Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Do you believe in evolution?
  • Subject: Do you believe in evolution?
Subject: Do you believe in evolution?
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

13.72 billion years in the making.

On December 1st, 2012, I met Neil deGrasse Tyson. I shook the man's hand, and even made him laugh. Not much else to do with my life now.

Posted by: werdnaz
At the end of the 19th century many people were discouraged from becoming physicists because they thought technology could not advance any further. Also I wouldn't call the discovery of radiation and that the Earth is not flat "minor mistakes"

That's not what I was insinuating. I was explaining that such were based on simple observations that have since been proven false. Certain scientific notions have not been disproved since their original proposal. For example, predators eat prey. That is a scientific observation that has stood the test of time because it's true.

As time progresses, and as our knowledge about the universe increases, we are less subject to making mistakes of such small caliber (Meaning of such minute understanding compared to what is possible today). In regards to evolution, there is a profound amount of evidence in favor of it that does not point to anything else.

"Oh, it could be wrong!" Of course it could, that statement can be slapped onto any fact or postulate. That doesn't make the criticism valid or well-founded. Evidence for evolution has been carefully examined and studied, and it is now an extremely well-understood phenomena. It is not based on wild conjecture, it is based on solid evidence collected through years of research.

  • 12.26.2012 10:14 PM PDT

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

Evolution isn't something to "believe" in. It's a scientific theory that is practically proven.

  • 12.26.2012 10:14 PM PDT

Your average nice guy on The Flood.... D: ..... WAIT A MINUTE....


Posted by: Potato Joe
I believe in it but I get depressed when I think about early hominids and how we came from them.

Why would you? Think of your heritage! Your species has been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Your oldest ancestor is 3.7 billions of years old! The planet that you come from is 4.54 billion years old and the sun that heats it 4.6 billion! Best of all, the matter that makes you up is 13.75 billion years old, and has been a part of stars and supernovas!

  • 12.26.2012 10:18 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

13.72 billion years in the making.

On December 1st, 2012, I met Neil deGrasse Tyson. I shook the man's hand, and even made him laugh. Not much else to do with my life now.

Posted by: darthnilhilus97
Best of all, the matter that makes you up is 13.75 billion years old, and has been a part of stars and supernovas!

This knowledge, at least in my opinion, is one of the greatest gifts that astrophysics has given to us. It is an absolutely astounding thing to acknowledge.

  • 12.26.2012 10:20 PM PDT

Posted by: Baph117
This is an incredible step forward to being able to cure Downss sybndonre mn humans bineg.s

Yes. It is blindingly obvious that evolution is the manner in which life on Earth arrived at its present state.

  • 12.26.2012 10:21 PM PDT

"Moooooooo"
-Ghost cow

Eh look it's the 400th time this has been reposted

  • 12.26.2012 10:23 PM PDT

Remember Kitchen #8 | 1/27/07
Secular Sevens | A place for freethinkers and secularists
-----------------------------------------
Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici

Belief isn't required. The Theory of Natural Selection by Evolution has been shown by all of the available evidence thus far to be correct, and it is therefore not something that needs to be taken on faith, but rather is something that can be accepted on an empirical basis.

[Edited on 12.26.2012 10:26 PM PST]

  • 12.26.2012 10:26 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: WinyPit82
Posted by: werdnaz
At the end of the 19th century many people were discouraged from becoming physicists because they thought technology could not advance any further. Also I wouldn't call the discovery of radiation and that the Earth is not flat "minor mistakes"

That's not what I was insinuating. I was explaining that such were based on simple observations that have since been proven false. Certain scientific notions have not been disproved since their original proposal. For example, predators eat prey. That is a scientific observation that has stood the test of time because it's true.

As time progresses, and as our knowledge about the universe increases, we are less subject to making mistakes of such small caliber (Meaning of such minute understanding compared to what is possible today). In regards to evolution, there is a profound amount of evidence in favor of it that does not point to anything else.

"Oh, it could be wrong!" Of course it could, that statement can be slapped onto any fact or postulate. That doesn't make the criticism valid or well-founded. Evidence for evolution has been carefully examined and studied, and it is now an extremely well-understood phenomena. It is not based on wild conjecture, it is based on solid evidence collected through years of research.

The problem is, though most people slap the phrase "it could be wrong" into the face of others, there is the chance of such proposals being correct. Evolution is a theory that is an idea that has based on observation of evidence, and from what I have stated, though the evidence is there, Darwin's interperetation of the evidence could be very wrong.

