Atheism quotes

[PreachOnBrotha]

Not to be the one to step into a petty internet beef, but if you\\\\\\\'re going to insult another mans intelligence by not completing fully coherent sentances, you probably shouldn\\\\\\\'t use \\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" whenever you use an apostrophe.

LOL! I don\\\\\\\'t know why those slashes pop up everytime I use a \\\\\\\' or \\\\\\\".

They don\\\\\\\'t show up in while I\\\\\\\'m typing, but when I post....they\\\\\\\'re there for some reason.

Anybody know why the slashes show up no matter what, even when I try to edit them out?

 

[PreachOnBrotha]

Thanks for the info, I will make a note of that.

I use a proxy server on just about every site I go to, except when I check my e-mail.

It ensures privacy while surfing the web, keeps your computer safe.

Is that a bad thing?

 

[ParkBoyz]

Grammar wars! Yay!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

Also:

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434

Also:

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972

One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.

There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.

We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact."

In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since there are reasonable alternatives.

Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.

In any meaningful sense evolution is a fact, but there are various theories concerning the mechanism of evolution.

Not being contentious, but you're never going to convince people that evolution theory is a "fact', that is sheer propaganda to even make such a claim. Most intelligent people understand the difference between fact and theory, and that facts are based on observation, while the theory is a process used to explain the observation and interpret it. You will never convince any logical human being that evolution is fact. Even if you did convert some one, they'd never believe that evolution is fact in the same way that they believe the forces of gravity (mass and attraction) are fact. What kind of facts are we talking about? Irrefutable, conclusive, non-relative facts? Or perceived facts? Or esoteric facts that actually only is so, as concerned by some/most biologists? Obviously you're more qualified to speak on the mechanisms of your theory in which enable you to boldly claim it as "fact", but facts are universal (even if so restricted universally among biologists), and people who know better, yet disregard facts are usually considered loony. So the Biologists in the field who don't take evolution to be 100% fact, but just as a generally accepted theory, how loony are they compared to some one who still believes in a flat earth?

Also, even if (and that's a titanic "if") evolution were in fact, "fact", that doesn't make the perceived process under which this "fact' is manifested (natural selection) a "fact". You'd have to argue both points effectively and irrefutably to even consider thinking about trying to debunk creationism. Every one who debates creationism fails miserably unless they're protected by the courts it seems, but evolution has no ground what so ever in the public hemisphere because it's harder to believe that we evolved from a rock, or pieces of inorganic matter than to believe that we were created. Too many unanswered questions in that theory, people are searching for ultimate truth and if evolution doesn't provide that, it shouldn't be a problem that people reject it and I don't see how evolution advances quality of life anyways. Besides maybe medicine, as far as antibiotics and others medicines that fight off different mutant cells, but I wouldn't call that "full scale evolution" anyways, you don't need to deal with Darwinism to cure diseases; just biological observations and better techniques in medicine is what's required.

One question.. Why is evolution important to know about? Maybe there's a few examples of why learning about evolution is beneficial to anyone physically, intellectually, or spiritually? You may not want to touch on the latter, lol.

 

[ThaG]

Not being contentious, but you're never going to convince people that evolution theory is a "fact', that is sheer propaganda to even make such a claim. Most intelligent people understand the difference between fact and theory, and that facts are based on observation, while the theory is a process used to explain the observation and interpret it.

so, being the inteligent person I am sure you think you are, you should be able to easily realize that evolution (defined as change in allele frequencies over time) is a fact

also, you should be able to see that it is a fact that life wasn't always as complex as it is today and that the complexity arose gradually over long periods of time

these are facts and not theories explaining them

You will never convince any logical human being that evolution is fact. Even if you did convert some one, they'd never believe that evolution is fact in the same way that they believe the forces of gravity (mass and attraction) are fact.What kind of facts are we talking about? Irrefutable, conclusive, non-relative facts? Or perceived facts? Or esoteric facts that actually only is so, as concerned by some/most biologists?

