The God Delusion

[Dr_Dave]

Going back to my initial point ~(confused? see above)~.... evolution is an idea far from accepted in science.

 

Doesn't matter how many times you say it, doesn't make it true. Evolution is overwhelmingly accepted in science as a general process. Similarly, natural selection is accepted as the major contributing mechanism by which evolution happens. There is some debate on the finer details of NS, such as punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism, but really it's just arguing over the details.

 

Tell you what, let's stop beating around the bush and being coy: Evolution is a fact, it happened. If you choose to ignore the mountains and mountains of supporting evidence, then that's your problem. But don't let your wilful embrace of ignorance pollute the minds of kids eh?

 

Dave

[ai_Droid]

Hey everyone, I have an idea. Before talking more crap (as if i'm interested), why not read my initial post?

 

Dan, we've read it and the responses show people understand it. You clearly don't.

 

Quite simple. What just happened there? >>> 1) asked a question 2) answered a question (point blank).

 

No, you were asked a question, and you answered a question incorrectly.

 

What do we not have there?? >>> a debate about evolution, the strengths and the weaknesses. I am not entering a debate. I Like I said, I have no intention on wasting my time. I have better things to do with my life. Say what you will. Being married to someone who knows a lot about it, you do actually learn too. You guys should try it sometime.

 

No, what we're having a debate about is what you define as a fact, and your clear misunderstanding of science, despite being married to a science teacher. If you say evolution isn't a fact, then gravity isn't a fact either. Would you say that should be tought in school?

 

Going back to my initial point ~(confused? see above)~.... evolution is an idea far from accepted in science. Yet in our schools, it is taught as a fact. Further to the comments on religion, the same also applies to science. When the kids are taught, they should also be told that it is not fact (because some of them.. don't realise that). That is my point..

 

Then answer the question that's been posed to you repeatedly: if you don't accept the overwealming body of evidence that leads to evolution being accepted as a fact, what other sciences shouldn't be tought in school? Gravity, shit pretty much all of physics? Pretty much all science? Or are you happy with sciences evidence only when it doesn't contradict the bible and your con man and his dissapearing plates?

 

Edit, in fact, reform the question: What science do you think is acceptable to be taught as fact, excluding mathematics?

[Dr_Dave]

Edit, in fact, reform the question: What science do you think is acceptable to be taught as fact, excluding mathematics?

 

Actually, cross mathematics off the list of subjects as well, since the Bible clearly states that the value of pi is 3. The value of 3.14159... is far from accepted fact in mathematics, and shouldn't be taught as such.

 

Dave

[Albert Tatlock]

Edit, in fact, reform the question: What science do you think is acceptable to be taught as fact, excluding mathematics?

 

Actually, cross mathematics off the list of subjects as well, since the Bible clearly states that the value of pi is 3. The value of 3.14159... is far from accepted fact in mathematics, and shouldn't be taught as such.

 

Dave

This debate is going round in circles.

[Mr. Sausages]

It's a brave man that admits to questioning the theory of evolution because of his wife.

[Chinahand]

gee.... what about the problem of scientific theory being taught, without clearly defining which is a theory and which is proven?

 

Read what you just said, can you see how stupid it is? What unproven science do you think is daught Dan?

 

 

Evolution.

 

It's clearly taught as a fact... when yet, it's nothing more than an 'idea' or in other words... a theory.

 

Going back to your original post [as you insist we keep doing] I think it shows your failure to understand science.

 

We have evidence - fossils, genetics, observations by field biologists, geology - we attempt to find a theory with is not contradicted by this evidence - [that is the most basic part of science] - you can then extend this and ask what predictions does this theory give about future observations [not all scientific theories have this step, but the best do].

 

Evolution can never be proven - for all we know there are unfound fossil bunnies in the precambrian, or maybe non-coding DNA [please lets not use the word junk] is God's copyright message waiting for us to decode - but the simple fact is the theory has not been contradicted by any available evidence so far found.

