Of course you don't need to. But if, as you wish, the scientific community discarded the theory of evolution, do you propose science stop pursuing answers that might explain human origin? How would you prefer they go about doing this? That may be true that this about science for you. Which brings me for a third time to my question of why don't you show other claims of human origin that are taught as absolute truth, the same skepticism or scrutiny? I know, though what specifically do you need to see to convince you? I know you've said that you haven't seen evidence of a species gradually changing into another. This might sound like a strange question, but does a species need to transform into another before your eyes, for example? Also, I'm curious to see examples of the gaps that you noticed in evolution. Just two more question, why, if scientists knew the theory of evolution is false, would it even be taught? And if it is in fact false, why haven't more scientists come forward with this information?
True. It might really just be that Prunepicker has his/her own opinion. For the most part that would make sense, yet the idea of "not having a theory" also seems like a highly suspect, reoccuring theme.
Though I've asked for some examples of the gaps Prunepicker has seen in the theory of evolution. So perhaps we may "get lucky" and see if any scientists can support what he or she has said. Also, do any of you think there is a bias against the theory of evolution from Prunepicker? I know he/she said that their objection is purely based on science, but I'd like to know what you, Cosmo, or anyone here thinks.
The bias that PP has against the ToE can be found in his own posts where he openly admits that "goddidit" and that he distrusts scientists and that he believes in creationism. Here are posts laying out what he said with reference links to his original posts. http://politicalforum.com/index.php...volution-redux.504291/page-23#post-1067744546 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...volution-redux.504291/page-21#post-1067674356
Evolution and the Bible Literalists https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/opinion/evolution-and-the-bible-literalists.html
Thank you Derideo_Te for this information. I appreciate your effort searching for this. I may have been correct about the goal of the "anti-evolutionist side" being to keep the burden of proof a one-sided argument. An honest, open claim of belief in creationism makes them vulnerable to the exact same kind of criticism they've given the theory of evolution. People believe it despite there being no evidence. Since the same argument could be turned around on them, it was simply easier to attack the opposition and avoid being open about their own views. I feel Prunepicker has seemed more intelligent than the others so far. Though it is the motivation I am not sure about. Note the question that Prunepicker has not answered three times: "why don't you show other claims of human origin that are taught as absolute truth, the same skepticism or scrutiny?"
I know a few Catholics myself who don't find the theory of evolution, and belief in God incompatible. The universe is old and vast.
Now out of curiosity, I'm almost tempted to start a "Fallacies of Creationism/Theism" thread where everyone who is non-religious avoids stating what their own views are, and focus only on pointing out flaws in Creationism and Theism. If a Creationist asks "How do you explain life on Earth? Evolution?" respond with something along the lines of "The purpose of this thread is to discuss the Fallacies of Creationism/Theism" or "I don't need to have an explaination of how life appeared on Earth. Can you prove a deity created life?"
To be fair it was others who did the research and provided me with those links to PP's posts so the credit belongs to them. PP reported me for calling him a creationist and I was advised not to do so unless the member self identifies as one. By providing the posts where PP self identified as a creationist the problem was resolved. However that has not stopped PP from continuing to misrepresent his motivations for denying the science and evidence behind the ToE. It was only because you asked that I provided the links that would answer your question. For the rest I just point out the absurdities in PP's posts because they strike me as being disingenuous. As far as turning the argument around goes it is always ignored so I feel justified in ignoring his demands for evidence that he has been provided with in spades in this and other threads. While the ToE, like all aspects of scientific endeavor, is a work in progress the best response to theists who question it is to point out that science is self correcting while religions persist in sticking with superstitions that have been debunked. Perhaps the most telling of all is that many of the great scientists in the past were theists who understood that the bible is allegorical while science is factual. There are many christians today who are scientists including one who is a fundamentalist who works on ToE fossils. She has no problem whatsoever with keeping the concepts distinct from each other. Unfortunately she is a minority.
In my opinion Prune is simply incapable of logical thought or playing a character for entertainment. Either way any serious debate is unlikely at best, which is why I use him for occasional entertainment as well.
I thought something similar about ChemEngineer and Yguy. It seemed more like "role-play" if anything. Speaking of Yguy, while we wait for Prunepicker's responses, would any of you want to help me examine Yguy's posts on this thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/where-does-morality-come-from.503140/page-18 (Page 18 is where my conversation with Yguy started)
Hooray. This really doesn't provide a line for evolution but that dna is a staple for life. What would really help would be evidence in the fossil record of avians gradually becoming a T Rex or vice versa. That would be significant.
