|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 16, 2021 19:52:35 GMT
This is an interesting scene, but also frustrating. It is frustrating, because I want to jump in on Dennis's defense. He is terrible at making his case and barely even tries to. Particularly on the faith part. We have hard evidence that the scientific method works, so that is why it is more than faith that the scientists are on the right track. Dennis was right to call it a false equivalency, though he seemed unsure.
It is funny how Mac is the one who believes the Bible over science and says "I will never change my mind" and then defends why the Bible is more reasonable to believe than the scientific method that he ironically shows is a process of updating itself over time. Also saying Scientist lie sometimes, but what he really should be saying is that scientists get it wrong sometimes. That isn't the same thing as lying.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 18, 2021 2:34:01 GMT
This is a parody of the science vs religion debate using a common religionist tactic of pointing out how wrong Newton and Aristotle were about some of the things they observed via the data they were capable of gathering in their day and their conclusions based on those observations. As incorrect as it was for Aristotle in 350 BC to think the Earth was the center of his known universe, it was not unreasonable to think what he did. He was trying to figure out something just using the evidence on the ground he saw, then interpreted without relying on a shaman cutting the guts out of a ram to read the portents. And as a species, we’ve only come to know, after centuries of progressive scientific observations, building newer and better instruments to observe with, the Universe is far more immense and complex than Aristotle, Galileo, or Newton could imagine. They may have gotten the facts wrong, but they didn’t lie about anything. And to label them as liars is infantile, used to deflate them as genuine seekers of truth. And that they were wrong about the “center of the Universe” does not negate their other observations. Galileo built off of and corrected Aristotle. Newton built off of and corrected Galileo. Aristotle’s rules of logic still work. Galileo’s theory of gravity was proven right by Apollo 15 because we had to wait until we had man in the airlessness of the Moon who could perform an experiment to prove Galileo right. He was. And Newton’s laws of thermodynamics have not been proven wrong yet…they helped get us to the Moon. Newton said, “if I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." However, poor Dennis, who accepts evolution as fact, doesn’t have the chops to point out the obvious flaws in Mac’s argument. Mac doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but neither does Dennis as both only argue from of a lack of basic education from a biased perspective. Science is not revelation from on high, it is only a tool. We discarded Aristotle’s 2nd century BC tools for 21st century ones. Religion is still relying on revelations revealed thousands of years ago. Most of these revelations keep getting repackaged to look fresh, but are as stale. Religionists believe science is the opposite of religion. It is not. If science proves wrong the 6-day Creation narrative in the Bible, that’s not science’s fault. Thanks for that. I just sort of hit the basics and you went into everything in detail. You know a lot more about this stuff than me. I just know some of the basics.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 21, 2021 22:43:53 GMT
IF someone truly does not think that evolution is true in its basic form, then I think there's precious little one can do to convince them. It took me years of schooling and reading to become convinced it is likely true.
By in its basic form, I mean descent with modification due to changes in the gene pool which are due to mutations.
But often the debate...like this one... begins without everyone agreeing on exactly what they're trying to prove/disprove.
If the debate is about evolution and abiogenesis, then showing that with good evidence is going to be difficult and I would never pretend I could do that. And even if one wants to argue that all life on earth originated from simple life forms, it is a big undertaking and there ARE a lot of roadblocks to create a convincing argument...again, if one is up against a recalcitrant person who is armed with lots of quasi-scientific data.
But if one limits it to the simple definition of generations undergo modification due to genetic variation, then that seems easier to argue.
I am happy to admit I take a lot of what I believe on faith... I don't see faith as a bad thing. In fact, I believe we all have to have a lot of faith to simply navigate life and make timely decisions in almost every walk of life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jun 29, 2021 6:29:54 GMT
Evolution is an observed natural phenomenon like rainbows, waves, continental drift, or volcanic island formation.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 30, 2021 22:50:06 GMT
Evolution is an observed natural phenomenon like rainbows, waves, continental drift, or volcanic island formation. Sorry, I mean the "evolution by means of natural selection." They don't get THAT specific in the episode, but that is what creationists mean when they argue against evolution. They are arguing the explanation for the fact, not for the fact itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 30, 2021 22:59:06 GMT
IF someone truly does not think that evolution is true in its basic form, then I think there's precious little one can do to convince them. It took me years of schooling and reading to become convinced it is likely true.
