Creation vs. Evolution

[Famine]

Much of this is getting to be a bit belittling at this point.

Think of it more as helpful stall-setting. As we've seen in a certain other active thread right now, when language is mutilated far beyond its original meaning, all sorts of crazy ideas get tabled (and it's not that mutilated in this case - many sources treat atheism as nontheism). It's better we're all in the right place to start with.

Good soda example though

Just like famine said, "I don't believe you" and "you are lying" are two different statements but in the end they both mean the person did not say the truth.

The guy who said "I don't believe you!" will accept evidence to convince them. The guy who said "You're lying." won't.

Think of it as someone joining GTP claiming to own a 600hp Mustang. There'll be a crowd who can't wait to get the accusations out and another crowd who'll say "Uhh... pics of that?".

If the pictures materialise, the second group will generally either request more (or more specific) pictures, while the crowd that think he's a fibber will shuffle off and do something else. The atheists are the guys who don't believe and retain scepticism (I hate it when it's spelled with a k) while the nontheists are the guys who believe he's a liar.

 

[Danoff]

Though I think it's important we address the idea that this is to some extent splitting hairs.
An atheist to all of these definitions comes down to being a person who does not believe in god or deities. A non-theist is someone who actively believes there is no god. While there is a difference there, I'd say it isn't exactly earth shattering... Just like famine said, "I don't believe you" and "you are lying" are two different statements but in the end they both mean the person did not say the truth.

There's a pretty significant hair between atheists and non-theists. Non-theists have faith, they believe, they make the same mistake that religious people do. Atheists do not. That's why atheists go out of their way to separate themselves from non-theists.

 

[Kent]

I think what bothers me about the distinction between the two is that Atheist do not believe in god but aren't willing to say there is no god.
It's like Atheist don't believe there is a god but accept that there could be one (given the proof to support it) and non-theist are sure there isn't a god.

 

[Villain]

I think what bothers me about the distinction between the two is that Atheist do not believe in god but aren't willing to say there is no god.

It's like Atheist don't believe there is a god but accept that there could be one (given the proof to support it) and non-theist are sure there isn't a god.

That's exactly how it is, though. Why does that bother you?

It's a spectrum.

 

[Famine]

I think what bothers me about the distinction between the two is that Atheist do not believe in god but aren't willing to say there is no god.
It's like Atheist don't believe there is a god but accept that there could be one (given the proof to support it) and non-theist are sure there isn't a god.

Yep. We're all about the evidence on this bench

 

[Touring Mars]

pic

Claiming to know that there is no God is not possible since one cannot prove that something doesn't exist, so I can't see how one can defend that view point. Believing that there is no God, however, strikes me as being equivalent to believing that there is a God, since both of these points of view require no evidence anyway, just belief. For me, belief is not worth anything in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence, and hence beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to getting at the truth of the matter as to whether God really does exist or not. So it comes down to plain, objective evidence - and for the moment, there is insufficient evidence (i.e. virtually none) to be able to say unequivocally that we know that God exists. But it isn't possible to say unequivocally that we know that God doesn't exist, any more than it is to know that there isn't a turquoise teapot orbiting Neptune. Hence, agnostic atheism is the only point of view that is currently consistent with the facts as they are known, and does not rely on belief.

Anyway, I'm not sure how the 'Belief in God' topic is in here, while the Evolution/Creation debate is currently going on in the Belief in God thread

 

[orimarc]

Anyway, I'm not sure how the 'Belief in God' topic is in here, while the Evolution/Creation debate is currently going on in the Belief in God thread

I blame a glitch in the Matrix and a lack of proper evolution "questioners" (or just people who want to know more).

 

[huskeR32]

(I hate it when it's spelled with a k)

You hate it when words are spelled correctly?

Think of it more as helpful stall-setting. As we've seen in a certain other active thread right now, when language is mutilated far beyond its original meaning, all sorts of crazy ideas get tabled (and it's not that mutilated in this case - many sources treat atheism as nontheism). It's better we're all in the right place to start with.

This. Many times this. Nothing irks me more in that "certain other active thread" than when someone argues against you by misusing words that are actually critical to the conversation. There have been many times in that thread where a theist has made a claim that would be refuted simply by the correct definition of the word "atheism." It's far from splitting hairs.

 

[Sick Lenny]

I came across this concept a while ago and found it interesting. Do civilised species cease evolving because they're no longer under pressures from their environment? Or do the different pressures in a civilised society stimulate evolution in a different direction?

Basically, in a hundred thousand years are humans going to have traits that are specialised for dealing with human society?

I hope so. I like boobies.

That was my thought too. Some of our poorest in the world are likely still subject to the 'classical' selection pressures of nature, but what happens to an population who still generates mutations but

I came across this concept a while ago and found it interesting. Do civilised species cease evolving because they're no longer under pressures from their environment? Or do the different pressures in a civilised society stimulate evolution in a different direction?

Basically, in a hundred thousand years are humans going to have traits that are specialised for dealing with human society?

I hope so. I like boobies.

I wonder the same things. I am curious if there is any serious research into whether it is like you say, evolution from "non-typical" selection pressures. Of course that sounds difficult given we have not been in this situation for very long in terms of the evolutionary time scale. I guess (along the lines of what you were saying) one might guess our social or technological evolutions may be taking center stage as a consequence, or something like that.

Lol, your mention of boobies in this context immediately made me think of the three-boob chick in the original Total Recall.

 

[homeforsummer]

I wonder the same things. I am curious if there is any serious research into whether it is like you say, evolution from "non-typical" selection pressures. Of course that sounds difficult given we have not been in this situation for very long in terms of the evolutionary time scale. I guess (along the lines of what you were saying) one might guess our social or technological evolutions may be taking center stage as a consequence, or something like that.