I will answer with another quote from the talkorigins archive:

About a hundred years ago, scientists, who were then mostly creationists, looked at the world to figure out how God did things. These creationists came to the conclusions of an old earth and species originating by evolution. Since then, thousands of scientists have been studying evolution with increasingly more sophisticated tools. Many of these scientists have excellent understandings of the laws of thermodynamics, how fossil finds are interpreted, etc., and finding a better alternative to evolution would win them fame and fortune. Sometimes their work has changed our understanding of significant details of how evolution operates, but the theory of evolution still has essentially unanimous agreement from the people who work on it.

....................

Obviously you're more qualified to speak on the mechanisms of your theory in which enable you to boldly claim it as "fact", but facts are universal (even if so restricted universally among biologists), and people who know better, yet disregard facts are usually considered loony.

you're guilty in both not knowing and disregarding facts

So the Biologists in the field who don't take evolution to be 100% fact, but just as a generally accepted theory, how loony are they compared to some one who still believes in a flat earth?

there is no credible biologist who doesn't "take evolution to be 100% fact"

Also, even if (and that's a titanic "if") evolution were in fact, "fact", that doesn't make the perceived process under which this "fact' is manifested (natural selection) a "fact". You'd have to argue both points effectively and irrefutably to even consider thinking about trying to debunk creationism.

See, the problem is that nobody has to debunk creationism for the simple reason that creationists are those who have something to prove (and they have quite a lot to prove); failing to understand that is one of the reasons why the general public thinks creationism is a serious "alternative" to evolution

Science is a complex and difficult thing to understand, it takes a lot of effort and talent to do it which few people have. In the same time scientists are too occupied with their research and what's making the situation worse - a lot of them live in their own world of equations, molecules and cells. It is increasingly harder and harder to translate scientific findings to the general audience. This is especially true in a country like USA where most people hardly have an IQ greater than 90 and even if they do, they're so lazy and hopelessly uninformed that you can tell them whatever you want and they will believe it.

They will not beileve the scientist who tells them (if he ever get the chance to talk to the masses) things that are too complex for them to understand

Then the creationist comes, tells his simple stories about how God created everything, how man is the center of the universe, how if they live a righteous life, they'll end up in paradise and so on. Simple things that people want to hear.

Every one who debates creationism fails miserably unless they're protected by the courts it seems, but evolution has no ground what so ever in the public hemisphere because it's harder to believe that we evolved from a rock, or pieces of inorganic matter than to believe that we were created.

See above

What the "public hemisphere" thinks has no relevance to the truth

The "public hemisphere" consists of semi-literate hamburger-eating, TV-watching idiots. Of course it's harder for them to understand evolution than to believe in fairy-tales

Too many unanswered questions in that theory, people are searching for ultimate truth and if evolution doesn't provide that, it shouldn't be a problem that people reject it and I don't see how evolution advances quality of life anyways.

What does any scientific theory has to do with the quality of life???

Are we looking for the truth or for something that will make us feel comfortable?

Besides maybe medicine, as far as antibiotics and others medicines that fight off different mutant cells, but I wouldn't call that "full scale evolution" anyways, you don't need to deal with Darwinism to cure diseases; just biological observations and better techniques in medicine is what's required.

I know it is too hard for you to understand it, but if it wasn't for evolution, we would have never known even a fraction of what we know today about the human organism. Almost every biological observation has been first made in model organisms and then extrapolated in humans. Why - because evolution tells us that most genes, proteins and processes are expected to be conserved across species and in fact they are - from worms to humans. Without that knowledge, biomedical research would be impossible

One question.. Why is evolution important to know about? Maybe there's a few examples of why learning about evolution is beneficial to anyone physically, intellectually, or spiritually? You may not want to touch on the latter, lol.

Because if it wasn't for evolution we would probably still think God created the universe, the Earth, life on it, us and everythign else. In other words, we would be lying ourselves about everything. What is the importance of knowing the truth about the surrounding world is an open question as it is increasingly clear that the more ignorant you are, the happier your life is. But if we're looking for the ultimate truth, we have to go for all of it. So far
we have come to the conclusion that all the Gods of all religions (at least in the way these religions describe them) are not part of the truth. Which is a great leap forward for mankind - one delusion less is always welcome.

