banner_jpg
Username/Email: Password:
Forums

Evolution faith//fact?

Poll
Do you think evolution is a faith?
Yes
No
Don't know/care
You must login to vote.

Pages (9) [ First ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Last ] Next
You must be registered to post!
From User
Message Body
Post #174745
user avatar
Pofigists
Member

3:13 pm, Jul 1 2008
Posts: 86


Quote
Most bible people don't. It's the other religions.


O rly? Haven't heard of islam, hinduism or budhism falowers trying to make a pseudo science from their religion, on topic "How the world was made".
Bible people are the only ones who have managed to get their "war with science" on educational levels.

Last edited by RexIX at 3:33 pm, Jul 1 2008

________________
"Computer games don't affect kids....
I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."
/Kristian Wilson, Nintendo Inc, 1989
Member

3:28 pm, Jul 1 2008
Posts: 8


I couldn't answer in a yes or no to the question because the word evolution can mean many things. The controversy of the theory of evolution comes from the fact that it includes macroevolution and abiogenesis. Most people with a little bit of knowledge on the topic wouldn't deny that microevolution can happen That isn't, however, evidence that macroevolution and abiogenesis has happened.

I recommend reading scienceagainstevolution.org if you are interested in the holes in the theory of evolution.

Quote from Crenshinibon
That's not exactly how radiometric dating works. If by "rocks date the fossils" you mean "radioactive material dates the fossils" then you're partially correct, however it functions a bit differently. The general idea (at least how I understand it, and anyone who can prove me wrong or clarify discrepancies would be welcomed, it's been a while since I learned this) is that that carbon-14 in once-living things is produced and decays at a more or less constant rate, which makes the amount in the world constant. Living things constantly take in carbon (including carbon-14) is a large variety of ways, and as a result all living things have the same percentage of carbon-14 in their bodies at any given time. When it dies, it stops taking in new forms of carbon, but the carbon-14 still beta decays in accordance with its half life, so you can tell how old something is based on the percentage of remaining carbon-14 in the sample, and how long it would take to decay down from the original amount. It works to about 50,000 years, I think, and naturally we have stuff from that far back. There are other radioactive elements that can be used, I think, but carbon is the most accurate or easily testable.


The Carbon 14 Myth

user avatar
Local Prig
Member

4:35 pm, Jul 1 2008
Posts: 1899


For the record- I never stated carbon dating as a proof for evolution, I merely refuted the idea that it's method is done paradoxically. However, that article has a flaw in its logic that states that it's impossible to calibrate past 5,000 years due to that being the end of recorded history, while it has been correctly done by calibrating against certain types of trees using their rings for up to 45,000.

That site itself is interesting though, I read a few of the articles. They were rational and well written (with the possible exception of the one that attempted to prove that dinosaurs may have coexisted with humans, which made them lose a lot of credibility in my eyes). I can't say that I agree with a lot of what was said, but the most important point was that abiogenesis does have to be proven to be possible at some point for evolution to be considered correct.

________________
User Posted Image
Reviews of my Work:
You are kind of boring - Blackorion
Congratulations! Ur an asshole! - tokyo_homi
Your awesome!!! - Cherelle_Ashley
NightSwan also said that she wanted to peg me, once, but I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or a threat...
Post #174771 - Reply to (#174766) by Crenshinibon
Member

4:51 pm, Jul 1 2008
Posts: 8


Quote from Crenshinibon
For the record- I never stated carbon dating as a proof for evolution, I merely refuted the idea that it's method is done paradoxically. However, that article has a flaw in its logic that states that it's impossible to calibrate past 5,000 years due to that being the end of recorded history, while it has been correctly done by calibrating against certain types of trees using their rings for up to 45,000.


There are serious flaws when using tree ring dating. For one it has shown that trees such as the Pinus radiata can produce a varied number of rings per year (up to 5) and thus cannot accurately depict its actual age. The extra rings are indistinguishable.


