LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
You see we have to accept that how it all started is beyond rational logic. It's impossible to explain. That's my point. So some theories may be more wacky than others but none of them tell us how it all began.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Creationist v Evolution
- Thread starter We are Tottenham
- Start date
You see we have to accept that how it all started is beyond rational logic. It's impossible to explain. That's my point. So some theories may be more wacky than others but none of them tell us how it all began.
Millsy_Yiddo
Naybet
Lots of micro evolution over a long period of time = Macro evolution. Surely?
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
Well that's the idea but my point is that all the missing species and bits in between mean its harder to refer to it as an absolute fact.
Millsy_Yiddo
Naybet
Ah fair do's then. As you were!
I can't tell you as an absolute fact that there are no unicorns in New Zealand either.
I can tell you that it's very^5 likely though. As with evolution, we've seen the steps that are there, we've seen that there is a progression of some sort (along with huge swathes of lines that weren't followed in the long term), there's a very good explanation to cover the bits in the middle. I can tell you that both macro and micro evolution are fact to within a gnat's of 100% - just as I can tell you there are no unicorns in New Zealand.
AuroRaman
Chris Armstrong
I can confirm there are no unicorns in NZ.
The last time I took the word of a man in an inflated gimp suit at face value I ended up making all kinds of bad life choices.
I hope you'll forgive me for not repeating my mistakes. NOW GO GET ME MY fudging UNICORN!
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
I get the whole missing pieces in jigsaw that fit pefectly. But to be agnostic on Macro evolution is hardly a ridiculous position to hold.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
Is it just me or are these two statements essentially in disagreement with each other. Second one is much closer to my opinion. But I don't see how your point is that it's beyond rational logic when you ask if the only logical explanation is "GHod".
We have to separate between what is known and what is knowable. The start of the universe is currently unknown, but that doesn't make it beyond rational logic. It may be that we've just now reached the point where science will no longer be able to find answers to these questions as they are impossible to figure out with our limitations. But we don't actually know if that's the case or not. We're still figuring stuff out all the time and modern science as we know it has only been at it for a couple of centuries. Give science as much time as the dark ages gave religion and we'll see where we're at.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
What are you basing this "so few remains found" on? How much do you know about how fossils are formed? It's not a surprise that they're rare... You know the whole circle of life thing? The vast majority of dead animals are returned to that circle...
Fossils have provided us with a lot of evidence. It's also provided us with testable claims. People have actually hypothesized that a particular looking fossil should be found in a particular strata (depth) at a particular place. Based on this place being somewhere where fossils are more common and on the evolutionary history of other species. Then they've gone digging and found those fossils.
Fossils are just one of the many many sources of evidence for evolution though. Look at genetics. Darwin knew nothing about genetics, yet as we've discovered more and more about genetics it fits in really well with the theory of evolution. In fact it has been claimed that the genetic evidence alone is more than enough to accept evolution even if we had no fossils. Yet people hark back to fossils as if they're the make or break part of evolutionary science.
For more sources of evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
I don't like the word "evolutionst" I'm no more an evolutionist than I'm a gravityist. It makes it seem like there's an actual discussion being had between creationists and evolutionists. In fact it's a discussion between science deniers (creationists) and those who believe in the scientific method. There is no middle ground.
Micro and macro evolution are essentially creationist talking points. From my understanding not really terms that are being used by anyone talking seriously about evolution. It's an attempt at misinformation by those peddling a creationist/religious agenda. Not saying you're one of them, but I would suggest perhaps you've accepted some information on this that perhaps you shouldn't have. Millsy gets it spot on, "macro evolution" is just "micro evolution" + time.
Again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
The "missing species" thing is a bit of a fallacy. Creationists will keep claiming "missing links", but with no actual serious conversation being had. No actual evaluation of evidence being done.
How many "missing species" would you need to accept "macro evolution"? I'm guessing whoever convinced you on missing species being relevant had nothing to say on that?
Just for fun, list of "transitional fossils" (most fossils will of course be transitional so it's a bit of a misnomer): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
The impressive point is not the raw number of them. It's that they all fit the model, they all fit the theory. And again, the fossil record is only a part of the available evidence for evolution (macro and micro and whatever other made up term people introduce to cause confusion for those who do not have the time or interest in actually learning about the subject).
The problem with the term agnostic is that it covers everything from 0.0000000001% sure to 99.9999999999% sure.
For example, I have to describe myself as an atheist because although I'm technically agnostic I'm so close to 100% sure that agnostic gives the wrong impression of my beliefs. So we're all agnostic on everything, because to believe anything 100% would be as departed as being religious.
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
This is alot of my point.
Agnosticism is the right word for alot of the questions which religous people and atheists fight over. The truth is neither of them can answer those huge questions so STFU sort of thing.
I don't see it as that binary.
I accept that we can never be 100% sure on anything, but I'd rather be 70 or 80% sure of something than just walk away mumbling "Therefore GHod". In fact, I'd rather be 1% sure of something and at least try to find the answer than to just ignore the question or not challenge my own beliefs.
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
I agree with al of this, we have to challenge others, and we can be strong in our conviction that our ideas are stronger or more likely than the others, it is just accepting the fallibility of each argument which I think is necessary which can then lead to a better discussion. And possibly more tolerance.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
I like describing myself as an agnostic atheist. For me the most meaningful way to use those terms is using them about slightly different concepts. I'm agnostic because I don't think we can be 100% sure, but I'm an atheist because I do not believe in a deity.
There are agnostic theists, but there are a lot mot "gnostic" theists than there are "gnostic" atheists.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
Difference being that atheists will usually tell you "show me some evidence and I'll change my mind" whereas theists all to often are of the opinion that they've already been provided with the answer from their GHod either directly or indirectly. Thus evidence becomes secondary and rather something one looks for to support one's preconceived point of view instead of something to guide one towards the truth.
You don't count issues like the formation of our earth and the sun or the origins of our species as huge question then?
What are some examples of what atheists and religious people fight over where agnosticism is the right word?
I'm more than willing to accept the fallibility in my own arguments. If I'm using flawed argumentation I would like to know. In my opinion a rational and sceptical view of the available evidence leads one to atheism. I've yet to come across good arguments to the contrary without major flaws, and I actually have looked.
Sounds like someone dressing philosophy up as science.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
Seems like a decent answer to the kind of belittling straw man arguments religious people like to spout about atheism. Yes he's right atheism is only the rejection of theistic claims, it's not in itself a world view and atheism on its own is not enough. I assume he didn't have any input on the headline and isn't actually arguing that poetic naturalists like himself aren't also atheists.
This is not in any ways news to the atheistic crowd though. The so called 4 horsemen of course included a philosopher in Dennet, a "naturalist"/biologist in Dawkins, Harris who is both a philosopher and a neuroscientist. And finally Hitchens who both studied philosophy and was about as far from "only an atheist" as anyone.
From Douglas Adams to George Carlin. From Feynman and Sagan to Bertrand Russel atheists and those who have inspired the atheist movements have been far removed from limiting themselves to rejecting GHod claims.