11 of 11
11
Great Resources for Info on Evolution and Darwin (Merged)
Posted: 24 January 2016 05:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 151 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
SENTIENT - 24 January 2016 04:46 PM
TimB - 22 January 2016 06:01 PM
SENTIENT - 22 January 2016 02:59 PM

IMO evolution is a fact, as is the Universal Law of Gravitation.  Great and as we applaud Newton for his insight we can applaud Darwin.  But then,  so what.  It seems that many like to gloat on creationists misunderstanding and blindness of the scientific evidence and on the weakness of their beliefs when they are based on a literal interpretation of the scriptures.

As a mirror consideration maybe many have become atheists or agnostics just because of their newly acquired faith in evolution and their faith should certainly be very weak.

As in the thread on god vs. science, evolution in no way is an argument for that case and again we could argue for god and science instead.

Faith is believing without evidence.  Science requires evidence.  They are two different ways of assessing reality.  It seems clear to me that some persons can hold both, faith beliefs and evidence based beliefs, even when these beliefs conflict, by psychologically compartmentalizing the conflicts.  And some persons can figure out a way to believe in “God” that doesn’t conflict with scientific evidence, by coming up with a version of “God” that does not conflict with science based evidence.  (I guess that the latter is what you are advocating.) But the latter is so far removed from most traditional religious dogmas, that it seems to me to be superfluous, except for folks who insist on there being a “God”.

You are right, science requires evidence.  But how should evolution theory and the related scientific evidence really affect one´s faith, or lack of it.  If you have been interpreting the scriptures literally when confronted with the evidence you should change your set of beliefs.  But if you interpret the scriptures metaphorically, then there is no real conflict between your faith and evolution.  Therefore evolution should not be an issue of faith.

In addition there are things that evolution does not really explain such as the origin of life, the origin of consciousness and in general the nature of man.  IMO evolution is irrelevant to our specie, our survival doesn´t depend any more on natural selection and we may ask now who is the fittest these days? 

In summary evolution, in the same way as Newton´s Law of Universal Gravitation, is ontologically irrelevant and should not be given the importance that it appears to have, for instance in this thread.

The rules are changing in regards to who will be selected by surviving to reproduction, but the underlying processes of evolution are still in effect and relevant.  How people interpret religious concepts metaphorically, or not, in order to manufacture a consistency with reality, seems much less relevant to me.  And understanding the processes of evolution is probably more prone to leading to helpful outcomes than is reliance on believing without evidence. 

So it is not ok, for example to undermine teaching evolution to children, in order to convey religious beliefs about creation, even when, with tortured logic, one can promote the possibility of “Intelligent Design”. 

I also question the value of explaining “the origin of life, the origin of consciousness and in general the nature of man” thru believing the answers given by religion.  That is a dead end.  Thru scientific study and logical investigation we come closer to understanding these things.  Will we ever have ultimate answers to such questions? I don’t know.  But not knowing is better, IMO, than knowing something that somebody just made up that you decided to believe.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 January 2016 06:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 152 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7757
Joined  2009-02-26

SENTIENT said,
In addition there are things that evolution does not really explain such as the origin of life, the origin of consciousness and in general the nature of man.  IMO evolution is irrelevant to our specie, our survival doesn´t depend any more on natural selection and we may ask now who is the fittest these days? 

In summary evolution, in the same way as Newton´s Law of Universal Gravitation, is ontologically irrelevant and should not be given the importance that it appears to have, for instance in this thread.

I would submit that *especially* in this thread Evolution as well as Gravitation are the proper subjects (note the Forum Title of Science and Technology) 

Religion has no place in this thread. It does not in any way deal with Science and Technology, but with philosophy (without logic).

Moreover, Evolution and the origins of life have been well discussed. There are some 10,000 ways how Life could have originated. I would say that given the time and scope of the Universe, those are pretty good odds for life to evolve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAQLgTwJ_A  (note: the actual lecture starts @ 25:00)

Gravity has been well explained and most technological advances (such as landing a rover on Mars), are based on our knowledge of gravity and the behavior of falling objects in a gravitational field.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 August 2016 10:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 153 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  669
Joined  2008-07-03
asanta - 01 August 2008 11:09 PM

Scott Peterson??? I’ve spoken to one of the experts who testified during that trial about the evidence, he was 100% sure Scott had done it—based on his examination of the evidence. Beyond a reasonable doubt means the doubt should be [reasonable/i]! Otherwise NO ONE would ever be convicted.

Circumstantial evidence can be as simple as finding the cookie jar empty of the chocolate chip cookies, and your two year old with chocolate all over his hands and mouth. You didn’t see him take them, he said he didn’t do it, but clear circumstantial evidence point to him as the culprit.

Update. Seems your ‘expert’ needs a refresher course. Because of very serious juror misconduct, the whole trial now has to be thrown out. However, at the same time the three key pieces of ‘evidence’ have all turned out to be wrong. Most seriously, it now turns out that Conner, and hence Laci, were both alive on or after January 5th, 10 days after Scott was supposed to have killed them. A retrial is impossible. This is one of those rare cases where the defendant is now clearly innocent (I can’t come up with even the craziest scenario where he could still be guilty).

You can read the habeas petition here: http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/uploads/2/4/8/2/24829415/petersonhabeas.pdf

It is devastating.

Profile
 
 
   
11 of 11
11