Evolution is stupid

[BigChrisfilm]

GOOD GRIEF WILL SOMEONE GIVE ME SOME PROOF OF EVOLUTION BEFORE I PUNCH MYSELF SQUARE IN THE FACE! LOL.

[harvey1]

But you did not say that atheism is a philosophical topic or that atheism is to be studied as part of philosophy. If you had, I would not have disagreed. But you said that atheism is a philosophy.

Because it is a philosophy. It is a philosophy within the philosophy of religion (which is often considered part of metaphysics). Are you saying it is a science? If so, name the scientific journal that I can read about the evidence for and against atheism. In fact, name the academic journal that you can read about atheism that is not part of philosophy.

The SEP has an entry for change. Change is a topic of interest to philosophers, but it it not a philosophy.

But, the metaphysics of change is a philosophy. Again, if you wish to address other issues related to atheism, then you might be dwelving into a subject that is outside of philosophy. For example, if we talked about the psychological issues surrounding a belief, then it's not the philosophy of science, or philosophy of atheism, or the philosophy of materialism, or the philosophy of dualism, or the philosophy of causation, etc.; it is the psychology of science, psychology of atheism, or the psychology of materialism, or the psychology of dualism, or the psychology of causation, etc.. Or, we could talk about other issues such as sociological issues (e.g., what are the effects of atheism on society, what are the effects of dualism on society), or economic issues (what are the economic effects of atheism, economic effects of science, etc..). However, when you talk about a belief as in the metaphysics or epistemology, then those beliefs are philosophies.

I might also point out that you can philosophically be an atheist, but psychologically you might be a fundamentalist. We just discussed this today about Scrot and his fundamentalist mentality. This doesn't mean that he's not philosophically an atheist, it's just that psychologically he's never left the fundamentalism that appears to come from his family's influence. His philosophy is atheism, but his psychology is similar to fundamentalist influences.

The SEP has an entry for Love and for Thought Experiments. These also are topics of interest to philosophers but neither one is a philosophy.

When you have a philosophy of love, or a philosophy of thought-experiments, then you have a philosophy. When you have a philosophy about a religious belief, then you have a philosophy--not necessarily a religious belief. For example, you hold to atheism as a philosophy, but that does not mean that you are a religious person (albeit anti-religious).

So, the fact that there is an entry for atheism does not stand as evidence that the philosophers of Stanford regard atheism as a philosophy. I agree that atheism is of interest to philosophers. I agree that atheism is a part of certain philosophies. I agree that atheism is a philosophical topic. But atheism is too limited in scope to be, by itself, a philosophy. It is a belief.

A belief about what? A belief about science? A belief about psychology? A belief about economics? No, in this context of metaphysics and epistemology we are saying that it is a belief rooted in one's philosophy. It is a philosophical belief.

-------------------
I think it's somewhat easy to prove my point. Since academia studies just about any subject that is of interest to humans using methods common to academia (e.g., logic, exposition, etc.); my question to you is answer this one question: what field of academia do you place atheism? Do you place it in religion? If so, then it is a religion. Do you place it in psychology? Then it is a psychological disorder. Do you place it in science? Then it ought to be taught in physics. Since the obvious answer to this is that atheism is taught by academia in philosophy, it is by default a philosophy.

[popgenetics]

Pure conjecture. Morpohological simularities do not necessarily equate to ancestry. Example: For years the Neanderthal was seen as a likely forefather to modern man. His picture (drawing) was up on our high school and college classrooms along with a number of other hominids - carefully arranged in order and presented to us as man's forefather. But then genetic DNA testing was performed and it excluded the Neanderthal from being man's direct line ancestor. No other specific hominid to date has been conclusively identified as man's direct line ancestor via genetic DNA testing. Keep trying, though.

Actually, Morphological similarities can and do equate to ancestry. Maybe not through eyeballing the fossils, but it can be done through statistical analyses.

Now, as to the DNA tests that supposedly excluded the Neandertals from Homo sapiens ancestry. (I assume you are referring to the article in "Cell" back in 1998.) That analysis has come under question by John Relethford of S.U.N.Y-College at Oneonta, Oneonta N.Y. You may want to look into his research on this.

[BigChrisfilm]

BigChrisfilm wrote:

I didn't look at the link because it was from talkorigins.com.

What have you got against Talkorigins.com, other than the fact that they disagree with you? Did Kent Hovind tell you Satan hosts it or something?

I have something for you to disprove. Do a good job, now--I'm anxious to hear your report. Here it is:

Explain to me why we share viral DNA with chimpanzees. I want to make sure I'm clear. We have DNA left over from viruses that our ancestors passed on to us. Chimps, apes, etc. have the SAME viral DNA that we have.

While we're talking about viruses...are they living or non-living? Viruses, I mean. I'm talking to you, BigChrisfilm.

