The Skeptics Thread

[HOT RAM]

Have either of you ever read a book by Darwin?

Origin of the Species, The Decent of Man or maybe Voyage of the Beagle?

Or have you just read what other people have said about him?

Most of his books can be found on-line...

I have not read any of his works,just what others have said.

I am sure that I am too far gone to ever change my mind anyway

 

[Azmal]

Have either of you ever read a book by Darwin?
Origin of the Species, The Decent of Man or maybe Voyage of the Beagle?
Or have you just read what other people have said about him?
Most of his books can be found on-line...

Yes ; )

Ok, from now on I am going to leave the ball in your court since I have no idea what I am talking about.
Prove to me this is true, and is fact. Factual information, not the wiki link to darwin.

You tell me what it will require to convince you evolution is a scientific fact.

 

[Prof]

I have not read any of his works,just what others have said.

I am sure that I am too far gone to ever change my mind anyway

"Seek first to understand, then be understood." We don't always read to change our minds, often it just provides perspective on why others believe what they do.

You might want to try the Qur'an too! It is a beautiful read...but very hard to understand...the language is so poetic and figurative...it is no wonder that the fringe elements that revere the book misinterpret it so terribly.

 

[BurntRubber]

Yes ; )


You tell me what it will require to convince you evolution is a scientific fact.

I thought you would know besause you said you could convince anyone.

It will take more than, just becasue make and female animals are different in size and strength and we are, then we must have some from lower life forms.
And just because eggs of a female deer are the same size as a womans must mean we were a lower life form.

I can believe in the no longer needed use of the appendix (since mine is no longer with me) and that we evolved from needing eat hundreds of years ago and today we no longer do. Same with wisdom teeth, maybe we need them for our diets years ago, but now no longer do. But to convince me that we evolved into humans is going to take some serious facts. not a guy who wrote about it if "this than this".

 

[BurntRubber]

"Seek first to understand, then be understood." We don't always read to change our minds, often it just provides perspective on why others believe what they do.

You might want to try the Qur'an too! It is a beautiful read...but very hard to understand...the language is so poetic and figurative...it is no wonder that the fringe elements that revere the book misinterpret it so terribly.

Prof - have you reaad the Twarat(Torah of Moses((old testament))), Zabur(Psalms of David), Injil(Gospel of Jesus)...also makes reading the Qur'an a little more understandable. the first three parts are part of the chrsistina bible, the Qur'an was written about 100 years after muhammed died in 632AD.

Orthodox muslim believe Jihad is an inner battle within oneself to live a pure life.
Radicals believe Jihad is a call to rid the world of anyone who is not muslim.(in a nut shell)

 

[Azmal]

I thought you would know besause you said you could convince anyone.

It will take more than, just becasue make and female animals are different in size and strength and we are, then we must have some from lower life forms.
And just because eggs of a female deer are the same size as a womans must mean we were a lower life form.

I can believe in the no longer needed use of the appendix (since mine is no longer with me) and that we evolved from needing eat hundreds of years ago and today we no longer do. Same with wisdom teeth, maybe we need them for our diets years ago, but now no longer do. But to convince me that we evolved into humans is going to take some serious facts. not a guy who wrote about it if "this than this".

Just think on in it. Figure out what would actually convince you that evolution is true, nothing to do with god, just evolution, and I will address your response seriously and with facts you can accept. Otherwise I could fire off arrows all day and never hit on an issue you care about or have even thought about.

It may also be prudent to tell me what you can accept as evidence and from what sources you feel are valid.

 

[BurntRubber]

Just think on in it. Figure out what would actually convince you that evolution is true, nothing to do with god, just evolution, and I will address your response seriously and with facts you can accept. Otherwise I could fire off arrows all day and never hit on an issue you care about or have even thought about.

It may also be prudent to tell me what you can accept as evidence and from what sources you feel are valid.

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."

If i am to be as analytical as I should then, I want to see facts...not Darwin saying something and then arthur Keith backing him up. If the words of the Bible are a joke, then show me concrete proof. plus how do you date these remains, C-14 cant really be trusted after it 5000 year half life cycle. NOt sure where you have this proof, I have been digging through the internet (that al gore created) to try to find some solid proof. ya dont even ahve to type it, just paste the link and i will read it.

 

[HOT RAM]

I'm fairly certain you're biased against people who think they are vampires. Well, not against the people, but that they actually are indeed vampires.


Thanks for taking the time to continue all this by the way. It's been fun so far.

Vampires in the "Bram Stoker" version or just vampires in general ?

I would have been biased at one time.

I could really start a huge debate on this topic,but probably should just let it be.

