yes, now YOU answer this question.

Yes? What have you proven? That you killing me because you want to is survival of the fittest? No my son as your survival is not at stake and you've chosen to commit this act out of your own free will not because you were threatened.

Quote:

So you also agree that homesexual sex is wrong? As is contraceptives? You are arguing that anything that goes against nature is morally wrong? That's absurd.

I never said that. Now you're twisting my words.

Quote:

Pardon me again, but WTF? This doesn't even make sense! Please rephrase this to more clearly make your point.

Quote:

You are right! We cannot explain how are consciousness and moral standard were endowed to us, we can only look to a God or higher being to explain our greater moral significance. Not evolution.

Really. 700 Years ago you would have been right beside the people claiming the earth was flat and if you sailed into one of the 4 corners of the earth you'd fall right into hell. What your doing reminds me of some phrase...oh yeah God of the gaps(sorry took me a while to google it I kept asking my wifey but she didnt know).The best example I can give you of such an argument might be as follows: "Because science can't figure out exactly how species change, it must be God who causes it to happen."

Quote:

Your ignorance and short-sightedness is disturbing. We can't explain how an eye evolved and never will. This is also known as an "irreducibly complex" mechanisms not that have possibly evolved from slight gradualistic mutations.

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

The eye is a famous example of a supposedly "irreducibly complex" structure: due to its many elaborate and interlocking parts, seemingly all dependent upon one another for proper functioning, it is frequently claimed that the eye could not have evolved through gradual, step-by-step, evolutionary improvements guided only by natural selection.

Michael Behe used the "development of the eye problem" as evidence for intelligent design in his controversial book, Darwin's Black Box, and creationist website Answers in Genesis describes the eye as evolutionary biologists' "greatest challenge as an example of superb 'irreducible complexity' in God's creation".

The argument that the eye could not have evolved is most commonly invoked in questions such as "What good is half an eye?" The assumption is that an incomplete eye would be completely useless for sight, and therefore an eye could never have evolved through the gradual, step-by-step progression required by modern evolutionary theory. However, this claim has been heavily disputed based on the plentiful evidence of suboptimal eyes in nature. Such eyes, despite their shortcomings, tend to be dramatically more useful for organisms than no eyes at all would be: people with visual impairments are generally much more able to function normally than people who are completely blind, and there are millions of species of animals with significantly simpler eyes than humans that nonetheless thrive, and are in many cases much more successful than similar species with still poorer vision. Thus eyes with decreased functionality, in humans and in numerous other species, still tend to be more beneficial than having no eyes at all.

Conversely, the human eye is suboptimal compared to what many would consider to be "lesser animals." Human visual acuity is, in daytime, noticeably less than that of raptors in terms of spatial resolution, and significantly less than various insects in terms of spectral range. At night, visual acuity is less than predators such as raptors and cats, and invertebrate molluscs such as squid and octopuses. The visual champion, however, is currently the mantis shrimp. This invertebrate possesses polarization capability, hyperspectral capability (with three to four times the number of receptors by range as humans, without including interpolation, over a wider spectral range), and triple redundant depth perception from both their eye constructions and their multiple eyestalk motions (both 2D tracking, and axial rotation). The fact that these capabilities are achieved using a compound eye layout is especially notable, and a sign of radically divergent evolution. Thus, the vertebrate layout can be considered half (perhaps even a third or less) of an eye compared to the mantis shrimp form, while still being "good" in many respects.

Although the eye remains a common and popular example of complexity in arguments against evolution, some intelligent design and creationism advocates have abandoned the eye as an example of "irreducible complexity". As the detail and history of eye evolution have become better understood, its role in these circles has declined and been replaced by molecular and microscopic structures such as the flagellum. However, much as with the eye, research into these smaller-scale structures has also uncovered details of their evolution.

The eye argument thus stems from a "God of the gaps" strategy, or more broadly, the "argument from incredulity" fallacy.

I dont claim to be a genius kid, I just read alot.

Quote:

You post 3 links that are all synonymous with the same information. This is hardly considered evidence for a common ancestor. If it was it would be highly acclaimed and highly publicized. Instead all you show are rudimentary deformed fish, and you try to claim that these fish magically turned into land animals, and sprouted four legs.

Ignoring evidence aren't we while providing none of your own to refute it? 2nd time now.

Isn't this in one of Adrians list of things you'd do whilst debating?

