Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 152
  1. #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by millsda2
    You've just proven his point...all experiments done in a lab with albeit, significant proof that organisms can mutate, change, grow, etc, but the theory of evolution consists of a theory that it took millions of years to occur. So what you're saying is that based on an experiment that lasted a few hours or maybe a few years, you can SPECULATE that IF the trend stayed the same, we MAY have originated from a single cell organism that blew up in the middle of space. Could it have happened...sure. Is there rock solid proof...no, it's all theory and hypothesis elluding to what COULD have happened based on a trend. Could it have happened with the intervention of a creator...I absolutely believe that by faith, the entire theory of evolution could be true, but not without God MAKING it happen.
    Could the development of life be directed by a group of aliens? Could there have been a wizard who touched a stone with his wand and turned it into a living creature? Many things could have been/could be.

    As long as there is not a trace of evidence for those ideas, I stick to the best explanation we have, evolution, specially because there are tons of evidence in favour of evolution, and no evidence for the claim that evolution is not sufficient as an explanation for the development of life on earth.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  2. #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Could the development of life be directed by a group of aliens?
    Ask Tom Cruise about this...
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  3.    #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Could the development of life be directed by a group of aliens? Could there have been a wizard who touched a stone with his wand and turned it into a living creature? Many things could have been/could be.

    As long as there is not a trace of evidence for those ideas, I stick to the best explanation we have, evolution, specially because there are tons of evidence in favour of evolution, and no evidence for the claim that evolution is not sufficient as an explanation for the development of life on earth.
    I find "Best explanation" to be quite a reasonable rationale for the position you take. I was merely pointing out that "best explanation" did not seem to meet the definition of "hard evidence" you proposed.
  4. #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    Oh, I see now.

    FNC = crazy right wing conservatives who think the only science is found in the Bible

    CNN (or is it the NYT) = free thinking moderates and liber, wait, you wouldn't refer to yourselves in those terms, politically oppressed Democrats who embrace all schools of thought and can't stand to see their liberties removed by the Bushies?

    Is that how it goes? It's so hard to keep track.
    I admit I was letting off some steam ... :-)

    Besides I could be wrong. I'm sure there are a few reasonable folks watching FNC ...

    This has the potential for hijacking the thread .. but, now that you brought it up ...given that most of us have time to follow only a few (and favourite) media channels, those reading NYT, watching PBS, listening to NPR are less biased than those watching FNC and listening to Rush, Ann C etc.

    You'd have to hunt for examples of obvious bias in NYT, NPR (conservatives will say that the bias is well-disguised). FNC and Rush wear their bias on their sleeves and chest as a badge of honor.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  5. #105  
    Back to the thread..

    I am not familiar with the court processes in any state. What do Hindus, Moslems, etc use to swear-in in NC courts nowadays?

    In India, the holy scripture of his/her choice is provided to the witness. I have no idea what atheists do.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  6. #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    Back to the thread..

    I am not familiar with the court processes in any state. What do Hindus, Moslems, etc use to swear-in in NC courts nowadays?

    In India, the holy scripture of his/her choice is provided to the witness. I have no idea what atheists do.
    You can "Affirm" to tell the truth.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  7. #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    I admit I was letting off some steam ... :-)
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    ...wear their bias on their sleeves and chest as a badge of honor.
    Ahem. Looks like you are doing the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    those reading NYT, watching PBS, listening to NPR are less biased than those watching FNC and listening to Rush, Ann C etc.
    You're right, you're not biased at all.
    I'm back!
  8.    #108  
    Since we're back to the thread...

    My question was more about the strange position the ACLU seems to have taken in this case. I would have expected a suit to ban the use of any "holy" texts.

    An interesting tangent in my own thread: One source of humor in the whole practice of swearing on the Bible is that the Bible itself contains admonition not to swear on anything. So the very act itself, in NC or anywhere else, is contradictory in nature.

    When I take the witness stand, ask me a question. Listen to my answer. Look for corroberation to my story. Review any biases I may have to help ascertain the level of reliability of my report. Dismiss me from the witness stand.
  9. #109  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    Ahem. Looks like you are doing the same.


    You're right, you're not biased at all.
    I am wearing my bias for logic and evidence-based thinking on my sleeve. You are correct.

    I am biased. Everyone is biased by their experiences and philosophy. A prefernce for peace, tolerance, an open mind, admitting that I could be wrong and others right (once they show me the evidence) .. are all biases.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  10. #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    An interesting tangent in my own thread: One source of humor in the whole practice of swearing on the Bible is that the Bible itself contains admonition not to swear on anything. So the very act itself, in NC or anywhere else, is contradictory in nature.

    When I take the witness stand, ask me a question. Listen to my answer. Look for corroberation to my story. Review any biases I may have to help ascertain the level of reliability of my report. Dismiss me from the witness stand.
    I wonder how "swear" is defined legally ...

    I think they go through that exercise in order to charge us with perjury if we lie on the stand. The swearing-in becomes like a legal contract abd we could be sued for breach of contract.

    I'm not sure why abstractions like God have to come into picture. Unless it is to scare the witness into thinking that fires of hell await him if he lies.