 

[BurntRubber]

In consideration to Azmal... and in an effort to demonstrate an absence of ill will toawrds him. I will offer this further contribution to the discussion to all those who are capable of digesting it whole hog.

For your edification and amusement.....:

http://www.isi.org/lectures/flvplayer/lectureplayer.aspx?file=v000187_cicero_102207.flv

You may wish to fast forward thru the introductions. This debate is about 80 minutes if you can withstand the pain.

I'd just like to add that it is much more informative and entertaining to watch two actually experts debate this endless argument.

No offense.....

D

Tim i listend to about 80% till my comp crashed, the funny part was how Hitchens was owned by the first college girl to ask him a question. got flat out had no responce

 

[Azmal]

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."

If i am to be as analytical as I should then, I want to see facts...not Darwin saying something and then arthur Keith backing him up. If the words of the Bible are a joke, then show me concrete proof. plus how do you date these remains, C-14 cant really be trusted after it 5000 year half life cycle. NOt sure where you have this proof, I have been digging through the internet (that al gore created) to try to find some solid proof. ya dont even ahve to type it, just paste the link and i will read it.

I don't know who you were quoting but I'll leave it alone and stick to the issues.

Alright, concerning the method in which materials are dated is a good starting point and is one of many supporting factors behind evolution. Carbon-14 dating is actually terribly inaccurate to date substances more than around 60,000 years, it's half life is actually around 6000 years which is relatively short but makes it highly accurate for the first several thousands of years. There are several other predominant dating methods for the long term that use the same general principle. I'm confident with my knowledge of those points but I'll venture a little further... C-14 is produced by living organisms, plants specifically and then passed along the food chain. Once the organism dies, it is no longer produced and it allows us to trace back to that point of time.
We also can date fossils by dating the rocks immediately adjacent to that encase them.

There is a lot of info and I can scarcely remember every bit of it so my facts may be slightly off but definitely within a reasonable margin of error I'm certain, but if you don't trust my word, as you shouldn't, you can find all the technical info here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

So basically you're correct to say C-14 isn't accurate for long term. After it's usefulness expires, that's where the other dating methods kick in. I've noticed creationist websites tend to leave that part out though.

What next? Sticking with evolution? Assuming I've answered that to your satisfaction, what else makes you believe it is not true? 1 thing at a time is good like this. Lets focus be given to the issue

 

[jelms]

Science isn't just sitting at a lab table reproducing experiments.

I know that very well. There are a whole bunch of theoretical physicists running around out there. And you know what, it's called a theory until an experimental physicist can prove it through repeatable evidence.

My reference about "seeing" something was taken way to literally by you. I'm going to give you a little credit and assume you don't actually think I was so dense that if I can't see something or feel it I can't understand it. All the things you reference can be detected directly, so they are real of course.

-jeff

 

[BurntRubber]

I don't know who you were quoting but I'll leave it alone and stick to the issues.

Alright, concerning the method in which materials are dated is a good starting point and is one of many supporting factors behind evolution. Carbon-14 dating is actually terribly inaccurate to date substances more than around 60,000 years, it's half life is actually around 6000 years which is relatively short but makes it highly accurate for the first several thousands of years. There are several other predominant dating methods for the long term that use the same general principle. I'm confident with my knowledge of those points but I'll venture a little further... C-14 is produced by living organisms, plants specifically and then passed along the food chain. Once the organism dies, it is no longer produced and it allows us to trace back to that point of time.
We also can date fossils by dating the rocks immediately adjacent to that encase them.

There is a lot of info and I can scarcely remember every bit of it so my facts may be slightly off but definitely within a reasonable margin of error I'm certain, but if you don't trust my word, as you shouldn't, you can find all the technical info here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

So basically you're correct to say C-14 isn't accurate for long term. After it's usefulness expires, that's where the other dating methods kick in. I've noticed creationist websites tend to leave that part out though.

What next? Sticking with evolution? Assuming I've answered that to your satisfaction, what else makes you believe it is not true? 1 thing at a time is good like this. Lets focus be given to the issue

you actually said nothing about evolution itself. i know next is going to come uranium lead dating and so forth...but what about evolution?

 

[Azmal]

you actually said nothing about evolution itself. i know next is going to come uranium lead dating and so forth...but what about evolution?

You said:

C-14 cant really be trusted after it 5000 year half life cycle. NOt sure where you have this proof, I have been digging through the internet (that al gore created) to try to find some solid proof.

I answered. The accuracy of dating methods are important to conclude evolution and the age of the earth is in question.
Now, instead of trying to badger me, ask me some tough questions or point out some points which you believe make evolution untrue.

