Evolution vs. Creationism - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Negoba wrote:

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

@AmbianceMan: Sorry, but I will not answer any more of your posts ... each time I do, you come up with a more crazy response. Good luck with your fight against the theory of evolution, I know it is futile. Big smile

translation: unless you play on my court exclusively, I don't want to play.

Not really. It's about responding to arguments. People who post irrational or incoherent answers are simply impossible to reason with.

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

@AmbianceMan: Sorry, but I will not answer any more of your posts ... each time I do, you come up with a more crazy response. Good luck with your fight against the theory of evolution, I know it is futile. Big smile

translation: unless you play on my court exclusively, I don't want to play.

You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.

You're right, again a poor word used to describe the process. But the objective phenomenon we're all interested in is speciation, I think.

There is variety in the forms of life, both at one time, and across time.

That's the fact.

The question is why?

You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.

Negoba wrote:

Kestrel wrote:

Science and religion may not be "mutually exclusive" but they will always be in conflict because they are two different ways of approaching much of the same questions. Saying science answers the hows and religion answers the whys is a false dichotomy of sorts to me.

Saying that religion answers the questions concerning the meaning of life presupposes that there is a meaning to life. I don't see why the question should be asked.

Evolution is BOTH a fact AND a theory. Just as with gravity. There are two distinct concepts.

Evolution is defined as "the change in allele frequencies in a population." That's the fact. We observe it in every known population. The THEORY explains why those changes occur. That is where natural selection, genetic drift, etc. come in play.

That's why I use the word "speciation." Speciation is a fact. Evolution is a somewhat poorly named theory.

Allele frequencies can change without speciation. Those are two different things. (Unless you are saying something else that I didn't pick up on.)

Kestrel wrote:

Science and religion may not be "mutually exclusive" but they will always be in conflict because they are two different ways of approaching much of the same questions. Saying science answers the hows and religion answers the whys is a false dichotomy of sorts to me.

Saying that religion answers the questions concerning the meaning of life presupposes that there is a meaning to life. I don't see why the question should be asked.

Evolution is BOTH a fact AND a theory. Just as with gravity. There are two distinct concepts.

Evolution is defined as "the change in allele frequencies in a population." That's the fact. We observe it in every known population. The THEORY explains why those changes occur. That is where natural selection, genetic drift, etc. come in play.

That's why I use the word "speciation." Speciation is a fact. Evolution is a somewhat poorly named theory.

You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.

Science and religion may not be "mutually exclusive" but they will always be in conflict because they are two different ways of approaching much of the same questions. Saying science answers the hows and religion answers the whys is a false dichotomy of sorts to me.

Saying that religion answers the questions concerning the meaning of life presupposes that there is a meaning to life. I don't see why the question should be asked.

Evolution is BOTH a fact AND a theory. Just as with gravity. There are two distinct concepts.

Evolution is defined as "the change in allele frequencies in a population." That's the fact. We observe it in every known population. The THEORY explains why those changes occur. That is where natural selection, genetic drift, etc. come in play.

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Now we could go back to quivering over the word "theory", I won't do that. Suffice it to say that evolution is a theory like the theory of relativity, or quantum mechanics. The theory of relativity has not been proven either, it may be wrong ... but that's not keeping you from accepting that atoms can be split, and that this creates electricity for you to use in your flat, while reading this post and writing answers.

The atoms aren't split to make electricity. Unless you call adding and removing electrons "splitting" which it is not. Also, Gravity itself is just a theory. Yes we see the results of it, and there is a "best" explanation. Likewise, we can't deny that we are here, but the reasons why are still just a theory.

MrProgFreak wrote:

If you understood evolution, you wouldn't call it a "doctrine", and you wouldn't know that any "faith" or "belief" is required to accept it.

I will simply disagree with you here, and so will science. See, I can be on the same page with science. A lot of the time as a matter of fact. Ever hear the phrase "Scientists believe...."? I have a lot, textbooks, discovery channel, Nova...etc. etc. So yes scientists use a lot of belief.

AmbianceMan wrote:

However, I definitely saw it.

MrProgFreak wrote:

Really? I should take your word for it? Wink

Well, apparently that went right over your head because you agreed with me and reiterated my point and thought that you had me on that one I guess. The point was that NO, you shouldn't take my word for it, you should search for it yourself. The only problem is that you have to put on the other set of lenses first, which would be extremely difficult, but not impossible, for you to do right now

MrProgFreak wrote:

There's no such thing as subjective evidence. Either it's evidence, or it is subjective.

That wasn't why I said that. Let's say that I beat up a squirrel and steal its walnut. I eat the walnut. Nobody sees me, I crap it out in the woods. Two years later would there be any objective evidence that I roughed up a squirrel? Absolutely not (in 99% of the cases, and let's pretend this is one of the 99.99+%).

