22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution

[hilariousandco]

So god made up a rule that Eve couldn't eat a stupid apple, which she did. (if he created women, he should know how they are )
So than he made up a punishment for us, we would rot in hell for eternity because of that one stupid apple. After a while he made a child, and than killed it and said, you know what, because I killed my own son which was fun enough. You can go all free, but you know, those 10 laws I made up a while ago, you still need to follow those because else I will still punish you till eternity. And you got to worship me and be really thankful to my son, because if I didn't get him killed. I would make your lives even worse.

Yeah, I understand you fear that god, he has some real issues.

I don't think there's any point in trying to use logic here because that and facts don't apply. It simply comes down to whatever faith you've been brainwashed with and they won't change their mind for anything.

And why does your god gives forgiveness for everything unless you don't believe in him, I was baptized and did those 2 ceremonial things when I was a child (no clue how they're called in English).

Christening, Confirmation and First Holy Communion are usually the things you do.

[1715652579]

1715652579

[1715652579]

1715652579

[1715652579]

1715652579

[1715652579]

1715652579

[1715652579]

1715652579

[Peter Lambert]

To me best response to a question, Ok then explain to me how did God came to be? A: He is the one and only, he has always been there from the beginning .. ( or something like that )...

Or, in the words of the Mormons, "As man now is, God once was, as god now is, man may become." (They also say "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.", I am not sure how to reconcile those two sentiments together.) Eternity goes on forever, there was no beginning and there will be no end. God created us in his image, as he was created in the image of his god, and after this mortal existence we will create worlds in our image, if we choose to be such (by choosing to be like Jesus).

[hilariousandco]

Wow.  So much here to comment on.

I too have questioned why God even gave man a choice to choose to disobey in the garden of Eden.  I think our gift of "free will" is a powerful thing though.  I like to think that God wanted to know if we would choose to have a relationship with him by our own choice, not because we are being forced to love him.  If we could force our spouse or children to love us how would we really know if they loved us or not?  

As for God allowing Jesus to die for our sins, the point is that our sins are a serious thing.  It is something that is taken so lightly in our world now though.  But most people are not grateful for what Jesus has done for them.  

As for the priest going to heaven for abusing children, the only way that a priest that abused children could go to heaven is if he truly repented and asked forgiveness for that.  If he was covering up his sins, and even acting like he was "holy" he would be sent to Hell just like anyone else that did not repent.  And many Christian churches have no issue with anyone being married outside of the church.  Those are man's rules, not God's.  Men keep adding their own rules to the Bible and that causes problems.  In fact, the Catholic church requiring priests not to marry is not in the Bible and it might be why there is so many problems with abuse in the Catholic church too.  I have other issues with the Catholic church but those are a couple. This is why it is important to read the Bible for ourselves.

I think that many people today, like you it appears, are what appears to be "good people."  Based on comparing yourself to others you are probably living a pretty moral life.  Because of that you are reaping the rewards of what making good choices brings such as healthy loving relationships and trying to make the world a better place.  This is great but the problem is that it does not change the fact that no matter how good we are there is a standard that is higher.  God's standard is one we can never live up to, and He knows this.  That is why out of mercy He has provided a way for us to have a relationship with Him and eternal life.   In fact, the Bible says that "those who are forgiven of much love much."  In a weird sort of way those that really have a deep appreciation and love of Jesus are those that screwed up more than others and have come to realize that Jesus loves them just like they are.  It is not about earning our way to God.  It is about understanding His deep love for us and then allowing Him to change us because of that.

You can question my relationship with God but I know what my relationship is.  It is one in which He has brought tremendous healing.  I have much gratitude of what He has done for me.  He has helped me make choices that have kept me from many problems in my life and I know that regardless of what difficulties I will have to go through in this hard life I am not alone.  

I like to think that God wanted to know if we would choose to have a relationship with him by our own choice, not because we are being forced to love him.  If we could force our spouse or children to love us how would we really know if they loved us or not? 

I thought he knew everything. He would've known what we'd do anyway. And God is forcing us according to you. It's believe in me or I'll burn you for eternity. There is no choice there. It's either give in to bullying or die. Abusive relationship.

As for God allowing Jesus to die for our sins, the point is that our sins are a serious thing.  It is something that is taken so lightly in our world now though.  But most people are not grateful for what Jesus has done for them. 

How did Jesus getting murdered save anyone? I don't get it. There's no logic to it. Am I going to hell since Jesus died for my sins or not?

As for the priest going to heaven for abusing children, the only way that a priest that abused children could go to heaven is if he truly repented and asked forgiveness for that.

Great. Fucking kids is fine as long as you're really sorry. Brilliant. People who are good their entire lives but question god? Nope, you'll burn in hell.

In fact, the Bible says that "those who are forgiven of much love much."

Again, the Bible says. If the bible said to stone adulterers & homosexuals and to not work on Sundays would you believe it? Oh, wait...

It is one in which He has brought tremendous healing. 

Muslims say that about Allah. Some people say even positive thoughts can cure cancer, but those people usually don't believe their own bullshit when it comes down to it.

