How could anyone deny evolution?

[VanceMack]

Yeah! Also, what's up with that whole 'contraception' thing? And electricity? And cars? Man, it's time we just embraced the natural order of things!*

*[/sarcasm], just in case

Idiotic points...but thanks for playing. Science and advancements in technology or logical, viable, and needed. Putting the country in debt continuing to take care of pathetic crippled and dependent pets...its simply counter-evolutionary. Funny who the first folks are to rush to defend those 'free' government cheese and handout programs...you know...those people that believe so much in science and evolution...

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Idiotic points...but thanks for playing. Science and advancements in technology or logical, viable, and needed. Putting the country in debt continuing to take care of pathetic crippled and dependent pets...its simply counter-evolutionary. Funny who the first folks are to rush to defend those 'free' government cheese and handout programs...you know...those people that believe so much in science and evolution...

No one believes in science and evolution like they are some type of religion. Science and evolution are not political or religious concepts. Science though can prove that evolution is real. Hence why the religious Right is opposed to science in general and why they are trying to marginalize science.

Plus there is the fact that science and by default evolution transcends political and religious bias.

 

[VanceMack]

No one believes in science and evolution like they are some type of religion. Science and evolution are not political or religious concepts. Science though can prove that evolution is real. Hence why the religious Right is opposed to science in general and why they are trying to marginalize science.

Plus there is the fact that science and by default evolution transcends political and religious bias.

Which has nothing to do with the insistence on ignoring known scientific realities regarding evolution and continuing to not only allow but enable the pathetic crippled dependent pets to breed and pollute the gene pool. We should be far more science based and logical when it comes to provisioning social services. Continuing on this path is folly.

 

[Dittohead not!]

If an omnipotent and omniscient entity created something imperfect it would have made a mistake which is pretty damning considering that it knows everything. And sure it could make a mistake on purpose, but that is just a lame excuse for why animals are imperfect.
Perfect would be something without any mistakes. The human body has many mistakes the largest being the method of childbirth. It works sure but far from perfectly.

unless there is a reason for what we perceive as an imperfection.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Which has nothing to do with the insistence on ignoring known scientific realities regarding evolution and continuing to not only allow but enable the pathetic crippled dependent pets to breed and pollute the gene pool. We should be far more science based and logical when it comes to provisioning social services. Continuing on this path is folly.

If that philosophy is taken to it's logical conclusion then there are many things we should do. Stop all vaccinations. Stop curing diseases or demand sterilization when we cure someone. Screen all children for genetic diseases and sterilize them if found. Once a person can't work, shot 'em, regardless of the cause. That's just a few things we should do to reinstate "natural" evolution. Sound like a plan? :roll:


Ed:
Oh yea, guns have to go. Swords and other medieval weapons are fine (no bows/crossbows) but if you don't have the strength and/or agility to defend yourself if confronted then you shouldn't be allowed to live or should suffer the consequences of being maimed.

 

[VanceMack]

If that philosophy is taken to it's logical conclusion then there are many things we should do. Stop all vaccinations. Stop curing diseases or demand sterilization when we cure someone. Screen all children for genetic diseases and sterilize them if found. Once a person can't work, shot 'em, regardless of the cause. That's just a few things we should do to reinstate "natural" evolution. Sound like a plan? :roll:

Again...you go all goofy. Amazing how illogical some people get when their handout programs are threatened. Vaccine programs are a logical program based on scientific advancement, so no problem there. And of course you wouldnt 'shoot em' when people are unable to work...you would let them experience their natural consequence. Either they prepared themselves for such an event or they didnt. If they didnt, well of course evolution has a plan for them. The crippled and weak become prey and arent allowed to infect the herd further. You wouldnt have to shoot them...just stop allowing them to drag the rest of society down. How/if they survive is up to them. You ARE of course on the right scientific track with regard to genetic disease. If a family chooses to provide for them...well...good for them. But to allocate societal resources on them? To what purpose...morality? Folly! Thats pure feeeeeling and emotion. There is no place in science for such things. They should not be enabled to continue to piollute the gene pool. Surely that is what you embrace.