Post #176683
user avatar
Mad
Member

8:12 am, Jul 7 2008
Posts: 225


To you whom this thread has been even remotely interesting, I happened upon an essay or something of sorts through reddit.com, which while I was reading figured that you guys ought to give a try reading... it is sort of related to the things discussed in this thread.

I'm not posting it to prove or disprove anything... just to show how some of us think about things, about science... sharing a point of view. http://www.hal.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~drebes/value.html

Post #512924
Member

12:24 pm, Dec 17 2011
Posts: 302


the problem isn't with Evolution (since microbio evolution is a fact)
but the problem is Darwinism which isn't a theory it became an ideology that shape socio-political decisions and shape elite and intellectual values and morals
and since it's an ideology it tries to dominate and enter in conflict with other ideologies and that's the problem
remember phrenology and eugenics it's all that old forgotten story back dead
i'm also against science-born ideology (the soviet union upheld science and persecuted religions) if it became too extreme (i hold the absolute truth and the oposing views are wrong and delusional ) will cause much damage
but fighting fanatic science-born religion or ideology by attacking science is pure foolishness
(like what some well know camp is doing) and will backfire with even more greater damage then the one done by these dominating supremacist science-born ideologies

to show you how wrong and foolish ideology and philosophy can do damage to science
remember how Aristotelian philosophy damaged and rigidified science for centuries (one of Aristotelian victims where the early greek and indian atomism)
and last to answer the question yes Evolution is a faith
but science itself is a system of belief
but Darwinism is pure blind faith in morals and values that have nothing to do with science but are purely derived from philosophy

Last edited by jasperv at 12:43 pm, Dec 17 2011

Post #512942 - Reply to (#512924) by jasperv
user avatar
Local Prig
Member

2:03 pm, Dec 17 2011
Posts: 1899


Quote from jasperv
the problem isn't with Evolution (since microbio evolution is a fact)
but the problem is Darwinism which isn't a theory it became an ideology that shape socio-political decisions and shape elite and intellectual values and morals
and since it's an ideology it tries to dominate and enter in conflict with other ideologies and that's the problem
remember phrenology and eugenics it's all that old forgotten story back dead
i'm also against science-born ideology (the soviet union upheld science and persecuted religions) if it became too extreme (i hold the absolute truth and the oposing views are wrong and delusional ) will cause much damage
but fighting fanatic science-born religion or ideology by attacking science is pure foolishness
(like what some well know camp is doing) and will backfire with even more greater damage then the one done by these dominating supremacist science-born ideologies

to show you how wrong and foolish ideology and philosophy can do damage to science
remember how Aristotelian philosophy damaged and rigidified science for centuries (one of Aristotelian victims where the early greek and indian atomism)
and last to answer the question yes Evolution is a faith
but science itself is a system of belief
but Darwinism is pure blind faith in morals and values that have nothing to do with science but are purely derived from philosophy


You understand that Social Darwinism and evolutionary theory are two entirely different things, right? Social Darwinism has nothing to do with the scientific approach and just mistakenly lifted some of the ideas present in the text and misguidedly attempted to form them into a philosophy. It's like equating all of Christianity with fundamentalist, literal interpretations of the Bible. Neither of those texts were written with that intent, but because there are a lot of, well, idiots out there, misinterpretations happen and become widespread.

________________
User Posted Image
Reviews of my Work:
You are kind of boring - Blackorion
Congratulations! Ur an asshole! - tokyo_homi
Your awesome!!! - Cherelle_Ashley
NightSwan also said that she wanted to peg me, once, but I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or a threat...
Post #512947
user avatar
Member

2:18 pm, Dec 17 2011
Posts: 705


You know what's funny?

"Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted... What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which described the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened."