I have much gratitude of what He has done for me.  He has helped me make choices that have kept me from many problems in my life and I know that regardless of what difficulties I will have to go through in this hard life I am not alone. 

Those were all choices you made. Nobody else or any mystical beings, just you. I think you underestimate the power of the human mind or spirit (I don't use that word literally). I once heard an argument from a junkie that he got clean by the power of god. Nah, it wasn't god, it was your own determination and self-will. You can do a lot of things if you put your mind to it. You can also get people to believe in anything by brainwashing them.

[BitChick]

I like to think that God wanted to know if we would choose to have a relationship with him by our own choice, not because we are being forced to love him.  If we could force our spouse or children to love us how would we really know if they loved us or not? 

I thought he knew everything. He would've known what we'd do anyway. And God is forcing us according to you. It's believe in me or I'll burn you for eternity. There is no choice there. It's either give in to bullying or die. Abusive relationship.

As for God allowing Jesus to die for our sins, the point is that our sins are a serious thing.  It is something that is taken so lightly in our world now though.  But most people are not grateful for what Jesus has done for them. 

How did Jesus getting murdered save anyone? I don't get it. There's no logic to it. Am I going to hell since Jesus died for my sins or not?

As for the priest going to heaven for abusing children, the only way that a priest that abused children could go to heaven is if he truly repented and asked forgiveness for that.

Great. Fucking kids is fine as long as you're really sorry. Brilliant. People who are good their entire lives but question god? Nope, you'll burn in hell.

In fact, the Bible says that "those who are forgiven of much love much."

Again, the Bible says. If the bible said to stone adulterers & homosexuals and to not work on Sundays would you believe it? Oh, wait...

It is one in which He has brought tremendous healing. 

Muslims say that about Allah. Some people say even positive thoughts can cure cancer, but those people usually don't believe their own bullshit when it comes down to it.

I have much gratitude of what He has done for me.  He has helped me make choices that have kept me from many problems in my life and I know that regardless of what difficulties I will have to go through in this hard life I am not alone. 

Those were all choices you made. Nobody else or any mystical beings, just you. I think you underestimate the power of the human mind or spirit (I don't use that word literally). I once heard an argument from a junkie that he got clean by the power of god. Nah, it wasn't god, it was your own determination and self-will. You can do a lot of things if you put your mind to it. You can also get people to believe in anything by brainwashing them.

It seems like you are pretty ticked at God, or have decided based on your knowledge of who you think He is, you don't believe in Him.

I will briefly comment on a few things.  As for God "choosing to send us to hell" that is a matter of your perception.  In reality we choose to go there by not accepting Him.  The choice is completely ours so I don't understand you saying that He is the one to blame here.  Would it be fair of God to let people murder, rape, sexually abuse kids etc. without any judgement for those sins?  Of course not!  There needs to be punishment for those sins.  However, you seem to think that there is a hierarchy of sin and you are "above" the line and God should not punish you.  I realize that without God's grace I could be a killer (I have hated someone so much I wanted to kill them) so I know what it is like to have that desire.  I then am humbled by that and realize that without God's grace I could do horrible things.  So in a sense I am no different than any other sinner, regardless of what kind of sin.  All sin keeps us from God.  It doesn't really matter what that sin is.  We as humans like to categorize them and say that this one is worse than that one, and I do believe that some sins have a greater harm for sure.  The Bible even says "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."  So some sins against children may be punished more.  But this is where God's grace comes into play.  Jesus brings restoration and healing to those that seek Him sincerely.  If someone that was an abusive jerk really was repentant they should feel compelled to do everything they can to apologize and seek forgiveness from the people they harmed.  If that person never is repentant then as a Christian I can sleep at night know that God will judge them accordingly, even though it saddens me that the person does not want to change. 

[hilariousandco]

It seems like you are pretty ticked at God, or have decided based on your knowledge of who you think He is, you don't believe in Him.

I will briefly comment on a few things.  As for God "choosing to send us to hell" that is a matter of your perception.  In reality we choose to go there by not accepting Him.  The choice is completely ours so I don't understand you saying that He is the one to blame here.  Would it be fair of God to let people murder, rape, sexually abuse kids etc. without any judgement for those sins?  Of course not!  There needs to be punishment for those sins.  However, you seem to think that there is a hierarchy of sin and you are "above" the line and God should not punish you.  I realize that without God's grace I could be a killer (I have hated someone so much I wanted to kill them) so I know what it is like to have that desire.  I then am humbled by that and realize that without God's grace I could do horrible things.  So in a sense I am no different than any other sinner, regardless of what kind of sin.  All sin keeps us from God.  It doesn't really matter what that sin is.  We as humans like to categorize them and say that this one is worse than that one, and I do believe that some sins have a greater harm for sure.  The Bible even says "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."  So some sins against children may be punished more.  But this is where God's grace comes into play.  Jesus brings restoration and healing to those that seek Him sincerely.  If someone that was an abusive jerk really was repentant they should feel compelled to do everything they can to apologize and seek forgiveness from the people they harmed.  If that person never is repentant then as a Christian I can sleep at night know that God will judge them accordingly, even though it saddens me that the person does not want to change.  