 

Evolution may be an unproven idea (as is every scientific theory), but it is one which best fits the available evidence and probably more importantly has provided great predictive value - Darwin knew nothing of Genetics, but his idea of common descent directly predicts how the sickle cell gene is distributed about the world.

 

Your going on about "unproven science" unfortunately shows your ignorance - as Slim pointed out right at the beginning. But you continue, ad nuseum, to make the same mistake.

 

You say you aren't going to debate this issue because you simply answered a question - I've won, I've won, I've won. But I'm afraid you anwsered the question wrongly. Please show us ANY evidence that disproves evolution. You don't need to spend hours debating this - you say you are knowledgeable, via your wife on this subject - so please - just give us one bit of evidence. Just one.

 

That is how science works - if you find contradictory evidence the theory has to change - hence Dawkins' statements about changing his working hypothosis that there is no god if there was any evidence to support his/her/its existence.

[b4mbi]

It's a brave man that admits to questioning the theory of evolution because of his wife.

 

 

And it's a foolish man who won't accept overwhelming, publically available, independently verifiable EVIDENCE to support the theories of evolution and natural selection.

 

It's an even more foolish man who accepts without question (i.e. accepts as fact) 2,000 year old stories that

 

a) have been (mis)translated from their original script - number of the beast anyone?

b) were written hundreds of years after the historical events occured

c) are unquestionably open to interpretation

d) are in direct conflict with directly observable evidence today (I think here of Genesis in which the decendents of Adam and Eve live for 800+ years at a time)

e) propose the existence of an entity which has NO overwhelming, publically available, independently verifiable EVIDENCE to support that ascertation.

 

 

And it's a foolish-fooly-foo-foo-fool who says the moon is made of cheese.

 

How do you know it isn't ? have you been ?

 

no, but there is overwhelming, publically available, independently verifiable EVIDENCE that says it isn't.

 

OK, then, I will accept that AS A FACT then....

[Mr. Sausages]

Except, the moon landing may have been faked. And even if it wasn't, how do you know they didn't lie about it, and it really was made out of cheese? And how do you know for a FACT that the moon or even the universe exists at all, and that you're not just dreaming all of this?

[VinnieK]

Edit, in fact, reform the question: What science do you think is acceptable to be taught as fact, excluding mathematics?

 

Actually, cross mathematics off the list of subjects as well, since the Bible clearly states that the value of pi is 3. The value of 3.14159... is far from accepted fact in mathematics, and shouldn't be taught as such.

 

Dave

 

(Off topic) That's a bit of cheeky reasoning: The value of Pi is never really taught as fact to begin with (since it is unknown) - what is taught as fact is that pi is defined as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, and that it can be approximated by 3.14159.... (which each decimal place being established as accepted, and proven fact). In other words the uncertainty regarding the value of pi (and in mathematics in general) is not analogous to scientific uncertainty (and indeed mathematics is not really a science).

 

Also, to be fair to Christians, the value of pi isn't, as you claim, clearly stated as 3, but rather is implied by the measurements of the circumferance and diameter of a component of Soloman's temple. As such it's not portrayed as a constant or definite value in Christian theology, or an integral part of its creation myth or doctrine: it's clearly just the measurements taken by a human, and so it's reasonable to assume that it's an approximate measurement.

[b4mbi]

Mr. SausagesPosted Today, 01:18 PM Except, the moon landing may have been faked. And even if it wasn't, how do you know they didn't lie about it, and it really was made out of cheese? And how do you know for a FACT that the moon or even the universe exists at all, and that you're not just dreaming all of this?

 

I'm going to go the next MF get together specifically to meet you and discuss these very points...

 

I have an as yet unproven theory that the very answers we seek lie deep within the bottom of several pints of guinness...

