First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Post Reply The Scientific Theory of Evolution has no holes, so why are there still theists?
72907 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Central KY.
Offline
Posted 5/21/14
I personally believe that theism, and the belief of God(s) as a whole has greatly diminished in the Western world. While it may not seem like it, especially in the "Bible Belt" in which I live, I still believe that right now more than any time in History...well since the entire beginning of belief in "Higher Powers"...that the beliefs and views that Science, literature, and plain being unsure, have started to shift. I personally would like to believe that the numbers are somewhere are 40/60 now.

But even with that being said, that other bunch of the 60% are still as exultant and hard headed as ever, not willing whatsoever to be swayed. I can only hope that Humanity as a whole can back off of their "crutches" in general. Life really isn't that bad when You think about it. And as for Death? I wouldn't want an afterlife! When I die, I simply want to lie peacefully in the mud for the rest of time. I mean really...Who would want to spend an ETERNITY, ANYWHERE?

Thanks for the Thread, it's a good One.
27283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Online
Posted 5/22/14 , edited 1/2/15
Here we go again... Making a debate out of a non-debate. There is no contention between science and faith because they deal with separate domains. Those who drum up debates around this non-debate doesn't know what science entails.



What Science Does And Does Not Do


Let's say that we witness two things, A and B. B comes after A, and as far as we can tell, B is "caused" by A.

A ---> B

We confirm this by doing stuff so that whenever A happens, B seems to always happen after A. Do this a lot of times (more than a few), and this is become somewhat of a "law."

A ---> B
A ---> B
A ---> B
A ---> B
A ---> B
A ---> B
A ---> B

We soon have better ways of figuring things out (technological advances), and pretty soon we start to see that there are more "steps" that go between A and B

A ---> A1 ---> B
A ---> A1 ---> A2 ---> A3 ---> B
A ---> A1a-->A1b-->A1c-->A2a-->A2b-->A2c-->A3a-->A3b-->A3c-->B

Actually, this division can go on downwards pretty much forever, until you hit a "wall of non-explanation"...

"We have the protons and neutrons of an atom which are made up of even smaller subatomic particles, but what is holding those together? The nuclear forces should be pushing those apart... All the atoms in the universe should all be flying apart by now... Wait, we have detected some evidence that something must be holding them together. Since it sort of "glues" the subatomic particles together we'll call it GLUONS..." (hmm ok, so what makes up these "gluons?" Let's play "dissect a gluon" and see what happens next)

or

"At the base of evolution is genetic mutation, which is caused by some kind of gene damage via the collision of high-energy particles to the DNA or carcinogenic (or otherwise disruptive/distabilizing) substances to the same..." (...which goes back to "what made up those chemicals" and "what produces that high energy radiation" and the question ultimately ends up going back to the sort of stuff you see in physics, like I described earlier)


So basically, science describe things in smaller and smaller steps, and predicts how things would repeat in a more and more accurate basis, but never actually manages to explain exactly how or why any of these "smallest steps" have to happen at all. Why do anything change, at all? Divide things long enough, and you get a really small piece that you don't really have a good explanation for, other than "it looks to always goes to this next step if we have this other step before" So what?

Science describes and predicts phenomena. It never "explains" any of it.

It does't have to. That's actually not what science is for.

Science is about the knowledge of the physical universe. Scientists don't do metaphysics**, and they don't do "metaphysical experiments" to "test the density of a person's spirit," because there's no such thing as "metaphysical experiments."

**metaphysics- the philosophical investigation of the overall nature of reality


Shmerber wrote:

I just wrote a thesis on evolution and it doesn't even account for the views of half of the US. It only accounts for 40% of beliefs (that is f**king sad... don't you think). So why is that?


Asking for a metaphysical proof or disproof of anything (including that of creation, as in "God created what appears to be evolution") is a fool's errand, because there is no "metaphysical proof" or "metaphysically disproving" anything as can be inferred from my statements above.

As for the post title itself, that's just an assumption. There are plenty of holes, and various people (that includes academics who engage in fancy paper tennis matches, as you will see in the link below) have been pointing them out.

http://davidpratt.info/evod1.htm (I don't agree with everything this guy says because I don't subscribe to theosophy but he had some good points on where the theoretic holes are)
6166 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/22/14 , edited 5/22/14
Theists aren't all creationists, but I think I understand your point. I liked what one atheist said about how he was glad that most people believe in God. Something about if everyone stopped believing, the world would be in chaos.