I'm not ticked off at god. How can I be ticked off at something that doesn't exist to me? I base my knowledge of the guy in the bible. He's not a pleasant character. In fact I'd go as far as to say he's pure evil and I don't even believe in evil either. If the god of the bible exists I'd have a million questions for him including why he's such a murderous monster and spent so much time creating diseases etc, but I know why he is this way; because people wrote the bible and we created him in our image, not the other way round. And If god did exist I think he'd need our forgiveness as much as we need his.

The choice to believe in him isn't really ours. You can say it is, but it's not as it's made under threat. According to god, it's essentially believe in me or else. Most religious people just give in to the threat after they've been brainwashed by it. Somebody can't love and hate you at the same time. People only believe in him out of pure fear. You can't make people believe in something when it doesn't exist to them. I can't suddenly tell myself that there's a god unless I find any evidence for him. I'd be lying to myself if I said I believe in him or any other gods, and god would know this any way. If god wants to reveal himself to me in any way at all he can do, and then I will believe in him. So far he has not.

[BitChick]

It seems like you are pretty ticked at God, or have decided based on your knowledge of who you think He is, you don't believe in Him.

I will briefly comment on a few things.  As for God "choosing to send us to hell" that is a matter of your perception.  In reality we choose to go there by not accepting Him.  The choice is completely ours so I don't understand you saying that He is the one to blame here.  Would it be fair of God to let people murder, rape, sexually abuse kids etc. without any judgement for those sins?  Of course not!  There needs to be punishment for those sins.  However, you seem to think that there is a hierarchy of sin and you are "above" the line and God should not punish you.  I realize that without God's grace I could be a killer (I have hated someone so much I wanted to kill them) so I know what it is like to have that desire.  I then am humbled by that and realize that without God's grace I could do horrible things.  So in a sense I am no different than any other sinner, regardless of what kind of sin.  All sin keeps us from God.  It doesn't really matter what that sin is.  We as humans like to categorize them and say that this one is worse than that one, and I do believe that some sins have a greater harm for sure.  The Bible even says "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."  So some sins against children may be punished more.  But this is where God's grace comes into play.  Jesus brings restoration and healing to those that seek Him sincerely.  If someone that was an abusive jerk really was repentant they should feel compelled to do everything they can to apologize and seek forgiveness from the people they harmed.  If that person never is repentant then as a Christian I can sleep at night know that God will judge them accordingly, even though it saddens me that the person does not want to change.  

I'm not ticked off at god. How can I be ticked off at something that doesn't exist to me? I base my knowledge of the guy in the bible. He's not a pleasant character. In fact I'd go as far as to say he's pure evil and I don't even believe in evil either. If the god of the bible exists I'd have a million questions for him including why he's such a murderous monster and spent so much time creating diseases etc, but I know why he is this way; because people wrote the bible and we created him in our image, not the other way round. And If god did exist I think he'd need our forgiveness as much as we need his.

The choice to believe in him isn't really ours. You can say it is, but it's not as it's made under threat. According to god, it's essentially believe in me or else. Most religious people just give in to the threat after they've been brainwashed by it. Somebody can't love and hate you at the same time. People only believe in him out of pure fear. You can't make people believe in something when it doesn't exist to them. I can't suddenly tell myself that there's a god unless I find any evidence for him. I'd be lying to myself if I said I believe in him or any other gods, and god would know this any way. If god wants to reveal himself to me in any way at all he can do, and then I will believe in him. So far he has not.

Have you asked Him to reveal Himself? That is a prayer that He will answer if you ask Him sincerely to do so.  As for your idea of God being a spiteful and mean controlling God this is where you and I differ.  God is not controlling at all.  In fact, that is why we have free will.  We can choose to seek Him, or choose to ignore Him but the ball is in our court.  It does not mean that the world was not created with certain "rules" in place.  I guess your issue is that God had any laws that we are accountable to?  He is waiting with arms open wide for anyone that will come to Him.  Have you ever heard the story of the Prodigal Son?  This is a perfect picture of the character of God.

[darkota]

You know what completely disproves Creationism? FOSSILS, DINOSAURS, OIL(aka Fossil Fuel, which was created by the remains of dead organisms many a millenia ago).

[guybrushthreepwood]

You know what completely disproves Creationism? FOSSILS, DINOSAURS, OIL(aka Fossil Fuel, which was created by the remains of dead organisms many a millenia ago).

God planted dinosaurs to try test our faith.

[the joint]

I just noticed the all-caps "THEORY" in the post you quoted and it reminded myself of how it is amusing that these people never seem to understand what the word 'theory' means in a modern scientific context. Then using it as damning "evidence" that because that word which they don't understand has been used to describe evolution, therefor evolution must be incorrect.

From wikipedia just in case the cognition to seek out the definition is also missing:

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[2] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis').[3] Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[4]

I've never quite understood how evolution is testable so as to be considered a scientific theory.