The second reason is that if we want to make our life better, we have to develop sophisticated medical tools and in order to do that, we need to udnerstand how our organism works. Which, in turn, is not really possible without understanding how other organisms work. Which inevitably leads us to evolution as the unifying theory explaining why mice are mice and humans are humans

 

[GTS]

Who has evolved? How did the first "thing" get here?

 

[JLMACN]

Adam and Eve

its all in the bible....duh!

5000

 

[ThaG]

Who has evolved?

everything evolves

How did the first "thing" get here?

http://www.amazon.com/World-Cold-Sp...9380757?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174525007&sr=8-1

 

[2-0-NINE]

If man created God through their thoughts, then by many of you atheists logic, he's just a figment of man's imagination. So then what is science then? Also a notion of man, making it a figment of our imagination. You guys will then say, God was made to oppress men, can the same be said for science? Conforming to living the way the government tells us how we should live in according the "laws of nature". Anyways

Just a thought....

and No ThaG there's no need to give your opinion or another man's opinion on my thought.

 

[ThaG]

If man created God through their thoughts, then by many of you atheists logic, he's just a figment of man's imagination. So then what is science then? Also a notion of man, making it a figment of our imagination. You guys will then say, God was made to oppress men, can the same be said for science?

you are putting God and science in the same category which is a flawed way of thinking

Science is a method we use to explain and understand the world, it is not made to oppress anyone

 

[2-0-NINE]

HAHA, oh yeah, so the Atomic Bomb wasn't made to suppress the Japanese? The Industrial Revolution was a result of religions? Chemical weapons? Trying to distinguish oppression with oppression is a flawed way of thinking.

 

[ThaG]

HAHA, oh yeah, so the Atomic Bomb wasn't made to suppress the Japanese? The Industrial Revolution was a result of religions? Chemical weapons? Trying to distinguish oppression with oppression is a flawed way of thinking.

Neither the Atomic bomb nor chemical weapons were made in the name of science

Science made these things possible, in the same time some of them helped the advancement of science (today's physics wouldn't be what it is if it wasn't for the Cold War)

But it wasn't scientists who used these weapons and it wasn't scientists who decided whether or not they will be created. Truman dropped the bomb, not Oppenheimer.

All the harm that was done because of religion was done in the name of religion. The list is long. I am not aware of anything good that was brought to this world by religion that couldn't have been created otherwise (art in churches is the only exception). In fact, I am not aware of anything significant enough that the world benefited from religion

While the chance of you being dead by now (I don't know hw old you are, btu anyway) without science is more than 50%....

 

[2-0-NINE]

Neither the Atomic bomb nor chemical weapons were made in the name of science

Science made these things possible

Is this a contradictory statement?

But it wasn't scientists who used these weapons and it wasn't scientists who decided whether or not they will be created. Truman dropped the bomb, not Oppenheimer.

Some say Jesus made men go out on crusades and kill innocent people, and some say the Spanish Inquisition was God's fault, yet it was mans. What does that tell you?!

I am not aware of anything good that was brought to this world by religion that couldn't have been created otherwise

Most of the morals, ethics and ideologies of today derived from religions.
HAHAHA LMAO!!! GOODNIGHT, TIME TO HIT THE GYM!!!!

 

[ParkBoyz]

so, being the inteligent person I am sure you think you are, you should be able to easily realize that evolution (defined as change in allele frequencies over time) is a fact

also, you should be able to see that it is a fact that life wasn't always as complex as it is today and that the complexity arose gradually over long periods of time

I'm aware that changes occur with in every organism, although to what extent and under what process is another question. Your particular previous examples of observed speciation wasn't at all compelling in that the definition of what constitutes a 'species' in that aspect is debatable. I also understand that variation in extremely smaller organisms happen much more frequently than in complex organisms like human beings with the concept of a 'soul'. A few fossils (or lack there of) and genetic data with an accompanying interpretation and story line should in no way be considered "fact".. The particular intelligence that I posses, even given the limited facts pertaining to this distressed theory enables me to not simplify it to "change in allele frequencies over time", and declare that as proof. Then all debate over, it's a fact.

these are facts and not theories explaining them



I will answer with another quote from the talkorigins archive:



....................



you're guilty in both not knowing and disregarding facts



there is no credible biologist who doesn't "take evolution to be 100% fact"

1) I don't know, it's hard not to just see these as theories, especially when your source keeps referring to it as such.

