The Post Your Thoughts of the Moment Thread 2

[SlowPokemon]

Evolution is all but a concrete fact of nature at this point; it's not really something you can choose to believe or disbelieve. But there's no point arguing about these things since nobody ever really changes their mind about it XD

[Sebastian]

Even if its just Clanker and I we will still have one
http://forum.ninsheetm.us/index.php?topic=6464.0

[Kman96]

And thus brought the downfall of NSM...

[Olimar12345]

This makes me want to post the link to the previous debate topic, but since I can't seem to find it I think that may have been on VGV...

[Sebastian]

This makes me want to post the link to the previous debate topic, but since I can't seem to find it I think that may have been on VGV...

Thats ok This one, I HOPE, should go better

[Dude]

This makes me want to post the link to the previous debate topic, but since I can't seem to find it I think that may have been on VGV...

I remember the one debate about if it was OK to punch pregnant people.

It was lulzy

[FierceDeity]

I told myself I wasn't going to debate this
I really did

I don't necessarily agree with evolution. Neither Creation nor Evolution can be proven without a doubt or disproven completely. That is why debates are endless. There are much better things to debate.

This is true for evolution only in the sense that nothing can truly be proven. From an epistemological standpoint, everything that we know or remember has the potential of being fabricated, an illusion. Our mental tools that we use to remember what we ate for dinner last night are just as potentially fallible as the tools we use to discern what organisms lived when in our past, and how they developed over time. There are only two main differences. The first is that the claim that I ate mac and cheese last night challenges nobody's religious beliefs (that I know of). The second is that scientists are required to take their observations in stride, and so are only able to say what is likeliest, based on what we observe. Based on what I observe, it is likeliest that I ate mac and cheese last night, as that is what I remember. Even though it's theoretically possible that everything I remember is part of an elaborate simulation that started at this very moment, and even though I could potentially have a severe memory disorder, these are not things I can question, as I will very likely never have an answer affirming or denying these things. Therefore, I can say "I ate mac and cheese for dinner last night."

Evolution, however, has the potential to be falsified. That is, according to almost the entire scientific community, a definitive property of science. If there is no discovery that could be made, in our natural, observable world, to disprove an idea, it is not science. There are, theoretically, discoveries that could be made to disprove or alter our current understanding of evolution. They have not been made, and so we consider evolution to be fact until proven otherwise. Creationism cannot be considered on this plane, because it cannot be disproven. We can never make an observation proving it to be false, because its entire premise is that things happen beyond our perception. And it could be true! Just as much as Pastafarianism, the belief that everything was created by a giant spaghetti monster in the sky, can be considered objectively true. Within this plane of existence, though, we can make no observations affirming or denying either of these ideas, whereas we can for evolution. Therefore, it's a false equivalence to say that both evolutionary theory and creationism cannot

be proven without a doubt or disproven completely.

Because while this is TECHNICALLY true, it's based on the same premise as the statement "I may or may not have eaten mac and cheese last night". We should not doubt our senses, as they are the one thing that we can trust more than anything else.

Evolution is all but a concrete fact of nature at this point; it's not really something you can choose to believe or disbelieve. But there's no point arguing about these things since nobody ever really changes their mind about it XD

I've actually convinced somebody of evolution before. Granted, it was in conjunction with a biology course leading to him actually understanding evolution, but he changed his mind nonetheless.

Something more based on opinions and less based on worldviews.

First of all, aren't the two kind of the same thing? I'd suggest replacing "worldviews" with "observable facts", but that'd require you to accept that this debate is, and should be, entirely based upon observable facts. Second, if opinions and worldviews can truly be considered separate, then I feel fairly confident in saying that mine are independent from one another in this case. I am a confirmed Methodist Christian. I go to church on a regular basis, have thoroughly read much of the Bible, and plan to give my children the same options in their upbringing as my parents have given me. My non-literal interpretation of the Bible can still be considered Christian just as much as different sects' interpretations can still be considered so. I do not have an "anti-religion" worldview, as some would designate my side of the discussion. I just refuse to argue for fact what can never be represented as so.

I realize that this may not be what you meant by the distinction between opinion and worldview, but it's a false sentiment that's constantly perpetuated by creationists, and I just wanted to get that rant off of my chest.

Ok....what is evolution then my friend?

According to our current understanding, it is a long and gradual process involving a series of "microevolutions", as you describe them, in which organisms, whose randomly acquired traits (through both mutations and genetic recombination) are most suited to allow them to survive and reproduce in their environment, do so. Those with traits less suited to do so, die without reproducing. The two of these things happen on a constant basis, with each generation of each species, until a population becomes so phenotypically different from its ancestors that it is now considered a different species (this, by the way, is not always all that different). It is not, as you imply, a magical process by which organisms of vastly different traits are rapidly changed into one another. We do not argue that we descended from monkeys, nor from cats, nor from frogs, nor from amoebas for that matter (there are many other varieties of single-cellular organisms that exist/have existed!). We did, however, at some point within the long, long history of our world (significantly longer than 6,000 years!) share a common ancestor with each of these organisms, some more recently than others. Any further questions you have about the actual workings of evolution, I would have you direct to your biology teacher as soon as you are lucky enough to have one. Hopefully in this class, you will gain a great enough understanding of evolution to accept it as the best explanation we currently have for why and how organisms came to be the way they are. If not, I can only hope that the trait of willful ignorance is selected out of our population sooner, rather than later.

[Maelstrom]

ACK TEXT

When I said worldview, I meant, basically, core beliefs that affect our view of the world. So, religion, etc. would be much more likely to end in disaster/flaming/locking than something about video games or something weird and humorous.

I will say, that believing in evolution without any outside source is quite different from believing that God had a hand in it, even if it was a gradual process. Idk if this is what you are saying, but just throwing that out there....

[Ruto]

FD it's all here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

[Olimar12345]

Almost missed this:

Thought you were a christian

My religious beliefs are in no way related to your inability to effectively debate.

[SuperFireKirby]

FD wins a mountain of gold stars.

I'm just curious of all you evolution doubters reasoning to why you think evolution is an invalid or, at least, questionable theory.

Seriously, you folks always talk about the "problems" with evolutionary theory but never actually explain what those problems are.

[mikey]

Honestly, I was just about ready to start a flame war until I realized how absurdly far gone you already are. I've been trying harder to avoid lost causes, lately, and this bullshit reasoning:demonstrates to me that you're way too deeply entrenched in dogmatic rationalization to display even the faintest glimmer of hope.
(TL;DR)

Also, MLF, I agree with clanker when he saysMaybe you guys are PMing and he's pointed this out, but if not, just know that^^this is one of the least accurate representations of evolutionary theory that I have ever seen. Please try to learn what you're disagreeing with before you actually disagree with it.

First:
WHAT?!?!?!  FIERCE MADE A TLDR?!?

Second:  As long as we take the Bible literally, then God created humans.  Unfortunately, there's pretty much at this point conclusive evidence that humans came about through trial and error evolution (read: Neanderthals).  So, what if when the Bible said God created Adam "out of the dust", he meant out of previous generations/failed species?
This is basically my personal opinion of it and it allows for both viewpoints to coexist.

[SlowPokemon]

As long as we take the Bible literally

you lost me

[Sebastian]

you lost me

Im done with this debate thats all Im saying.....if you dont believe the Bible then....whatever.
But remember.....If a whole bunch of people dissappear out of the blue, it wasn't aliens and the Bible is true. Deal?

[Maelstrom]

Im done with this debate thats all Im saying

Good. This has gone on long enough.