--- Hubert P. Yockey, 1977

Last edited by FormX at 2:28 pm, Dec 17 2011

________________
"I'll shut your mouth~~~~~ with mine~~~"

二息歩行
Member

2:29 pm, Dec 17 2011
Posts: 198


This is in general about scientific theory, and not Evolution specifically, but...

Science will never be about faith. Ever. You are actively encouraged to be cynical about conclusions, to look for other logical interpretations, and if you ever do find a contradiction, and can report on it with accuracy and clarity, you will be lauded for it.

And as to Religion vs Scientific Theory, the two are polar opposites. Scientific theories try to explain how and why the universe works. Religion creates a how and a why, then tries to bend the universe to its explanation.

Post #512961 - Reply to (#512950) by wolfinthesheep
Member

3:48 pm, Dec 17 2011
Posts: 55


Quote from wolfinthesheep
This is in general about scientific theory, and not Evolution specifically, but...

Science will never be about faith. Ever. You are actively encouraged to be cynical about conclusions, to look for other logical interpretations, and if you ever do find a contradiction, and can report on it with accuracy and clarity, you will be lauded for it.

And as to Religion vs Scientific Theory, the two are polar opposites. Scientific theories try to explain how and why the universe works. Religion creates a how and a why, then tries to bend the universe to its explanation.


Science is faith. It might've been veryfied hundreds of thousands of times on different occassions under different circumstances in different areas, however that does not mean it is true. There is a reason why mathematicians start with a system of axioms (e.g. natural numbers exist) saying "okay, this is what we believe is true and we start building our theories from those chosen axioms, for we cannot prove that something is true out of nothing.".

The difference between science and religion is that logic governs all, however that does not make it true.

Member

4:26 pm, Dec 17 2011
Posts: 23


Belief in the fact of evolution is no more faith than belief in the fact of gravity. There is an abundance of evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines - in the case of evolution e.g. geology (age of the earth), biology (adaptations; number of species), chemistry (the shape and function of DNA) and so on.

Not believing in evolution is like not believing in gravity. You are free to do so. But you still wouldn't jump off a building, certain that you'd survive, right?
Similarly, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Medicines like vaccines and antibiotics depend on the fact of evolution. You don't believe in evolution? Then you also believe that these medicines don't work. If you acted on that belief, however, you'd die from easily preventable illnesses and diseases. So don't.


Also, there is no such thing as a separation of evolution into "microevolution" and "macroevolution". That's an invention by evolution deniers.

Post #512964 - Reply to (#512961) by JustPassingBy
Member

4:35 pm, Dec 17 2011
Posts: 198


Quote from JustPassingBy
Science is faith. It might've been veryfied hundreds of thousands of times on different occassions under different circumstances in different areas, however that does not mean it is true. There is a reason why mathematicians start with a system of axioms (e.g. natural numbers exist) saying "okay, this is what we believe is true and we start building our theories from those chosen axioms, for we cannot prove that something is true out of nothing.".

The difference between science and religion is that logic governs all, however that does not make it true.

This is entirely false. Science is built up from observations of occurrences that are experienced, and Math is built from defined representations for concepts. Absolutely none of them are assumptions that could or could not be true. The theory of gravity was created from the observations that objects fall towards the earth, 1+1=2 is built from the definitions of the numbers that represent objects, etc.

The Theory of Evolution is not accepted as "faith". It's accepted as the best explanation for all observed facts, excluding absolutely none, with the understanding that they Theory will be modified or thrown out entirely if contradictions arise.

At no point in science are you asked to believe in things with no facts and evidence supporting them, and at no point are you asked to believe in them without compromise.

Member

9:03 pm, Dec 17 2011
Posts: 87


Those to say Science is faith, religion or require a certain kind of "belief" are people who don't even know what Science even mean. In the olden days of famous philosophers and mathematicians, science would mean the body of logical "knowledge". For example, if you heat the water high enough, it will boil or water boils at 100C. Nowadays, Science, down to its most basic core, is a method of study. More or less a "how to" guide on how to analyze facts, develop theories and debunk them. It's like "how to make an omelet" or "how to replace the battery". Saying science is faith is like saying "how to make an omelet" is faith or (more insane) religion.

