JB says:

I could use a tactic of the “evolutionary community” and say that anyone believing in evolution is narrow minded indeed. That they are constantly looking at many small facts and forgetting to look at the big picture. But I consider that to be a poor argument technique and don’t want to stoop to that level.

Instead I’ll agree with (JLane) who said “Give me any argument[for evolution]… I can’t find reason nor scientific proof for it.”

And then I would take exception to the counter statement from (the Three Headed Cat) that “The fault does not lie in the argument. The fault is your inability to think logically.”

I have yet to see someone who can think logically and who also has all the facts at their grasp come to the conclusion that Evolution is the better of the two theories. And by the way Evolution (with a capital E) is actually a theory and has not been proven. It is unprovable just like the theory of Creation is unprovable. Short of someone inventing a time machine to go back and watch events unfold, we can only extrapolate to how the present day facts came to be.

As an analogy let’s say you were walking down the street and you came upon a dead dog lying in the road. You saw five other people standing around and asked them what happened here. If all five people said they assumed the dog died there after getting hit by a car, because it looks like it got hit by a car and even had a blood trail where it slid down the road a few feet, does that make it a fact? Well, the answer would be no. The facts are that the dog is dead, is laying in the road, and there are slide marks. But, the story of it’s origins is not provable. In fact this particular dog fell off a truck after it had been hit by a motorcycle (of all things) in another part of the city.

So to get back on point, the various theories of origins are never going to be 100% provable because we can’t use the scientific process to test something that no human was here to see.

The facts are the same for all groups. The theory of how the facts came to their present state is where the real fun begins.

QB says:

[Duplicate comment. – Deleted. – ed.]

JimR says:

#12 Tollybong, “What you believe isn’t near as interesting as why you need to believe it.”
That is so true. (change “near” to “nearly” though)

God is the most popular opiate to simplify and conquer fear of the unknown.

doug says:

of course a person can believe in both god and evolution. millions do.

it is only secularist and religionist tyrants who demand exclusivity.

bobbo says:

For about a year I kinda liked Ann Coulter because in the main she was more often misquoted and was correct that few talking heads would actually come to grips with what she actually said. Instead, they would quibble and complain about how she said it.

Then she said almost word for word what #17 said==there is no evidence at all for evolution. Then she called Edwards a fag. Then she said Jews needed to be perfected.

Now, I still enjoy seeing her misquoted and debated poorly, but she can’t actually say “all” those things to be provacative to sell books and not be somewhat twisted inside?==or she is indeed just pure genius.

Anyhoo, I get the same reaction to posts like #20. Black is white, up is down, there is no evidence for evolution, there is alot of evidence for creation. The mind of Ann Coulter at work, or is it only the pernicious effect of Ann’s perfection?

Logic v Faith. When you are fully emersed in one, can you understand the other? Apparently not. I wrote a short story in high school==a world in which you could think anything you wanted but when you spoke, a power existed that anyone uttering something illogical immediately disappeared. No one spoke of religion. That was Darwin in high gear.

JB says:

JimR said, “yet you STILL come to the conclusion that “the story of it’s origins is not provable.”

Perhaps the analogy was slightly flawed. The point was that the five people standing around the scene could not in any scientific way prove whether the dog was killed there or somewhere else.

To know the truth, they would have to have faith in someone else who claimed to be and know exactly what happened. So whether the truth came from the driver of the truck, the driver of the motor cycle, or someone else outside the realm of space/time. The five people on site of the dog in the road are limited to the present-day facts. The facts of which (in the case of this story) none pointed to the dog falling off the truck any more than it pointed to it getting hit on location.

I suppose that, as in any analogy, the symmetry only holds up to a certain point.

JB says:

And in regards to post #34. Does no one know of a fact that proves evolution?

the Three-Headed Cat™ says:

“I have yet to see someone who can think logically and who also has all the facts at their grasp come to the conclusion that Evolution is the better of the two theories.”

Ahem. There are no “two theories.” There is one only. And it is only a ‘theory’ in the strictest, most precise scientific use of the term. It is not what laypersons such as yourselves know as a “theory,” meaning conjecture or guess.