I just can't wait for your response.

It isn't about the one or two things our DNA shares. How do you explain the many things we DON'T share in DNA. Again, the fact that Apes have the some of the same things we do means they were probly made by the same person. Why don't you explain to me how DNA evolved from a non living organism.

[BigChrisfilm]

So when I see a bunch of bones, and I don't know where they came from, and given your religions history of fabricating evidence for Evolution thorugh fake fossil records, I shouldn't be skeptical? If that is what you want to use as evidence, mabey you need a better theory.

First off evolution is still not a religion, it is a scientific theory. Secondly it is not mine. True there have been charlatans, however notice that they are all eventually exposed and their incorrect evidence is discarded. Science does not hide this unlike most religions. Now you know why any scientific literature has to be vetted by others in the field before it is published.

Simply put what you are looking for as evidence for evolution happens over long periods of time which means that your idea of evidence will only be in the fossil record, which you have dismissed out of hand. Given the types of evidence that you consider acceptable you would also have to discard all of christianity since it is based on a book with very questionable origins.

No No. I admit my religion is taken by faith. If I was trying to prove my religion as fact, THEN I would have to throw it out. Anyway, explain this to me. Let's say a mutation happens that is better. Then natural selection keeps it alive. Now, what is this mutation going to have sex with? It's just going to get blended back in with the population. Dont you see how this is a flawed idea in the first place.

[BeHereNow]

BigChrisfilm Why don't you explain to me how DNA evolved from a non living organism.

You are discussiing two different things. Most people confuse the two, especially creationists.
Darwin and the study of evolution address the changes life forms go through, but not the very beginning of life, that is a different area of study.

In biology, evolution is the measurable change in the heritable traits (allele frequency) of a population over successive generations. Evolution is ultimately the source of the vast diversity of the biological world. Over time, it may result in the origin of new species (speciation).

Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is, in its most general sense, the generation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to theories about the chemical origin of life, such as from a primordial sea, and most probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis).

[BigChrisfilm]

BigChrisfilm Why don't you explain to me how DNA evolved from a non living organism.

You are discussiing two different things. Most people confuse the two, especially creationists.
Darwin and the study of evolution address the changes life forms go through, but not the very beginning of life, that is a different area of study.

In biology, evolution is the measurable change in the heritable traits (allele frequency) of a population over successive generations. Evolution is ultimately the source of the vast diversity of the biological world. Over time, it may result in the origin of new species (speciation).

Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is, in its most general sense, the generation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to theories about the chemical origin of life, such as from a primordial sea, and most probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis).

You have no idea how much I wish that was all they taught about evolution in schools. You are correct. That is what evolution is, unfortunitely, that is not what is taught in our schools.

[McCulloch]

Moderator Intervention

I have merged Evolution is Stupid and Evolution is Driving me Bonkers and have moved the whole thing to Science and Religion.

[Scrotum]

BigChrisfilm wrote:

I didn't look at the link because it was from talkorigins.com.

What have you got against Talkorigins.com, other than the fact that they disagree with you? Did Kent Hovind tell you Satan hosts it or something?

I have something for you to disprove. Do a good job, now--I'm anxious to hear your report. Here it is:

Explain to me why we share viral DNA with chimpanzees. I want to make sure I'm clear. We have DNA left over from viruses that our ancestors passed on to us. Chimps, apes, etc. have the SAME viral DNA that we have.

While we're talking about viruses...are they living or non-living? Viruses, I mean. I'm talking to you, BigChrisfilm.

I just can't wait for your response.

It isn't about the one or two things our DNA shares. How do you explain the many things we DON'T share in DNA. Again, the fact that Apes have the some of the same things we do means they were probly made by the same person. Why don't you explain to me how DNA evolved from a non living organism.

You did not answer Laineys question. Does this mean you cant, or refuse to do so? Which makes the entire topic pointless? You started it to learn did you not? The main question remember? And She asked you something regarding it.

Are you going to answer?

[Cathar1950]

Lainey and Scotum, he can't because it disagrees with him.
Selective reading is part of the creationist war armor.
I would like to know what they taught him is schools.

[Scrotum]

Lainey and Scotum, he can't because it disagrees with him.
Selective reading is part of the creationist war armor.
I would like to know what they taught him is schools.

Creationist have never gone to school, they have something called ´Home Schooling´ which means religious indoctrination. This is illegal in Europe, but what i understand, its fine in the U.S as its a parents ´right´ to teach whatever they want to their children.

But correct me if im wrong, perhaps certain States, such as California, force parents to give their children proper education? And New York State i would suspect have similar view. But the ´Bible Belt´ such as Texas is without a doubt Creationist material. I find it odd that a country have different laws depending on region, that would suggest its not ONE country. I know Texas wanted to be independent until.... Rather recently?