 

[Dittohead not!]

A herd of wild elk is kept strong by the predators that depend on them for food, chiefly wolves. That situation has kept elk strong for thousands of years by weeding out the unfit before they have a chance to breed. Moreover, the male elk do battle with each other for the privilege of breeding.

That is natural selection in action, and there is no doubt that it works.

Now, apply that to the human population: What is the equivalent of the wolf pack?

Should men have to prove themselves in some way in order to be allowed to breed? How might that work?

 

[iangb]

Idiotic points...but thanks for playing. Science and advancements in technology or logical, viable, and needed. Putting the country in debt continuing to take care of pathetic crippled and dependent pets...its simply counter-evolutionary. Funny who the first folks are to rush to defend those 'free' government cheese and handout programs...you know...those people that believe so much in science and evolution...

Science doesn't dictate that evolution is the way things should be, or that natural selection is a particularly moral way to run a state - science just says that, in the wild, that's how things are. It doesn't make a value judgement; that's something you've added. You might as well stand at an airport and protest against planes for being "counter-gravity". How dare there pilots believe so much in science and gravity!

Now, if you have a different reason for killing off the sick, weak, etc, then feel free to air it. But to just say "that's what science says happens!" shows a grave misunderstanding of what science actually is.

...as an aside, you might want to look into the field of memetics. Humanity has brains, which means we can act beyond our genes.

 

[VanceMack]

A herd of wild elk is kept strong by the predators that depend on them for food, chiefly wolves. That situation has kept elk strong for thousands of years by weeding out the unfit before they have a chance to breed. Moreover, the male elk do battle with each other for the privilege of breeding.

That is natural selection in action, and there is no doubt that it works.

Now, apply that to the human population: What is the equivalent of the wolf pack?

Should men have to prove themselves in some way in order to be allowed to breed? How might that work?

I dont know that people should have to prove themselves...only PROVIDE for themselves. If they cant...well...thats part of the process. Lord knows the herd can use a bit of thinning.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Again...you go all goofy. Amazing how illogical some people get when their handout programs are threatened. Vaccine programs are a logical program based on scientific advancement, so no problem there. And of course you wouldnt 'shoot em' when people are unable to work...you would let them experience their natural consequence. Either they prepared themselves for such an event or they didnt. If they didnt, well of course evolution has a plan for them. The crippled and weak become prey and arent allowed to infect the herd further. You wouldnt have to shoot them...just stop allowing them to drag the rest of society down. How/if they survive is up to them. You ARE of course on the right scientific track with regard to genetic disease. If a family chooses to provide for them...well...good for them. But to allocate societal resources on them? To what purpose...morality? Folly! Thats pure feeeeeling and emotion. There is no place in science for such things. They should not be enabled to continue to piollute the gene pool. Surely that is what you embrace.

I was merely taking your philosophy to it's "natural" conclusion - nothing "goofy" about any of it.
Me and mine get no handouts and never have so I have no clue what the hell you're talking about "my handout program". :roll:

Of course vaccines have to go. Europeans didn't conquer the world by themselves, they had a LOT of help from the diseases they carried. How could those Europeans carry "deadly" diseases? Because their population had a natural immunity to it - an immunity created by untold thousands of deaths of people who weren't immune. Vaccines allow people who are not immune to a given disease to reproduce, which just perpetuates the problem. The population will NEVER become immune to the disease that way. No, the only logical action is to let them survive or die as nature intended. People that can't survive a disease, how did you put it?, '... should not be enabled to continue to pollute the gene pool.'

When a genetic disease is discovered the person, whatever their age or socioeconomic status, must be sterilized.

People unable or unwilling to work are just a drag on society, whatever their age or socioeconomic status. If they have money their heirs can put it to better use by being able to afford having more children. In this New World Order of yours procreation will be critical. One in three children (maybe even higher) will probably not reproduce.

Should men have to prove themselves in some way in order to be allowed to breed? How might that work?