These are the ones you've already used :

Quote:

6) USE "CAFETERIA SCIENCE"

If you look around diligently enough, some scientist somewhere will say something that will bolster your case. Even at the rate of one oddball case in a million, you can accumulate literally thousands of quotes if you mine a long enough time period. In true cafeteria style, you can seize upon these quotes and ignore the science that refutes these quotes.

Quote:

4) ANY FACTS OR EXPLANATIONS NOT IMMEDIATELY AT HAND MAY BE REGARDED AS NONEXISTENT.

If a critic makes a statement about science and doesn't present all the evidence to prove it from the fundamental level on up, you can seize upon any missing step and declare the entire statement as "unproven" or "a wild guess". If a critic manages to refute any of your statements, ignore the refutation. As soon as the refutation is no longer being actively presented, re-assert your claim. After all, the refutation's not right out there any more.

Quote:

3) SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO YOUR CRITICS ANY WAY YOU CAN.

Remember, your position is indefensible. The only way you can present anything like a compelling argument is to make your opponents look ignorant. Force them to prove everything they say. If they refuse to accept the burden of proof, force them to prove they don't have to prove what they say.

Quote:

5) BURY YOUR OPPONENT IN QUOTES.

Nobody is an expert in everything. The more quotes you pull up, the greater the chance that your opponents will not have the knowledge or data to refute at least one of them. You can then emphasize the quotes not dealt with and announce that "science has no response to them". (Note that this will not work unless you have managed to shed the burden of proof, as advised in step 2.)

Quote:

7) FIND AN INSTANCE OF A SCIENTIST BEHAVING BADLY, AND USE IT TO MAKE THE CLAIM THAT ALL SCIENTISTS WILL DO THE SAME.

Ideally, all scientists would base arguments against bad science on the science. Fortunately, scientists are human. Sometimes they will engage in personal attacks, censorship and other unsavory techniques. Use this fact to tar all scientists with the same brush, and also to make the claim that no crank scientists have been "refuted", but rather censored.

And finally :

Quote:

8) SCIENTIFIC FACTS AND THEORIES NEED HAVE NO EFFECTS EXCEPT WHERE CONVENIENT.

Whenever some bit of cafeteria science has implications you don't want to deal with, you are free to ignore them. For example, if you like the possibility that neutron radiation might have changed the ratios of radioactive elements and their decay products, ignore the fact that neutrons have observable effects elsewhere in nature.

Anymore?

Rhapsody1447 · 12-12-06, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Wait...so if Evolution is an incomplete theory....what does that make Intelligent Design? Please awnser the question.

Ugh, repeating myself gets tiring so I am going to bold and caps it. THE POINT OF MY SPEECH WAS NOT ARGUING FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN. IT WAS TO SHOW THAT EVOLUTION IS AN INCOMPLETE THEORY. Intelligent Design to me is a fact, through my faith I have reached that conclusion. As long as you admit that you believe evolution is a fact and through your faith you have reached that conclusion, we're good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

OK - I'll agree with you that there is no definitive proof as of now that this fish evolved into a stable land animal but the evidence strongly points to the theory scientists have had all along about evolution. What evidence do you have that backs your theory? Just asking. Please awnser the question.

I have showed you evidence that backs my theory! Why must I keep repeating myself. The whole point of your quoted text was to show that these fossils hardly proved evolution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Yes? What have you proven? That you killing me because you want to is survival of the fittest? No my son as your survival is not at stake and you've chosen to commit this act out of your own free will not because you were threatened.

No, that if you believe in evolution you cannot logically have a moral objection to me killing someone who is weaker or less developed than myself. It doesn't make sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

I never said that. Now you're twisting my words.

Quote:

Bestiality is wrong simply because of the fact that it goes against nature.

Homosexuality and contraceptives go against nature, are they simply wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Really. 700 Years ago you would have been right beside the people claiming the earth was flat and if you sailed into one of the 4 corners of the earth you'd fall right into hell. What your doing reminds me of some phrase...oh yeah God of the gaps(sorry took me a while to google it I kept asking my wifey but she didnt know).The best example I can give you of such an argument might be as follows: "Because science can't figure out exactly how species change, it must be God who causes it to happen."

I laughed at this. Someone very close to me told me before this debate, that my opposition would eventually call me a bible-thumper, and I probably still believed in a flat Earth. Evolution is the theory of gaps, even major scientists are willing to confirm that one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

I don't claim to be a genius kid, I just read alot.