 

We can invite DJDan on our exploratory mission, and then we can all find enlightenment together, quickly followed by chips, moon and gravy

[ai_Droid]

It's an even more foolish man who accepts without question (i.e. accepts as fact) 2,000 year old stories that

 

Actually, in Dans case we shouldn't be surprised. In addition to the sillyness you list, he believes:

 

a) That a translation by a convicted con man of an egyption text bought from a travelling mummy show is the Book of Abraham and a missing part of the bible. When translated by others, these turn out to be nothing but burial records and well wishes for the dead with references to egyptian gods and not christianity at all. They were also carbon dated to 1500 years arter Abrahams lifetime.

 

b) That this same conman was given a set of plates containing an alternative version of the bible apparently from 600 BC. Given that this book contains word for word text contained in the king james bible which was written in 1611 AD.

 

I could go on.

 

He can believe these 'facts' unproven from one person, and I'm guessing he's also happy for it to be tought to children, but he won't accept evidence from literally tens of thousands of studies that support evolution.

 

We are wasting our time here

[Dr_Dave]

Also, to be fair to Christians, the value of pi isn't, as you claim, clearly stated as 3, but rather is implied by the measurements of the circumferance and diameter of a component of Soloman's temple. As such it's not portrayed as a constant or definite value in Christian theology, or an integral part of its creation myth or doctrine: it's clearly just the measurements taken by a human, and so it's reasonable to assume that it's an approximate measurement.

 

Oh pchah! I was just trying to make funnies!

 

You'd clearly have to be a crazy mentalist to take as gospel anything that was written in a book 2000 years ago or more, by entirely fallible humans.

 

Dave

[b4mbi]

It's an even more foolish man who accepts without question (i.e. accepts as fact) 2,000 year old stories that

 

Actually, in Dans case we shouldn't be surprised. In addition to the sillyness you list, he believes:

 

a) That a translation by a convicted con man of an egyption text bought from a travelling mummy show is the Book of Abraham and a missing part of the bible. When translated by others, these turn out to be nothing but burial records and well wishes for the dead with references to egyptian gods and not christianity at all. They were also carbon dated to 1500 years arter Abrahams lifetime.

 

b) That this same conman was given a set of plates containing an alternative version of the bible apparently from 600 BC. Given that this book contains word for word text contained in the king james bible which was written in 1611 AD.

 

I could go on.

 

He can believe these 'facts' unproven from one person, and I'm guessing he's also happy for it to be tought to children, but he won't accept evidence from literally tens of thousands of studies that support evolution.

 

We are wasting our time here

 

 

I didn't know that about mormonism... oh dear, they believe in the teachings of a convicted fraudster?

 

 

What can you do if someone chooses not to enter the Age of Reason, and dogmatically clings to improbable, outdated belief structures that are unsupported by verifiable evidence?

 

Go to the pub, that's what.

[ai_Droid]

I didn't know that about mormonism... oh dear, they believe in the teachings of a convicted fraudster?

 

Aye. The contest that of course, despite it being on public record in Bainbridge, New York. The records show that Joseph Smith was employed as a 'seer', someone who used a magic stone to find buried treasure or gold.

 

Scary innit?

 

What can you do if someone chooses not to enter the Age of Reason, and dogmatically clings to improbable, outdated belief structures that are unsupported by verifiable evidence?

Go to the pub, that's what.

 

Until you find out they're teaching your kids at school...

[lectro]

Just been reading David Attenborough's book "Life on Air" (what a life this guy has had). Anyway I found the following on the BBC site as an audio file and on Wikipedia as text. For me, Attenborough (someone who has researched, witnessed, experienced and learnt as much as he has) summed it up perfectly:

 

When asked whether his observation of the natural world has given him faith in a creator, he generally responds with some version of this story:

 

My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [i ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy.

 

He has explained that he feels the evidence all over the planet clearly shows evolution to be the best way to explain the diversity of life, and that "as far as I'm concerned, if there is a supreme being then he chose organic evolution as a way of bringing into existence the natural world."