If you find a fossil that does not fit into the evolutionary timeline, like if you find a dog fossil in rocks 100 million years old, that might shed doubt on the theory of evolution.

That qualifies as testing?

That method of "testing" seems more like observation.

Yes, testing hypothesis and theories is done by making observations. How else would you test a theory?

Okay, but at what level of scientific rigor?  We observe constantly, but those observations don't necessarily lend themselves to the development of strong, scientific theories.  This is especially true given that theories (which are ultimately mathematical constructs) often face the problem of "undecidabity," or the inability to determine whether one plausible interpretation of a set of data is more true than some other plausible interpretation.  As far as I'm aware, this just sounds like 'naturalistic observation' which has never been synonymous with 'experiment.'

Edit:  A theory can be complete, incomplete, right, or dead wrong.  I think we can agree that we're both interested in 'good' theories which are testable, replicable, supported by multiple experiments and data sets, etc.  Although I think modern evolutionary theory is supported by a large data set, I'm still having difficulty understanding how it is testable and replicable.

Edit 2: I've posited many times on this forum that, given the available evidence, there are alternative theories that are at least equally plausible (e.g. The evidence supports a theory that evolution in conscious states lead to evolved physical states rather than vice versa).  How would you propose we test the theory of evolution against these other plausible theories?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment, which I mentioned earlier, is an example of a way to experiment with evolution.

Every time a new fossil is described, that adds to the data set. If a fossil is found which does not fit the evolutionary theory, then the theory must be updated to account for it.

RE Edit 2: I am not sure I understand what the heck you are talking about? What do you mean conscious states vs. physical states?

Thanks for the link, it's a very interesting read.  I wasn't aware that studies of this kind were being done.  Nice

Let's assume for a moment that certain evidence that indicates the possibility of a misinterpretation of the fossil record (e.g. proven-though-minimal changes in rates of radioactive isotope decay over time, the idea that "deeper" doesn't always equate to "older" when examining unearthed fossils, etc.) wouldn't have any substantial impact on current modern evolutionary theory if known absolutely.  Let's just assume that we have a near-perfect perception and understanding of the evidence we've collected that supports the theory.

The difficulty I have grasping how evolution is wholly testable is because there are two kinds of fallibility, and only one kind is commonly referenced in science, i.e. if you find evidence to disprove the theory, then it's either a bad theory or needs improving.  The other kind of fallibility is philosophical in nature -- given two seemingly equally-plausible theories, and given evidence that appears to equally support both, how can you test one theory against the other?

A common-but-flawed argument against evolution that's been put forth is the idea that evolution isn't fallible because you can always fit some piece of evidence to fit the current theory.  As you pointed out, this isn't true because some piece of fossil evidence that deviates from the theory suggests the theory itself is flawed as it isn't comprehensive enough to include the new evidence.  But, I'm struggling with the alternative type of fallibility.  What if you have two theories that are equally-supported by the evidence?  How do you determine that one is fallible against the other?

Usually, this type of fallibility isn't a concern.  After all, if you find evidence to disprove evolution, then you know that theory needs to be replaced by a better one.  But what about a case in which all data that has been found, and all evidence that ever could be found, supports two theories equally?

For example, let's say two people are getting married and you are trying to develop a theory as to why they got married.  A behaviorist psychologist might say that they're getting married due to a series of stimuli and responses, a neuroscientist might say they are getting married due to a complex series of electrical signals that facilitate the release of neurochemicals that provide the couple with feelings of love and attachment, and the couple themselves might just say they're getting married because they love each other and they want to.  After examining all the evidence at hand, you will likely find that the evidence fully supports each of these theories.   This relates back to the problem of mathematical undecidability of theories -- which is the best one?

The evidence supporting evolution equally supports at least one alternative theory.  Modern evolutionary theory describes a mechanism for adaptation through common descent by way of vertical and lateral gene transfer.  However, the evidence equally supports a theory in which the mechanism for adaptation isn't vertical and lateral gene transfer, but rather evolution in states of consciousness which are evidenced by vertical and lateral gene transfer and the resulting changes in genotype and phenotype.  This theory posits that we did not descend from LUCA, the last universal common ancestor, but rather LUCCA, the last universal common conscious agent.

[darkota]

You know what completely disproves Creationism? FOSSILS, DINOSAURS, OIL(aka Fossil Fuel, which was created by the remains of dead organisms many a millenia ago).

God planted dinosaurs to try test our faith.

I loled, you're incredibly gullible. I can do the exact opposite, Dinosaurs and all fossils were formed to increase our knowledge about the world around us as to make the human population better fitted for survival, aka that's why they're over 1billion atheists, aka that's why many people who contribute to helping improve humanity on a whole are atheists.

[pedrog]

You know what completely disproves Creationism? FOSSILS, DINOSAURS, OIL(aka Fossil Fuel, which was created by the remains of dead organisms many a millenia ago).

God planted dinosaurs to try test our faith.