The progression of time is not directly correlated to an advance in scientific understanding. As time progressed in the nineteenth century, people learnt more and more about the wave like nature of light, however this idea was smashed by the photoelectric effect and Einstein. Though we appear to learn more about the universe, the initial interperatations of the data we have collected may be absolutely false, despite our belief that we know more about the universe than we previously did.

Though many scientific notions haven't been proved wrong and are correct, there are some that are not correct. The question is whether you find evolution to be among the former scientific notions or the latter

  • 12.26.2012 10:29 PM PDT

"Your eyes are full of hate, forty-one. That's good. Hate keeps a man alive. It gives him strength"


Posted by: werdnaz

Posted by: WinyPit82
Posted by: werdnaz
At the end of the 19th century many people were discouraged from becoming physicists because they thought technology could not advance any further. Also I wouldn't call the discovery of radiation and that the Earth is not flat "minor mistakes"

That's not what I was insinuating. I was explaining that such were based on simple observations that have since been proven false. Certain scientific notions have not been disproved since their original proposal. For example, predators eat prey. That is a scientific observation that has stood the test of time because it's true.

As time progresses, and as our knowledge about the universe increases, we are less subject to making mistakes of such small caliber (Meaning of such minute understanding compared to what is possible today). In regards to evolution, there is a profound amount of evidence in favor of it that does not point to anything else.

"Oh, it could be wrong!" Of course it could, that statement can be slapped onto any fact or postulate. That doesn't make the criticism valid or well-founded. Evidence for evolution has been carefully examined and studied, and it is now an extremely well-understood phenomena. It is not based on wild conjecture, it is based on solid evidence collected through years of research.

The problem is, though most people slap the phrase "it could be wrong" into the face of others, there is the chance of such proposals being correct. Evolution is a theory that is an idea that has based on observation of evidence, and from what I have stated, though the evidence is there, Darwin's interperetation of the evidence could be very wrong.

The progression of time is not directly correlated to an advance in scientific understanding. As time progressed in the nineteenth century, people learnt more and more about the wave like nature of light, however this idea was smashed by the photoelectric effect and Einstein. Though we appear to learn more about the universe, the initial interperatations of the data we have collected may be absolutely false, despite our belief that we know more about the universe than we previously did.

Though many scientific notions haven't been proved wrong and are correct, there are some that are not correct. The question is whether you find evolution to be among the former scientific notions or the latter



The "chance that it could be correct" still has no foundation, it is the exact same thing as saying "it could be wrong". There are some things that have been proven beyond a doubt I.e. The earth obits the sun, the earth is round etc. Those things will never change.

Evolution has come to the point where it cannot be dis-proven, the amount of evidence is staggering. The way in which we view it might change, the way in which we believe it happens might change but the fact that it does happen, will not change.

  • 12.26.2012 10:35 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

13.72 billion years in the making.

On December 1st, 2012, I met Neil deGrasse Tyson. I shook the man's hand, and even made him laugh. Not much else to do with my life now.

Posted by: werdnaz
The problem is, though most people slap the phrase "it could be wrong" into the face of others, there is the chance of such proposals being correct. Evolution is a theory that is an idea that has based on observation of evidence, and from what I have stated, though the evidence is there, Darwin's interperetation of the evidence could be very wrong.

Darwin wasn't the only one to examine evolutionary evidence, as countless other scientists have critiqued and examined it, as well. Of course there is a chance of his interpretation of the evidence being incorrect, but when all available evidence, from various aspects of nature, point to one concept synchronously, it shouldn't be at all surprising that it is accepted as scientific truth.

The progression of time is not directly correlated to an advance in scientific understanding. As time progressed in the nineteenth century, people learnt more and more about the wave like nature of light, however this idea was smashed by the photoelectric effect and Einstein. Though we appear to learn more about the universe, the initial interperatations of the data we have collected may be absolutely false, despite our belief that we know more about the universe than we previously did.
Your argument is reliant on the assertion that an absolutely staggering, Earth-shattering discover that will rewrite every biological fact and theory is likely to be made. The problem is that this reliance has no basis, it is purely based on conjecture. When such a discovery is made, I'll listen to you. However, until you can do that, you're not standing on solid ground.

Misinterpretation of data can go a long way, I agree with you. But what you fail to acknowledge is that the likelihood of this occurring in the modern age with a concept that is so well understood, simply isn't as high as you think it is. It's on the level of assuming that there's a decent chance that the Heart doesn't pump out blood throughout the body because there's a chance some ridiculous discovery will be made showing otherwise.