 

[Ram From Hell]

Two things I've said that I don't think anyone has either refuted or expounded on are the current state of evolution (what we can see with our own eyes) and the "Intelligent Design" theory offered by some Christian groups.

Is no one of faith willing to acknowledge the evidence of evolution which has occurred just within our lifetimes? Does that not work hand in glove (no more OJ references, I promise) with the foundation of what Darwin saw as the mechanism for how things got to the way they are today? I don't think someone of faith is going to be turned away by St. Peter, Paul, or Mary (didn't say there wouldn't be musical references) for acknowledging that evolution is happening. In fact, it should be considered by those of faith as just part of God's plan. The rule of nature, and by proxy, "The Plan" is to adapt or die.

Speaking of adapting, this is what can be seen occurring with religion's views of the mounting body of evidence that evolution happens. "Intelligent Design" is in itself an example of how religion evolves. I hope the irony of this isn't lost on too many of you. This is and obvious compromise with science to explain the observations being made about how life works. Again, these compromises have occurred throughout history as evidence to the contrary of the religious "stance" on something overwhelms religion's ability to deny it any longer without becoming an anachronism itself. Religion, like other things in life, must adapt or die.

Now, whether or not you believe that things are the way they are purely through the evolutionary process, or things were created to evolve, you cannot argue that evolution exists. It is not a concept or a theory. It is an observable fact. Now, how much evolution has to do with the way things are now is just a matter of whether or not you are a person of faith. Also, whether or not you are a person of faith, you cannot argue that religion itself evolves.

Would someone please either try to prove me wrong or acknowledge the wisdom of these statements?

 

[HOT RAM]

Two things I've said that I don't think anyone has either refuted or expounded on are the current state of evolution (what we can see with our own eyes) and the "Intelligent Design" theory offered by some Christian groups.

Is no one of faith willing to acknowledge the evidence of evolution which has occurred just within our lifetimes? Does that not work hand in glove (no more OJ references, I promise) with the foundation of what Darwin saw as the mechanism for how things got to the way they are today? I don't think someone of faith is going to be turned away by St. Peter, Paul, or Mary (didn't say there wouldn't be musical references) for acknowledging that evolution is happening. In fact, it should be considered by those of faith as just part of God's plan. The rule of nature, and by proxy, "The Plan" is to adapt or die.

Speaking of adapting, this is what can be seen occurring with religion's views of the mounting body of evidence that evolution happens. "Intelligent Design" is in itself an example of how religion evolves. I hope the irony of this isn't lost on too many of you. This is and obvious compromise with science to explain the observations being made about how life works. Again, these compromises have occurred throughout history as evidence to the contrary of the religious "stance" on something overwhelms religion's ability to deny it any longer without becoming an anachronism itself. Religion, like other things in life, must adapt or die.

Now, whether or not you believe that things are the way they are purely through the evolutionary process, or things were created to evolve, you cannot argue that evolution exists. It is not a concept or a theory. It is an observable fact. Now, how much evolution has to do with the way things are now is just a matter of whether or not you are a person of faith. Also, whether or not you are a person of faith, you cannot argue that religion itself evolves.

Would someone please either try to prove me wrong or acknowledge the wisdom of these statements?

As I have said before,I acknowledge change is occuring within species.

religion IS evolving

I am NOT religious

I am a born-again Christian ( semantics to some ,a world of difference to me)
it's about relationship (with God),not religion

 

[andrew heywood]

what came first, the hen or the egg?

good observation, religon is for people trying to stay out of hell, spirtuality is for people that have already been there.

 

[Django]

good observation, religon is for people trying to stay out of hell, spirtuality is for people that have already been there.

Here, here...... :congrats:

D

 

[jelms]

That's not what I meant either. I mean there are things we cant directly see, such as ultraviolet light, x-rays, radiation but we know they're there.

We don't live long enough to see it, but we know mountains form and we can look back in time to the farthest reaches of space to trace back to the near beginings. We can't see a star form but we can conclude it is a process of gaseous matter condensing to the point to ignite with nuclear fusion. I can tell you our sun's surface temperature and core temperture to a reasonable level of accuracy even though I can't go stick a thermometer to it.

Science isn't just sitting at a lab table reproducing experiments.

Azmal,

I believe we have been splitting hairs and definitions on fact and theory.

Since I'm not a biologist, I always hated that subject, but am more of a trained experimental physicist. I have done some research and found this post that might clear some issues up between us.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Was a good read and supports both of our statements. I hope this clears up some of the statements I have made. After reading this and others I can understand your views.

-jeff