Has Evolution Been Proven to be True ?

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Flight

Does this mean that God creating the earth is as Scientific a theory as any, as Science has not proven it to be untrue ?

God creating the Earth is not, on it's own, a scientific theory. However, if there was an original prime mover to the creation of the material world, that itself would be bound by the physical laws of science.

If there was a super intelligence out there (which I strongly think is unlikely), his/her/its creation would fall within the realm of science as it's creation, the material world, is bound by those same laws. We can turn any part of superstition toward science and examine it as we would any other physical phenomenon. An example would be prayer.

A man prays that his sick wife is cured of cancer. If there was a super intelligence that could hear and understand our prayers, of course it is his prerogative to answer those prayers as he sees fit. However, the transmission of a signal, either spoken or as pure thought has to take place for the prayer to exist. This prayer then has to traverse the ether until it is intercepted by whatever super being is out there and can then be acted upon or ignored.

Since we can no more detect the interception of this transmission or any reciprocal outcome (prayer answered or not), we have no data that shows that prayers are heard by anyone other than the person speaking them. Perhaps this is a limitation of our testing methods or perhaps there is an X-factor we are just unable to take into consideration. Perhaps the super intelligence has masked these transmission intercepts via some form of visual/audio spectrum we cannot detect. The point is, at this point in time we have no evidence that praying does anything good and some evidence that praying may actually be harmful.

Insert whatever supernatural phenomenon you wish and the outcome is almost always the same (things like Fatima being the exception).

We can't even determine a sound hypothesis for the idea of a super-intelligence because all of the research done contradicts the idea of a prime mover so the idea of applying the scientific method to god is pointless because we can't even get to the third step.

Also, there are plenty of things that science CAN prove with 100% certainty but they are almost always small and meaningless. For example, I can prove that a glass of a certain size will hold a certain volume of liquid. This is totally pointless without being able to apply that value. That's just me being nit-picky though.

[Lumie]

However, if there was an original prime mover to the creation of the material world, that itself would be bound by the physical laws of science.

How do you draw such a conclusion? What evidence do you have to suggest that should a super being exist that they must be bound by the laws which they themself created. I believe that the laws of science of the physical universe are only applicable to the physical inhabitants of said universe and that only we and other physical life forms are bound by such physical laws, hence being physical creatures. Whereas on the other hand, God is a non-physical entity and therefor is not bound by physical laws. I believe Jesus proved this to be fact.

I tell you with certainty, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you. 21But this kind does not come out except by prayer and fasting.(Matthew 17:20-21)

About three o’clock in the morning Jesus came to them, walking on the water. When the disciples saw Him, they screamed in terror, thinking He was a ghost. But Jesus spoke to them at once. “It is all right,” He said, “I am here. Do not be afraid.”

Then Peter called to him, “Lord, if it is really You, tell me to come to you by walking on water.”

“All right, come,” Jesus said.

So Peter went over the side of the boat and walked on the water toward Jesus. But when he looked around at the high waves, he was terrified and began to sink. “Save me, Lord!” he shouted.

Instantly Jesus reached out His hand and grabbed him. “You do not have much faith,” Jesus said. “Why did you doubt me?” And when they climbed back into the boat, the wind stopped...

Doesn't seem like Jesus(whom is the super intelligent force behind creation) is bound by the physical laws of the universe at all. In fact he even has power over the single thing which no mortal physical creature can avoid, this of course being death.

Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. 22: But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. 23: Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. 24: Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. 25: Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.

Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days. 40: Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God? 41: Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. 42: And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me. 43: And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. 44: And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. 45: Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. 46: But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done"

However, the transmission of a signal, either spoken or as pure thought has to take place for the prayer to exist. This prayer then has to traverse the ether until it is intercepted by whatever super being is out there and can then be acted upon or ignored.

You need to realize that there isn't just a super being "out there" but also within you. You are only alive because the spirit of God dwells within your mind and therefor no transmission of any signal is needed since everything you think and do is immediately known by God.

"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

"Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

God isn't some man in the clouds watching over you, he is the very life inside of you as well as the creator of the world and body you possess. It's far more than you and most other people realize but belief in and understanding of Jesus and God are the only ways to transcend the physical realm and enter into our eternal life, of which this life is a test for.