Pursuing answers is one thing. Making things up and calling them facts is another and needs to stop. I'm 100% in favor of science. I don't have one. But I will say that evolution as it's being taught, i.e. without emphasis that this is just an idea put together with very little information that connects one part to another. No, it doesn't need to tranform before my eyes. For some reason that's what many on this forum want to believe. The fossil record should be replete with examples. It's being taught now. Because of the fear that there might be another way, i.e. something from outer space or out of contact. Thank you for being civil.
Right, some christians just see evolution as the mechanism used by their creator. Plus, perhaps the creator got a kick out of watching it play out. For it might be really boring otherwise for a god. It enjoys being entertained by Its creation.
Perhaps one day they will actually understand what they believe in, sufficiently enough to replicate it. When it does, if it does, it will join physics as being a hard science. You know, find evidence in a lab with experiments to back up what they believe? All they have to do is to take a self replicating molecule, and by using their knowledge of the evolutionary process, encourage it to morph into a single cell organism, with its complexity, followed by a multicell organism with greater complexity, and finally generating a life form which runs around and feeds of other life forms. Of course you may need to also create by evolution, a food source for this first organism, so it has something to use for energy. Something to eat. Well, you may have to also create a food source for the 2nd organism, so it has a source of energy and food too. Sounds pretty simple if these scientists actually know what they are talking about, right? We ask the same of physicists. They are not bothered by it.
Yup...all they will need is the final and most important ingredient....TIME. I'm sure theologist will have a much easier time.
Time is needed only to use chance. Knowledge of the process gets rid of time, unless you think time has inherit magical qualities. Good luck in proving time has something in it which is a quality. Rolling a dice to achieve a snake eyes needs time. Yet you can using knowledge, and with manipulation turn the dice over to exhibit snake eyes, getting rid of the time needed to roll it by mere chance. I think you are thinking time contains something which cannot be bypassed, by knowledge and conscious manipulation.
For those religiously opposed to evolution, no convincing evidence derived by science could possibly exist. So far, new species evolving naturally as we watch, with scientists documenting the sequence of genetic modifocatios that occurred has not been enough. Nor has the extensive documentation of change witnessed in nature . The result has deen that this becomes no more than a political battle for rational support and respect for biological sciences in America, along with fighting the related damage to all other science.
True. Though perhaps they are trying to pursue answers, and the theory of evolution is, at present, the most logical explaination that scientists can reason. Of course, science is almost always subject to change. I know that you had no such claim, and perhaps evolution has been taught often without the emphasis of being a mere theory. Though you still have not answered the question of why you don't criticize other explainations, aside from evolution, that are taught as fact despite not having complete scientific evidence. A forum user here has presented examples of your possible theistic leanings, so I am hoping that your motivation is not about targeting the theory of evolution simply because it does not suit your view of human "value". I am posting my question again so that it can be understood clearly: "Why don't you show other claims of human origin that are taught as absolute truth, the same skepticism or scrutiny?" I'm sorry for continually posting this question. But you haven't provided an answer. If you truly prefer not to answer it, simply let me know and I will not post it any longer. I didn't want to believe that. As for the fossil record, are you saying you need to see more examples? Do you mean it is being taught that the theory of evolution is false? Also, I wonder what difference it would make to scientists if evolution was proven false and that origins had to do with something from space or out of contact. Human origin is irrelevant in the end. It's study is simply a scientific pursuit. If you were being sarcastic, I apologize. I try not to insult others who haven't made antagonistic remarks. You've seemed reasonable so far. Though if you were being genuine, you are very welcome. Sorry, tone is impossible to see by typing.
Oh, I'm sorry. Did you think this was directed at you? My apologies. My post was intended as a point of interest to those who actually gave a flying fornication about science. But since you couldn't keep your peter beaters off the keyboard about it...Wouldn't one kinda think that a type of tissue that is only found in avians for a specific purpose (egg laying) and isn't found in other egg-laying species (reptiles and snakes) being found in a prehistoric species might be at least a hint of the evidence of a link between therapoda and avians that you're clamoring insistently for? Not that it matters to you as you'll dismiss anything out of hand since you can't stand the thought of anyone else possibly being right...which is why I didn't address this to you. These aren't the droids you're looking for. These aren't the droids we're looking for. We can go about his business They can go about their business. Move along Move along, move along.
Isn't it weird how fundamentalist theists are willing to violate their own Commandment against bearing false witness when there are posts proving that the evidence was supplied by multiple posters? There must be some form of cognitive dissonance at work.
It's called lying for their jesus Lying for Jesus is a form of pious fraud which happens when some Christians believe that falsifying information is acceptable if that brings people to Jesus or somehow supports his historicity, saintliness or supposed godliness. The practice has a long and venerable history in the Christian religion dating back to the Council of Naicaea.
