Jump to content


Photo

Evolution & The Big Bang - Proven or Not?


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#17 Darkademic

Darkademic
  • – Enigmatic Overlord –

  • 4,971 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Short Name:Dark

Posted 05 August 2013 - 01:45 pm

you must have faith in you unproven theory to then go on and try to prove it regardless of the amount of stumbling blocks on the way there must of been faith in the theory that the higs boson existed for them to spend years looking for it one could say that people with no faith have no imagination

 

Theories are based on evidence though. You don't just invent a theory out of thin air, you follow where the evidence leads you. And until it's proven, you don't believe it's true.

 

A scientist only believes a theory is true to the extent that the evidence supports it. Faith on the other hand is detached from evidence completely, and when faith is given priority over evidence I think that's extremely dangerous.


  • 1

darkademic_thin_sig.png
Рациональный разум. Военачальник Загадочных Призраков.


#18 Prophet

Prophet
  • [DkR] Clan Member (Inactive)
  • 61 posts
  • Location:Essex, UK

Posted 05 August 2013 - 04:11 pm

It wasn't a video attempting to disprove God or argue against religion (which he's done elsewhere), so you can't judge it on that basis.

 

In that case, why did he even mention it?


  • 0

#19 Devlin1991

Devlin1991
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 987 posts
  • Location:Glagsow
  • Short Name:Devlin

Posted 05 August 2013 - 04:39 pm

there ya go fixed it for you ;)


I realised that I don't have the willpower to engage in a long term debate with people I see are very unlikely to change their stance regardless of evidence put forward. Dark may enjoy having year long debates on these topics but I personally don't feel it's worth my time. I will continue to "tolerate" those who have faith based believes instead of continuing to spend time on the debate.


  • 0

#20 omphin

omphin
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 489 posts
  • Short Name:Bobby

Posted 05 August 2013 - 05:19 pm

Theories are based on evidence though. You don't just invent a theory out of thin air, you follow where the evidence leads you. And until it's proven, you don't believe it's true.

 

A scientist only believe a theory to be true to the extent that the evidence supports it. Faith on the other hand is detached from evidence completely, and when faith is given priority over evidence I think that's extremely dangerous.

 

Evolution is a theory, it is not proven, yet it is taught in schools all around the western world. There are these so called "missing links" which are missing evidence to prove this theory. And so they came up with a term called punctuated equilibrium to explain away the need for these missing links. is that good science? The fact is Evolution requires the same amount of faith as any other religion. And atheist's cling to evolution likes its their own bible. Is there any atheist that doesnt believe in evolution?


Edited by omphin, 05 August 2013 - 05:22 pm.

  • 0

#21 Darkademic

Darkademic
  • – Enigmatic Overlord –

  • 4,971 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Short Name:Dark

Posted 05 August 2013 - 05:37 pm

I'm all for engaging in a debate on what i believe however after a while if the other person is totally closed to what you are saying then I believe its better to live and let live. I never hinted that I would ignore someone's most deeply held beliefs so I don't know where that came from. I would be the same as you in that i believe its healthy to be able to talk about things people disagree on

 

Didn't mean to imply either one, I was just indicating the two possibilities (ignore a person's beliefs or talk about them).

 

I'm not sure whether live and let live is a good principle in all cases, it depends whether the beliefs are harmful or not. In general I suppose it's fine, but it concerns me when people are closed off from reason and evidence, since they could conceivably believe in absolutely anything without a common frame of reference to work with.

 

Evolution is a theory, it is not proven, yet it is taught in schools all around the western world. There are these so called "missing links" which are missing evidence to prove this theory. And so they came up with a term called punctuated equilibrium to explain away the need for these missing links. is that good science? The fact is Evolution requires the same amount of faith as any other religion. And atheist's cling to evolution likes its their own bible. Is there any atheist that doesnt believe in evolution?

 

That's a misconception. It's a theory, but it's proven, with around the same level of proof as the theory of gravity. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming. There aren't any missing links, the continuum is satisfactorily complete, and there hasn't been a single piece of evidence to suggest the theory is incorrect. There are also no competing theories.


