DAwkins interviews creationist automaton

[Omar B]

Hmm.. the theists have the belief in the existence of a God or gods. The athiests believe there is no God or gods, yes? I think there is no "probably" involved in either doctrine. Therefore the positions are absolute, no? Where there is a "probably" or any element of uncertainty then we are not talking bout either theists or athiests, rather the agnostic I think? Though I would not argue with you for the sake of it this is just my opinion I am no lexicographer or whatever

Richard Dawkins, in my time of observing has not I think confessed his dogmatism explicitly. I will say this, he is a very erudite marketeer, fuelling his campaigns off the fundamentalism that is inherent in many religions here and elsewhere. Unfortunately I do not believe he is a good persuader [which appears to be his evangelical mission]. To say to a person of faith, "Your faith is a nonsense" and expect an embracing of his ideas demonstrates a lack of even basic psychological and interpersonal understanding that the dogma would seem to have engendered in him.

He argues his theories clearly, of course, yet to preach to the converted is alas no supreme achievement.

I disagree. There's no dogma or doctrine in atheistism. If I was presented with proof of a god I would believe, it's that simple. I never got how religious groups tend to think of atheists as one group who see the issue all the same and such. That's religion. Being an atheist, I just require proof.

 

[Omar B]

And in this, faith in evolution is fundamentally like faith in religion.

No matter how many times you say "faith" in connection with science will not make it so. Science is built upon proof, faith is not. You accept that evolution is fact yet you refer to it as faith, I don't see where the mental disconnect is happening here but you've somehow managed to take science fact that you've accepted and turned it on it's head and brought it down to the same level of bible stories ... not fact.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

No matter how many times you say "faith" in connection with science will not make it so.

It is not I that makes it so, it is the word itself. You see the word 'faith' as incontrovertibly linked to 'religion' but it is not. It is commonly used to describe religious belief, but religious belief is not required to have faith in any particular thing.

Science is built upon proof, faith is not.

No, that is not true. Science is indeed built upon proof, but faith is not linked to proof or disproof of anything.

You accept that evolution is fact yet you refer to it as faith,...

No, please read my words more closely. I accept evolution as fact. I do not refer to evolution as faith. I refer to a person's belief in evolution without an understanding of it as faith. My description is of that person - not of evolution.

I don't see where the mental disconnect is happening here but you've somehow managed to take science fact that you've accepted and turned it on it's head and brought it down to the same level of bible stories ... not fact.

I am not attempting to cast doubt on evolution. I am showing that people who believe in evolution (or anything) without an understanding of it are engaging in an act of faith, just as people who believe in a particular religion do.

If faith has nothing to do with science, then how does one explain scientists who hold differing viewpoints? One might be wrong, or both might be wrong, but generally both cannot be right. But each has...faith...that their own interpretation is the correct one.

The word 'faith' is often misunderstood and misused. The primary reason for this is because non-religious people conflate the terms 'religious belief' and 'faith' and treat them as if they were the same. If I have a religious belief, that is indeed faith, but I can have faith in things that are not religious. The term does not mean what you think it does...

 

[celtic_crippler]

We're going to have to continue to disagree, then. Faith has nothing to do with the truth, it has to do with personal belief. One can have faith in something that is true and one can have faith in something that is false. Faith is not coupled with the verity of the belief itself.

As evidenced in the way it is defined, faith has more to do with a belief in something that is not supported by fact.

It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, its the definition.

Belief on the other hand, does not necessarily require proof.

...but why argue semantics. I think we know where you're coming from. LOL

You say you believe in evolution. I do, too.

Actually it wouldn't really matter if we believe in it or not. Our belief will not change the fact that it does exist simply because there is plenty of evidence to support that it does.

However, faith does not require evidence or proof.

But you have demonstrated that your understanding of evolution is flawed. Thus, you believe in something you call 'evolution' that is not correct. Although evolution is true, your evolution is not. Yet you believe in it - and obstinately too, I might add. In the face of facts, as you have charged religionists with doing.