2) The people at talkorigins seem more interested in gaining some type of acceptance of their theory, more than emphasizing objective, critical science, and just letting the data speak for its self.

3) you're guilty in both not knowing and disregarding facts

Wouldn't that be an oxymoron? Again, I accept anything observable, not all of the explanations and story lines that go along with it, unless each individual element that unifies the theory can be tested and ultimately confirmed by means of empirical data.

4) Not true, I'm quite sure, and actually know for a fact that many trained biologists/geneticists tend to doubt the authority of evolution theory, they may be a minority but many people (a lot who most certainly have a lot more training in the field than you) have looked into this theory and for some reason find holes that eventually lead to doubt. You'd be naive to deny that such people exist; some one on here even pointed out how half of these people are most likely theists.

See, the problem is that nobody has to debunk creationism for the simple reason that creationists are those who have something to prove (and they have quite a lot to prove); failing to understand that is one of the reasons why the general public thinks creationism is a serious "alternative" to evolution

How is it that the creationists hold the burden of proof when it is this same 'public' in which creationists represent?

Science is a complex and difficult thing to understand, it takes a lot of effort and talent to do it which few people have. In the same time scientists are too occupied with their research and what's making the situation worse - a lot of them live in their own world of equations, molecules and cells. It is increasingly harder and harder to translate scientific findings to the general audience. This is especially true in a country like USA where most people hardly have an IQ greater than 90 and even if they do, they're so lazy and hopelessly uninformed that you can tell them whatever you want and they will believe it.

Now this is ridiculous with all due respect. Somewhat like the 5 percent nation ideology and it's really nothing more than a logical fallacy. It's appealing to authority and in reality doesn't give any more validity to any of the claims made by evolutionists, outside of what's been observed and clearly illustrated.

They will not beileve the scientist who tells them (if he ever get the chance to talk to the masses) things that are too complex for them to understand

Then the creationist comes, tells his simple stories about how God created everything, how man is the center of the universe, how if they live a righteous life, they'll end up in paradise and so on. Simple things that people want to hear.

Again, this can be disregarded as a logical fallacy. It intentionally undermines more sophisticated arguments for the existence of a creator.

See above

What the "public hemisphere" thinks has no relevance to the truth

The "public hemisphere" consists of semi-literate hamburger-eating, TV-watching idiots. Of course it's harder for them to understand evolution than to believe in fairy-tales



What does any scientific theory has to do with the quality of life???

Are we looking for the truth or for something that will make us feel comfortable?

Not simply quality of life, what purpose does it serve at all; what's with the passionate rhetoric in concern to creationism/evolution debates as if it were Darwin vs. Jesus? That's why I respect evolution as a borderline religion and see it in this context; from what I've observed, I'm left to no other interpretation, even if it were a 'true'(truth) religion.

I know it is too hard for you to understand it, but if it wasn't for evolution, we would have never known even a fraction of what we know today about the human organism. Almost every biological observation has been first made in model organisms and then extrapolated in humans. Why - because evolution tells us that most genes, proteins and processes are expected to be conserved across species and in fact they are - from worms to humans. Without that knowledge, biomedical research would be impossible

You make really distant correlations imo. I'm not really buying that, we've advanced extremely far in biology, medicine, and everything else with out evolution. Evolution has more to do with man's curious nature to explore the unknown, though in the process their methods are just flawed imo.

Because if it wasn't for evolution we would probably still think God created the universe, the Earth, life on it, us and everythign else. In other words, we would be lying ourselves about everything. What is the importance of knowing the truth about the surrounding world is an open question as it is increasingly clear that the more ignorant you are, the happier your life is. But if we're looking for the ultimate truth, we have to go for all of it. So far
we have come to the conclusion that all the Gods of all religions (at least in the way these religions describe them) are not part of the truth. Which is a great leap forward for mankind - one delusion less is always welcome.