I loled, you're incredibly gullible. I can do the exact opposite, Dinosaurs and all fossils were formed to increase our knowledge about the world around us as to make the human population better fitted for survival, aka that's why they're over 1billion atheists, aka that's why many people who contribute to helping improve humanity on a whole are atheists.

Not gullible, sarcastic... 

[Peter Lambert]

Yes, testing hypothesis and theories is done by making observations. How else would you test a theory?

Okay, but at what level of scientific rigor?  We observe constantly, but those observations don't necessarily lend themselves to the development of strong, scientific theories.  This is especially true given that theories (which are ultimately mathematical constructs) often face the problem of "undecidabity," or the inability to determine whether one plausible interpretation of a set of data is more true than some other plausible interpretation.  As far as I'm aware, this just sounds like 'naturalistic observation' which has never been synonymous with 'experiment.'

Edit:  A theory can be complete, incomplete, right, or dead wrong.  I think we can agree that we're both interested in 'good' theories which are testable, replicable, supported by multiple experiments and data sets, etc.  Although I think modern evolutionary theory is supported by a large data set, I'm still having difficulty understanding how it is testable and replicable.

Edit 2: I've posited many times on this forum that, given the available evidence, there are alternative theories that are at least equally plausible (e.g. The evidence supports a theory that evolution in conscious states lead to evolved physical states rather than vice versa).  How would you propose we test the theory of evolution against these other plausible theories?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment, which I mentioned earlier, is an example of a way to experiment with evolution.

Every time a new fossil is described, that adds to the data set. If a fossil is found which does not fit the evolutionary theory, then the theory must be updated to account for it.

RE Edit 2: I am not sure I understand what the heck you are talking about? What do you mean conscious states vs. physical states?

Let's assume for a moment that certain evidence that indicates the possibility of a misinterpretation of the fossil record (e.g. proven-though-minimal changes in rates of radioactive isotope decay over time, the idea that "deeper" doesn't always equate to "older" when examining unearthed fossils, etc.) wouldn't have any substantial impact on current modern evolutionary theory if known absolutely.  Let's just assume that we have a near-perfect perception and understanding of the evidence we've collected that supports the theory.

The difficulty I have grasping how evolution is wholly testable is because there are two kinds of fallibility, and only one kind is commonly referenced in science, i.e. if you find evidence to disprove the theory, then it's either a bad theory or needs improving.  The other kind of fallibility is philosophical in nature -- given two seemingly equally-plausible theories, and given evidence that appears to equally support both, how can you test one theory against the other?

A common-but-flawed argument against evolution that's been put forth is the idea that evolution isn't fallible because you can always fit some piece of evidence to fit the current theory.  As you pointed out, this isn't true because some piece of fossil evidence that deviates from the theory suggests the theory itself is flawed as it isn't comprehensive enough to include the new evidence.  But, I'm struggling with the alternative type of fallibility.  What if you have two theories that are equally-supported by the evidence?  How do you determine that one is fallible against the other?

Usually, this type of fallibility isn't a concern.  After all, if you find evidence to disprove evolution, then you know that theory needs to be replaced by a better one.  But what about a case in which all data that has been found, and all evidence that ever could be found, supports two theories equally?

For example, let's say two people are getting married and you are trying to develop a theory as to why they got married.  A behaviorist psychologist might say that they're getting married due to a series of stimuli and responses, a neuroscientist might say they are getting married due to a complex series of electrical signals that facilitate the release of neurochemicals that provide the couple with feelings of love and attachment, and the couple themselves might just say they're getting married because they love each other and they want to.  After examining all the evidence at hand, you will likely find that the evidence fully supports each of these theories.   This relates back to the problem of mathematical undecidability of theories -- which is the best one?

The evidence supporting evolution equally supports at least one alternative theory.  Modern evolutionary theory describes a mechanism for adaptation through common descent by way of vertical and lateral gene transfer.  However, the evidence equally supports a theory in which the mechanism for adaptation isn't vertical and lateral gene transfer, but rather evolution in states of consciousness which are evidenced by vertical and lateral gene transfer and the resulting changes in genotype and phenotype.  This theory posits that we did not descend from LUCA, the last universal common ancestor, but rather LUCCA, the last universal common conscious agent.

If two theories are both supported by the evidence, then you have to find somewhere that their predictions disagree and probe that area.

In your example of two people getting married, those three explanations are just three ways of saying the same thing, they do not disagree with each other.

Let me see if I understand this correctly, you are trying to decide between (change in genotype yields adaptations) vs (desire for adaptation yields change in genotype)? Are you suggesting bacteria and plants are conscious agents? I know there is much anthropomorphization going on in schools when evolution is taught, EG the giraffes wanted to reach the higher leafs of trees so they grew longer necks, but that is just analogical hand-waving to help people grasp a complicated subject.

[guybrushthreepwood]

You know what completely disproves Creationism? FOSSILS, DINOSAURS, OIL(aka Fossil Fuel, which was created by the remains of dead organisms many a millenia ago).

God planted dinosaurs to try test our faith.