Though many scientific notions haven't been proved wrong and are correct, there are some that are not correct. The question is whether you find evolution to be among the former scientific notions or the latter
It's profoundly obvious that evolution is the most well-founded explanation for the development of life on Earth.

  • 12.26.2012 10:38 PM PDT

More awesome than a shark high-fiving a bear during an explosion...IN SPACE.

Yes.

  • 12.26.2012 10:41 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

The only alternative to evolution would be to believe some master troll fabricated the fossil record and that all of taxonomy is just a coincidence.

  • 12.26.2012 10:42 PM PDT

WALL OF SHAME-Posting stupidity since 2010
__________________
Posted by: Maximus Decimus
Agreed. All the changes are good and add variety. Do we really want another Halo 3? Just running around with one gun and no armor abilities? It's good that 343 wants to try something new. Do we really want the same thing for three more games?

We can't observe it, but by using logic and understanding of how DNA and mutations work, we know that it happens.

  • 12.26.2012 10:42 PM PDT

Posted by: Kurosaki_Kun

I know, right?
Jay acts like she's better than everyone else simply because she's a chick.
I hope she chokes to death.

Sure. All the evidence points in its favour.

  • 12.26.2012 10:43 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

13.72 billion years in the making.

On December 1st, 2012, I met Neil deGrasse Tyson. I shook the man's hand, and even made him laugh. Not much else to do with my life now.

Posted by: NavG123
We can't observe it,

Well, we actually can.

  • 12.26.2012 10:43 PM PDT

Sparkle Sparkle Sparkle!

Why do we have to put so much focus on where we came from, instead of where we're going?

  • 12.26.2012 10:44 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

13.72 billion years in the making.

On December 1st, 2012, I met Neil deGrasse Tyson. I shook the man's hand, and even made him laugh. Not much else to do with my life now.

Posted by: theshadowstriker
Why do we have to put so much focus on where we came from, instead of where we're going?

Because understanding our origin and development is important if we want to understand our current position, and thus how we should look to the future?

  • 12.26.2012 10:45 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

t3hAvenger77 - XBL (BF3, ME3, Blops)
decla1mer104 - Origin (BF3)
Steam


Posted by: jaythenerdkid
Sure. All the evidence points in its favour.

  • 12.26.2012 10:46 PM PDT

WALL OF SHAME-Posting stupidity since 2010
__________________
Posted by: Maximus Decimus
Agreed. All the changes are good and add variety. Do we really want another Halo 3? Just running around with one gun and no armor abilities? It's good that 343 wants to try something new. Do we really want the same thing for three more games?


Posted by: WinyPit82
Posted by: NavG123
We can't observe it,

Well, we actually can.
In a few cases, sure.

  • 12.26.2012 10:46 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

t3hAvenger77 - XBL (BF3, ME3, Blops)
decla1mer104 - Origin (BF3)
Steam


Posted by: Smelly Wookie
I don't I just think the concept of evolution is silly, but I believe it to a certain extent. I think that apes turning in to humans is silly.
No. Just no.

  • 12.26.2012 10:51 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: KUZOKU85
Evolution has come to the point where it cannot be dis-proven, the amount of evidence is staggering. The way in which we view it might change, the way in which we believe it happens might change but the fact that it does happen, will not change.

Evolution, regardless of how correct you find it to be, is a belief. The idea of a flat earth was also a belief with no evidence against it, however Copernicus came and proved it to be false mathematically. No matter how true something might seem it may be quite wrong.

Many facts about evolution are still unresolvable:
Life forms between ape and man should still live if they were genetically superior to monkeys.
Apes still live, but they should have died off according to evolution, as they were the least fit race to survive.
Though the chance for genetic mutation to occur is small, the chance for a good mutation is incredibly small. The chance that a boy is born with a third arm is incredibly tiny. How would he find a fit candidate to reproduce with if he is the only one of his species to have a third arm. It is impossible for his gene to be carried on.

Many of those who see evolution as fact argue that these problems will be resolved in future. However that is a belief. By saying you believe that these problems will be solved, you put your faith into modern science, and replace worshipping for a religion with worshipping a labcoat.

  • 12.26.2012 10:52 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: WinyPit82
Posted by: werdnaz
The problem is, though most people slap the phrase "it could be wrong" into the face of others, there is the chance of such proposals being correct. Evolution is a theory that is an idea that has based on observation of evidence, and from what I have stated, though the evidence is there, Darwin's interperetation of the evidence could be very wrong.