Tell you what, produce proof of your PhD in Biology and perhaps I will entertain your assertion that I am wrong. In the mean time, I'll stick with my college professor, the text we studied from, and my sister's take as well (she has a BS in Biology among her other degrees.)

How is this different from faith? I maintain that it is not different from faith. In fact, it is faith and nothing more.

I am not trying to hold your beliefs up to ridicule. I am using your statements as an example - many people are just like you. They claim a set of beliefs. Those beliefs may or may not be true. The fact that they claim them without being able to personally understand them doesn't change whether they are true or false, since facts are independent of belief, but they do change whether the belief the person holds is faith-based or not.

My belief in evolution is true based on fact, evidence, and research. All of which you have yet to produce in support of your assertions and claims. Until such time as you can do so, you'll have to forgive me if I don't take you seriously. :shrug:

Now that I think about it...I believe I still have my notes...

Perhaps I should share a few of them in order to either prove or disprove your assertion that I know nothing about evolution? Heck...I don't feel like doing any work today anyway so...

From my notes:

• Charles Darwin made a round the wold sea voyage as a naturalist on the HMS Beagle in the 1830's.
• Darwin observed similiarities between living and fossil organisms and the diversity of life on the Galapoagos Islands.
• Darwin's experiences during the voyage influenced his ideas on evolution.
• Lyell's "Principles of Geology" led him to realize that still-operating natural forces gradually change the Earth.
• Upon his return, Darwin began to document his observation and develop his theory of evolution.
• Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" was published in 1859
• "Descent with modification" summarizes Darwin's view of life.
• All organisms are related through descent from a remote common ancestor
• Descendants spread into diverse habitats over millions of years and acquired adaptations to their environments.
• Species that are closely related share characteristics
• Darwin proposed Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution
• The essence of Darwin's theory of natrual selection is differential success in reproduction
• Organisms produce more offspirng than the environment can support
• Organisms vary in many characteristics that can be inherited.
• Excessive numbers of organisms lead to a struggle for survival.
• Individual whose characterisitics are best adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce
• The unequal ability of individuals to survive and reproduce leads to a gradual change in the characterisitics of a population over generations.
• Natural selection is supported by evidence from artifical selection
• Example: Common Ancestral Canine - thousands to millions of years of natural selection - Coyote/Wolf/Fox/Jackal/Dog
• Fossils provide stong evidence for evolution

...but oh...there's more!

Evidence for Evolution

• Biogeography: The geographic distribution of species suggested to Darwin that organisms evolve from common ancestors
• Isolated organisms resemble each other more than organisms in similar but distant places.
• Comparative Anatomy: Homologous structures are features that often have different function but are structurally similar because of common ancestry
• Vestigial structures are remnants of structures that served important function in an organism's ancestors
• Comparative Embyology: common embryonic structures in all vertebrates are evidence for common descent.
• Molecular Biology: Comparisons of DNA and amino acid sequences between different organisms reveal evolutionary relationships.
• Examples of evolutionary adaptation observed over a short time: Different camouflage adaptations in different environments, development of pesticide resistance in insects
• Examples of evolutionary adaptation reveals 3 key points about natural selection: 1) natural selection is more of an editing process than a creative mechanism 2) natural selection is contingent on time and place 3) significant evolutionary change can occure in a short time

...can't believe I kept those...I need to clean up some files!





•

 

[Omar B]

No, please read my words more closely. I accept evolution as fact. I do not refer to evolution as faith. I refer to a person's belief in evolution without an understanding of it as faith. My description is of that person - not of evolution.

Wow, I don't know how you tie these knots in your head. You accept evolution as fact, true and having proof. But believing in it is somehow faith (as in beliefs without proof). So where did the proof poof off to while I was sitting there and believing it?

The guys here at the office are really enjoying your posts though, keep 'em coming, my boss put a couple up on the fridge. LOL.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

As evidenced in the way it is defined, faith has more to do with a belief in something that is not supported by fact.

No. It is something that does not have to be supported by fact. Your own definition you posted awhile back says so.

It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, its the definition.

