Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,617
    Post Thanks / Like

    "The Larger Problem" part II: Modern Science's Implications on Theology

    What I am attempting to do here is have a different type of debate on evolution, speciation, the laws of physics, and their role role in the evaluation of theological principles. The point of this debate is for anti-evolutionists to present their cases for why they --all things being equal for those less educated in science-- rationally accept one branch of science --say, Newtonian mechanics-- but declare another branch of science --mainly, evolution-- to be devoid of merit. To me, and Apok just reminded me of being intellectually honest and logically consistent, you either accept all the things that an authority (Not a fallacious one, mind you) has to say, or you accept none of them. This is a continuation, and expansion, on the last thread http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/p...r_problem.html.

    So, when someone says: "Scientists just proved that there is a tenth planet" are you more likely to just accept this claim as true than to accept: "Scientisits have just proven there are multiple links from humans to chimpanzees."

    If you say, "Because the Bible [Or the Qur'an, Tanakh, Katib-i-Aqdas, or other text] says it's false," then you are using special pleading to accept one case as wrong and the other right, all things being equal. This is an irrelevant argument, as I addressed in the previous thread.



    So, I would like to hear why experts must be wrong, and your text or suspecian correct. However, I'm going to give anti-evolutionists an extra boost. I am presenting the case for evolution; your job is to attempt to disprove it with evidence or state that it is logically fallacious:


    The Theory of Evolution is nearly a scientific fact [thesis]. The only thing that keeps it from being a law is that it is impossible to check whether or not this has worked on species past --though it works for every species we have observed it in.

    First, we must split appart what evolution is and is not:

    A. Evolution does not describe how the universe came to exist in its current form (That's the Big Bang Theory)
    B. Evolution does not explain how organic compounds turned into life. (That is abiogenesis)

    Evolution works on these premises:

    1. The earth is around 4 billion years old. This is a fact --radiometric dating, reletive mass of the sun to ther stars, layers of the earth, et cetera. All modern physics, cosmology, and chemistry demand that the Earth is approximately 4.567 billion years old. Cited article for further research: Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    2. All living things have something called DNA, which comprises their entire genetic material. Genetic material dictates physical attributes, among other things. This genetic material changes due to two things: one, during procreation; two, mutation from things like sunlight expose, improperly recombined during procreation, et cetera. Because these happen on intervals of time, there is a direct relation between time and genetic changes.

    3. Environments influence which species (or subspecies) survive and which fail --in direct relation to what attributes that species or subspecies has.

    4. There is nothing to suggest that genes stop mutating.

    Therefore: Given even enough time (something less than 4.567 billion years), genes will format themselves in specific ways. The ones that survive will continue breeding, continue mutating, and continue surviving environments. As the genes format themselves in new ways, they will eventually reach a point where they become completely different than what their ancestors were. (The concept of "species" is purely for scientific classification and plays no role in actual genetic development).


    Observations: There are many species that look similer; they all have similar DNA and psyiological attributes. We can record many similar "links" between species --both psyiological, genetic, and in concurrence with time. We have found many transitional fossils that support the idea that species have come from other species.
    A list of transitional fossils: List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Applications of evolution: So, does it make sense when we apply it to people, vs. the idea that some creator made all species?

    Examples:
    A. Man has back problems. This can easily be explained that this exists because we have evolved it, and the evolution is not perfect yet.
    B. Man has lactose intolerance. It makes more sense that we never supposed to ingest milk, but we have evolved the capability.

    Obviously the list could go on, but you get the idea. (NOTE: this last section was not to say that it supports evolution, but evolution helps explain them.)


    So, why do you rationally accept things like Newtonian mechanics as perfectly true, but reject things like evolution? Is it purely illogical and based off of theology? If so, I've dealt with the concept on the last thread, http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/p...r_problem.html.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,617
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "The Larger Problem" part II: Modern Science's Implications on Theology

    Oh come on, no biters?
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Birmingham, England
    Posts
    1,254
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "The Larger Problem" part II: Modern Science's Implications on Theology

    They are pretty good at dodging things like this I must say. It just goes to thier discredit.
    "What's so wrong about mentioning how attractive she is? That said, i don't think "Begin East Euro Fap" is an appropriate way to say shes attractive."

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "The Larger Problem" part II: Modern Science's Implications on Theology

    Well chad et moi go along with evolutionary theory, so you are pushing against an open door in our case.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Texas.
    Posts
    3,681
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "The Larger Problem" part II: Modern Science's Implications on Theology

    Like I keep saying, if you want science fact, you can't argue with creationists... They don't have any.
    But if you do not find an intelligent companion, a wise and well-behaved person going the same way as yourself, then go on your way alone, like a king abandoning a conquered kingdom, or like a great elephant in the deep forest. - Buddha

  6. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,617
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "The Larger Problem" part II: Modern Science's Implications on Theology

    Therefore, they must conclude that they are obeying a false religion. (The argument of my first thread)
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,896
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "The Larger Problem" part II: Modern Science's Implications on Theology

    10 days past and still no challenge from theists... why am I not surprised?
    Trendem

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Texas.
    Posts
    3,681
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "The Larger Problem" part II: Modern Science's Implications on Theology

    Quote Originally Posted by Trendem View Post
    10 days past and still no challenge from theists... why am I not surprised?
    Well, the closest thing they had was ID, it at least SOUNDED scientific, but even the courts recognized that it wasn't science. Just a thinly veiled pretense to push a religious agenda...