The second reason is that if we want to make our life better, we have to develop sophisticated medical tools and in order to do that, we need to udnerstand how our organism works. Which, in turn, is not really possible without understanding how other organisms work. Which inevitably leads us to evolution as the unifying theory explaining why mice are mice and humans are humans

1) Most of us still do believe some type of God created the universe.

2) It has yet to be proven if such a creator doesn't exist, and imo the agnostics seems the sensible of us two extremes in a physically logical sense. Ultimate truth is obviously unattainable to us and in concept only comes from a divine source. So in essence there is no such thing as ultimate truth unless there is an 'ultimate truth'. Evolutionists are even more illusioned than some extreme theists and are in respect, contradicting themselves because even given their very denial of God, they're still searching for him/her.

3) And again, you're stretching your argument a little. Dinosaurs have nothing to do with breast cancer. The macro-level of this theory is practically useless and inapplicable really. Just my opinion...

If man created God through their thoughts, then by many of you atheists logic, he's just a figment of man's imagination. So then what is science then? Also a notion of man, making it a figment of our imagination.

Yep, the scientific method in its self wasn't some sort of divine revelation. Yet, they hold this even dearer than the ten commandments (in which no one can morally/logically object).

 

[ThaG]

3) And again, you're stretching your argument a little. Dinosaurs have nothing to do with breast cancer. The macro-level of this theory is practically useless and inapplicable really. Just my opinion...

strictly speaking, you are right, dinosaurs have nothing to do with breast cancer because they had no breasts

but mice do

mice have the same BRCA1, BRCA2 proteins, Erb receptors and everythign else that's misregulated and mutated in breast cancer

evolution tells us they should and in fact they do

evolution tells us that we can model cancer in mice and every cure for cancer that appears will be a direct result from these studies

this would have never been possible if we didn't know that all mammals are pretty much the same biochemically (something we would have still be figuring out without evolution)

I don't think it's so hard to understand, but it seems it is for you

BTW how does creationism explain dinosaurs?????

 

[ThaG]

I'm aware that changes occur with in every organism, although to what extent and under what process is another question. Your particular previous examples of observed speciation wasn't at all compelling in that the definition of what constitutes a 'species' in that aspect is debatable. I also understand that variation in extremely smaller organisms happen much more frequently than in complex organisms like human beings with the concept of a 'soul'. A few fossils (or lack there of) and genetic data with an accompanying interpretation and story line should in no way be considered "fact".. The particular intelligence that I posses, even given the limited facts pertaining to this distressed theory enables me to not simplify it to "change in allele frequencies over time", and declare that as proof. Then all debate over, it's a fact.

that's what I call disregarding the available evidence...

1) I don't know, it's hard not to just see these as theories, especially when your source keeps referring to it as such.

can you read?

I explained you one again what theory means and you still telling me "It's just a theory"...

you're a very stubborn and dumb person, that's all I can say

2) The people at talkorigins seem more interested in gaining some type of acceptance of their theory, more than emphasizing objective, critical science, and just letting the data speak for its self.

the people at talkorigins are interested in explaining people like you (translated: dumb, uneducated, stubborn, refusing to listen to anything contradicitng their views people) what evolution is, why it's real and why you're an idiot if you don't understand it

it is not their fault some people are such indiots that they'll never understand it

3) you're guilty in both not knowing and disregarding facts

Wouldn't that be an oxymoron? Again, I accept anything observable, not all of the explanations and story lines that go along with it, unless each individual element that unifies the theory can be tested and ultimately confirmed by means of empirical data.

it's not an oxymoron - you don't know a lot of facts, the rest you disregard

how many elements of the theory that God created everythign can be tested?