[nu_11]

You know, for being such a "scientific" group of people, you do sure make a lot of assumptions. I dont get the feelinf you're rejecting the idea of God because you've actually spent time meditating and examining your own thoughts. It seems more of a rejection of your own perceptions of the power (and stupidity) that God has on other people that you've come to despise. This us vs. them is really very immature, but also pretty typical. I feel like I'm group A arguing with group B ("scientific method" lols) who, in turn, is mistaking group C (lol pornography is EVIL) for me just because we use the same word, God, for different concepts.

Sorry, but you need to drop everything you know and actually find out what you really think. If you happen to believe in God, great! If you dont that's great too, at least you can actually argue your own thoughts, rather from a scientific view, because this is the realm that God is based in (faith, thought, metaphysical). This just in, science can neither prove or disprove God. At least with stronger arguments we can finally (hopefully) begin a semi-dialectical method, where someone may actually benefit. (Other than the "troll")

[aychamo_aycono]

ROFL quoting the bible to debate against science LOL! Thank god I forgot to put you on ignore again Lumie, LOL. Honestly thank you!!!

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by Bralkan

I'm all about discussion - But there is a specific definition / application of the scientific method (and thus science). I know Eomer has been bringing this up for years on this forum....yet here we are, once again, having to explain what should have been learned in High School. To say that science is something else is the equivalent of me arguing that Televisions raise the best babies - it makes no fucking sense.

Eomer - I know, I know....but I don't make it to the forums as much as I used to =( (I am sure to many's delight)

Then ignore the Godophiles. You're speaking two different languages anyway. Lumie just used scripture in the discussion. How can you bother to react to that? If you want it to be a scientific discussion, then stick to science and ignore the idiots that don't understand.

Each person's existence is defined by their own experience. I think, therefore I am. God exists if you want him to exist. He doesn't if you don't. That's the nature of religion, mythology, philosophy. Science cannot think that way so should just stay out of those discussions entirely.

On the other side, you religious morons need to figure out how to talk the right language if you want to join a science discussion. I've seen people do it. Figure out how to describe the issues you're concerned about in a way that makes sense to those you're describing to or don't bother. It's a waste of your time and just makes you look like a one-sided idiot, hurting your side more than helping.

Philosophy and science are both important aspects of the human experience. They're just not meant to be directly mixed. They can each be inspiration to the other. And if you're serious about either one, you'll take the other one seriously, as well. It's amazing how much civic knowledge is stored in the pages of religious texts and how much stronger religions can be if they continually align themselves with scientific knowledge.

[Screamfeeder]

I'm not sure if you were directing your post to me or someone else nu_11, but I am going to reply as if you were talking to me. Advance apologies if you were not.

Originally Posted by nu_11

You know, for being such a "scientific" group of people, you do sure make a lot of assumptions. I dont get the feelinf you're rejecting the idea of God because you've actually spent time meditating and examining your own thoughts.

I have rejected the idea of a super-intelligent creator because there is no evidence to support the idea of one. It would be completely irrational to live my life thinking there was something there that no evidence exists of. I might as well live my life thinking there was a implant in my brain that made me do things that I find to be character flaws and thus I cannot change it. There might be ghosts inside my toaster that prevent it from making toast correctly and so instead of fixing my toaster, I just get rid of it. What kind of life is that? I am intensely curious about the world and I would be the first person to bring to light and real tangible evidence of a super-intelligence, not only because of the scientific merits, but also because of all the new doors this would then open for us as a species to advane our knowledge.

Originally Posted by nu_11

It seems more of a rejection of your own perceptions of the power (and stupidity) that God has on other people that you've come to despise. This us vs. them is really very immature, but also pretty typical. I feel like I'm group A arguing with group B ("scientific method" lols) who, in turn, is mistaking group C (lol pornography is EVIL) for me just because we use the same word, God, for different concepts.

You were the one talking about assumptions and here you go with "seems" and "feels" instead of what actually, "is". There IS an us vs. them mentality that I wish did not exist, but it does. And if I were to just abandon my constant challenges of everything supernatural, that is more people that might end up buying into it.

We as a species cannot continue to move forward if we are held back by bronze age mythos, no matter how many people may subscribe to whatever form of "group think" they were raised as.

