The end of god?

Cleat Eastwood

shm_uk wrote:

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

... there is nothing identified to date which contradicts evolution ...

... other than the complete lack of a single fossil or anything that the scientific community conclusively agree shows one species transitioning to another ...

Clare Balding

rick_chasey

As said before, there's a similar amount of corroboration with the theory of evolution as there is for the theory of gravity.


The song and dance you refer to happened in the 19th Century.

mask of sanity

It would seem that the biggest issue with the pro creation argument is their misconception about the word theory. The meaning of the word theory in the concept of scientific theory is very different to the colloquial use of the word. A scientific theory is an idea that explains a fact.

Evolution has been observed therefore it is fact that species evolve. The theory aspect of evolution refers to the way in which this evolution occurs. Therefore the theory of evolution refers to things like genetic mutations and genetic drift causing changes in species by natural selection.

seemunkee

mask of sanity wrote:

It would seem that the biggest issue with the pro creation argument is their misconception about the word theory. The meaning of the word theory in the concept of scientific theory is very different to the colloquial use of the word. A scientific theory is an idea that explains a fact.

Evolution has been observed therefore it is fact that species evolve. The theory aspect of evolution refers to the way in which this evolution occurs. Therefore the theory of evolution refers to things like genetic mutations and genetic drift causing changes in species by natural selection.

+1
Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles over time. This is a fact, it happens and has been observed in the lab.
Evolution theory is trying to explain the mechanisms that cause those changes.

AidanR

Interesting stuff. I hadn't thought of the significance of the distinction between a layperson's definition of the word 'theory' and the scientific definition. That said, I should have.

finchy

shm_uk wrote:

Personally, I dion't think there's a need to treat a Creator (God) and Science as two incompatible or conflicting things.

Of course there isn't. Newton believed in God, as did Kepler, Darwin, Einstein, Mendel....................................................................

shm_uk wrote:

There's evidence that suggests evolution might have happened.
There's no evidence that proves evolution happened.

As already mentioned, there is no such thing as absolute, definite proof of anything in the natural sciences, only varying degrees of probability/confidence. You won't find a single scientist anywhere in the world who would disagree with that.

The problem comes when weighing up the evidence. And if the biblical creation story were to be believed, it would not only overturn evolutionary theory, it would also overturn theories in plate tectonics, the rate at which space is expanding, star and planet formation, carbon dating & radioactive/isotope decay, palaeontology, prehistoric archaeology, linguistics (tower of Babel), cell biology and many, many more.

So that means that science has messed up on a hell of a lot of big issues. I'm agnostic, but if I were Christian, I'd definitely avoid a literal interpretation of the Bible.

bails87

tarquin_foxglove

pastey_boy wrote:

...who,s to say that in 2000 years time a religion could be born based on the starwars films with disciples bowing down to the force, it sounds daft but its already happened.

Quite right, it has already happened...

In England and Wales 390,127 people (almost 0.8%) stated their religion as Jedi on their 2001 Census forms, surpassing Sikhism, Judaism, and Buddhism, and making it the fourth largest reported religion in the countries.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/rank/jedi.asp/

bails87

Damn, I thought I'd reached the end of the thread when I clearly hadn't

Boy, do I look stupid!

pastey_boy

just imagine yoda dressed up like the pope !!!! then imagine the publics disgust as allegations of wookie abuse surface .

1footedninja

Crapaud wrote:

I believe that you are George W Bush and ICM£5.

Your getting the words 'you' & 'God' mixed up a little. possibly?

but yes 'you' could be George W Bush and ICM£5.

electric_blue

AidanR wrote:

Perhaps I'm missing the subtlety of your point, but there's belief either way. There's no God either way.

Philosophical views are based on a set of assumptions, whether they be for or against the existence of a deity. That is where faith comes in. You can wholeheartedly believe in the validity of the scientific method, as I do, but that is separate from a belief that God does or doesn't exist. That belief is not provable nor disprovable, and thus falls outside of the realm of scientific reason by definition. If you believe there's a God, then that's faith; if you believe there is no God, that's faith; if you do not believe there's no God, that's faith; if you do not know, then you haven't reached a conclusion so can't fully engage in the debate.