You can keep repeating your ignorant falsehoods as often as you like, just as you can claim the Earth is flat or that water flows uphill. The facts remain the same. The Earth is an oblate spheroid in shape. Water flows downhill in accordance with the law of gravity. There is no alternative “theory of evolution.” Evolution is not a theory. Evolution by natural selection is the theory, and it is also not what nonscientists like you incorrectly, arrogantly and idiotically keep insisting it is. It is theoretical ONLY in CERTAIN, SPECIFIC, EXTREME DETAILS.

Does your car work? Do you drive it? Is it real?

But you don’t KNOW how your car works. All you have is a THEORY of how cars work. You know theres an engine, you know you put gasoline in and it ‘runs’ – but you don’t understand how the crankshaft is synchronized to the camshaft, which is synchronized to the distributor. You know that a battery provides electricity to turn a small motor which turns the larger one. But you don’t know how it turns it.

You do not know exactly what particular metal alloy is deposited on the filaments in the tiny lamps on the fenders. You have no idea of how the vents on the dashboard are turned off and on to direct heat or cold. You are totally ignorant of what combination of things have to occur before the airbags pop. And you don’t know what chemicals are used, or how, to make them pop.

All you have, like EVERYONE, INCLUDING MECHANICS, is a THEORY OF CARS. It HAS to be called a theory, until you know and can account for EVERY SINGLE DETAIL OF EVERY PART AND EVERY FUNCTION.

But it’s NOT A THEORY. We humans invented cars. We design them. We build them. We use them. They are completely, utterly, totally 100% real and functional. We make them do exactly what we want them to do. We make all different kinds for all different uses.

So, O Wise “evolution is only a theory” Ones; are cars “just a theory” since even the people who design, build and use them do not know everything there is to know about every one of them?

Because THAT is the way in which NATURAL SELECTION – NOT EVOLUTION – is “just a theory”. Because we don’t have every single ‘I’ dotted, nor every ‘T’ crossed. Not because it’s just some kind of wild guess. Not because it doesn’t work exactly the way we know it works. But because there tons of exceedingly fine details still to know. But the overall mechanism is an absolute fact. Not any alternative to it; here isn’t one. It works. It is proven. It is so. No error.

Evolution is fact and natural selection is fact, in exactly the same way that gravity is fact. We don’t know the mind-bogglingly obscure details of exactly HOW gravity works – but since it’s “only a theory”, please, please go step off the roof of a 60-story building. Be my guest. After all, those scientists don’t know everything. Maybe the “theory of gravity” is just somebody’s dumb guess, right? Maybe it “doesn’t always work”, huh?

What is completely senseless and completely UNsupported by ONE SINGLE ATOM OF EVIDENCE is the concept of “God.”

In closing: as has been demonstrated time and again, evolution by natural selection is supported by all known fact. There is zero evidence that contradicts it.
And on the other side of the coin, the “Holy Bibble,” a primitive, contradictory, collection of the writings of gullible, ignorant, emotional prescientific, superstitious humans, which contains little substance and many utter falsehoods – it, totally unlike evolution, has ZERO evidence to support it and incalculable tons of fact that flatly contradict it.

Remember, suckerz; science gave humanity the ability to build jet airplanes and skyscrapers. And on September 11, religion perverted human knowledge and ability, and used one to destroy the other, along with the lives of thousands of people.

That’s the side that you, with your obstinate, egotistical rejection of things you’re not even remotely intelligent enough to understand, have allied yourself with, against knowledge, civilzation, peace and life.

Gawd help you, you deluded clowns. ;P

JimR says:

#45, “Christians can only understand God and their relationship to him based on their experiences with him” … Uncle Ben

Your experiences with Him are purely imaginary. There is a way of establishing that Jesus was real, by verification of unbiased secular historical documents. Since no mention of Jesus has been recorded there, it can be deduced with a high degree of certainty that Jesus and his highly conspicuous activities are fictitious. Also, a God would surely have the foresight to make sure such important knowledge would be preserved in a fashion that would leave no doubt as to the existence of Jesus for all future generations. In that he failed worse than an ordinary man would have, if given the same objective.

The only answers to that conundrum are irrational excuses on behalf of God.

Floyd says:

To 3 Headed Cat:

The people who say it’s “just a theory” are basically clueless about science and the3 scientific method, and that science can change its conclusions as new evidence is found that pertains to a theory.