You may very well be in Group B, but your way of thinking gives creedence to those in group C. Your rejection of the more extreme versions of whatever doctrine you choose to subscribe too is no more ludicrous (and some would even say less honest) than those who embrace every tenant of their ancient books.

Originally Posted by nu_11

This just in, science can neither prove or disprove God. At least with stronger arguments we can finally (hopefully) begin a semi-dialectical method, where someone may actually benefit. (Other than the "troll")

Science can however gives us a very high degree of probability, to which all answers point to "no super-being".

Once again, I'm sorry (but not too sorry because I still stand by what I said) if your post was not directed at me.

Originally Posted by Dr. Funkenstein

Science cannot think that way so should just stay out of those discussions entirely.

That's ridiculous. If there was indeed a super-intelligence that was prevelant in our material world or not, science has every right to figure out the answers to those questions the same way it figured out the basic building blocks of matter and the reaches of the cosmos. The supernatural does not get a free pass from scientific inquiry just becuase someone might get offended or their beliefs might get challenged.

If there is some force that put everything around us in motion and continues to influence the world today, it falls to science to find those answers because faith and religion would have us accept it as being one certain way based on ancient texts with no curiosity applied in the slightest.

[Lumie]

I have rejected the idea of a super-intelligent creator because there is no evidence to support the idea of one.

No evidence aside from the fact that you're alive to begin with? lol? Oh and the perfectly designed body and world you live in. But ya those things just happen on their own of course. I mean WoW which is far less complex was designed by intelligence and it's an attempt at recreating the already existing known universe. If we know that WoW couldn't have created itself then what makes you suggest that this world created itself?

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

That's ridiculous. If there was indeed a super-intelligence that was prevelant in our material world or not, science has every right to figure out the answers to those questions the same way it figured out the basic building blocks of matter and the reaches of the cosmos. The supernatural does not get a free pass from scientific inquiry just becuase someone might get offended or their beliefs might get challenged.

Here's your problem. It's the same problem the religious nuts have. You don't know your domain. If you search for a creator, you aren't searching for the supernatural. You're searching for the natural. Period. That search will probably lead to things that destroy current philosophical models (religions, among others). No one's telling you to stop searching for the natural. And if they are, they don't know their domain, either.

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

If there is some force that put everything around us in motion and continues to influence the world today, it falls to science to find those answers because faith and religion would have us accept it as being one way with no curiosity applied in the slightest.

You're a zealot as much as any bible-thumper is. You're completely wrong with you last sentence. Religions and other philosophical creations are constantly rearranging themselves as the world around them changes. Questions are always being asked, reasked and rediscussed about matters of faith and the major question: How do I live?.

No, not every religious follower does this. Most of them don't care, just as most people don't care about current scientific inquiry. For most people, believe it or not, even science stands still after they leave high school or college. They don't care. They don't need to know more. It works for them exactly as they currently know.

Yet science and philosophy still move on without them. The next generation will learn new and different scientific concepts and new takes on the same ageless questions that philosophers and the faithful have always been asking. Religion stands still for you because you keep it at arms length, making no attempt to even understand it. That works for you.

Science might someday pull together enough information to make philosophy completely useless. "How should I live?" might soon be the domain of a solid scientific theory. The world will live according to concepts created by the results of a scientific process, experiments conducted to prove hypotheses that show the best way for people to truly get the most out of life. For the foreseeable future, science just doesn't have the capability to do this, so philosophical constructs are still important.

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Dr. Funkenstein

Here's your problem. It's the same problem the religious nuts have. You don't know your domain. If you search for a creator, you aren't searching for the supernatural. You're searching for the natural. Period. That search will probably lead to things that destroy current philosophical models (religions, among others). No one's telling you to stop searching for the natural. And if they are, they don't know their domain, either.

Name me a supernatural phenomenon. Any one will do. There are explanations or hypothesis' that would be applied to each that would suppose a more elegant solution than simply writing it off as "an event we cannot ever hope to understand".

At this moment right now humans have no idea what happened at one yotta-second before the Big Bang. We just don't know. Fundamentalist Religion would have us not explore that question and simply write it off as "God did it". That IS their domain. Those who are not Fundamentalist may not care one way or the other, then why believe at all? They might as well believe the ghost in the toaster theory I postulated above.