  • 1

darkademic_thin_sig.png
Рациональный разум. Военачальник Загадочных Призраков.


#22 Darkademic

Darkademic
  • – Enigmatic Overlord –

  • 4,971 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Short Name:Dark

Posted 05 August 2013 - 06:01 pm

In that case, why did he even mention it?

 

He uses religion as an example of something we are told to be tolerant of, but the video itself isn't trying to prove anything with regards to religion or its validity.


  • 0

darkademic_thin_sig.png
Рациональный разум. Военачальник Загадочных Призраков.


#23 omphin

omphin
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 489 posts
  • Short Name:Bobby

Posted 05 August 2013 - 06:54 pm

That's a misconception. It's a theory, but it's proven, with around the same level of proof as the theory of gravity. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming. There aren't any missing links, the continuum is satisfactorily complete, and there hasn't been a single piece of evidence to suggest the theory is incorrect. There are also no competing theories.

 

Proven? Please enlighten us as to which process of Evolution you believe in as there are a few. If the darwin belief that we decend from apes, then from what did the apes evolve from, and so on. IS there fossils to prove this theory? I mean physical proof from fish to fish/frog to the rest of the species that are involved in the jump of evolution from amoeba to human being. Cause i have yet to see any fossil evidence save the so called ape men fossils which is supossed to connect apes to men, (which i think is a load of bull)

 

Or are you of the school of punctuated equilibrium where you believe that due to lack of fossil evidence the jumps in evolution happened in bigger leaps such as a fish spawning a frog so that there was such a short window in time that no fossils of the jump were left behind.

 

Also there is creationism, that's a theory and even if it wasn't I don't think it means that you then go ahead and teach something as fact when its just a theory. In my book evolution should be treated like a faith not like proven science, but that's my opinion.


Edited by omphin, 05 August 2013 - 06:57 pm.

  • 0

#24 Prophet

Prophet
  • [DkR] Clan Member (Inactive)
  • 61 posts
  • Location:Essex, UK

Posted 05 August 2013 - 06:57 pm

He uses religion as an example of something people are told to be tolerant of, but the video itself isn't trying to prove anything with regards to religion or its validity.

 

He could have just as easily said "religion is an example of something people are told to be tolerant of".

 

Whether or not what he said with regards to faith was the primary topic of the video is irrelevant; the fact is, he said it, and as such it is subject to critique. It really didn't need to be said at all.


  • 0

#25 Darkademic

Darkademic
  • – Enigmatic Overlord –

  • 4,971 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Short Name:Dark

Posted 05 August 2013 - 07:03 pm

He could have just as easily said "religion is an example of something people are told to be tolerant of".

 

Whether or not what he said with regards to faith was the primary topic of the video is irrelevant; the fact is, he said it, and as such it is subject to critique. It really didn't need to be said at all.

 

You're critiquing the video as if was his attempt to disprove religion though, which it wasn't. You're dropping the context.


  • 0

darkademic_thin_sig.png
Рациональный разум. Военачальник Загадочных Призраков.


#26 Prophet

Prophet
  • [DkR] Clan Member (Inactive)
  • 61 posts
  • Location:Essex, UK

Posted 05 August 2013 - 07:12 pm

You're critiquing the video as if was his attempt to disprove religion though, which it wasn't. You're dropping the context.

 

Okay, perhaps the wording of my first post was a little unclear. I don't mean to criticize the video as a whole, only what he has said with regards to religion.

 

I have dropped the context entirely and am focusing solely on that section because I think that it is worth mentioning. It should have no bearing on his other arguments whatsoever.