That's a logical misconception. For god to exist requires a leap of faith - a belief. For god not to exist is in accordance with all available evidence therefore not a belief - scientific, if you will, or in accordance with all observations and experience.

electric_blue

johnfinch wrote:

I'm agnostic, but if I were Christian, I'd definitely avoid a literal interpretation of the Bible.

It is impossible to take the Bible literally as it contradicts itself in at least 456 different places.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

shm_uk

mask of sanity wrote:

It would seem that the biggest issue with the pro creation argument is their misconception about the word theory. The meaning of the word theory in the concept of scientific theory is very different to the colloquial use of the word. A scientific theory is an idea that explains a fact.

Evolution has been observed therefore it is fact that species evolve. The theory aspect of evolution refers to the way in which this evolution occurs. Therefore the theory of evolution refers to things like genetic mutations and genetic drift causing changes in species by natural selection.

I thought evolution was supposed to lead to new speices, not just changes within a species?

Can someone please point me to something that shows a new species clearly linked to another, with all the intermediate forms and mutations that led there?

pastey_boy

shm_uk wrote:

mask of sanity wrote:

It would seem that the biggest issue with the pro creation argument is their misconception about the word theory. The meaning of the word theory in the concept of scientific theory is very different to the colloquial use of the word. A scientific theory is an idea that explains a fact.

Evolution has been observed therefore it is fact that species evolve. The theory aspect of evolution refers to the way in which this evolution occurs. Therefore the theory of evolution refers to things like genetic mutations and genetic drift causing changes in species by natural selection.

I thought evolution was supposed to lead to new speices, not just changes within a species?

Can someone please point me to something that shows a new species clearly linked to another, with all the intermediate forms and mutations that led there?

stage 1 amoeba
stage 2 flea
stage 3 rabid baboon
stage 4 christian

shm_uk

pastey_boy wrote:

shm_uk wrote:

mask of sanity wrote:

It would seem that the biggest issue with the pro creation argument is their misconception about the word theory. The meaning of the word theory in the concept of scientific theory is very different to the colloquial use of the word. A scientific theory is an idea that explains a fact.

Evolution has been observed therefore it is fact that species evolve. The theory aspect of evolution refers to the way in which this evolution occurs. Therefore the theory of evolution refers to things like genetic mutations and genetic drift causing changes in species by natural selection.

I thought evolution was supposed to lead to new speices, not just changes within a species?

Can someone please point me to something that shows a new species clearly linked to another, with all the intermediate forms and mutations that led there?

stage 1 amoeba
stage 2 flea
stage 4 rabid baboon
stage 4 christian

Nice

I was asking for that

I thought stage 3 was 'roadie'
And Stage 5 has got to be mountain biker.

electric_blue

shm_uk wrote:

Can someone please point me to something that shows a new species clearly linked to another, with all the intermediate forms and mutations that led there?

I doubt the fossil record is perfect enough for this to have ever come about. Only certain conditions lead to fossils being laid down; but you don;t need "something that shows a new species clearly linked to another, with all the intermediate forms and mutations that led there" - there's plenty of evidence for evolution; but you've asked for what you know does not exist as evidence. This is the way that deniers operate.

electric_blue

shm_uk wrote:

pastey_boy wrote:

shm_uk wrote:

mask of sanity wrote:

It would seem that the biggest issue with the pro creation argument is their misconception about the word theory. The meaning of the word theory in the concept of scientific theory is very different to the colloquial use of the word. A scientific theory is an idea that explains a fact.

Evolution has been observed therefore it is fact that species evolve. The theory aspect of evolution refers to the way in which this evolution occurs. Therefore the theory of evolution refers to things like genetic mutations and genetic drift causing changes in species by natural selection.

I thought evolution was supposed to lead to new speices, not just changes within a species?

Can someone please point me to something that shows a new species clearly linked to another, with all the intermediate forms and mutations that led there?

stage 1 amoeba
stage 2 flea
stage 4 rabid baboon
stage 4 christian

Nice

I was asking for that

I thought stage 3 was 'roadie'
And Stage 5 has got to be mountain biker.