    That threat would not be very effective against me :-)
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  11. #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I find "Best explanation" to be quite a reasonable rationale for the position you take. I was merely pointing out that "best explanation" did not seem to meet the definition of "hard evidence" you proposed.
    As you may have found out by now, I am quite a skeptical person and don't believe things just because somebody or an old book says so. I am also skeptical about scientific results and the methods behind them. So will you believe me when I tell you that the evidence for evolution is very, very, very solid, as solid as the fact that the moon circles earth and earth circles the sun? It certainly meets the standard of "hard evidence". I strongly doubt I proposed a definition for "hard evidence" which evolution does not meet.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  12.    #112  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    As you may have found out by now, I am quite a skeptical person and don't believe things just because somebody or an old book says so. I am also skeptical about scientific results and the methods behind them. So will you believe me when I tell you that the evidence for evolution is very, very, very solid, as solid as the fact that the moon circles earth and earth circles the sun? It certainly meets the standard of "hard evidence". I strongly doubt I proposed a definition for "hard evidence" which evolution does not meet.
    Am I mistaken in the statement that we can not confirm the contents of the aleged "primoridal soup"?

    NOTE: I recall the distinction between evolution versus origin. However, I think evolution assumes a non-created single cell point of origin does it not? Logically speaking, doubt about the single cell would at least be cause for debate about its offspring.
  13. #113  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Am I mistaken in the statement that we can not confirm the contents of the aleged "primoridal soup"?
    Not in all detail, but the general conditions are known quite well. But that has nothing to do with evolution anyway.
    However, I think evolution assumes a non-created single cell point of origin does it not? Logically speaking, doubt about the single cell would at least be cause for debate about its offspring.
    Evolution is about the development of life via mutation and selection of traits conferring more offspring/better multiplication.

    It does not say anything about the origin of the first mutating and multiplying entities (which would not have been a full-fledged cell). You can say Shiva or some other god or gods, or some aliens landed on earth and put them there, or a wizard or the big green stone-eater made them. However, from a scientific perspective, there is no need for a creator, it makes perfect sense that the first multiplying entities appeared spontaneously. They were just molecules which catalysed a chemical reaction which led to the assembly of copies of those molecules. Then evolution of those molecules started, leading to proto-cellular assemblies of molecules, then primitive cellular organisms, etc.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  14. #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Am I mistaken in the statement that we can not confirm the contents of the aleged "primoridal soup"?

    NOTE: I recall the distinction between evolution versus origin. However, I think evolution assumes a non-created single cell point of origin does it not? Logically speaking, doubt about the single cell would at least be cause for debate about its offspring.
    evolution assumes that a more complex and different organisms can arise from a simple organism (even a unicellular organism) over a period of time.

    I am curious - you ask about "hard evidence" for evolution - and yet you dismiss all laboratory or scientific work as a "reasonable/best explanation"?

    What "hard evidence" do you have that gravity exists? Could it not be that divine force (aka ID) causes all objects to fall to the ground? Can you "see", touch, taste, hear or smell gravitational forces?

    I challenge you on this - every argument that you use against the "hard evidence" of evolutionary science - can be used in exactly the same way to argue against the theory of gravitational forces.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  15. #115  
    The thing I specially like about science is the ability to say "We don't know", rather than look for some simplistic explanation like a allmighty, all knowing, omnipresent God to fill in the gaps in the knowledge.

    A lot more was attributed to God in the past (rain, lightning, tsunamis?) that we now understand better. As we learn more, specially about how the brain works, the less the need for such artificial concepts, I hope.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  16. #116  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    The thing I specially like about science is the ability to say "We don't know", rather than look for some simplistic explanation like a allmighty, all knowing, omnipresent God to fill in the gaps in the knowledge.

    A lot more was attributed to God in the past (rain, lightning, tsunamis?) that we now understand better. As we learn more, specially about how the brain works, the less the need for such artificial concepts, I hope.
    you mean to say that the biblical disasters (floods, locusts, famines) were NOT caused by God???
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  17. #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Evolution is about the development of life via mutation and selection of traits conferring more offspring/better multiplication.
    Technically, that is natural selection, a subset of evolution. For instance, Lamarckism is also a method of evolution.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
  18. #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Technically, that is natural selection, a subset of evolution. For instance, Lamarckism is also a method of evolution.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
    not anymore - it was a short-lived hypothesis that could not be validated by "hard evidence"
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  19. #119  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    not anymore - it was a short-lived hypothesis that could not be validated by "hard evidence"
    I wasn't advocating it. Just pointing out that evolution is not necessarily natural selection, though natural selectio is evolution. I am a man, but man is not me.

    I guess I should have been clear that I didn't think Lamarckism is valid. Oops.
  20.    #120  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    evolution assumes that a more complex and different organisms can arise from a simple organism (even a unicellular organism) over a period of time.

    I am curious - you ask about "hard evidence" for evolution - and yet you dismiss all laboratory or scientific work as a "reasonable/best explanation"?
    It is not my intent to be dismissive. It just seems that the theory of evolution is presented as the unapproachable theory, and holes in the theory are not allowed to be mentioned. I am not suggesting that the whole theory is dung. I'm just pointing out the areas that need shoring up. But, I am using the logical verbage of this thread to do it.
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35

    What "hard evidence" do you have that gravity exists? Could it not be that divine force (aka ID) causes all objects to fall to the ground? Can you "see", touch, taste, hear or smell gravitational forces?

    I challenge you on this - every argument that you use against the "hard evidence" of evolutionary science - can be used in exactly the same way to argue against the theory of gravitational forces.
    "Gravity" is the term that we use to describe the phenomenon regardless of its source. I experience that force everyday. I do not question whether that force exists. I do not question the mathematics behind it. I can not attest to the flawlessness of the mathematics, but I can attest to the ability to accurately predict behavior based on those calculations.

    So again, I do not summarily dismiss the theory of evolution. I, do however, question the dogmatic manner in which the theory is defended, as though its is without gaps. So I refer to it in the same way that clulup describes it: "best explanation" (sometimes I say "best explanation given that any other explanation is silenced")
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions