d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Creationism Vs Evolution > Creationists Defend
12322Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 26,025
Joined: Jun 14 2006
Gold: 5,300.00
Warn: 10%
May 19 2010 01:30am
To Start, I am just a man lost in thought every day about the beginning, the current, and the end. I have been talking with my ex lately about evolution. She strongly believes in this theory, I don't care that she does or doesn't. But I want proof, actual facts that doesn't differ from scientist to scientist to opinionated. I have spent basically my whole life open to every idea. Although I was raised christian by my parents and since it was the first thing I learned, it was the thing I thought to be right. Years going by, I just cannot see creationism happening, but I am very hesitant to say hello I am blob of goo that was exposed to radiation or something turning out to be human many many years later. Although it is impossible to deny Natural Selection, to what extent can we prove?

This is what I want to hear from you pro-evolution:
References to times complete with matching dates and the Scientists/Authors name to who established this as "proof".(not first paged googled ideas that you don't know or think to be correct. please)
Quotes, I would also like referenced by the Author of them.
I want you to prove any and every aspect of evolution you have knowledge of.( I really like to learn what I don't know)

Creationists, this is what I want to see from you:
Because you cannot prove the theory, it is only faith that this concept is brought in, I want you to play full DEFENSIVE vs any ones opinions or facts you believe to be wrong.
I do not want, cause God's word tells us. I know what it says, I just cannot blindly follow something as many do.(not calling it wrong)

I am trying to prove evolution to disprove organized religion(kinda but not limited to)
I am trying to disprove evolution so I can move onto a different theory to try to come up with my own answer possibly by process of elimination.(at least help me think)

I will read this very often and look forward to opinions and facts.

PLEASE BEFORE YOU POST:
I do not want facts to appear as an opinion, I will question EVERYTHING you give me. If you refer to a quote, make sure we know who said it. If you refer to a date please tell us exactly when. I do not want half-assed stuff from people on evolutions side.
I really would like the ones who care or just have free time to help with this problem of mine. Talking it out will at least maybe help point me to where I should be looking for info.
Member
Posts: 96,125
Joined: Mar 15 2007
Gold: 7,252.72
May 19 2010 01:32am
Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive .
Member
Posts: 62,215
Joined: Jun 3 2007
Gold: 9,039.20
May 19 2010 01:33am
Quote (WidowMaKer_MK @ May 19 2010 01:32am)
Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive .


Don't get all philosophical on me Nihlathak.

Member
Posts: 5,219
Joined: Oct 29 2009
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 20%
May 19 2010 02:51am
Quote (tagged4nothing @ May 19 2010 12:30am)
To Start, I am just a man lost in thought every day about the beginning, the current, and the end.  I have been talking with my ex lately about evolution.  She strongly believes in this theory, I don't care that she does or doesn't.  But I want proof, actual facts that doesn't differ from scientist to scientist to opinionated.  I have spent basically my whole life open to every idea.  Although I was raised christian by my parents and since it was the first thing I learned, it was the thing I thought to be right.  Years going by, I just cannot see creationism happening, but I am very hesitant to say hello I am blob of goo that was exposed to radiation or something turning out to be human many many years later.  Although it is impossible to deny Natural Selection, to what extent can we prove?

This is what I want to hear from you pro-evolution:
References to times complete with matching dates and the Scientists/Authors name to who established this as "proof".(not first paged googled ideas that you don't know or think to be correct.  please)
Quotes, I would also like referenced by the Author of them.
I want you to prove any and every aspect of evolution you have knowledge of.( I really like to learn what I don't know)

Creationists, this is what I want to see from you:
Because you cannot prove the theory, it is only faith that this concept is brought in, I want you to play full DEFENSIVE vs any ones opinions or facts you believe to be wrong.
I do not want, cause God's word tells us.  I know what it says, I just cannot blindly follow something as many do.(not calling it wrong)

I am trying to prove evolution to disprove organized religion(kinda but not limited to)
I am trying to disprove evolution so I can move onto a different theory to try to come up with my own answer possibly by process of elimination.(at least help me think)

I will read this very often and look forward to opinions and facts.

PLEASE BEFORE YOU POST:
I do not want facts to appear as an opinion, I will question EVERYTHING you give me.  If you refer to a quote, make sure we know who said it.  If you refer to a date please tell us exactly when.  I do not want half-assed stuff from people on evolutions side.
I really would like the ones who care or just have free time to help with this problem of mine.  Talking it out will at least maybe help point me to where I should be looking for info.


Nothing in science is proven. We have explanations with evidence --but those aren't proofs. Expecting evolution to be proven is pretty retarded.


I'm sorry science isn't able to offer you that sense of assurance and/ or certainty. Maybe you should pick up theology.



Quote
but I am very hesitant to say hello I am blob of goo that was exposed to radiation or something turning out to be human many many years later.

Quote
References to times complete with matching dates and the Scientists/Authors name to who established this as "proof".