Stage 6 people who think the correct sequence of integers is 1, 2, 4, 4

pastey_boy

electric_blue wrote:

shm_uk wrote:

pastey_boy wrote:

shm_uk wrote:

mask of sanity wrote:

It would seem that the biggest issue with the pro creation argument is their misconception about the word theory. The meaning of the word theory in the concept of scientific theory is very different to the colloquial use of the word. A scientific theory is an idea that explains a fact.

Evolution has been observed therefore it is fact that species evolve. The theory aspect of evolution refers to the way in which this evolution occurs. Therefore the theory of evolution refers to things like genetic mutations and genetic drift causing changes in species by natural selection.

I thought evolution was supposed to lead to new speices, not just changes within a species?
ok i had a funny thought and in my rush to publish i may have messed up a little

Can someone please point me to something that shows a new species clearly linked to another, with all the intermediate forms and mutations that led there?

stage 1 amoeba
stage 2 flea
stage 4 rabid baboon
stage 4 christian

Nice

I was asking for that

I thought stage 3 was 'roadie'
And Stage 5 has got to be mountain biker.

Stage 6 people who think the correct sequence of integers is 1, 2, 4, 4

simonaspinall

Surely a BBC4 programme is just light viewing, getting people interested in a subject, if you like it a lot then it gave you the stimulus to go and get a degree in it.

I thought the dream bike programme on a few weeks back was probably not for purist cyclists, but i thought it was interesting and if you weren't a cyclist you could still watch it and feel as though cycling could be for you.

Same with Simon Schama, and I think Alexander Graham-Dixon, if that's his name.

Great presenters, really enthuisastic, inspire you to learn a bit more. Don't take it so seriously, otherwise you could break every attempt to do anything down into it's constituent parts, process and results and decide the entire efforts of mankind are ultimately fruitless.

shm_uk

electric_blue wrote:

shm_uk wrote:

Can someone please point me to something that shows a new species clearly linked to another, with all the intermediate forms and mutations that led there?

I doubt the fossil record is perfect enough for this to have ever come about. Only certain conditions lead to fossils being laid down; but you don;t need "something that shows a new species clearly linked to another, with all the intermediate forms and mutations that led there" - there's plenty of evidence for evolution; but you've asked for what you know does not exist as evidence. This is the way that deniers operate.

Que?


I've only asked for what I would expect to be available as proof of something happening, seeing as that's what I thought science did; i.e. prove/demonstrate stuff.

Basically, what you're suggesting is that the fossil evidence probably doesn't exist, but we're all supposed to believe the theory anyway because, um, well, because we really really want the theory to be true and stuff...


Anyway, surely the real arguement is, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

electric_blue

For anyone in London do a search for British Humanist society or Conway Hall events - there are regular free or cheap lectures and debates on this subject - usually at Conway Hall....sometimes Dawkins himself is partaking.

rick_chasey

electric_blue wrote:

For anyone in London do a search for British Humanist society or Conway Hall events - there are regular free or cheap lectures and debates on this subject - usually at Conway Hall....sometimes Dawkins himself is partaking.

Meh, I'm atheist but I take issue with humanists principles!

electric_blue

shm_uk wrote:

Que?


I've only asked for what I would expect to be available as proof of something happening, seeing as that's what I thought science did; i.e. prove/demonstrate stuff.

Basically, what you're suggesting is that the fossil evidence probably doesn't exist, but we're all supposed to believe the theory anyway because, um, well, because we really really want the theory to be true and stuff...


Anyway, surely the real arguement is, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The fossil evidence does exist just not in the complete chain from species to species that you asked for.

Try using Google or reading a book.

electric_blue

Rick Chasey wrote:

electric_blue wrote:

For anyone in London do a search for British Humanist society or Conway Hall events - there are regular free or cheap lectures and debates on this subject - usually at Conway Hall....sometimes Dawkins himself is partaking.

Meh, I'm atheist but I take issue with humanists principles!

go along and have a good debate with them then - if the Christians can - then I'm damn sure you can.

mask of sanity

shm_uk wrote:

mask of sanity wrote:

It would seem that the biggest issue with the pro creation argument is their misconception about the word theory. The meaning of the word theory in the concept of scientific theory is very different to the colloquial use of the word. A scientific theory is an idea that explains a fact.

Evolution has been observed therefore it is fact that species evolve. The theory aspect of evolution refers to the way in which this evolution occurs. Therefore the theory of evolution refers to things like genetic mutations and genetic drift causing changes in species by natural selection.

