Why every rational person must accept evolution

[Steven_R]

Except that the people who reject science get to vote for school boards and lawmakers. If it was just a question of them plugging their ears and yelling "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" whenever science is discussed, this wouldn't be an issue, but they want their brand of "truth" forcefed to your kids.

 

[Iceweasel]

The whole of science doesn't have all the answers. You don't need to be religious to know it.

 

[Steven_R]

The whole of science doesn't have all the answers. You don't need to be religious to know it.

No one ever claimed science has all the answers. Science just tries to answer the question of "How?" It leaves "Why?" to philosophers and religion.

The problem comes when people try to work the other side of the street instead of sticking to their own objectives and methodologies.

 

[chikenwing]

Except that the people who reject science get to vote for school boards and lawmakers. If it was just a question of them plugging their ears and yelling "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" whenever science is discussed, this wouldn't be an issue, but they want their brand of "truth" forcefed to your kids.

Just the same as you do,you want what you want,its no different.

 

[Iceweasel]

The whole of science doesn't have all the answers. You don't need to be religious to know it.

No one ever claimed science has all the answers. Science just tries to answer the question of "How?" It leaves "Why?" to philosophers and religion.

The problem comes when people try to work the other side of the street instead of sticking to their own objectives and methodologies.

Or when people assume too much. I'm not religious.

 

[Steven_R]

Except that the people who reject science get to vote for school boards and lawmakers. If it was just a question of them plugging their ears and yelling "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" whenever science is discussed, this wouldn't be an issue, but they want their brand of "truth" forcefed to your kids.

Just the same as you do,you want what you want,its no different.

Of course it is because using the scientific method and peer review and two centuries of mounting evidence in biology, geology, physics, and genetics is exactly the same thing as pointing to a Bronze Age creation myth.

 

[Steven_R]

The whole of science doesn't have all the answers. You don't need to be religious to know it.

No one ever claimed science has all the answers. Science just tries to answer the question of "How?" It leaves "Why?" to philosophers and religion.

The problem comes when people try to work the other side of the street instead of sticking to their own objectives and methodologies.

Or when people assume too much. I'm not religious.

No one is claiming you are, but philosophy can't answer scientific questions any more than science can answer philosophical questions.

 

[PainefulTruth]

Asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking what's North of the North Pole. The question just doesn't make sense. The math breaks down, and whatever our universe was really isn't what the universe is now because spacetime didn't exist as we can define it. There are a couple of vague ideas involving multiverses or branes colliding, but frankly the Cosmologists just don't have enough data to come up with anything like a solid hypothesis.

They don't have any data or evidence about anything pre-Big Bang. That said, evolution is a virtually proven "theory". Virtually proven means that there's massive evidence for it and no rational evidence against it.

 

[orogenicman]

Well, Mr. Weasel, it's simple, really. First off, the theory of evolution says nothing about how life originated, so that part of your query is a red herring and irrelevant to the discussion. As for how "that environment happened on its own", really? You seem to believe that ecosystems cannot function without outside intervention. What evidence would lead you to that apparent conclusion?

Yes, I know evolution doesn't directly address origins. However, there is the mindset that the answer is natural and it becomes a natural answer vs biblical creationism dichotomy.

It only becomes a "natural answer vs biblical creationism dichotomy" in the minds of biblical creationists. Scientists understand that no dichotomy exists, as do many non-literalist Christians.

I said nothing about ecosystems being directed so you're making my point.

The environments in which life exist on this planet ARE ecosystems. That you said nothing about them doesn't negate that fact.

The method that made it all happen exists somehow and science doesn't have the answer. So it becomes a faith vs faith thing.

God of the gaps argument. Congratulations.

 

[orogenicman]

The whole of science doesn't have all the answers. You don't need to be religious to know it.

Scientists are the ones suggesting that we have all the answers. But we have many answers, and aren't about to deny the answers that we do have. You don't need to be a scientist to understand this.

 

[orogenicman]

Except that the people who reject science get to vote for school boards and lawmakers. If it was just a question of them plugging their ears and yelling "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" whenever science is discussed, this wouldn't be an issue, but they want their brand of "truth" forcefed to your kids.

Just the same as you do,you want what you want,its no different.

If you have such serious issues with science, you should get off the internet, sell your computer, turn off your lights, and buy a horse and buggy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Non-randomly, by definition. Jeez. That is why it is called natural "selection". If you want details you can either pay me, or take a class. I am not an charity for academic cases such as yourself.