I loled, you're incredibly gullible. I can do the exact opposite, Dinosaurs and all fossils were formed to increase our knowledge about the world around us as to make the human population better fitted for survival, aka that's why they're over 1billion atheists, aka that's why many people who contribute to helping improve humanity on a whole are atheists.

I was joking  , but I know it's hard to distinguish between nonsense and genuine belief in these kind of threads lol.

[hilariousandco]

You know what completely disproves Creationism? FOSSILS, DINOSAURS, OIL(aka Fossil Fuel, which was created by the remains of dead organisms many a millenia ago).

God planted dinosaurs to try test our faith.

I loled, you're incredibly gullible. I can do the exact opposite, Dinosaurs and all fossils were formed to increase our knowledge about the world around us as to make the human population better fitted for survival, aka that's why they're over 1billion atheists, aka that's why many people who contribute to helping improve humanity on a whole are atheists.

I was joking  , but I know it's hard to distinguish between nonsense and genuine belief in these kind of threads lol.

Funny thing is people actually use that dinosaur faith excuse.

[the joint]

Yes, testing hypothesis and theories is done by making observations. How else would you test a theory?

Okay, but at what level of scientific rigor?  We observe constantly, but those observations don't necessarily lend themselves to the development of strong, scientific theories.  This is especially true given that theories (which are ultimately mathematical constructs) often face the problem of "undecidabity," or the inability to determine whether one plausible interpretation of a set of data is more true than some other plausible interpretation.  As far as I'm aware, this just sounds like 'naturalistic observation' which has never been synonymous with 'experiment.'

Edit:  A theory can be complete, incomplete, right, or dead wrong.  I think we can agree that we're both interested in 'good' theories which are testable, replicable, supported by multiple experiments and data sets, etc.  Although I think modern evolutionary theory is supported by a large data set, I'm still having difficulty understanding how it is testable and replicable.

Edit 2: I've posited many times on this forum that, given the available evidence, there are alternative theories that are at least equally plausible (e.g. The evidence supports a theory that evolution in conscious states lead to evolved physical states rather than vice versa).  How would you propose we test the theory of evolution against these other plausible theories?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment, which I mentioned earlier, is an example of a way to experiment with evolution.

Every time a new fossil is described, that adds to the data set. If a fossil is found which does not fit the evolutionary theory, then the theory must be updated to account for it.

RE Edit 2: I am not sure I understand what the heck you are talking about? What do you mean conscious states vs. physical states?

Let's assume for a moment that certain evidence that indicates the possibility of a misinterpretation of the fossil record (e.g. proven-though-minimal changes in rates of radioactive isotope decay over time, the idea that "deeper" doesn't always equate to "older" when examining unearthed fossils, etc.) wouldn't have any substantial impact on current modern evolutionary theory if known absolutely.  Let's just assume that we have a near-perfect perception and understanding of the evidence we've collected that supports the theory.

The difficulty I have grasping how evolution is wholly testable is because there are two kinds of fallibility, and only one kind is commonly referenced in science, i.e. if you find evidence to disprove the theory, then it's either a bad theory or needs improving.  The other kind of fallibility is philosophical in nature -- given two seemingly equally-plausible theories, and given evidence that appears to equally support both, how can you test one theory against the other?

A common-but-flawed argument against evolution that's been put forth is the idea that evolution isn't fallible because you can always fit some piece of evidence to fit the current theory.  As you pointed out, this isn't true because some piece of fossil evidence that deviates from the theory suggests the theory itself is flawed as it isn't comprehensive enough to include the new evidence.  But, I'm struggling with the alternative type of fallibility.  What if you have two theories that are equally-supported by the evidence?  How do you determine that one is fallible against the other?

Usually, this type of fallibility isn't a concern.  After all, if you find evidence to disprove evolution, then you know that theory needs to be replaced by a better one.  But what about a case in which all data that has been found, and all evidence that ever could be found, supports two theories equally?

For example, let's say two people are getting married and you are trying to develop a theory as to why they got married.  A behaviorist psychologist might say that they're getting married due to a series of stimuli and responses, a neuroscientist might say they are getting married due to a complex series of electrical signals that facilitate the release of neurochemicals that provide the couple with feelings of love and attachment, and the couple themselves might just say they're getting married because they love each other and they want to.  After examining all the evidence at hand, you will likely find that the evidence fully supports each of these theories.   This relates back to the problem of mathematical undecidability of theories -- which is the best one?

The evidence supporting evolution equally supports at least one alternative theory.  Modern evolutionary theory describes a mechanism for adaptation through common descent by way of vertical and lateral gene transfer.  However, the evidence equally supports a theory in which the mechanism for adaptation isn't vertical and lateral gene transfer, but rather evolution in states of consciousness which are evidenced by vertical and lateral gene transfer and the resulting changes in genotype and phenotype.  This theory posits that we did not descend from LUCA, the last universal common ancestor, but rather LUCCA, the last universal common conscious agent.

If two theories are both supported by the evidence, then you have to find somewhere that their predictions disagree and probe that area.

In your example of two people getting married, those three explanations are just three ways of saying the same thing, they do not disagree with each other.