By in its basic form, I mean descent with modification due to changes in the gene pool which are due to mutations.
But often the debate...like this one... begins without everyone agreeing on exactly what they're trying to prove/disprove.
If the debate is about evolution and abiogenesis, then showing that with good evidence is going to be difficult and I would never pretend I could do that. And even if one wants to argue that all life on earth originated from simple life forms, it is a big undertaking and there ARE a lot of roadblocks to create a convincing argument...again, if one is up against a recalcitrant person who is armed with lots of quasi-scientific data.
But if one limits it to the simple definition of generations undergo modification due to genetic variation, then that seems easier to argue.
I am happy to admit I take a lot of what I believe on faith... I don't see faith as a bad thing. In fact, I believe we all have to have a lot of faith to simply navigate life and make timely decisions in almost every walk of life.
I don't have faith in science, however I trust its proven methods and take most scientific claims derived from genuine study and research as being factual until proven otherwise. Yes, I have trust in the biologists. I have trust in them, because their findings aren't dogmatic and can always be updated with new scientific discoveries. Also because biologists from all backgrounds have come to similar discoveries through the scientific method. And lastly, because I am not emotionally attached to the theory of evolution. I trust it is the most accurate understanding we have to the diversity of life on the planet and if it turns out not to be true, I am not going to lie to myself just to feel more comfortable. My main argument against "faith" is that it is used to justify an emotional attachment to an idea that you can't even provide good evidence for to anyone else. I never use the word faith because it comes with too much baggage. Have you ever heard anyone say "You just have to have faith that the theory of evolution is accurate?" I haven't.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 30, 2021 23:11:39 GMT
IF someone truly does not think that evolution is true in its basic form, then I think there's precious little one can do to convince them. It took me years of schooling and reading to become convinced it is likely true.
By in its basic form, I mean descent with modification due to changes in the gene pool which are due to mutations.
But often the debate...like this one... begins without everyone agreeing on exactly what they're trying to prove/disprove.
If the debate is about evolution and abiogenesis, then showing that with good evidence is going to be difficult and I would never pretend I could do that. And even if one wants to argue that all life on earth originated from simple life forms, it is a big undertaking and there ARE a lot of roadblocks to create a convincing argument...again, if one is up against a recalcitrant person who is armed with lots of quasi-scientific data.
But if one limits it to the simple definition of generations undergo modification due to genetic variation, then that seems easier to argue.
I am happy to admit I take a lot of what I believe on faith... I don't see faith as a bad thing. In fact, I believe we all have to have a lot of faith to simply navigate life and make timely decisions in almost every walk of life. It is necessary and unavoidable to start with basic assumptions that can't be proven - that we are not living in the Matrix or something. I don't have faith that I'm not. I have no reason to believe I am in the first place. It sounds like you are just using the word faith and trust the same. That is fine, but the issue comes with the way many theists use the word faith. I have asked religious people why I should believe God exists and they say "You have to have faith." That tells me nothing and gives me no reason to believe that God exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 30, 2021 23:21:59 GMT
IF someone truly does not think that evolution is true in its basic form, then I think there's precious little one can do to convince them. It took me years of schooling and reading to become convinced it is likely true.
By in its basic form, I mean descent with modification due to changes in the gene pool which are due to mutations.
But often the debate...like this one... begins without everyone agreeing on exactly what they're trying to prove/disprove.
If the debate is about evolution and abiogenesis, then showing that with good evidence is going to be difficult and I would never pretend I could do that. And even if one wants to argue that all life on earth originated from simple life forms, it is a big undertaking and there ARE a lot of roadblocks to create a convincing argument...again, if one is up against a recalcitrant person who is armed with lots of quasi-scientific data.