4) Not true, I'm quite sure, and actually know for a fact that many trained biologists/geneticists tend to doubt the authority of evolution theory, they may be a minority but many people (a lot who most certainly have a lot more training in the field than you) have looked into this theory and for some reason find holes that eventually lead to doubt. You'd be naive to deny that such people exist; some one on here even pointed out how half of these people are most likely theists.

who are these biologists?

if you're "quite sure", you have to able to name them

even Francis Collins believes in evolution (BTW I hate to use the word "believe" but I have no choice here)

if go out and say "evolution is not real", you're automatically excluded form the scientific community, because to say that, you have to present evidence supporting your claim which you just can't do - it doesn't exist (at least nobody has found it yet, but the chance of something like that happening is close to zero)

How is it that the creationists hold the burden of proof when it is this same 'public' in which creationists represent?

which public?

Middle America?

what about public in Japan or Russia?

I say that creationists have to hold the burden of proof because they are challenging a well established scientific theory which have already gone thorugh the process of presentign the necessary evdience long long ago and is still presenting enormous amounts of evidence every day (Broad Institute sequences many megabases of DNA each and every day for example)

So you have to present evidence that evolution is not real and evidence that God made it all, both of which you can't do

Now this is ridiculous with all due respect. Somewhat like the 5 percent nation ideology and it's really nothing more than a logical fallacy. It's appealing to authority and in reality doesn't give any more validity to any of the claims made by evolutionists, outside of what's been observed and clearly illustrated.

no, it's not ridiculous, it is the truth

it's not my or any scientist's fault people are dumb and ignorant

I do what I can to educate them, but they don't want to listen, I can't do moe than that

Again, this can be disregarded as a logical fallacy. It intentionally undermines more sophisticated arguments for the existence of a creator.

all "sophisticated arguments for the existence of a creator" come from the desire to support an idea that came out of pure ignorance and stupidity

Not simply quality of life, what purpose does it serve at all; what's with the passionate rhetoric in concern to creationism/evolution debates as if it were Darwin vs. Jesus? That's why I respect evolution as a borderline religion and see it in this context; from what I've observed, I'm left to no other interpretation, even if it were a 'true'(truth) religion.

truth vs lie

I want to know the truth

you want to keep your delusions

You make really distant correlations imo. I'm not really buying that, we've advanced extremely far in biology, medicine, and everything else with out evolution. Evolution has more to do with man's curious nature to explore the unknown, though in the process their methods are just flawed imo.

it is not possible to advance in biology without evolution

which methods are flawed?

the scientific method is flawed?

what is not flawed then?

what's wrong with being curious?

It seems you're very concerned with cancer - I can tell you that a lot of what we know is important in cancer came from studies in other fields - telomeres, adhesion molecules, etc., they all came from curiousity driven research

BTW hox genes - themselves a very strong evidence that we share a common ancestor with all deuterostomates and protostomates - are also very important for cancer (various leukemias)

How do you think we would have known what Hox genes do without research on evolution of development and Drosophila studies?

I didn't even mention that the whole cell cycle machinery was first identified in yeast...

1) Most of us still do believe some type of God created the universe.

those of us who still do believe some type of God created the universe represent the group with the lowest levels of inteligence and education

does their opinion matter?

2) It has yet to be proven if such a creator doesn't exist, and imo the agnostics seems the sensible of us two extremes in a physically logical sense. Ultimate truth is obviously unattainable to us and in concept only comes from a divine source. So in essence there is no such thing as ultimate truth unless there is an 'ultimate truth'. Evolutionists are even more illusioned than some extreme theists and are in respect, contradicting themselves because even given their very denial of God, they're still searching for him/her.

the creator doesn't exist until its existence is positively proven

 

[Hutch]

Some say Jesus made men go out on crusades and kill innocent people, and some say the Spanish Inquisition was God's fault, yet it was mans. What does that tell you?!

It tells me that we don't need God to explain any of humanities decisions and mistakes and that all actions performed by man are born as a result of mans own thoughts. Thus, God does nothing to explain our reality. We need him why?

You could also look at the other side of the coin - some say that people derive their morals from God and that goodness stems from an understanding of God, yet it is mans understanding of himself from which this goodness is derived. Eh?

If God is responsible for no evil, then God is responsible for no good either.

 

[Hutch]

everything evolves

Not necessarily. Only when the prevailing conditions change, forcing an adaptation, are organisms required to evolve. There are some species of deep sea hydrothermal prokaryotes which have remained relatively unchanged for hundreds of millions of years, all because they had already evolved to suit their niche conditions.