Let me see if I understand this correctly, you are trying to decide between (change in genotype yields adaptations) vs (desire for adaptation yields change in genotype)? Are you suggesting bacteria and plants are conscious agents? I know there is much anthropomorphization going on in schools when evolution is taught, EG the giraffes wanted to reach the higher leafs of trees so they grew longer necks, but that is just analogical hand-waving to help people grasp a complicated subject.

Lol.  I'm actually almost positive I remember that giraffe example from class over a decade ago.

You have the gist of the two theories I'm struggling with, however I wouldn't describe the alternative theory as one in which there is any  "desire" for adaptation, but rather it is the nature of consciousness to adapt.  I can't count how many times I've driven a car someplace and I can't even remember the process of driving there.  My awareness goes off somewhere else while some subconscious or unconscious process takes over and makes sure that I'm not only capable of driving my vehicle, but also of driving there so well that even the most sophisticated computer simulations would have difficulty calculating and measuring all of the spatial, weather, traffic, and road conditions in real-time so as to keep me from killing myself.  For any thing to alter a course of action to avoid destruction or preserve itself is a sign of intelligence and problem-solving, and heck, maybe even self-awareness.

Yes, I'm suggesting that bacteria and plants are conscious agents.  If you'd like a more detailed explanation of why I think this and why I think the evidence supports this, I can give it a shot, but it'd be pretty long-winded.  There are certain-yet-uncommon assumptions I've formed over the past few years, yet I almost completely forget that most people don't hold the same assumptions, and so I also forget that it's pretty much impossible for me to make a brief statement in these kinds of threads and communicate what I'm thinking.  The TL;DR version is that I believe this theory because I think subconsciousness and unconsciousness are actually just subtler levels of consciousness despite their riddled names, that consciousness is misunderstood by being defined too narrowly, and that these subtler facets of consciousness distribute to any living thing.  The long-winded version would include a lot of philosophy, and I feel that I'd then have to justify the need for philosophy when talking about a scientific theory that is only supposed to consider empirical evidence, and this would include explaining why I think that the scientific method may not be the best method for comprehensive theory-making about evolution. 

[Peter Lambert]

You have the gist of the two theories I'm struggling with, however I wouldn't describe the alternative theory as one in which there is any  "desire" for adaptation, but rather it is the nature of consciousness to adapt.  I can't count how many times I've driven a car someplace and I can't even remember the process of driving there.  My awareness goes off somewhere else while some subconscious or unconscious process takes over and makes sure that I'm not only capable of driving my vehicle, but also of driving there so well that even the most sophisticated computer simulations would have difficulty calculating and measuring all of the spatial, weather, traffic, and road conditions in real-time so as to keep me from killing myself.  For any thing to alter a course of action to avoid destruction or preserve itself is a sign of intelligence and problem-solving, and heck, maybe even self-awareness.

Yes, I'm suggesting that bacteria and plants are conscious agents.  If you'd like a more detailed explanation of why I think this and why I think the evidence supports this, I can give it a shot, but it'd be pretty long-winded.  There are certain-yet-uncommon assumptions I've formed over the past few years, yet I almost completely forget that most people don't hold the same assumptions, and so I also forget that it's pretty much impossible for me to make a brief statement in these kinds of threads and communicate what I'm thinking.  The TL;DR version is that I believe this theory because I think subconsciousness and unconsciousness are actually just subtler levels of consciousness despite their riddled names, that consciousness is misunderstood by being defined too narrowly, and that these subtler facets of consciousness distribute to any living thing.  The long-winded version would include a lot of philosophy, and I feel that I'd then have to justify the need for philosophy when talking about a scientific theory that is only supposed to consider empirical evidence, and this would include explaining why I think that the scientific method may not be the best method for comprehensive theory-making about evolution. 

To me it sounds like you are wrapping a whole bunch of pseudo-science and mumbo-jumbo around solid scientific theories to make them not only untestable but a whole lot more complicated than they need to be. You are trying to turn a scientific theory based on evidence into a faith based dogma because it makes you feel better. Please stop trying to turn science into religion.

[the joint]

You have the gist of the two theories I'm struggling with, however I wouldn't describe the alternative theory as one in which there is any  "desire" for adaptation, but rather it is the nature of consciousness to adapt.  I can't count how many times I've driven a car someplace and I can't even remember the process of driving there.  My awareness goes off somewhere else while some subconscious or unconscious process takes over and makes sure that I'm not only capable of driving my vehicle, but also of driving there so well that even the most sophisticated computer simulations would have difficulty calculating and measuring all of the spatial, weather, traffic, and road conditions in real-time so as to keep me from killing myself.  For any thing to alter a course of action to avoid destruction or preserve itself is a sign of intelligence and problem-solving, and heck, maybe even self-awareness.