I thought evolution was supposed to lead to new speices, not just changes within a species?

Can someone please point me to something that shows a new species clearly linked to another, with all the intermediate forms and mutations that led there?

That's called speciation, and is what Darwin based much of his research on. Speciation is the process by which a species divides into two different species due to changes caused by evolution. Examples of types of speciation include the inability of two animals to mate, two animals no longer having the desire to mate or a physical block between the two animals. To name but a few. Once this occurs the two types of animal will start to evolve independently of each other, resulting in the production of a new species.

Asking for proof of every stage within the formation of two species is asking a hell of a lot of science seeing as most of these changes will have happened millions of years ago. However, there are some animals that you can see speciation in today, the horse and donkey for example. They can still breed together which suggests that they were once the same species, however they cannot be considered a different species because their offspring, the mule, is sterile therefore is not a species of it's own. Another example is the finch in the Galapagos Islands, as studied by Darwin.

AidanR

shm_uk wrote:

electric_blue wrote:

shm_uk wrote:

Can someone please point me to something that shows a new species clearly linked to another, with all the intermediate forms and mutations that led there?

I doubt the fossil record is perfect enough for this to have ever come about. Only certain conditions lead to fossils being laid down; but you don;t need "something that shows a new species clearly linked to another, with all the intermediate forms and mutations that led there" - there's plenty of evidence for evolution; but you've asked for what you know does not exist as evidence. This is the way that deniers operate.

Que?


I've only asked for what I would expect to be available as proof of something happening, seeing as that's what I thought science did; i.e. prove/demonstrate stuff.

Basically, what you're suggesting is that the fossil evidence probably doesn't exist, but we're all supposed to believe the theory anyway because, um, well, because we really really want the theory to be true and stuff...


Anyway, surely the real arguement is, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The point he's making is that fossils are in fact very, very rare in the context of all the life that's ever lived on Earth. I have no idea what the exact figures are but I'd take a guess at maybe 0.00001% of living things ever being fossilised, and then 0.00001% of that has actually been dug up. So you can see why the fossil record is so patchy.

That's not to say there isn't other evidence, of course. And I'm sure someone more knowledgeable than me will be along in due course to explain it. You also have to remember than Darwin didn't come up with evolution - the idea had been around for ages. He just helped us to understand the most probable means by which it occurs.

rick_chasey

electric_blue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

electric_blue wrote:

For anyone in London do a search for British Humanist society or Conway Hall events - there are regular free or cheap lectures and debates on this subject - usually at Conway Hall....sometimes Dawkins himself is partaking.

Meh, I'm atheist but I take issue with humanists principles!

go along and have a good debate with them then - if the Christians can - then I'm damn sure you can.

*shrugs*

I doubt they'd be any more receptive to my arguments as any person of faith.

electric_blue

Rick Chasey wrote:

electric_blue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

electric_blue wrote:

For anyone in London do a search for British Humanist society or Conway Hall events - there are regular free or cheap lectures and debates on this subject - usually at Conway Hall....sometimes Dawkins himself is partaking.

Meh, I'm atheist but I take issue with humanists principles!

go along and have a good debate with them then - if the Christians can - then I'm damn sure you can.

*shrugs*

I doubt they'd be any more receptive to my arguments as any person of faith.

Well, to be frank, that's your issue. They have open debates and argue the issues which is all they can do to be fair.

BTW - what are your issues with the BHS

BTW2 - I'm not a member, just interested in the debate

rick_chasey

It's their emphasis on the scientific aspect I guess.

Our decisions are based on the available evidence and our assessment of the outcomes of our actions, not on any dogma or sacred text.

Now, to cut long a boring story short, if you understand, or are convinced, that knowledge is ultimately subjective, (in the way Foucault and Edward Said do), and that that subjective knowledge is ultimately violentely political (in the sense that it creates the epistemological space for domination of one over another), then you also understand that the scientific discourse is just a particular way of knowing something, and not the only.

Thus, an emphasis on purely 'observable' reason, or at least, reason based on 'observable' occurances, is a little flawed, since everything you know, and how you know it, is subjective, and ultimately, not the only way in which you can know stuff.