But if one limits it to the simple definition of generations undergo modification due to genetic variation, then that seems easier to argue.
I am happy to admit I take a lot of what I believe on faith... I don't see faith as a bad thing. In fact, I believe we all have to have a lot of faith to simply navigate life and make timely decisions in almost every walk of life.
I don't have faith in science, however I trust its proven methods and take most scientific claims derived from genuine study and research as being factual until proven otherwise. Another one that bugs me even more is when religious people try and claim that atheism is a religion. Atheism is the disbelief in theism and theism isn't a religion either. Deism specifically definitely isn't a religion. Heck, democracy is more of a religion than atheism.
|
|
dzrider
Freshman
@dzrider
Posts: 86
Likes: 51
|
Post by dzrider on Jun 30, 2021 23:40:08 GMT
Evolution is an observed natural phenomenon like rainbows, waves, continental drift, or volcanic island formation. Sorry, I mean the "evolution by means of natural selection." They don't get THAT specific in the episode, but that is what creationists mean when they argue against evolution. They are arguing the explanation for the fact, not for the fact itself. Disagree. Any creationists I've argued with are arguing against the fact itself, and I've been doing this since the days of the talk.origins newsgroup.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 30, 2021 23:44:59 GMT
Sorry, I mean the "evolution by means of natural selection." They don't get THAT specific in the episode, but that is what creationists mean when they argue against evolution. They are arguing the explanation for the fact, not for the fact itself.Disagree. Any creationists I've argued with are arguing against the fact itself, and I've been doing this since the days of the talk.origins newsgroup. Interesting. So the ones you argued with don't even acknowledge that species of animals have changed over time, even on a small scale and have adapted better to their surroundings? Do they reject the idea that dogs evolved from wolves? How do they explain cross-breeding and stuff like that?
|
|
dzrider
Freshman
@dzrider
Posts: 86
Likes: 51
|
Post by dzrider on Jul 1, 2021 0:00:46 GMT
If pressed, they'll claim that micro-evolution happens-that is, small adaptations-but not macro-evolution, new species evolving from other species. Scientists make no distinction between micro and macro and consider them part of the same process. As for cross-breeding, they will claim this is not evolution and sometimes bring up Bible verses about placing spotted rods in front of the animals, or some such, to get spotted offspring.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 1, 2021 0:05:42 GMT
If pressed, they'll claim that micro-evolution happens-that is, small adaptations-but not macro-evolution, new species evolving from other species. Scientists make no distinction between micro and macro and consider them part of the same process. As for cross-breeding, they will claim this is not evolution and sometimes bring up Bible verses about placing spotted rods in front of the animals, or some such, to get spotted offspring. That is the one I have heard, that they believe in micro-evolution. I didn't even know there was such an idea until I heard creationists use the term. What about nipples on men and all the other stuff that points towards evolution on at least some level? What about the fact that some apes can interbreed and some can't? All of this points to the process of evolution being accurate to me. And that is just the genetic stuff. What is their explanation of the pre-modern human skeletons being different than us and that you can literally line up skeletons from different periods and see the small changes over time and that they look more ape like the further back you go?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jul 1, 2021 0:40:28 GMT
Evolution is an observed natural phenomenon like rainbows, waves, continental drift, or volcanic island formation. Sorry, I mean the "evolution by means of natural selection." They don't get THAT specific in the episode, but that is what creationists mean when they argue against evolution. They are arguing the explanation for the fact, not for the fact itself.
I wasn't disagreeing, just enjoying tweaking the nose of creationists who don't understand what they are arguing against.