And exactly what magical force is guiding this "natural selection?"

The environment in which species live is not a magical force. Jeez, I am surrounded by idiots!

Actually, you are the idiot. Not your fault, you were told by another idiot that natural selection somehow magically makes evolution non random. Funny thing, you are both wrong.

The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the random variation generated by mutation.
Factors in the environment are thought to influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random—whether a particular mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
Scientists generally think that the first explanation is the right one and that directed mutations, the second possible explanation, is not correct.

Evolution 101: Mutation Is Not "Directed"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The whole of science doesn't have all the answers. You don't need to be religious to know it.

No one ever claimed science has all the answers. Science just tries to answer the question of "How?" It leaves "Why?" to philosophers and religion.

The problem comes when people try to work the other side of the street instead of sticking to their own objectives and methodologies.

Another idiot talking about something he doesn't understand, what a surprise.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I am curious.....when you talk about the science of evolution, are you referring to the fact that we have 37,000 different kinds of beetle instead of just one.....

or are you referring to the argument that human beings evolved from single celled organisms?......

 

[Iceweasel]

It only becomes a "natural answer vs biblical creationism dichotomy" in the minds of biblical creationists. Scientists understand that no dichotomy exists, as do many non-literalist Christians.

Wrong. I've had many people assume I'm a Christian because I don't accept a natural answer for the universe.

The environments in which life exist on this planet ARE ecosystems. That you said nothing about them doesn't negate that fact.

I didn't say otherwise. I was talking about how it came into existence.

God of the gaps argument. Congratulations.

Anything is possible but God. Congratulations.

 

[orogenicman]

It only becomes a "natural answer vs biblical creationism dichotomy" in the minds of biblical creationists. Scientists understand that no dichotomy exists, as do many non-literalist Christians.

Wrong. I've had many people assume I'm a Christian because I don't accept a natural answer for the universe.

Whether or not you are a Christian is irrelevant to the fact that Scientists understand that no dichotomy exists, as do many non-literalist Christians.

The environments in which life exist on this planet ARE ecosystems. That you said nothing about them doesn't negate that fact.

I didn't say otherwise. I was talking about how it came into existence.

You queried about "how that environment happened on its own". Are you having problems remembering what you said?

God of the gaps argument. Congratulations.

[

Anything is possible but God. Congratulations.

The issue is not whether or not it is possible that "god did it". The issue is whether it is probable that "god did it, knowing what we know about the natural world today.

 

[orogenicman]

I am curious.....when you talk about the science of evolution, are you referring to the fact that we have 37,000 different kinds of beetle instead of just one.....

or are you referring to the argument that human beings evolved from single celled organisms?......

Is there a difference?

 

[Darkwind]

Have you watched the video? All the way through?

Yep

Great, so tell me where, in this thread, anyone has addressed or discussed the facts presented in the video.

Why do you keep calling them facts? Have you personally proved them?

 

[Iceweasel]

Whether or not you are a Christian is irrelevant to the fact that Scientists understand that no dichotomy exists, as do many non-literalist Christians.

Golly, really? I notice you capitalized scientists in caps, that's wierd. I said many people do, not all people are scientists and not all scientists are alike. How many other stupid comments are you going to make?

You queried about "how that environment happened on its own". Are you having problems remembering what you said?

Nope. And you engaging in stupidity doesn't answer the question as to whether it happened naturally or not.

The issue is not whether or not it is possible that "god did it". The issue is whether it is probable that "god did it, knowing what we know about the natural world today.

Exactly! You are a man of faith, I knew it. It's probable even though science can't answer the question? That isn't a scientific statement, it's a doctrine of faith.

 

[chikenwing]

Except that the people who reject science get to vote for school boards and lawmakers. If it was just a question of them plugging their ears and yelling "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" whenever science is discussed, this wouldn't be an issue, but they want their brand of "truth" forcefed to your kids.

Just the same as you do,you want what you want,its no different.

If you have such serious issues with science, you should get off the internet, sell your computer, turn off your lights, and buy a horse and buggy.

Painting with a shot gun ,assuming way beyond what is rational,and this is about critical thinking!!! LOL.

Not once have I mentioned anything anti science,but people like this one just love to assume what will fit their narrative.