To an extent, the major development in our species over hundreds of thousands of years has been to pass on knowledge as our means of advancing, rather than relying on genetics.

It's the one thing that truly separates us from every other species on earth. Most species have to simply survive, our own species has created tools that help us survive.

Civilisation is perhaps the ultimate advancement as aside from blind luck it's the only pathway that allows us some degree of decision in our own future. Every other animal essentially relies on a roll of the dice.

 

[Imari]

To an extent, the major development in our species over hundreds of thousands of years has been to pass on knowledge as our means of advancing, rather than relying on genetics.

It's the one thing that truly separates us from every other species on earth. Most species have to simply survive, our own species has created tools that help us survive.

Civilisation is perhaps the ultimate advancement as aside from blind luck it's the only pathway that allows us some degree of decision in our own future. Every other animal essentially relies on a roll of the dice.

If you look at civilisation and our base of knowledge as the form our evolution takes now, there's some similarities. While the rate at which our knowledge grows is to some extent under our control, there's still random discoveries and such. Although probably less these days now that most of the things that you can do without a hundred grand of lab equipment are at least generally understood.

And indeed, instead of those who have the correct traits surviving difficult conditions we see those with the correct tools surviving. People don't survive winters in Alaska because of their genetics. Although it probably still works both ways. For example, people who are awful with computers these days find it harder to get and hold jobs, which you might expect to ultimately disadvantage their opportunities to procreate.

 

[homeforsummer]

Not having a job probably increases procreation. Or at the very least, there seems to be a positive correlation in the UK...

 

[lancia delta hf]

Just spent the last hour reading all 285 pages and my conclusion is that i cant believe its 2013 and still we have no livary editor in gt6! Evolution is clearly a myth.

 

[Villain]

Claiming to know that there is no God is not possible since one cannot prove that something doesn't exist, so I can't see how one can defend that view point.

About the same way that one would claim that they know there is a God.

 

[Dotini]

http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stori...white_raven_spurs_calls_for_its_preservation/

An interesting story about a "rare white raven" found in Greenland. White ravens have a special place in world mythology, legend, lore and symbolism as an omen, or portent. Comets, of which there are four currently in the solar system, have been viewed similarly in the past as omens of crisis in the spiritual or material worlds - and in the realms of man.

 

[Villain]

http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stori...white_raven_spurs_calls_for_its_preservation/

An interesting story about a "rare white raven" found in Greenland. White ravens have a special place in world mythology, legend, lore and symbolism as an omen, or portent. Comets, of which there are four currently in the solar system, have been viewed similarly in the past as omens of crisis in the spiritual or material worlds - and in the realms of man.

Winter is coming.

 

[Carbonox]

God made us.

Whoever says that we evolved from primates, is ridiculous. But this is for a different thread...

Considering @LeadFootLiam is back, maybe we could stir up some trouble in this thread again. Beats that SCJ "argument" at least, which definitely seems to have no end to it.

 

[PeterJB]

I don't really see the point, unless he's arguing that we did evolve, but not from primates...

 

[DK]

Liam is a Jehovah's Witness, and he doesn't accept evolution (as of the last time he posted here).

 

[orimarc]

Did he actually explain why he didn't "accept" evolution, apart from "because the scriptures say otherwise"?

 

[LeadFootLiam]

Considering @LeadFootLiam is back, maybe we could stir up some trouble in this thread again. Beats that SCJ "argument" at least, which definitely seems to have no end to it.

No, I'm not arguing with you guys again, waste of time.

 

[TB]

Liam is a Jehovah's Witness, and he doesn't accept evolution (as of the last time he posted here).

As a former Jehovah's Witness (although after 10+ years I'm still not disfellowshipped...) with family members that still practice, I beg you don't bulk all of them into the same mold as @LeadFootLiam.

I have SO many reasons why I turned away from that, but that's for a different discussion, too.

 

[huskeR32]

No, I'm not arguing with you guys again, waste of time.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who would still love to see you address this. Famine couldn't have given a more thorough, thought-out, or relevant answer to your question. And how did you respond? By making some ludicrous claim that he was making fun of you, then running away with the ball. How about you try one of these two things:

1. If any part of his post is incorrect, why don't you try providing a factual rebuttal? That is the point of a discussion, after all.

Or,

2. If all of his post is correct, and you have no valid rebuttal, then you could try being mature and admit that (though I suspect you're probably not ready to admit that to yourself).

Your current course of action, however, besides being pretty cowardly, is the biggest waste of time possible. You waded into a discussion, ignored solid answers that people spent their time writing out for you, and made people repeat things that have been stated numerous times before. If you really are concerned with not wasting time, I suggest changing course to option 1 or 2.

 

[Villain]

Ah. I see that LeadFootLiam is getting the hogger treatment. Argued into a corner and no way out (except of course the 2 above options).

I'm guessing I know what his answer will be:

No, I'm not arguing with you guys again, waste of time.

 

[DK]

A Pew Research Centre report was released today, and 60% of 1,983 Americans polled accept that humans have evolved over time, and 63% accept that animals have evolved over time.

 

[BobK]

Wow, that's depressing.

 

[mister dog]

This discussion is unnecessary if people would start realizing God and evolution could go hand in hand...

 

[Keef]

This discussion is unnecessary if people would start realizing God and evolution could go hand in hand...

Could isn't a very good answer, especially considering there's no evidence that that is the case.

 

[Imari]

Could isn't a very good answer, especially considering there's no evidence that that is the case.

There's as much evidence for that as there is for anything else involving God, like say, creationism.

 

[Keef]

There's as much evidence for that as there is for anything else involving God, like say, creationism.

Which is to say, what, little to none?