    The truth is, a literal reading of creation, simply does not jibe with what science tells us.

    So you have a choice to make. Either your data is wrong. All of it. Or...your theology is wrong. (Not all of it perhaps, but that's for a later discussion.)
    But if you do not find an intelligent companion, a wise and well-behaved person going the same way as yourself, then go on your way alone, like a king abandoning a conquered kingdom, or like a great elephant in the deep forest. - Buddha

  9. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "The Larger Problem" part II: Modern Science's Implications on Theology

    Im going to lay my personal opinion on the matter aside for the sake of having a bit of fun.

    Lets concentrate on this piece right here:
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldPhoenix
    So, when someone says: "Scientists just proved that there is a tenth planet" are you more likely to just accept this claim as true than to accept: "Scientisits have just proven there are multiple links from humans to chimpanzees."
    Now, heres the thing there is a difference between a claim like "Scientists just proved that there is a tenth planet" and "Scientisits have just proven there are multiple links from humans to chimpanzees."

    In the first "claim" one can present real-time observable evidence. This is not really the case in the second statement. You can prove that there are similarities in the genome between the two species, that is real-time. You can also prove all the necessary mechanisms for evolution in real-time.

    However, to make to extend this and say that man and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor....now you have made a statement about history. Even given fossils that appear to show various stages in the evolution of man, the evidence is far more subjective than the evidence for their being a "10th planet." You are making inferences from the fossils about modern man that you cannot present in real-time.

    Its like those history channel shows. They often create a fictional, although plausible, story to give a very speculative account of what might have happened 3000yrs ago. Despite the possibility of their argument, they are on shaky ground as they cannot prove it in real-time, but rather infer it from artifacts that are in less than pristine condition.

    Even though you can mechanistically prove evolution, proving that evolution did indeed happen, at least in the way you assume it to is a completely different matter.

    Because of this there is sufficient room to be skeptical of the arguments and to dismiss it. However, that is not really the case for real-time evidence like that for our hypothetical 10th planet.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Why do you think it is that so many creationists will accept microevolution but reject macroevolution?

    Its because the mechanisms for evolution can be demonstrated in real-life, making microevolution basically a law. In dealing with macro-evolution, however, you are dealing with a historical science. Support comes in the way of inferences from fossil data and hence is far more subjective and far easier to contest than something like genetics.
    Last edited by chadn737; April 10th, 2007 at 03:48 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,617
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "The Larger Problem" part II: Modern Science's Implications on Theology

    True, time is relevant. However, I was speaking of science in general.

    As you have noted, evolution (the alleged "macroevolution") has been observed in real-time of species of insects (And other organisms, too, I believe). Given enough information --though it may not be real time-- the choice between "godidit" and evolution is quite obvious to any rational mind.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  11. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "The Larger Problem" part II: Modern Science's Implications on Theology

    GP - What set up the laws of time and evolution? The likes of chad, the Pope and Fruity are not contesting evolution. As the last Pope said to a meeting of the Vatican Academy of Science, "A truth cannot contradict another truth."
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Indiana
    Posts
    101
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "The Larger Problem" part II: Modern Science's Implications on Theology

    Well, the closest thing they had was ID, it at least SOUNDED scientific, but even the courts recognized that it wasn't science. Just a thinly veiled pretense to push a religious agenda...
    I believe strongly in evolution. I think science is wonderful, and it should be pursued heavily to find us answers about our surroundings. Evolution makes perfect sense. I do however also say that God was/is the driving force behind the world's advancement and our gaining of scientific knowledge allows us to understand the world and how God has worked in it.

    The truth is, a literal reading of creation, simply does not jibe with what science tells us.]
    True that, the literal reading throws science down the drain and is ridiculous.
    Last edited by yogurt252; April 10th, 2007 at 05:44 PM.

  13. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "The Larger Problem" part II: Modern Science's Implications on Theology

    I've read the words "special pleading" very, very often in the last few hours of perusing posts. Was there something about it in the newsletter? Maybe in the Atheist forums?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. "The larger problem"
    By GoldPhoenix in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: March 9th, 2007, 09:04 AM
  2. Fahrenheit 9/11 Trailer
    By Withnail in forum Current Events
    Replies: 123
    Last Post: October 13th, 2005, 05:03 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •