The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by kamebard

 

Evolution stopped being a Theory some time ago. Ask any one who works in the field of Genetic Manipulation.

Split Infinity

Evolution is still a theory (unless some politician somewhere made it into a law ). It is currently our "best proven guess" as to how biological systems operate and will be that way until something better comes along in its place. The last time science decided to call something a law was back in the 1600's. Unfortunately this "law" was later violated by the theory of relativity. Since then, scientists have stopped declaring they knew it all and referred everything as theories.

ETA: Here is a good basic breakdown of scientific terminology www.wilstar.com...

reply to post by kamebard


LOL!

I am well aware of scientific terminology.

Evolution is no longer a theory because we can not only see it occurring at this point but we have also proven it with Genetic Research.

Split Infinity

I really really really miss the ignore function...

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by kamebard

 

Evolution is no longer a theory ...

Just a quick question, if it is not a theory then what is it? We know it is not just a hypothesis because it has been tested over and over again (thus becoming a theory). We know it is not a "law" (unless there is that rogue politician out there ).

Using our generally agreed upon terminology, what can we call it other than "Theory"?

We also know that it has become accepted by many (not all) non-scientists as the explanation for biological progress - but there isn't any nomenclature other than "the generally accepted scientific theory" that we use.

Darwin's theory of evolution offers a sweeping explanation of the history of life, from the earliest microscopic organisms billions of years ago to all the plants and animals around us today. Much of the evidence that might have established the theory on an unshakable empirical foundation, however, remains lost in the distant past. For instance, Darwin hoped we would discover transitional precursors to the animal forms that appear abruptly in the Cambrian strata. Since then we have found many ancient fossils – even exquisitely preserved soft-bodied creatures – but none are credible ancestors to the Cambrian animals.

Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000.1 "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."

I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.

When I recently suggested this disconnect publicly, I was vigorously challenged. One person recalled my use of Wilkins and charged me with quote mining. The proof, supposedly, was in Wilkins's subsequent paragraph:

"Yet, the marginality of evolutionary biology may be changing. More and more issues in biology, from diverse questions about human nature to the vulnerability of ecosystems, are increasingly seen as reflecting evolutionary events. A spate of popular books on evolution testifies to the development. If we are to fully understand these matters, however, we need to understand the processes of evolution that, ultimately, underlie them."

In reality, however, this passage illustrates my point. The efforts mentioned there are not experimental biology; they are attempts to explain already authenticated phenomena in Darwinian terms, things like human nature. Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.

Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs.

Source

reply to post by vasaga


Excellent read vasaga.

The layman will always fight other laymen to defend their own world view. For the rest of the scientific community this doesn't post much of a problem as the bickering of the peanut gallery. Unfortunately, due to an increasingly vocal few, this bickering has spilled over into the creeping into science of laymen who would propose littering scientific journals with stories of unicorns rather than reports of observations and testings of theories.

Science needs neither dogmatism nor beliefs but only definitions and observations.

Originally posted by pacifier2012
we - who only use 5% of our brain

I just want to address this part of your post but that is just untrue. READ HERE

I wont even get into the rest of your post.

reply to post by kamebard


Evolution is a LAW.

If there is genetic variation and natural selection in any form then reproducing organisms will evolve.

Evolution is both fact (as in it has been observed and proven. This is not rejected by science.) It is also part of a larger theory, of which there is some dispute. You see, facts are used as the basis for forming theories...

This is basic science, folks.

ETA: *is both a fact and part of a larger theory.

It's true - only a fool would say "there is no God". It's intuitively obvious that Thor exists, as well as the rest of the Æsir.

For most of you, eternity yawns in the service of the heroes at the table in Valhalla. Those of you I like can serve me food and drink. The others - well you're all going to be turnspit dogs. Sorry, but that's the truth.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by iSHRED
I'd rather just discuss the content of what he said.

Dowloaded and scanned through the first one to get an idea of what he had to say.

His argument was a very long winded way of putting forward two tired old chestnuts...
- The "watchmaker" argument, first proposed by William Paley in 1802.
- The "its all too improbable to have happened by chance alone", therefore : God.

Bit of which sound lovely but dont stand up to any scrutiny at all.

Let us scruntize this and see if this statement is correct, or if it is just superciliousness (that scripture quoted from Psalm 10:4 in the title can be translated 'the supercilious say in their heart there is no God.' Someone that is supercilious is basically someone that is haughtily disdainful of others points of views and will refuse to look at reason or logic because of prideful arrogance.

Can it really be said that prideful arrogance is behind the many statements that design does not need a designer?

The Bible very simply put it this way:

(Hebrews 3:4) . . .Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.


Is that logic sound and reasonable? If you look at a well designed house with air-conditioning, fully furnished, a frigerator stocked with food, etc., would it be reasonable to conclude that it came about by chance?

Let us take one look at one simple thing then that is actually very complex and see if the odds add up.

The Human Cell

Life could not exist without the teamwork of certain key components within a living cell. In order for a cell to exist and propogate you need protein, and nucleic acid molecules, which are known as DNA or RNA.

Protein molecules within our bodies, and their ribbionlike strips of ammino acids are bent and twisted into various shapes. But why mention these patterns within a protein molecule? Well, firstly, most of the body is made up of them, and secondly the complexity of these molecules.

It is thought that there could be over 50,000 different protein molecules within the human body. What is the chance of just one of these folding upon itself correctly without intelligent intervention? It has been estimated by scientists that for an average-sized protein, made from 100 amino acids, solving the folding problem by trying every possibility would take 10 ^27 (a billion billion billion years.

Yes, in order for one protein to fold upon itself correctly by chance you would imagine that it could take many more life-times than our universe for it to happen correctly. Yet not just one protein, no not just one, rather over 50,000 of them happened to fold upon themselves correctly all in the exact manner, in one instant in time.

This is what proponents of blind Chance propose.

But let us not stop there. In order to have a working cell all components must be functioning perfectly from the very outset or else it could not exist or propagate.

The instructions to build these proteins necessary for life a blue-print is needed, and it is found within the DNA molecule. In the ladder of the DNA genes are stored ( a digital book made of of four letters, A, G, C, and T). This digital book contains information enough to fill the Grand Canyon from top to bottom with volumes of information. And it not only is there, written information in digital code, of the most compact kind, but it also is able to replicate itself, as we will see.)

So the blue-print of proteins are in the DNA. How to get to them? Well, RNA is needed. Similar to DNA, there are several forms of RNA to do this task. In the nucleus, the DNA ladder starts to unzip (by a mechanical process much to long to explain here) allowing RNA letters to link to the exposed DNA letters of a DNA strand. So, while this process is much more complicated than explained here, the DNA is transcribed onto the RNA. After which the RNA peels away and through mechanical processes already put into place the DNA then zips itself back up.

This type of RNA, a message carrier can then move from the nucleus to a protein-production facility where the letters are decoded by much more complicated machinery designed for the task. Each set of three RNA letters form words, that call for specific amino acids. Another type of RNA will look for these amino acids, and with the help of certain enzymes, it is towed to the protein facility and the construction site of the protein. As the RNA sentence is read and transcribed a growing chain of amino acids are produced. This chain will curls and fold into the unique shapes talked about above.

So just one simple look at a very complex design in the body reveals that to believe in Chance, well, you have to have more blind faith than believing that was the product of intelligent design. All of these components need to exist for the cell to live. At the exact same time. So you tell me, what chance for your Chan

Originally posted by kamebard
Evolution is not a FACT but a theory. It is no more a FACT than the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, or thermodynamics. It is a proven theory, but a theory none the less. Although we see what appears to be an evolutionary process in the laboratory and we can describe the facts of the experiments, we do not say we have a FACT of evolution, but a theory (tested over and over again) that this is the explanation for such a process. Just as newton's laws of motion were replaced by relativity to be replaced by quantum mechanics, evolution will follow the same scientific evolutionary process from one theory to the next.

That's not fully true and might confuse some people. Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory, which is based on facts. Saying evolution is not a fact, but based on facts is a bit silly. So yes, it's fact. Yes there are parts of it that are hypothesis. BUT. Evolution = genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. Genetic mutations are proven and measurable. Natural selection is proven and observable. People over complicate it but it really is that simple. It has been observed countless times, it can be verified through genetics and the fossil record. If evolution were not true, there would surely be more and more discrepancies as more pieces of evidence are analyzed, but it's the exact opposite. When Darwin first proposed it, it had almost no tangible evidence. But after a century of work including micro biology and the entire field of genetics, each one pointed in the same direction. A lot of people on here have great difficulty understanding the difference between a hypothesis, theory and law in science. It doesn't mean close to what many people are claiming. Relativity has not been replaced with quantum mechanics. Thermodynamics is a group of laws. They don't really replace each other, they expand on each other.

This is becoming more and more of a problem today. Science is becoming more and more dogmatic and a "religion" in its own right. As a society we have severely deviated from our ability to question as we have in the past.

How so? It looks to me like science is better than its ever been. Calling science dogmatic is ridiculous considering it's based on evidence. Give me some examples of 'dogmatic science'. That's an oxymoron, since science is peer reviewed and tested repeatedly.

What is interesting, however, that most of the "scientists" up until around the turn of the 20th century were scientists, but also philosophers. The whole tradition of the PhD (Doctor or Philosophy) is still around to this day. Only recently did we invent the BS degree (Bachelors of science), up to that point it was simply a Bachelors degree, as a stepping stone to higher degrees (occultism anyone?) culminating in a doctor of "philosophy" - with the aim of being able to "free-think" about the objects of their studies.

Unfortunately, somewhere around the 1940's there was this radical shift and science and philosophy started radically diverging to the point where today's PhDs are but a shadow of the spirit of the PhDs in the past.

The reason for that is because science is HUGE today. When you look back in the early 20th century, our level of knowledge and understanding was probably less than 1% of what we know today. Back then you needed philosophy because there was so much of the unknown factor involved. Today we already have a huge database of knowledge, and have a standard for most fields of science (aka facts of reality). When you have little science, philosophy is important, but when you have tons of science you already have a good place to start / expand knowledge on a subject. The degrees have expanded as well since there are numerous fields of science, and it is separate from the arts. Basically what you are describing is the evolution and exponential expansion of science, and it's certainly not a bad thing. The bigger the database of knowledge is, the more we can study at once, and the faster we learn things. We know more today than we ever have and that knowledge is still increasing rapidly. It's just a shame when people resort to attacking science rather than using it to prove their point, or to try something new. Everyone just reads what they want to hear on a website that becomes their facts, rather than what's actually been experimented on and peer reviewed

Dogmatism made its way into the realm of science (partially because of the violent attacks from the religious), and unfortunately this has pushed a lot of the questioning out of the discipline. Supporters shouting FACTS and LAWS rather than observations and theories.

See this I don't understand. Dogmatism has absolutely NOT made it's way into science. Dogma is a religious doctrine. Science is based on experiments and tests. They are not even close to related. Don't get people on ATS debating things confused with actual science. There is no dogma involved.

All in all wholly unhealthy on both ends of the spectrum. The speculation of science in the past has been replaced by pillars of dogma (something the early scientists were trying to rebel against coming out of the church).

Sorry, but I'm going to put the burden of proof on you here. Please give me examples of dogma in science. I really dislike that term being thrown around in a science discussion, because by definition, dogma is faith based while science is evidence based.

Evolution / science is not a guess, dogma, religion, or a worldview. I'm honestly getting tired of seeing people say it. The only reason most science supporters defend it strongly is because the creationist crowd comes on here and posts nothing but lies and logical fallacies. Intellectual honesty is important, especially if you're looking to present evidence against a field of scientific study. (not referring to you individually of course)

reply to post by SubAce


What you have just said, completely demolishes the athiest beliefs and it uses just facts and reason to do it..

I wonder what their debunkery will look like in comparison..