Quote
I am trying to prove evolution to disprove organized religion(kinda but not limited to)
I am trying to disprove evolution so I can move onto a different theory to try to come up with my own answer possibly by process of elimination.(at least help me think)

You are a monumental anus.

Oh, and apparently you haven't heard of Charles Darwin (not that it matters, but fucking shit, get a clue).

This post was edited by infinitesimal on May 19 2010 03:07am
Member
Posts: 20,165
Joined: Dec 5 2007
Gold: 692.20
May 19 2010 02:53am
Quote
but I am very hesitant to say hello I am blob of goo that was exposed to radiation or something turning out to be human many many years later

Before starting, I'd just like to point out that the acceptance of evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive. Many Christians and people of all religions accept evolution. They would argue that God created us through the process of evolution.

Quote
References to times complete with matching dates and the Scientists/Authors name to who established this as "proof".(not first paged googled ideas that you don't know or think to be correct. please)
Quotes, I would also like referenced by the Author of them.

I don't really understand what you're asking here, however, I recommend first learning the basic concepts of evolution before delving into the evidence for it. University of California, Berkeley has an excellent website that teaches the basics:

Evolution 101:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

After reading all of that, they also provide some evidence for evolution:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46


Talkorigins is another website I highly recommend.

The Scientific Case for Common Descent:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

This is a lot longer and goes into greater detail than the Berkley website.
Member
Posts: 28,450
Joined: Apr 2 2007
Gold: 678.00
May 19 2010 06:42am
It seems to me that the OP doesn't know the actual meaning of words like 'fact', 'proof', 'theory', ...
Member
Posts: 13,510
Joined: Apr 15 2006
Gold: 20.00
Warn: 80%
May 19 2010 06:43am
Quote (hATemOnkEy @ May 20 2010 01:42am)
It seems to me that the OP doesn't know the actual meaning of words like 'fact', 'proof', 'theory', ...


i'm guna need proof to back this up thanks
Member
Posts: 5,962
Joined: Dec 28 2007
Gold: 0.00
May 19 2010 06:43am
Quote (hATemOnkEy @ May 19 2010 09:42am)
It seems to me that the OP doesn't know the actual meaning of words like 'fact', 'proof', 'theory', ...


or "lie"
Member
Posts: 28,450
Joined: Apr 2 2007
Gold: 678.00
May 19 2010 06:55am
Quote (Mr_Bilson @ 19 May 2010 13:43)
i'm guna need proof to back this up thanks


Read his post. And then compare with this:

Quote
In philosophy, the concept fact is considered in epistemology and ontology. Questions of objectivity and truth are closely associated with questions of fact. A "fact" can be defined as something which is the case, that is, the state of affairs[13]  reported by a true proposition.[14][15]

Facts may be understood as that which makes a true sentence true. For example, the statement "Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system" is made true by the fact Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system
. Facts may also be understood as those things to which a true sentence refers. The statement "Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system" is about the fact Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system.[16]


Quote
In scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency  of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena. Such theories are constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.[6]

A scientific theory is a deductive theory, in that, its content is based on some formal system of logic and that some of its elementary theorems are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[5]


Quote
Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. The term "testability" is related but more specific; it means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation alone.

For example, "all men are mortal" is unfalsifiable, since no finite amount of observation could ever demonstrate its falsehood: that one or more men can live forever. "All men are immortal," by contrast, is falsifiable, by the presentation of just one dead man. Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice. For example, "it will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically so.

Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The concept was made popular by Karl Popper, who, in his philosophical analysis of the scientific method, concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is "scientific" only if it is falsifiable. Popper asserted that unfalsifiable statements are non-scientific, but not of zero importance. For example, meta-physical or religious propositions have cultural or spiritual meaning, and the ancient metaphysical and unfalsifiable idea of the existence of atoms has led to corresponding falsifiable modern theories. A falsifiable theory that has withstood severe scientific testing is said to be corroborated by past experience, though in Popper's view this is not equivalent with confirmation and does not lead to the conclusion that the theory is true or even partially true.



...
Banned
Posts: 2,017
Joined: Oct 27 2009
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 20%
May 19 2010 07:08am
Well I'm going to go ahead and throw the combobreak argument out there, which is basically what infinite said.

Science is limited by perspective and subjectivity. All scientific means are subjective in that the most basic sciences (chemistry and physics) are bound to use tools that follow the "laws" they are trying to prove. To objectively provide evidence you would have use tools and means that exist beyond the physics you are testing, and likewise with chemistry. Even if this was possible those tools would also be bound to a set of rules and would themselves have a degree of subjectivity. What you end up with is an infinite chain of tools proving tools in an attempt to reach objectivity.

So what I am saying is that science is built on faith, in the same way religion is built on faith. Each side believes their tools are objective, or at least enough so to adequately support their viewpoint. It is foolish to attempt to "prove" anything as there is always the argument of objectivity.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
12322Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll