Evolution?

[mikehendo]

Silux:
Ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated here If you stoop to the level of attacking the poster, rather than the post you will quickly find that most people start to ignore you, and the rest report you to the staff..

[Deacon]

[quote="Martin Blank";p="504851"]I submit that much of the reason for accepting the words of a religion is that for some, it is presents a more comforting explanation to them than can a purely scientific view of evolution. Some people find the concepts embraced by religion to be more acceptable for a variety of reasons, be they guidance, intervention, afterlife, or any of a dozen other aspects covered by their beliefs. For some -- myself included -- this presents an uncomfortable concept because it cannot be reconciled directly with observations.[/quote]
I submit that you're wrong. Comfort levels are not and should not be the determining factor of whether you believe in the supernatural. In your case, you seem to be taking the same exact stance as the one you're condemning, except that you're putting all your eggs in the "It's only real if I can observe it" basket. However, I think that puts you in an odd position, because in reality by rejecting the idea that the supernatural possibly exists and restraining the context of your observations to that rule, it means you interpret everything you observe as a natural phenomenon that you simply can't explain yet. And I think we've figured out, too, that observation does not necessarily equate to reality, even in the sane. People observed for untold years that the entire night and day sky spun around the earth, so they concluded that the earth is the center of the universe. They were wrong. So what happens if you observe a miracle? Is that "proof "enough for you? Or do you brush it off as simply an area where science needs to advance to understand it?

[Silux]

I think the point is that we shouldn't be so willing to accept something we don't understand as a "miracle" or "supernatural".

[Martin Blank]

You've just defined the progression of theories, Deacon.

Observation: Sun progresses in arc from east to west on a daily basis.
Hypothesis: Sun circles the Earth.
Evidence: Models show accurate representations of a solar body circling the earth each day, correlating with observations.
Theory: The Earth is a spherical body, about which another spherical body, the Sun, orbits on a daily basis.

Observation: Planets are worlds unto themselves, and have complex motions in the sky. A simpler model has them all -- including the Earth -- circling the sun.
Hypothesis: Planets, including Earth, orbit the sun.
Evidence: Continued observations of the planets show greater correlation with a heliocentric system than with the classic terracentric system which must include complex models to account for planetary behavior.
Theory: The Sun is a spherical celestial body at the center of the solar system, about which the planets orbit.

Most theory changes aren't so dramatic as this, but we've seen adjustments to the model over time factoring in gravity, solar winds, and lots of other things.

And comfort has a lot to do with it. Everything we believe in is based on comfort at some level. We've all looked at an idea (theory or not) and been uncomfortable with it because it doesn't sound right, or because there's some aspect of it with which we would like to disagree, but we agree with it -- often hesitantly -- because some more fundamental belief in which the idea is rooted is something we understand and agree with, and which we are uncomfortable in letting go.

And you're right in that I tend to reject the idea of supernatural phenomena because it cannot be tested. Evidence of the past few millenia suggests to me that there is nearly always an underlying mechanism. It may be that I have to wait until I die to get a final answer, and it's possible that I'll be provided evidence at that point that the supernatural does exist.

If I observe some amazing feat, then I begin to look for a mechanism. Tales have been told of little old ladies pulling cars off of their husbands; some call it a miracle, and others call it a natural response. I would look for elevated blood hormone levels such as adrenaline, and examine the subject for muscle and skeletal damage consistent with an untrained person lifting a half-ton weight in a short time span.

There are some phenomena that would be harder to explain away, and which might provide evidence of the supernatural. A ghost of someone I knew, for example, with whom I was able to converse. The more people that saw it, the more comfortable I would be with the observation. If I saw it alone, I would question it afterward. It's just my nature.

[Silux]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8074471/

[Deacon]

Enough of your lengthy writings, Silux!

[Euthanatos]

Children are only the real victims if they stop using drugs and having sex and listening to rap long enough to care about evolution or religion.

[Grumlen]

. . . What was the point of linking that Silux? We're not arguing about the effect of the debate over evolution on society. We;re not arguing over who suffers the most because we can't resolve this. We're arguing over the theory itself.

And Euthanos, despite what the media may tell you, the majority of children do NOT use drugs, have sex, and listen to rap. However, the children that are doing those things are much more interesting than the ones that are "good," and thus you hear about them a lot more.

[Silux]

Grum, chill out. This being a recent evolution article of the day, I thought it might be a nice bookend for the topic that is aptly named Evolution. I actually found it very relevant to the discussion at hand, but perhaps that's just me.

[Martin Blank]

Yep, just you.

[Lakini]

[quote="Blaze";p="500562"]As you ALL know, the simplest explanation tends to be the most correct. So, what's more simple, I ask you? That evolution just happened, over a couple billion years of life-form development, to go to EXACTLY where we are today? Exactly, compared to the nearly infinite other possibilities that exist? Or is it more simple to suppose that a creator working through the means of evolution caused us to come to where we are?

To be honest, the latter sounds much more likely to ME. A 1 in 2 chance rather than a 1 in infinity.[/quote]

I realise this is a 10 page thread, and I'm giong back to page 1, but I've been away a while and when I saw this I couldn't let it go.

Flip a fair coin a billion times. Write down H or T for each flip, depending on head and tail. Now what is the probability of getting that EXACT sequence. 2 to the Billion. Wow. Pretty Unlikely. Must be some sort of deity involved there, at a probability of 1 in 2???!!!

[Deacon]

Wait, what? Your post didn't make any sense. Is that Maynard (or Ed Kowalczyk) and Adam Duritz in your avatar?

[Schmuck]

I think the point of that post was that even though something is unlikely, it's not impossible, and we don't need divine intervention to explain things that are possible naturally.

[Proginosko]

http://www.apologetics.org/fastfactsonid.html

Here is a website which explains the ideas of the ID movement.

[ajaxrynu]

3. Is intelligent design based on the Bible?

No. The intellectual roots of intelligent design theory are varied. Plato and Aristotle both articulated early versions of design theory, as did virtually all of the founders of modern science.

I'm going to have to claim bullshit on that. You can't make up a theory and find evidence that supports it afterwards.