No one is claiming to be a genius here.

Hatuey · 12-13-06, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhapsody1447

Ugh, repeating myself gets tiring so I am going to bold and caps it. THE POINT OF MY SPEECH WAS NOT ARGUING FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN. IT WAS TO SHOW THAT EVOLUTION IS AN INCOMPLETE THEORY. Intelligent Design to me is a fact, through my faith I have reached that conclusion. As long as you admit that you believe evolution is a fact and through your faith you have reached that conclusion, we're good.

I dont belive in evolution because of faith. Simply because it makes more sense then "something we cant see, prove or find evidence of - did it". I'll stop beliving in evolution the day we find clear evidence that disproves evolution completely and a new theory that makes more sense is then formulated. Until then, "God did it" just aint cutting it.

Quote:

I have showed you evidence that backs my theory! Why must I keep repeating myself. The whole point of your quoted text was to show that these fossils hardly proved evolution.

Yup you have. You have a theory that is impossible to verify; you have 4-5 scientists that are the laughing stock of the scientific community; you have claimed their opinions as facts and finally you have an entity that cant be proven or disproven - what exacly have you proven again? Please repeat it again. It might come true this time.

Quote:

No, that if you believe in evolution you cannot logically have a moral objection to me killing someone who is weaker or less developed than myself. It doesn't make sense.

Evolution and you killing somebody for anything other then your own survival have nothing to do with eachother.

Quote:

Homosexuality and contraceptives go against nature, are they simply wrong?

Homosexuality involves 2 beings that can communicate with one another(unlike bestiality), that consent and completely understand the consequences of the actions they're involved in (unlike bestiality where you might understand but I'm sure the animal doesn't). If one of the consequences of their actions means them not being able to reproduce and thus stopping the natural flow of nature, I'm completely sure both of the homosexuals aware of it. Wether or not it goes against nature matters very little as both parties know that the choice they have made means they'll be unable to reproduce and have children of their own. As for contraceptives it is my personal belief that they go agaisnt nature but there is also option #2 which involves me going in without them and running the risk of catching some STD. Comparing either of these to bestiality is a perfect example of apples and oranges as I'm pretty sure a dog doesnt ask for you to mount it and you like a reasonable person would rather live a decease free life then one with AIDS. Choice and Reason vs. You forcing yourself on an animal. Yup they're all the same thing.

Quote:

I laughed at this. Someone very close to me told me before this debate, that my opposition would eventually call me a bible-thumper, and I probably still believed in a flat Earth. Evolution is the theory of gaps, even major scientists are willing to confirm that one.

Well...if the shoe fits? Evolution is a theory with gaps I wont deny that. It's a side of science that has only been in study for 120-140 years so having every single awnser at the speed people like you want it is out of the question. My question however still stands : If evolution is a theory of gaps, what does that make Intelligent Design?

Rhapsody1447 · 12-14-06, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

I dont belive in evolution because of faith. Simply because it makes more sense then "something we cant see, prove or find evidence of - did it". I'll stop beliving in evolution the day we find clear evidence that disproves evolution completely and a new theory that makes more sense is then formulated. Until then, "God did it" just aint cutting it.

But therein lies your problem. You can't believe in evolution simply because it "makes more sense" and you hope something new will come in the future that will "make MORE sense". The fact that on one hand you claim to have a belief on one hand, and on the other hand claim it as a fact is contradicting. Just admit that you have to have faith (The second one) in order to believe in evolution's improbabilities and it's shortcomings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Yup you have. You have a theory that is impossible to verify; you have 4-5 scientists that are the laughing stock of the scientific community; you have claimed their opinions as facts and finally you have an entity that cant be proven or disproven - what exacly have you proven again? Please repeat it again. It might come true this time.

Claimed opinions as facts? Laughing stock of the scientific community? I have proven that evolution is not the scientific fact that so many claim it to be. Which was the point and origin of my argument. You repeating baseless, bias assumptions over and over again are not helping your case. Every theory about the origin of man cannot be 100% verified. You keep attacking my belief, but you are never willing to examine your own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Evolution and you killing somebody for anything other then your own survival have nothing to do with eachother.