Swords, not guns!

Ed:
Guns have made people soft. Anybody capable of lifting a pineapple can shoot a gun, it takes strength and/or agility and/or the constitution of a mule to win a sword fight.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Which has nothing to do with the insistence on ignoring known scientific realities regarding evolution and continuing to not only allow but enable the pathetic crippled dependent pets to breed and pollute the gene pool. We should be far more science based and logical when it comes to provisioning social services. Continuing on this path is folly.

I see where you are coming from now. You actually do look at evolution as another religious belief. You think that people that accept evolution as proven fact must believe in evolution as way of life and how society must be ran. Thank you for sharing your point of view it has enlightened me. Now I understand why exactly Christians are so appalled at the idea of evolution. They believe that evolution means that secular people must act like animals since to them their is no intellectual division between the two if we are genetically equal.

Again I must tell you that evolution has never been a belief system as you are assuming. Equating evolution as an belief system is a complete lie created by religious institutions to trick their followers. Its amazing that any human with a halfway usable brain would fall for such primitive ideas in this modern world.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

unless there is a reason for what we perceive as an imperfection.

Like I said such a reason for imperfection can only be an excuse by humans that believe that a god exists.

 

[obvious Child]

Why do you assume that an omnipotent and omniscient entity could only create something perfectly?

Why do you assume that your definition of perfect is correct?

But meh.

He's technically wrong.

Omnipotent and omniscient entities outside of the Bible could create imperfection all they wanted.

The problem is that in the Bible God is defined as Perfect. If the Biblical God is perfect, it is without flaws. Therefore its will is without flaws. How can a perfect will create imperfection when it is limited to creating perfection? Granted, there is a problem with omnipotence and perfection, but let's ignore that for the time being. The Biblical God should only be able to create perfection due to its nature as a perfect being in its entirety which includes how it creates.

 

[The Mark]

He's technically wrong.

Omnipotent and omniscient entities outside of the Bible could create imperfection all they wanted.

The problem is that in the Bible God is defined as Perfect. If the Biblical God is perfect, it is without flaws. Therefore its will is without flaws. How can a perfect will create imperfection when it is limited to creating perfection? Granted, there is a problem with omnipotence and perfection, but let's ignore that for the time being. The Biblical God should only be able to create perfection due to its nature as a perfect being in its entirety which includes how it creates.

Assuming for the sake of argument that perfection is the only possible creation for a perfect and omnipotent/omniscient entity to have created...

And assuming again for the sake of argument that this entity created us and the universe - how do we know that said entity's definition of perfect is the same as our own?

Perhaps who and where we are IS perfect, from a certain perspective...not being omnipotent/scient entities ourselves, how could we know?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Assuming for the sake of argument that perfection is the only possible creation for a perfect and omnipotent/omniscient entity to have created...

And assuming again for the sake of argument that this entity created us and the universe - how do we know that said entity's definition of perfect is the same as our own?

Perhaps who and where we are IS perfect, from a certain perspective...not being omnipotent/scient entities ourselves, how could we know?

One must question why a simply definition of a simple word like perfect could be disputed. If we start being fluid with definitions then anything is possible and nothing is possible. You might as well be saying well what if... indeed what if's are not reality.

True an omnipotent/omniscient entity could do whatever it likes including being imperfect. But such a being would know of such imperfection before they even went there. Logically why would such a being make mistakes when it can do whatever it wants with its ultimate power and ultimate knowledge? Certainly if it did anything at all it would have to purposely do something that was not perfect had have a very definite reason why it created something imperfect. So what are the imperfections in animals that and what could possibly be their purpose? At this point theists will assume the position of we mortals would be incapable of understand such purposes. And true for the life of me I do not understand the purpose of flesh eating bacteria or autoimmune diseases or flawed vision. If this alleged superbeing exists if anything it seems to have the purpose of being cruel. Through out the history of intelligent life on Earth there have been massive amounts of suffering. Meanwhile not one action to correct such suffering. What good is a god/superbeing if it never does a thing? Am I to believe that it only did things at the beginning and then sat back and ate popcorn and is enjoying the show?