  • 0

#27 Darkademic

Darkademic
  • – Enigmatic Overlord –

  • 4,971 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Short Name:Dark

Posted 05 August 2013 - 08:42 pm

Proven? Please enlighten us as to which process of Evolution you believe in as there are a few. If the darwin belief that we decend from apes, then from what did the apes evolve from, and so on. IS there fossils to prove this theory? I mean physical proof from fish to fish/frog to the rest of the species that are involved in the jump of evolution from amoeba to human being. Cause i have yet to see any fossil evidence save the so called ape men fossils which is supossed to connect apes to men, (which i think is a load of bull)

 

Or are you of the school of punctuated equilibrium where you believe that due to lack of fossil evidence the jumps in evolution happened in bigger leaps such as a fish spawning a frog so that there was such a short window in time that no fossils of the jump were left behind.

 

Also there is creationism, that's a theory and even if it wasn't I don't think it means that you then go ahead and teach something as fact when its just a theory. In my book evolution should be treated like a faith not like proven science, but that's my opinion.

 

It's not the fossil evidence that is the most convincing, it's the genetic evidence. Within the human genome we still have masses of "junk DNA" left over from our evolutionary past (this is something I've studied extensively as a result of the debates I've had with racists over the last 8 years or so), and we can identify regions which correspond to other distantly related species. Since we have a pretty good understand of how DNA works now, and how genetic material is passed on from one generation to the next, we are able to understand how this junk DNA came about. We share approximately 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, and we share around 50-60% of our DNA with bananas - illustrating that all life shares a distant common ancestor.

 

Also, evolution has been observed first-hand in rapidly reproducing species. We have created new species that can no longer interbreed with each other just by watching them reproduce in laboratory environments. Human evolution works in exactly the same way, just over longer periods of time.

 

Do you have a reason to doubt evolution other than having a preexisting contradictory religious belief? Have you studied evolutionary biology or genetics?

 

Creationism isn't a theory, it's an assertion, as there is no evidence for it.


  • 0

darkademic_thin_sig.png
Рациональный разум. Военачальник Загадочных Призраков.


#28 mixe

mixe
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 1,123 posts
  • Location:javia
  • Short Name:Mike

Posted 05 August 2013 - 09:21 pm

ok where do I start right 1st off then the atheist is looking at it wrong as he thinks man has become superior through evolution and the religious is looking at it wrong as he thinks some dude in a white gown and a white beard waved his wand and made man on the earth.

 

Right I will let you into a secret no one gives a fook about man not even man gives a fook about man you see entropy is a bitch

now the next thing is faith dude you looking at it wrong faith is not exclusive to religion some scientist look too prove there ideas all their life till they die that's faith, faith is like trust with the unproven.

 

Now I have faith of a grand architect  but I also got a fucked up head, you see if there is a god then the chances are it isn't a man now Darwin picked up on a good un and that was if there is a god then why would wasps be so cruel where he fucked up was calling it a day after he hit evolution.  

 

What if there is a god and he is half fluffy and half bad ass mother fucker with a sick mind who created the universe for energy/dark matter and we are just fuck ups from it which now drain resources you see everything seems to feed off everything, thermo dynamics are the price of life. Don't you find it intriguing that something as random as life requires something uniform/structured like math.

 

Well that's my 1st  are we just a 5/6ft virus devlin tell me plz as you know alot more here than me on this one computer viruses? wtf are they can they make them selves ? also stuff like mrsa this small life form popped up outa no where same with HIV now we are trying to compete with nano tech which is man made

 

2nd the whole quantum thing could it be method of containment double slit and the whole multiple universe thing really gets the ball rolling  with that line of thought one cold say that looking in the highest dimension would be gods realm 

 

when you look at the scale of thing then mankind's existence and understanding of the universe is minute.


  • 0

#29 omphin

omphin
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 489 posts
  • Short Name:Bobby

Posted 05 August 2013 - 10:04 pm

It's not the fossil evidence that is the most convincing, it's the genetic evidence. Within the human genome we still have masses of "junk DNA" left over from our evolutionary past (this is something I've studied extensively as a result of the debates I've had with racists over the last 8 years or so), and we can identify regions which correspond to other distantly related species. Since we have a pretty good understand of how DNA works now, and how genetic material is passed on from one generation to the next, we are able to understand how this junk DNA came about. We share approximately 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, and we share around 50-60% of our DNA with bananas - illustrating that all life shares a distant common ancestor.