Yes, I'm suggesting that bacteria and plants are conscious agents.  If you'd like a more detailed explanation of why I think this and why I think the evidence supports this, I can give it a shot, but it'd be pretty long-winded.  There are certain-yet-uncommon assumptions I've formed over the past few years, yet I almost completely forget that most people don't hold the same assumptions, and so I also forget that it's pretty much impossible for me to make a brief statement in these kinds of threads and communicate what I'm thinking.  The TL;DR version is that I believe this theory because I think subconsciousness and unconsciousness are actually just subtler levels of consciousness despite their riddled names, that consciousness is misunderstood by being defined too narrowly, and that these subtler facets of consciousness distribute to any living thing.  The long-winded version would include a lot of philosophy, and I feel that I'd then have to justify the need for philosophy when talking about a scientific theory that is only supposed to consider empirical evidence, and this would include explaining why I think that the scientific method may not be the best method for comprehensive theory-making about evolution. 

To me it sounds like you are wrapping a whole bunch of pseudo-science and mumbo-jumbo around solid scientific theories to make them not only untestable but a whole lot more complicated than they need to be. You are trying to turn a scientific theory based on evidence into a faith based dogma because it makes you feel better. Please stop trying to turn science into religion.

Whoa. I'm not even religious, and I'm certainly not interested in frivolous theories.

I hope you understand that the scientific method carries certain untestable assumptions, e.g. we live in a positivistic universe, that have been proven false for literally thousands of years.

Let me ask you this: If you have a set of empirical data that appears a certain way, but a logical or mathematical proof indicates that your interpretation of the data is flawed, would you dismiss the proof because it is non-empirical?

The introduction of philosophy may render a theory unscientific, but in no way does it imply it is worse.  The scientific method is *not* the highest standard for knowledge as it owes an extremely large debt to philosophy and mathematics.

[Peter Lambert]

Whoa. I'm not even religious, and I'm certainly not interested in frivolous theories.

I hope you understand that the scientific method carries certain untestable assumptions, e.g. we live in a positivistic universe, that have been proven false for literally thousands of years.

Let me ask you this: If you have a set of empirical data that appears a certain way, but a logical or mathematical proof indicates that your interpretation of the data is flawed, would you dismiss the proof because it is non-empirical?

The introduction of philosophy may render a theory unscientific, but in no way does it imply it is worse.  The scientific method is *not* the highest standard for knowledge as it owes an extremely large debt to philosophy and mathematics.

I am not saying you are religious, just that the way you are describing this sounds religious rather than scientific.

I'll try to answer: If I have a set of empirical data which I interpret a certain way, and a logical or mathematical proof indicates that my interpretation is flawed, I would not dismiss the proof I would examine the analysis and try to find a new analysis which fits both the empirical evidence and the mathematical proof. Thus is the scientific method: generate empirical evidence, check to see if it agrees with the theory, if they do not agree then you adjust the theory.

[the joint]

Whoa. I'm not even religious, and I'm certainly not interested in frivolous theories.

I hope you understand that the scientific method carries certain untestable assumptions, e.g. we live in a positivistic universe, that have been proven false for literally thousands of years.

Let me ask you this: If you have a set of empirical data that appears a certain way, but a logical or mathematical proof indicates that your interpretation of the data is flawed, would you dismiss the proof because it is non-empirical?

The introduction of philosophy may render a theory unscientific, but in no way does it imply it is worse.  The scientific method is *not* the highest standard for knowledge as it owes an extremely large debt to philosophy and mathematics.

I am not saying you are religious, just that the way you are describing this sounds religious rather than scientific.

I'll try to answer: If I have a set of empirical data which I interpret a certain way, and a logical or mathematical proof indicates that my interpretation is flawed, I would not dismiss the proof I would examine the analysis and try to find a new analysis which fits both the empirical evidence and the mathematical proof. Thus is the scientific method: generate empirical evidence, check to see if it agrees with the theory, if they do not agree then you adjust the theory.

I'd agree.

My problem with the theory of evolution is that it is born purely out of the scientific method which conveniently chooses to ignore, and in fact *must* ignore, any philosophical, mathematical, or other kinds of non-empirical facts or truths in the process of theory-making.  And it does this despite absolutely depending upon certain philosophical and mathematical truths to have any kind of consistent methodology at all.  In other words, the same philosophical and mathematical foundation upon which science is built is not permitted in the actually process of scientific theory-making.  Hence, science is an incomplete methodology.

Edit: It seems that, based upon what you said, if you did formulate a new theory to fit both the evidence and the proofs, then you would essentially be doing the exact same you accused me of doing. Certain proofs negate certain assumptions held by a scientific worldview upon which the theory of evolution was built, so the theory needs adjusting.

[cp1]

My problem with the theory of evolution is that it is born purely out of the scientific method which conveniently chooses to ignore, and in fact *must* ignore, any philosophical, mathematical, or other kinds of non-empirical facts or truths in the process of theory-making.  And it does this despite absolutely depending upon certain philosophical and mathematical truths to have any kind of consistent methodology at all.  In other words, the same philosophical and mathematical foundation upon which science is built is not permitted in the actually process of scientific theory-making.  Hence, science is an incomplete methodology.

Please stop taking all medication and using all technology because that was all fruit of the scientific method.  Actually just ask your doctor to switch you to a different medication, your current one isn't working.