Did you not listen to my entire point? Of course they do, when try to remove God from the picture you are faced with a string of unanswerable questions. What defines morality? How do we know right from wrong? If we just "went with nature" as you propose, we would degenerate as a society into something horrific. Remember what Adam Sedgwick said about removing morality from nature, "it sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Homosexuality involves 2 beings that can communicate with one another(unlike bestiality), that consent and completely understand the consequences of the actions they're involved in (unlike bestiality where you might understand but I'm sure the animal doesn't). If one of the consequences of their actions means them not being able to reproduce and thus stopping the natural flow of nature, I'm completely sure both of the homosexuals aware of it. Wether or not it goes against nature matters very little as both parties know that the choice they have made means they'll be unable to reproduce and have children of their own. As for contraceptives it is my personal belief that they go agaisnt nature but there is also option #2 which involves me going in without them and running the risk of catching some STD. Comparing either of these to bestiality is a perfect example of apples and oranges as I'm pretty sure a dog doesnt ask for you to mount it and you like a reasonable person would rather live a decease free life then one with AIDS. Choice and Reason vs. You forcing yourself on an animal. Yup they're all the same thing.

Alright, so you are arguing from a standpoint of consent. The only thing that makes it morally wrong (Remember we are talking about morality, I am not saying bestiality and homosexuality are the same thing) is the lack of consent from the animal. Although entirely disturbing and sick, I can understand your viewpoint.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Well...if the shoe fits? Evolution is a theory with gaps I wont deny that. It's a side of science that has only been in study for 120-140 years so having every single awnser at the speed people like you want it is out of the question. My question however still stands : If evolution is a theory of gaps, what does that make Intelligent Design?

Still stands? How many times do I answer! Intelligent Design is the assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes.

Hatuey · 12-15-06, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhapsody1447

But therein lies your problem. You can't believe in evolution simply because it "makes more sense" and you hope something new will come in the future that will "make MORE sense". The fact that on one hand you claim to have a belief on one hand, and on the other hand claim it as a fact is contradicting. Just admit that you have to have faith (The second one) in order to believe in evolution's improbabilities and it's shortcomings.

Definition of faith - which is the one I hope you're refering to :

Quote:

belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

I tend to disbelief anything that isn't based on proof or has no evidence to back it up. Much like ID.

Quote:

Claimed opinions as facts? Laughing stock of the scientific community? I have proven that evolution is not the scientific fact that so many claim it to be. Which was the point and origin of my argument. You repeating baseless, bias assumptions over and over again are not helping your case. Every theory about the origin of man cannot be 100% verified. You keep attacking my belief, but you are never willing to examine your own.

If you had truly proven it. I along with the entire scientific community and most liberals on this forum would be running to the nearest churches right now and begging for forgiveness. Nope. Hasn't happened. I never said Evolution was 100% I said it's got plenty of parts that science can't explain as of today but how long has evolution been under a microscope? How long has religion/oops sorry ID been preaching about god? Who's made more progress? You find him yet?

Quote:

Did you not listen to my entire point? Of course they do, when try to remove God from the picture you are faced with a string of unanswerable questions. What defines morality? How do we know right from wrong? If we just "went with nature" as you propose, we would degenerate as a society into something horrific. Remember what Adam Sedgwick said about removing morality from nature, "it sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history."

No they dont. Attributing the weak moral fiber humans have or any part of human life to a diety is foolish. It's the equivalent of the Greeks saying Cupid was responsible for love. Today we look at those examples and laugh at them thinking they're silly stories. In time the same will happen with Islam, Christianism and all that other wierd **** people like to preach with a bible, koran in their hands like they're supposed to be proof of something. Our ascendents will look at the history of the religions and giggle at how stupid humans were for believing in God. Have you ever even read Origin of Species? Please read it and stop quoting dead geologists.

Quote:

Alright, so you are arguing from a standpoint of consent. The only thing that makes it morally wrong (Remember we are talking about morality, I am not saying bestiality and homosexuality are the same thing) is the lack of consent from the animal. Although entirely disturbing and sick, I can understand your viewpoint.

I'm sorry, by nature, are you ment to mate with dogs? Are you really going to elevate you and another human to you and different animal species? Do you see cows mating with lizards? Do you see pigs mating with Komodo dragons? Do you see chimps humping hippos? I'm sure you would agree that if animals of a particular genus dont try to mate with ones of a different genus it's not because God's drilled morality into them but because of common ****ing sense.

Quote:

Still stands? How many times do I answer! Intelligent Design is the assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes.

Faith :

Quote:

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion

What you have my friend is faith. What I have is reason. Evolution = Reason

Religion oops I mean ID = Faith.