The point is, it happened. I know it happened. It isn't scientifically verifiable, but it happened. Sure you can use this concerning, the big bang, or whatever, but we're talking about subjective evidence here, not objective. Just because something is subjective and not scientifically verifiable doesn't mean that it can be automatically discounted as "never have happened". This is basic stuff that I am also applying to my subjective evidence. I can't prove it to you, nor will I try, which is why I used scientific arguments at the outset. All I am saying is that you are completely discounting my subjective evidence as never having happened. You cannot prove that I have no evidence and I can not prove to you that I do. But my subjective evidence is stronger to me than any other because it's actual experience. I don't expect it to convince you.

I guess my question is, are you going to assume that everything I say is bogus and not worth listening to simply because I disagree with you? I am beginning to think so because I am using basic reasoning here yet you disagree with me still.

Geez Louise, there are no facts in science, only hypotheses that stood up or not.

Every theory or hypotheses or whatever is a series of concepts that attempt to allow the human creature to understand how some aspect of the Universe works.

Evidence can be objective or subjective. You can choose to reject subjective evidence, and the most stringent criteria do so. But the more control you exert, you run the risk of losing external validity. (Generalizability)

You can choose to exclusively use empirical data to decide which concepts you believe or disbelieve. But it is not the only available or even the only valid criteria for making those choices.

And again, ridiculing other's choices is ethically questionable at best and evil at worst.

You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.

AmbianceMan wrote:

So you admit to accepting the "best" explanation? Then quit saying it's a fact and admit it's just a theory.

What do you mean by "it's just a theory?"

AmbianceMan wrote:

I really don't understand how you came up with how I "utterly fail to understand what evolution is". I USED to believe in evolution. I USED to not believe the bible, and I USED to not believe in God, much like you now. But that was a long time ago. I understand the THEORIES behind evolution quite well. I was indoctrinated in the public school system and in college. My education indicates that I should believe just as you do. But things change and happen that have made me more aware and to see through these agendas for what they are. Just like Global Warming is being exposed for what it is, yet people refuse to accept it because it doesn't fit their agenda. This happens to a lot of people. The lens you look at the world through determines a LOT. I have looked through both sets and you have only seen through one.

Not getting into the Global Warming argument, but where/what/how is it being exposed for what it is?

And more to the point - why do you believe the exposing to be true and not Global Warming data?

AmbianceMan wrote:

Changes happen to people that prove to them the existence of a creator. Rick Wakeman and Kerry Livgren for example.

And the reverse happens too. Doesn't mean anything either way.

AmbianceMan wrote:

Let's say I see something and I tell you about it. You decide not to believe me because you didn't see it yourself. However, I definitely saw it. Does that mean it did not happen? No. It's much like that when searching for God. Things happen that you see that you know are not coincidence, but you can't prove them to anyone else who didn't see them. Meanwhile you just think I'm a nutcase making it all up for who knows what reason.

Much of that is down to how much trust we have in you, or whether you have alteria motives for a) telling us you had seen it, or b) pretending you had seen it. Thing is with religion it is your first hand account of your convertion that has any meaning to no one other than yourself.

AmbianceMan wrote:

I have evidence for my side, plenty of it. But it's subjective. That doesn't mean that it did not happen. It just means that you didn't see or experience it. Now I've never spoken in tongues or snake handled or anything like that, but I'm not going to say that it doesn't happen. It just means that it didn't happen to ME.

That doesn't mean you are unable to see it, it just means you haven't gone looking for it.

I was a member of a church that was part of the charismatic movement for sometime - at the time I believed it, I don't now.

AmbianceMan wrote:

You were not there when the "big bang" happened. You don't know. And most of the "evidence" you have seen has been filtered through others with a "belief system" that has caused much evidence to be skewed. I think most people are duped.

How are Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation measurements skewed exactly? Is it because its presence is explained by the Big-bang theory and not by creationist ideas?

AmbianceMan wrote:

Evolution is the popular and sexy thing to believe in and most people aren't willing to go against the grain. Just look at the poll.

Tisk! You do realise that saying Prog fans are voting for what is popular is heresy.

/edit - sorry Mike, didn;t see your response

Edited by Dean - December 05 2009 at 14:54

What?

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

AmbianceMan wrote:

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ you're not allowed to demand evidence, and evidence to the contrary is being ignored ... that's one of the concepts of religion (and, by analogy, of Intelligent Design / Creationism).

Making that analogy is wrong on so many levels. It's kind of like you grab two different things (i.e. Religion and a Concept) and throw them together and say it's some kind of equation.

I despise religion yet believe in a creator. In my world, evolutionists are the ones practicing religion. Now we have "Dawkinists" too who somehow feel validated that there is a high profile work discounting God that they can latch onto. No intention to, but I'm sure that will ignite a few flames.

However, I agree not to call your belief in evolution a religion as long as you don't call my belief in what the bible says a religion.

You won't get any flames from me ... my only complaint about the post is that you completely and utterly fail to understand what evolution is, and how scientists arrive at the conclusion that it's the best explanation of how we all came to be.