Some people aren't good people, and only follow the rules because of some afterlife consequence beliefs. We don't really want those people to believe their choices only have consequences in this world, otherwise they would make life that much more horrible for the rest of us. That said, there are religious nuts that do crazy stuff in the name of religion that hurt other people, so, idk.
Posted 5/22/14

Dubnoman wrote:


GayAsianBoy wrote:

The ones that do accept Evolution would claim that the deity orchestrated the process; but the problem with that notion is that... in their bible, it said the Earth came before the Sun, so... how the hell did plants photosynthesise on Earth without the Sun?? :S


I believe in God, spiritual reality, and an afterlife. I also believe in the big bang and evolution. The bible tells an origin story about the earth, cosmos, and life on earth, but God, who inspired the words of the bible, had to tell people something they could understand. Some Christians who agree with much of science believe that, well, could God really try and explain to people in the bronze age things like evolution, the big bang, atoms and molecules, and so forth, in just some short, written passages? If he tried to do that, he'd just confuse the heck out of so many people, and it would deter people from things considered more important to him. It was the bronze age. If God was a teacher trying to communicate to some grade schoolers, would he take on the role of a professor at a university and go over material that is way over their heads?


I don't expect them to write anything about science at all... but they did include scientific information in it, like saying the Earth was made before the Sun was made.

Getting the order of things correctly isn't rocket science.

So that's a major flaw on their part, and if such a flaw exists, how can we know if other parts of the bible is accurate/true at all?


19028 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / America
Offline
Posted 5/22/14
that makes me a 1 out of 10 american
Posted 5/22/14
Religion was created to create a morale system that could be spread and be ingrained into humankind and also so that people have a reason not to fear death..

The first one worked and failed.. and its why the Crusades happened to try to make the warring religious sects not be a issue they decided to wipe out other religions.. in my opinion it failed and will haunt our race for a long time still,,,

The 2nd one is used to this day because plain and simple people fear the unknown and as motivation to feed wars.. if you dont fear losing your one and only life.. you are a valuable asset on the battlefield.. the one pushing you forward doesn't care if you get a virgin or a cloud to pee off of or whatever you believe..

I have no idea what the answer is to fixing it tho.. except for society killing it off by future generations not taking their kids to church but its tradition so..
5785 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Under your blankets
Offline
Posted 5/22/14
12157 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 5/22/14 , edited 5/22/14
Well I'd agree that religion and science are two separate domains, however, a relatively large population of theists seem to think otherwise. Unfortunately, this has translated into the desire to teach religion alongside evolution as a alternative of sorts. The largest threat by far to religion is education, and as we advance technologically this will become more widespread. Until we see significant changes though (in mass education) you can expect religion to be predominant.
mipegg 
25474 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / England
Offline
Posted 5/22/14
Because outside of mathematics there is no way to prove things in science. You cant ever construct an argument that is logically infallible and you cant ever run infinite tests, so you cant ever rule out the possibility (however minuscule) that there is a fringe case for which your theory is incorrect.

In that regards though, the word theory and hypothesis are often confused by the public. A hypothesis is a well thought out scientific idea, a theory is a hypothesis backed up with large amounts of facts and which is generally accepted with no obvious flaws. Example; It is a theory that green house gasses cause climate change but is a hypothesis that aliens exist.
Sogno- 
45762 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 5/22/14 , edited 7/18/15
son, no scientific theory is without holes
82334 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M
Offline
Posted 5/22/14 , edited 1/7/15
For a human to claim that they know anything with absolute certainty regarding how the universe or life works is arrogance of the highest order. Humans can only "know" what they can observe or assume from observations. What they can't observe or what they miss in their observations can render anything that they know to be invalid.
19067 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / DELTA QUADRANT
Offline
Posted 5/22/14
Because dont you want to be immortal? If someone said you can live forever even after you die it takes a lot of pressure off the individual to believe that. And who wouldnt be afraid of not existing, its different now though I know there are still converts but majority of people dont get to choose, their parents choose for them just like their parents did. Me? I like to believe my brain is an antenna receiving consciousness from another dimension or this is the matrix.
4391 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / United Nations, W...
Offline
Posted 5/22/14 , edited 1/7/15
Because having faith that your life isn't meaningless is a lot better than being a random piece of meat in a random world.
17304 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Ames, Iowa, USA
Offline
Posted 5/22/14
I wonder when the era of organized religion is going to die off?
Lexxuk 
61231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 5/22/14 , edited 1/2/15
I think you may have failed your thesis quite badly. The theory of evolution is not complete, no where near, there are still may things about evolution that are unknown to science.

Let's take the Panda bear, it's a bear (obviously) so originally was a meat eater and it's digestive tract is built for meat (compared to humans whose tract is built for veggies), so instead of continuing with a working evolutionary model of meat eating, the Panda eats shoots and are pretty unhealthy for it, that doesn't fit the "survival of the fittest" criteria at all, it's more a devolution.

Then you get into the question of if evolution is spontaneous or something that occurs over several generations, that's even before you get to creatures which haven't changed at all in millions of years, in other words, no evolution.

Finally, please use evolution to explain the Duck Billed Platypus.

Scientific theories generally go along the lines of "this is what we think, please prove us wrong", the evidence is reviewed and corrections made, new theories are formed but always with the "please prove us wrong" at the end, scientific theories want to be proven wrong so that science can move forward, as soon as science says "and that's the end of it" then it'll stop advancing.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.