 

Also, evolution has been observed first-hand in rapidly reproducing species. We have created new species that can no longer interbreed with each other just by watching them reproduce in laboratory environments. Human evolution works in exactly the same way, just over longer periods of time.

 

Do you have a reason to doubt evolution other than having a preexisting contradictory religious belief? Have you studied evolutionary biology or genetics?

 

Creationism isn't a theory, it's an assertion, as there is no evidence for it.

 

Creating different breeds is not evolution. Adaptation is totally different to what so many Evolutionists are so keen to call evolution. A black man has adapted to his climate in the same way white men of the north have adapted to their climate. There is no evolution from black to white man. In fact many of the first evolutionists argued that white people evolved from blacks and used this Belief to argue their views on race superiority. And getting back to what you mentioned about sharing DNA. DNA are building blocks, just cause we may share alot of the same types of building blocks as another species, it doesn't mean we evolved from them. You are just assuming that we evolved from each other to back up the theory that you believe in.

The big bang theory even goes against the second law of thermodynamics. Can you unburn a piece of paper? Everything goes from a state of order to disorder. Leave a bike in the rain, it will rust. It takes faith to believe that a massive bang of mass can create the complexity of planet earth.

 

  • "Do you have a reason to doubt evolution other than having a preexisting contradictory religious belief? Have you studied evolutionary biology or genetics?"

You assume That if a person comes from a religious background that their arguement is invalid. Would i qualify better in your books if I were brought up an Atheist and turned to christianity? I have studied extensively myself and yes i have read books on evolution. For and against.

 

  • Creationism isn't a theory, it's an assertion, as there is no evidence for it.

Then likewise so is Evolution, surely we would have fossil evidence to support a species changing from one to another. Unless you believe in the punctuated equilibrium version of evolution. And there you also have it, evolutionists cant even agree on how the species evolved from one to another, why? ... no proof!


  • 0

#30 Darkademic

Darkademic
  • – Enigmatic Overlord –

  • 4,971 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Short Name:Dark

Posted 05 August 2013 - 11:22 pm

Creating different breeds is not evolution. Adaptation is totally different to what so many Evolutionists are so keen to call evolution.


Breeds weren't created (that has already been done for centuries in the form of dogs), species were. A species is a reproductively isolated population of organisms. They're both just degrees of the same thing though. Continuous adaptation over a long period of time leads to speciation.

 

Speaking of dogs, even though they can interbreed, there is more physical variation between breeds than there are between some species (because humans selectively bred them causing more rapid change). You can see how much physical difference can occur in only a few centuries, so why can't you believe that even more significant changes are possible over much, much, much longer timespans?
 

A black man has adapted to his climate in the same way white men of the north have adapted to their climate. There is no evolution from black to white man. In fact many of the first evolutionists argued that white people evolved from blacks and used this Belief to argue their views on race superiority. And getting back to what you mentioned about sharing DNA. DNA are building blocks, just cause we may share alot of the same types of building blocks as another species, it doesn't mean we evolved from them. You are just assuming that we evolved from each other to back up the theory that you believe in.

 
Evolution is adaptation, adaptation to the point where a sub-group of organisms becomes isolated and diverges genetically enough that it can no longer interbreed with its parent group.
 
It's not just that DNA are building blocks, it's that we can observe exactly how DNA changes from one generation to the next. Human DNA exists in a pattern that supports evolution.

 

You assume That if a person comes from a religious background that their arguement is invalid. Would i qualify better in your books if I were brought up an Atheist and turned to christianity? I have studied extensively myself and yes i have read books on evolution. For and against.


Of course I don't. I simply asked whether you have a non-religious reason for doubting evolution. What could cause doubts strong enough for you to disagree with 99% of scientists?

 

Then likewise so is Evolution, surely we would have fossil evidence to support a species changing from one to another. Unless you believe in the punctuated equilibrium version of evolution. And there you also have it, evolutionists cant even agree on how the species evolved from one to another, why? ... no proof!