Originally posted by Barcs
See this I don't understand. Dogmatism has absolutely NOT made it's way into science. Dogma is a religious doctrine. Science is based on experiments and tests. They are not even close to related. Don't get people on ATS debating things confused with actual science. There is no dogma involved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry, but I'm going to put the burden of proof on you here. Please give me examples of dogma in science. I really dislike that term being thrown around in a science discussion, because by definition, dogma is faith based while science is evidence based.

Still having a blind faith in science aren't you?

That nature is mechanical.
That matter is unconscious.
The laws of nature are fixed.
The totally amount of matter and energy are always the same.
That nature is purposeless.
Biological inheritance is material.
That memories are stored as material traces.
The mind is in the brain.
Telepathy and other psychic phenomena are illusory.
Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

Biologist Rupert Sheldrake Explains the Ten Dogmas Holding Science Back

reply to post by vasaga


that video does nothing to explain further the supposed list of dogmas. i guess you'll have to buy his book to get a more in depth analysis.

Originally posted by SubAce
So just one simple look at a very complex design in the body reveals that to believe in Chance, well, you have to have more blind faith than believing that was the product of intelligent design. All of these components need to exist for the cell to live. At the exact same time. So you tell me, what chance for your Chan

everything you just said is still the watchmaker argument. good for you for using some facts but it stops when you start use conjecture that it couldn't happen by chance. the universe is an extremely large place and given the right conditions in accordance with the laws of physics through immense amounts of time there is bound to be a huge diversification in types of matter including life. just because there are huge odds against things doesn't mean they don't happen. if a girl rejects your pleas for a date 10 billion times and then on the next try says yes, she still has said yes.

in addition, there's also the hypothesis that the universe is infinite which would statistically lead to the fact that we would be having this exact same discussion somewhere else in it.

also, if you haven't, look up Abiogenesis. The problem with a lot of people who argue for creationism here confuse evolution with abiogenesis.

Originally posted by SubAce
So just one simple look at a very complex design in the body reveals that to believe in Chance, well, you have to have more blind faith than believing that was the product of intelligent design.

Still no evidence of any gods doing it though so I remain equally unconvinced by the faith based inteligent design idea. Casting doubts on the 'chance' creation of such complex systems in the human body does not add any weight to any assertions that a god did it all, no matter how much you would like it to.

reply to post by homeskillet

just because there are huge odds against things doesn't mean they don't happen. if a girl rejects your pleas for a date 10 billion times and then on the next try says yes, she still has said yes.

And if there's 50 girls instead of just one, and they've all rejected your pleas for a date 10 billion times, and then suddenly they are all asking you out, you would wonder about it. No one ever said the universal odds were just one gamble. It was many, many gambles, all with the same odds, and all of them came out on top. When you take entropy, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics into consideration, it is nothing short of astounding to think that a random explosion of unintelligent atoms managed to arrange itself not only in a perfectly choreographed dance of the celestial bodies, but managed to cultivate life forms. And not just life forms...but life forms able to question the nature of the star dust from which they came. All despite entropy, despite hellish odds.

That's not chance. That's design. Not a conscious superpowerful overlord - but definitely a divine principle, a law. Something written in the very fabric of existence. Some fundamental property of energy...

Actually, there's a chart that claims to trace the states of matter/energy all the way from matter to aether. But that's a story for another day.

reply to post by grainofsand

Still no evidence of any gods doing it though so I remain equally unconvinced by the faith based inteligent design idea.

What makes you think intelligent design is based on faith? You think that all of physical reality just came together that way? An explosion into a space that never existed before suddenly yielding matter and laws of physics that happen to make every piece fit just right. And then grow life out of the primordial soup of elements, when it would have been so easy to knock everything off balance and grow a new Mars instead of an Earth. Is that what you believe? Just random chance, again and again and again and again, never losing a single coin toss out of a hundred...from something completely unorganized? I mean, we're assuming atoms are unintelligent, right?

You don't know what did it. Great. That's fine. But don't insult the rest of us by suggesting that intelligent design is absent from the formation of this world. When all the math has been completed, processes, analyzed, and concluded, it's undeniable. There's a distinct element to the design of this reality that suggests an intent to it. The same way your measurements of a house reveal a hidden room. There's some level of AI somewhere in all this.