Darwin wasn't the only one to examine evolutionary evidence, as countless other scientists have critiqued and examined it, as well. Of course there is a chance of his interpretation of the evidence being incorrect, but when all available evidence, from various aspects of nature, point to one concept synchronously, it shouldn't be at all surprising that it is accepted as scientific truth.

The progression of time is not directly correlated to an advance in scientific understanding. As time progressed in the nineteenth century, people learnt more and more about the wave like nature of light, however this idea was smashed by the photoelectric effect and Einstein. Though we appear to learn more about the universe, the initial interperatations of the data we have collected may be absolutely false, despite our belief that we know more about the universe than we previously did.
Your argument is reliant on the assertion that an absolutely staggering, Earth-shattering discover that will rewrite every biological fact and theory is likely to be made. The problem is that this reliance has no basis, it is purely based on conjecture. When such a discovery is made, I'll listen to you. However, until you can do that, you're not standing on solid ground.

Misinterpretation of data can go a long way, I agree with you. But what you fail to acknowledge is that the likelihood of this occurring in the modern age with a concept that is so well understood, simply isn't as high as you think it is. It's on the level of assuming that there's a decent chance that the Heart doesn't pump out blood throughout the body because there's a chance some ridiculous discovery will be made showing otherwise.

Though many scientific notions haven't been proved wrong and are correct, there are some that are not correct. The question is whether you find evolution to be among the former scientific notions or the latter
It's profoundly obvious that evolution is the most well-founded explanation for the development of life on Earth.

As I said, it is evolution is the best theory we have, but I still regard it as false. I agree that there has not been any Earth-shattering discoveries of late that prove evolution wrong, but as I have listed in another post, evolution is not without several major flaws, which inclines me to go against it.

The problem with the scientific revolutions is that they have begun by undermining a belief which the masses assume to be fact. Here I state the danger of assuming that evolution is not a belief, and by thinking that man DID get to the way it is now by evolution is a fact, we are rushing to conclusions too quickly, and we are in danger of facing many years of wasted time simply because we made a false assumption.

Evolution is generally accepted as scientific truth, but just because the masses of biologists that agree with Darwin do believe it, doesn't mean that it is not false as a theory

[Edited on 12.26.2012 11:03 PM PST]

  • 12.26.2012 11:03 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

13.72 billion years in the making.

On December 1st, 2012, I met Neil deGrasse Tyson. I shook the man's hand, and even made him laugh. Not much else to do with my life now.

Posted by: werdnaz
Evolution, regardless of how correct you find it to be, is a belief. The idea of a flat earth was also a belief with no evidence against it, however Copernicus came and proved it to be false mathematically. No matter how true something might seem it may be quite wrong.

This is, again, based on conjecture. You can propose disproval as much as you like, but you actually need to present evidence that goes against evolutionary theory in order for you to gain credibility. It is not at all an efficient argumentative method to say "It could be wrong" and leave it at that.

Evolution does not at all require belief, it is accepted based on whether or not a person values empirical evidence. You don't need to toss in your hopes about evolution in order to accept it, you simply need to acknowledge the ridiculously large amount of evidence in favor of it.

The things you posted which you assumed could not be answered by modern evolutionary biology seem to be the product of your own poor understanding of evolution. I am not an evolutionary biologist, but I'm familiar with people on this site who are well-versed in evolution and have studied biology. If you're willing to hear legitimate criticism of your supposed "gaps" within evolution, I'd be more than willing to fetch them.

Even with my moderate knowledge of the topic, your questions seemed incredibly nonsensical.

  • 12.26.2012 11:05 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: WinyPit82
The things you posted which you assumed could not be answered by modern evolutionary biology seem to be the product of your own poor understanding of evolution. I am not an evolutionary biologist, but I'm familiar with people on this site who are well-versed in evolution and have studied biology. If you're willing to hear legitimate criticism of your supposed "gaps" within evolution, I'd be more than willing to fetch them.

Fetch them then

  • 12.26.2012 11:10 PM PDT

Artes, Scientia, Veritas

Sapere Aude

"But I do not think we're invincible"

Posted by: werdnaz

Posted by: WinyPit82
The things you posted which you assumed could not be answered by modern evolutionary biology seem to be the product of your own poor understanding of evolution. I am not an evolutionary biologist, but I'm familiar with people on this site who are well-versed in evolution and have studied biology. If you're willing to hear legitimate criticism of your supposed "gaps" within evolution, I'd be more than willing to fetch them.

Fetch them then
I'm an Ecology and Evolutionary Biology major at the University of Michigan. What do you need?

[Edited on 12.26.2012 11:11 PM PST]

  • 12.26.2012 11:11 PM PDT