You're asking for something which is impossible. All fossils are fossils of individual organisms and individual organisms don't evolve, evolution occurs over much longer periods of time and between generations. Unless we find fossils of every generation of humans and their ancestors that has ever existed, there will always be gaps. Is that the only thing that would remove your doubts? In that case we haven't "proven" that the planets orbit around the sun yet because we haven't directly observed them all at every stage of their orbit, we just have a theory which predicts their orbits which has so far been accurate.

The perfect way in which DNA evidence and fossil evidence corroborate each other is more than enough evidence to prove evolution beyond reasonable doubt.

Even if you don't think it's proven, the theory is supported by all the available evidence, whereas there is absolutely nothing to support creationism.

 

Let's put it another way. You accept microevolution, i.e. small genetic changes of a short period of time, so how can you logically refuse to accept macroevolution, i.e. large genetic changes over a long period of time?


  • 0

darkademic_thin_sig.png
Рациональный разум. Военачальник Загадочных Призраков.


#31 omphin

omphin
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 489 posts
  • Short Name:Bobby

Posted 05 August 2013 - 11:48 pm

Let's put it another way. You accept microevolution, i.e. small genetic changes of a short period of time, so how can you logically refuse to accept macroevolution, i.e. large genetic changes over a long period of time?

 

I support adaptation, the species stays the same species even though it changes appearence. I would like to see some examples of what you are talking about when you say theres documented proof of a species naturally or by selection becoming a seperate species which can go on to reproduce.

 

In the case of a horse and donkey, a mule is infertile. even though horse and donkey are  very similar species. Even in that case it does not support evolution. So im keen to see or hear what species ( which can reproduce) have been produced by men by selectively breeding another species. (Tampering with DNA not included.)

 

  • Of course I don't. I simply asked whether you have a non-religious reason for doubting evolution. What could cause doubts strong enough for you to disagree with 99% of scientists?

Well the fact that they don't even agree among themselves as to how evolution occured would be a big one for me. I also have problems like i said with the theory of the big bang( send law of thermodynamics etc) Looking around at the complexity of earth to think it came from atoms exploding, creating an atmosphere to sustain life on a rock the right distance from the sun to support life.... theres alot more but theres a few


Edited by omphin, 05 August 2013 - 11:54 pm.

  • 0

#32 Dodger

Dodger
  • [DkR] Clan Member (Inactive)
  • 436 posts
  • Location:Edinburgh

Posted 06 August 2013 - 08:26 am

I support adaptation, the species stays the same species even though it changes appearence. I would like to see some examples of what you are talking about when you say theres documented proof of a species naturally or by selection becoming a seperate species which can go on to reproduce.

 

Well we only invented writing about 5000 years ago so you'll be waiting a long time before we document one species changing into another.  (Unless of course you believe the world is only 4000 years old, in which case you'll still be waiting a long time)  

 

In the case of a horse and donkey, a mule is infertile. even though horse and donkey are  very similar species. Even in that case it does not support evolution. So im keen to see or hear what species ( which can reproduce) have been produced by men by selectively breeding another species. (Tampering with DNA not included.)

 

I think you are getting confused here.  Evolution is not taking 2 species and trying to breed them together to create a new species.  Evolution is the process that begins where a spontaneous mutation occurs in an embryo.  If the mutation is beneficial (or at least not harmful) it then passes on to the descendants of the original embryo.  Over thousands and thousands of generations these beneficial mutations accumulate until you have two (or more) populations that came from the same creature but are now different enough from each other that they can no longer interbreed.  

 

 

  • Of course I don't. I simply asked whether you have a non-religious reason for doubting evolution. What could cause doubts strong enough for you to disagree with 99% of scientists?

Well the fact that they don't even agree among themselves as to how evolution occured would be a big one for me. I also have problems like i said with the theory of the big bang( send law of thermodynamics etc) Looking around at the complexity of earth to think it came from atoms exploding, creating an atmosphere to sustain life on a rock the right distance from the sun to support life.... theres alot more but theres a few

 

 

No they pretty much do agree.  Also ditto on the big-bang.  Which didn't involve atoms exploding btw.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users