If, however, an organism was subject to a change in it's environment, then it would be forced to either adapt (evolve) or die. Evolution isn't simply an 'onwards and upwards' event like some people believe, a loss in complexity to suit more simple conditions is also a form of evolution.

 

[Hutch]

I'm aware that changes occur with in every organism, although to what extent and under what process is another question.

Ah, an admission of the factuality of evolution. You just stated that you are aware that changes occur within every organism - it doesn't matter about the speed of change or what catalysed it - the fact is that it happens. Thank you. Evolution reigns supreme!

I also understand that variation in extremely smaller organisms happen much more frequently than in complex organisms like human beings with the concept of a 'soul'.

The concept of a 'soul' has nothing to do with the difference in evolutionary speed between man and bacteria - the major factors are (1) generation length and (2) the number of individuals. Bacteria reproduce thousands of times faster than humans and in just one human lifetime they can produce trillions of 'offspring'. As a result, both positive and negative mutations are far more prevelant in bacteria.

 

[Hutch]

Wouldn't that be an oxymoron? Again, I accept anything observable, not all of the explanations and story lines that go along with it, unless each individual element that unifies the theory can be tested and ultimately confirmed by means of empirical data.

The majority of evolutions hypotheses have been tested and proven by empirical science. It is strange that you require each individual element of evolution to be proven before you choose to accept it as fact, yet you accept the existence of God when there is absolutely no evidence or proof regarding His existence. That's a bit of an Oxymoron right there!

Not true, I'm quite sure, and actually know for a fact that many trained biologists/geneticists tend to doubt the authority of evolution theory, they may be a minority but many people (a lot who most certainly have a lot more training in the field than you) have looked into this theory and for some reason find holes that eventually lead to doubt. You'd be naive to deny that such people exist; some one on here even pointed out how half of these people are most likely theists.

The only biologists that refute evolutionary theory are those who feel obliged to based on their belief in a God. I have looked extensively into evolutionary theory, more than most people, and there are no holes that lead me to doubt the theory. I admit that it isn't a 'fact', but it is an extremely strong theory that has an EXTREMELY high probability of being true.

I'd like you to give me the name of one geneticist who doesn't believe in evolution. Just one.

 

[Hutch]

It has yet to be proven if such a creator doesn't exist, and imo the agnostics seems the sensible of us two extremes in a physically logical sense. Ultimate truth is obviously unattainable to us and in concept only comes from a divine source. So in essence there is no such thing as ultimate truth unless there is an 'ultimate truth'. Evolutionists are even more illusioned than some extreme theists and are in respect, contradicting themselves because even given their very denial of God, they're still searching for him/her.

Ah, the backbone of desperate theist arguments.

If there is one thing that pisses me off more than anything with regards to religious debate, it's the statement 'no-body has proven that God doesn't exist'. It is the weakest of all theist arguments, the believers security blanket against the harsh world of reality, and is essentially an admission of defeat - when those of faith need to hide away from the reach of science and cry 'ha ha, you can't get me'.

Why do we require a divine source in order to understand the 'Ultimate Truth'? My concept of an ultimate truth is that we live and die, ashes to ashes and dust to dust. Your concept clearly involves something 'more', something intangiable that can only be given by a higher intelligence. Your truth is based on fiction - untestable assumptions which are supported by NIL evidence. I know which is the more logical, I don't think you do though.

Most scientists don't search for God - we know it's a waste of time. Instead, we focus on reality and try to describe the world using empirical methods whilst making testable hypotheses. We are not living in an illusory world - we are the exact opposite. Science is providing more and more knowledge of the world around us - a better UNDERSTANDING of how things work. Sure, we may never know exactly how things came to be, but why fill this gap with such an outlandish concept as God? If you base your life solely on faith and disregard science, you are diminishing your ability to understand the world. Instead, you focus on ancient rhetoric which claims to describe the world using metaphors and fairy tales, ultimately leaving you chasing fantasies based purely on wishful thinking (or faith as you may know it).

Then again, to each his own.