The major difference between "Faith" and "Theory" is that faith does not require facts to support it and it can not predict an outcome while theory requires supporting facts to support it and you can use a theory to predict an outcome. Faith is similar to a theory but it's something you believe in no matter what, it doesn't have to be true and it can be anything from random insane fiction to totally awesome ideas. For example, you can say "water boils because God wills it" - there is no fact to support that but it can try to explain the event that water boils when you heat it. However, you can't use the "god wills it" to predict at what time or what temperature a pot of water is going to boil. People often mistaken that scientists use theories as if they were facts. People who studied a science major know that theories are not facts. A theory is most reasonable, likely or most corrected explanation given the facts. Theories are used to explain facts so scientists can develop additional theories and/or predict future events.

An perfectly good example of theory vs faith is a thought experiment. Suppose there is an apple on the table of a closed room and you and another guy is in the room. You look away for 5sec and the apple disappear. You will then make a 'theory' that the other guy has taken the apple. This is a theory because it is the most reasonable explanation given the facts. It will also predict that given the same event again, the guy will repeat in taking the apple. The theory is not a fact because you didn't actually see him taking the apple and it's not going to be 100% sure that you will find the apple on the guy if you conduct a search. Suppose you ask the guy about the apple and he says "a space alien took it". If you believe his word then it's called faith.

The theory of evolution is a theory (a very strong one); it is not a fact. It's still a theory because there is a possibility for something better to come along. It's a solid/strong theory because it is the strongest and most reasonable explanation given all the facts in biology.

Last edited by Oddwaffle at 9:19 pm, Dec 17 2011

user avatar
Member

9:21 pm, Dec 17 2011
Posts: 128


Yeah, I know this is just a manga forum, but I'm starting to doubt the judgement of people who claim that humans don't evolve. Well, people are free to believe what they want, but I would just like to mention that ignorance is NOT bliss. Why not read an elementary science textbook to get the gist of what evolution actually is and the overwhelming evidence towards evolution.

There are tons of data supporting evolution - observed divergent populations over just 60 generations, DNA homology sequences, rRNA, protein homology sequences, genetic code, developmental mechanisms etc etc, that it is just illogical how someone can still try and refute that it isn't true, regardless of whether God exists.

This is just daft and it's not like God isn't compatable with evolutionary principles - we call this theistic evolution. It amazes me to no end how people can indulge in such absurd confirmation bias when the evidence is staring at you right in the face - well whatever. I hope no one like that gets in power and screws up the minds of our young impressionable ones - or worse still, enter science research.

Post #513019 - Reply to (#513018) by kawaiiusagichan
Member

9:33 pm, Dec 17 2011
Posts: 100


Quote from kawaiiusagichan
Yeah, I know this is just a manga forum, but I'm starting to doubt the judgement of people who claim that humans don't evolve. Well, people are free to believe what they want, but I would just like to mention that ignorance is NOT bliss. Why not read an elementary science textbook to get the gist of what evolution actually is and the overwhelming evidence towards evolution.

There are tons of data supporting evolution - observed divergent populations over just 60 generations, DNA homology sequences, rRNA, protein homology sequences, genetic code, developmental mechanisms etc etc, that it is just illogical how someone can still try and refute that it isn't true, regardless of whether God exists.

This is just daft and it's not like God isn't compatable with evolutionary principles - we call this theistic evolution. It amazes me to no end how people can indulge in such absurd confirmation bias when the evidence is staring at you right in the face - well whatever. I hope no one like that gets in power and screws up the minds of our young impressionable ones - or worse still, enter science research.

i agree with you, but the god of the Abrahamic religions is not compatible with evolution. thats why there is a huge resistance to it


Pages (9) [ First ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Last ] Next
You must be registered to post!