Not all religions have a mental block about evolution. Catholics, Episcopalians, Unitarians, Methodists, and Presbyterians (and there are other Christian churches with similar beliefs) understand that religion is about an ethical system, which they attribute to God, and which they . Other religions attribute their ethics to Allah, Buddha, Lao-Tzu, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Evolution is about science, not ethics. Fundies (in whatever religion), are trapped by their “faith” in a belief system about something that just ain’t so (e.g. “God wrote the Bible,” when it was really a bunch of people that wrote those books, before those authors had any idea about how the world came to be and how life appeared here).

If people would use reason instead of belief in an untenable position about [sacred book]’s origin, they would probably be able to get useful wisdom out of those books, and reject the idiocy in all of them. They might have a intelligent belief or ethical system as a result. They might also understand that evolution is how we got here, and there’s
no evidence to the contrary.

Mister Catshit says:

#47, bobbo,

While I thank you for the attribution, the ToE post most rightly belongs to that irascible, overt illuminator of mendacity, our lovable soothsayer of all thing wise, Mister T-H-C.

And I enjoyed his beneficent, enlightening, lucid, comments on this subject as well. Truly, one of this thread’s more intelligent and literate commentators.

Gary, the dangerous infidel says:

Would anyone even dare elevate Creationism to the level of theory if the Bible didn’t exist? Would the interpretation of all the scientifically-gathered facts still lead anyone to an inevitable conclusion that some unknown “force” created the earth and all of its diversity nearly simultaneously, as suggested by the six-day period chronicled in the “scientific journal” of holy scriptures?

I nominate “Creationism Theory” for “Best Oxymoron of 2008.” I see little chance of it being eclipsed in the next 361 days (leap year, folks).

*********************
(with a collective “shout out” for some other great comments here)

bobbo says:

Relative to how those in the faith camp don’t understand the science/reason camp and vice versa, I came across the following disturbing article on the “Suicide of Reason” in the NY Times: http://tinyurl.com/2vlwfu

Seems this lack of understanding and the conflict of religions really could be our downfall?

Gary, the dangerous infidel says:

Good enough story, Mister Catshit. Maybe even “Best Story of 2008” 😉

JB says:

#62, what in the world was that? Sounded a bit overly wordy. Or perhaps it is so condensed that that the meaning is almost hidden.

#57, it’s not that I don’t believe that Evolution is an accepted point. But there are many MANY examples where beliefs are skewed to the side of unfactual beliefs by the main people in charge. At the moment that is my belief on the issue of Evolution. The proof for Evolution doesn’t appear to be actual proof but instead a bunch of almost truths and a big push to convince others that “Evolution is what everyone believes” so you must be stupid to not believe it.

As for a demonstration, I would have thought the magnificence of the existing universe or the design of the human body was a pretty good demonstration, even if it is in a state of disrepair after the biblical curse in Genesis. However I imagine that for anyone wanting to avoid accountability to a higher power, then nothing short of a act outside the laws of physics would be considered a truly believable demonstration. Am I correct?

Most people don’t require a demonstration for 100% of all their beliefs. Most people believe Africa exists even though they haven’t seen it. Is it really necessary?

I realize the next comments are coming before explanation of a demonstration. In regards to your niece with spina bifida, after personaly being sick for the last four years (which I admit is not the same as a lifetime) I have also recently wondered why a God with unlimited power would let people suffer or go through painful situations that were no fault of their own.

Then one day it occurred to me that if the Bible is true, then this is most likely a sort of testing ground. In reality 120 years of life is only like the blink of an eye when compared to eternity. If I were an all powerful God who created a sentient life with a free will to exist throughout eternity, I might also want to create a testing ground to see which of those would freely and consciously make the choice.

I would set down the rules of how life in eternity would need to function and then see who could grasp the concept. If every challenging moment is a test for you and for those around you, whether it is sickness or overwhelming power, it would not be logical for God to intervene every time some sort of a challenge came up.

I know that’s not much of a comfort to people going through the so called “testing phase” of their first 120 years of consciousness, but imagine if everyone followed the exact example of Jesus. Jesus came down and demonstrated how the rules of the old testament were supposed to work. He setup a vision where if everyone loved everyone else, then all the needs would be met.

I suppose the problems always arise when someone thinks of themselves as more important than God. Until that is followed to it’s logical conclusion it’s hard to see how that is the problem.