Tell me this "domain" that science is not allowed to tread upon? Can you explain it? Does it operate outside the laws of the natural world, and if so, can you explain how and why it does this, or are we just going to tally that one over to "God does it" and be done with it?

Originally Posted by Dr. Funkenstein

You're a zealot as much as any bible-thumper is. You're completely wrong with you last sentence. Religions and other philosophical creations are constantly rearranging themselves as the world around them changes. Questions are always being asked, reasked and rediscussed about matters of faith and the major question: How do I live?.

The difference between my self-admitted zealotry and that of the faith-driven is I can back mine up with evidence. I can point to something and say, "See, there is it." Religious convictions cannot as, insofar as every human on Earth can see, there is no evidence of a prime mover.

Religion thrives on ignorance of the material world and until you provide proof otherwise, it will-not cease to be so. There is no "understanding" I have to do in order to understand the faith driven mechanics behind religion. Should I read the bible/quran for the umpteenth time? Should I talk to more and more priests, imams, rabbi's or witch doctors for their keen insights?

There is nothing that I am "missing" unless you can spell it out for me.

I do think it is adorable how you lump religion in as a form of philosophy when it cannot be further from it. Philosophy, or thinking about thinking, attempts to use reason and logic as opposed to myth and superstition to explain the workings of the human mind and it's current existence in the physical world.

There is no "prime mover" in the sense of Abrahamic or personal god in Philosophy, only the idea of a god as something intangible and not-known to man.

So, if you can explain to me how the "supernatural" is somehow removed from ever being examined by empirical scientific means, then I will drop the argument.

Originally Posted by Dr. Funkenstein

Science might someday pull together enough information to make philosophy completely useless.

Science will never make philosophy useless. It will however, make religion useless. Know your domain Dr.

[Flight]

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

I do think it is adorable how you lump religion in as a form of philosophy when it cannot be further from it. Philosophy, or thinking about thinking, attempts to use reason and logic as opposed to myth and superstition to explain the workings of the human mind and it's current existence in the physical world.

I could be wrong, but isn't that a very Western way of looking at things ? Eastern thinking is much more that there is no separation between the physical and the spiritual, while Western thinking sees them as very separate ?

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Flight

I could be wrong, but isn't that a very Western way of looking at things ? Eastern thinking is much more that there is no separation between the physical and the spiritual, while Western thinking sees them as very separate ?

Absolutely and that could easily be seen as my indoctrination into Western schools of philosophy over Eastern.

The difference is, those are still just different types of philosophy based on culture and not differences in science.

A geologist in Kyoto is going to know the same things as a geologist in Montana.

[Jedah]

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

Philosophy, or thinking about thinking, attempts to use reason and logic as opposed to myth and superstition to explain the workings of the human mind and it's current existence in the physical world.

Science will never make philosophy useless. It will however, make religion useless. Know your domain Dr.

Attempts have already been made with lasting impact, and we got positivism and behavioralism which are both horrible.

[Tristinn]

Originally Posted by Lumie

Doesn't seem like Jesus(whom is the super intelligent force behind creation)

lol

[MrSpitz]

hahah man these things are funny.

Really the ultimate question in the science of evolution is what came first, proteins or DNA. So if you want to talk scientific method and evidence and all that, the core of evolution creating life is that question.

Did proteins that functioned came first and then somehow a record of there construction was created, ie primitive DNA, along with a way of reading said record (addition proteins)?

Or was DNA created first, before any protein existed, serving no or a separate intrinsic function on its own, and then proteins to 'read' and maintain the DNA were created and then somehow after this DNA began to code for proteins completely unrelated to itself.


After you have the ball rolling there is pretty strong evidence that evolution has shaped life, but creation of life is still a mystery. And that mystery is really a simply chicken and egg question, did proteins or DNA come first, and if so how did the other possibly come about?

And please, don't respond to lumie unless you are going to be as stupid as she is.

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Jedah

Attempts have already been made with lasting impact, and we got positivism and behavioralism which are both horrible.

With regard to positivism, I would say there is some value in it as advances have been made in the cognitive sciences where there is lots of overlap between philosophy and science. Either way, I do not see positivism as a replacement of overall philosophy, rather just one of the many schools of thought that can be applied in certain areas.

Behavioralism is something I am not very knowledgeable in and I don't want to insult your comment with my wiki-knowledge.