How could we know?

There has been nothing that has ever been considered as any proof for the existence of an omnipotent/omniscient entity. From our perspective where that the concept of superbeings exclusively has originated from humans with no other evidence at all. How could we possibly know that such an omnipotent/omniscient entity could exist? After all it has been absent from our perceptions for all of recorded history. Religious books and the claims that they make are as outlandish as work of fiction ever written.

How could we know of such an entities existence? And since it does not interact with us why would it matter?

 

[Dittohead not!]

I dont know that people should have to prove themselves...only PROVIDE for themselves. If they cant...well...thats part of the process. Lord knows the herd can use a bit of thinning.

So, your answer is that the wolf pack that needs to thin the human herd is hunger and want? How is that working out in places like Somalia and Haiti, where want and hunger do thin the human herd?

 

[VanceMack]

So, your answer is that the wolf pack that needs to thin the human herd is hunger and want? How is that working out in places like Somalia and Haiti, where want and hunger do thin the human herd?

So you are deliberately making my point for me? How effective has all that 'aid' and assistance been in solving their 'problems'? Meh...let nature run its course. If they cant provide for themselves, they die and the land sustains the appropriate number of people

 

[Jredbaron96]

So, quite a few pages ago, Wake suggested that if we teach evolution in schoo, we have to teach all it's flaws as well.
I'm still waiting for those flaws Wake.

 

[MoSurveyor]

So, quite a few pages ago, Wake suggested that if we teach evolution in schoo, we have to teach all it's flaws as well.
I'm still waiting for those flaws Wake.

As far as I know we teach the scientific method in schools. What "flaws" there are can be plainly seen by looking learning that.

 

[Deuce]

As far as I know we teach the scientific method in schools. What "flaws" there are can be plainly seen by looking learning that.

So surely someone can point out some of those flaws.

 

[Dittohead not!]

So surely someone can point out some of those flaws.

The flaws in the theory of evolution are the same as the flaws in any scientific theory that counters someone's cherished belief system: It runs counter to the belief system, and therefore has to be wrong.

 

[MoSurveyor]

So surely someone can point out some of those flaws.

The only "flaw" in the scientific method is it's main strength - that almost nothing except facts are set in stone. The insistence that we don't know everything, that tomorrow our theories could be replaced with better ones, is the only thing they can ever really attack, as we've seen in this thread. It's precisely the refusal to resort to dogma that makes science "weak" in the eyes of people who live their lives immersed in it.

 

[Matt Foley]

Whale Evolution - The Story of Prehistoric Whales and Whale Evolution

In most ways, Pakicetus (Greek for "Pakistan whale") was indistinguishable from other small mammals of the early Eocene epoch: about 50 pounds or so, with long, dog-like legs, a long tail, and a narrow snout. Crucially, though, the anatomy of this mammal's inner ears closely matches that of modern whales, the main "diagnostic" feature that places Pakicetus at the root of whale evolution.

It makes perfect sense now. *slaps forehead*. How simple, it's INNER EAR is similar, so it must be the ancestor of the whale.

I don't have a problem with the theory, I have a problem with the super-hero version of it. Slap on some webbed feet and you get frog-man.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Whale Evolution - The Story of Prehistoric Whales and Whale Evolution

It makes perfect sense now. *slaps forehead*. How simple, it's INNER EAR is similar, so it must be the ancestor of the whale.

I don't have a problem with the theory, I have a problem with the super-hero version of it. Slap on some webbed feet and you get frog-man.

Theory: life evolved over eons of time through natural selection.
hypothesis: the critter you write about was the ancestor of modern whales.

 

[iangb]

Theory: life evolved over eons of time through natural selection.
hypothesis: the critter you write about was the ancestor of modern whales.

That's not quite accurate - the critter idea does have suppotring evidence, so it's not pure hypothesis. It's arguable as to the strength of the supporting evidence, however, so the theory isn't as well supported as evolution is.