|
|
dzrider
Freshman
@dzrider
Posts: 86
Likes: 51
|
Post by dzrider on Jul 1, 2021 0:42:08 GMT
If pressed, they'll claim that micro-evolution happens-that is, small adaptations-but not macro-evolution, new species evolving from other species. Scientists make no distinction between micro and macro and consider them part of the same process. As for cross-breeding, they will claim this is not evolution and sometimes bring up Bible verses about placing spotted rods in front of the animals, or some such, to get spotted offspring. That is the one I have heard, that they believe in micro-evolution. I didn't even know there was such an idea until I heard creationists use the term. What about nipples on men and all the other stuff that points towards evolution on at least some level? What about the fact that some apes can interbreed and some can't? All of this points to the process of evolution being accurate to me. And that is just the genetic stuff. What is their explanation of the pre-modern human skeletons being different than us and that you can literally line up skeletons from different periods and see the small changes over time and that they look more ape like the further back you go? Actually had to look up the nipple one, it's been a while. One creationist explanation I found right away was that they are especially sensitive and a source of sexual stimuli. If they have a function, they would be consistent with design. Alternatively, it is part of efficient embryonic development, embryos being sexually dimorphic in early stages of development. As for the ape interbreeding, that one I know off the top of my head. They are members of the same "kind," a nebulous term often used by creationists and having it's origins in the Noah's Ark fable.
About the pre-human skeletons, one claim is that they are different species that share common traits due to efficient design.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jul 1, 2021 0:45:02 GMT
Creationist arguments are irrelevant unless they hold religion to the same standard.
|
|
dzrider
Freshman
@dzrider
Posts: 86
Likes: 51
|
Post by dzrider on Jul 1, 2021 0:45:40 GMT
Creationist arguments are irrelevant unless they hold religion to the same standard. Agreed.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 1, 2021 0:46:19 GMT
That is the one I have heard, that they believe in micro-evolution. I didn't even know there was such an idea until I heard creationists use the term. What about nipples on men and all the other stuff that points towards evolution on at least some level? What about the fact that some apes can interbreed and some can't? All of this points to the process of evolution being accurate to me. And that is just the genetic stuff. What is their explanation of the pre-modern human skeletons being different than us and that you can literally line up skeletons from different periods and see the small changes over time and that they look more ape like the further back you go? Actually had to look up the nipple one, it's been a while. One creationist explanation I found right away was that they are especially sensitive and a source of sexual stimuli. If they have a function, they would be consistent with design. Alternatively, it is part of efficient embryonic development, embryos being sexually dimorphic in early stages of development. As for the ape interbreeding, that one I know off the top of my head. They are members of the same "kind," a nebulous term often used by creationists and having it's origins in the Noah's Ark fable.
About the pre-human skeletons, one claim is that they are different species that share common traits due to efficient design.
Ah, it all makes sense now. I am officially a creationist. 
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 1, 2021 0:49:39 GMT
Sorry, I mean the "evolution by means of natural selection." They don't get THAT specific in the episode, but that is what creationists mean when they argue against evolution. They are arguing the explanation for the fact, not for the fact itself.
I wasn't disagreeing, just enjoying tweaking the nose of creationists who don't understand what they are arguing against.
I am not expert either obviously, but the thing is...either way, scientists have given me more of a reason to believe in evolution by means of natural selection than creationists have given me for anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 1, 2021 0:51:27 GMT
Creationist arguments are irrelevant unless they hold religion to the same standard. That is a great point and actually relates to my other response to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 1, 2021 0:54:17 GMT
That is the one I have heard, that they believe in micro-evolution. I didn't even know there was such an idea until I heard creationists use the term. What about nipples on men and all the other stuff that points towards evolution on at least some level? What about the fact that some apes can interbreed and some can't? All of this points to the process of evolution being accurate to me. And that is just the genetic stuff. What is their explanation of the pre-modern human skeletons being different than us and that you can literally line up skeletons from different periods and see the small changes over time and that they look more ape like the further back you go? Actually had to look up the nipple one, it's been a while. One creationist explanation I found right away was that they are especially sensitive and a source of sexual stimuli. If they have a function, they would be consistent with design. Alternatively, it is part of efficient embryonic development, embryos being sexually dimorphic in early stages of development. As for the ape interbreeding, that one I know off the top of my head. They are members of the same "kind," a nebulous term often used by creationists and having it's origins in the Noah's Ark fable.
About the pre-human skeletons, one claim is that they are different species that share common traits due to efficient design.
I guess my next question would be...did Adam have nipples then?
|
|