You are misreading the definition you posted yourself. Please read it again:

"Faith [noun]: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof."

Does it say that logical proof is required? No. Does it say logical proof is not required? No. It says 'especially without.' Meaning that one can have faith even with.

If you cannot read and understand the definition you posted yourself, we don't have much more road to travel together.

Belief on the other hand, does not necessarily require proof.

Correct. I have never said otherwise.

...but why argue semantics. I think we know where you're coming from. LOL

If you think I have an agenda, please do not make sly innuendo. Just say it.

Actually it wouldn't really matter if we believe in it or not. Our belief will not change the fact that it does exist simply because there is plenty of evidence to support that it does.

Where have I said otherwise?

However, faith does not require evidence or proof.

Correct. Again, where have I said otherwise?

Your error is that your logic is skewed. Faith does not require proof. But you presume that the existence of proof therefore makes a belief not faith. This is an error, and your own statements show it:

"...faith does not require evidence or proof..."

By your own words, faith is not dependent upon proof. Proof in the affirmative or proof in the negative. One can have faith in things which are true, even things which are provable. Proof, as you say, is not required.

Tell you what, produce proof of your PhD in Biology and perhaps I will entertain your assertion that I am wrong. In the mean time, I'll stick with my college professor, the text we studied from, and my sister's take as well (she has a BS in Biology among her other degrees.)

I will not take issue with your teacher, because I do not know what she taught you. Your understanding is flawed.

My belief in evolution is true based on fact, evidence, and research. All of which you have yet to produce in support of your assertions and claims. Until such time as you can do so, you'll have to forgive me if I don't take you seriously. :shrug:

You still seem to believe I am taking issue with evolution. I am not. I am taking issue with your belief in it. What you believe in as 'evolution' is not correct. Therefore, your belief is 'faith'. That's the way it is. It has nothing to do with the fact of evolution.

• Charles Darwin made a round the wold sea voyage as a naturalist on the HMS Beagle in the 1830's.
• Darwin observed similiarities between living and fossil organisms and the diversity of life on the Galapoagos Islands.
• Darwin's experiences during the voyage influenced his ideas on evolution.
• Lyell's "Principles of Geology" led him to realize that still-operating natural forces gradually change the Earth.
• Upon his return, Darwin began to document his observation and develop his theory of evolution.
• Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" was published in 1859
• "Descent with modification" summarizes Darwin's view of life.
• All organisms are related through descent from a remote common ancestor
• Descendants spread into diverse habitats over millions of years and acquired adaptations to their environments.
• Species that are closely related share characteristics
• Darwin proposed Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution
• The essence of Darwin's theory of natrual selection is differential success in reproduction
• Organisms produce more offspirng than the environment can support
• Organisms vary in many characteristics that can be inherited.
• Excessive numbers of organisms lead to a struggle for survival.
• Individual whose characterisitics are best adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce
• The unequal ability of individuals to survive and reproduce leads to a gradual change in the characterisitics of a population over generations.
• Natural selection is supported by evidence from artifical selection
• Example: Common Ancestral Canine - thousands to millions of years of natural selection - Coyote/Wolf/Fox/Jackal/Dog
• Fossils provide stong evidence for evolution

• Biogeography: The geographic distribution of species suggested to Darwin that organisms evolve from common ancestors
• Isolated organisms resemble each other more than organisms in similar but distant places.
• Comparative Anatomy: Homologous structures are features that often have different function but are structurally similar because of common ancestry
• Vestigial structures are remnants of structures that served important function in an organism's ancestors
• Comparative Embyology: common embryonic structures in all vertebrates are evidence for common descent.
• Molecular Biology: Comparisons of DNA and amino acid sequences between different organisms reveal evolutionary relationships.
• Examples of evolutionary adaptation observed over a short time: Different camouflage adaptations in different environments, development of pesticide resistance in insects
• Examples of evolutionary adaptation reveals 3 key points about natural selection: 1) natural selection is more of an editing process than a creative mechanism 2) natural selection is contingent on time and place 3) significant evolutionary change can occure in a short time

Your notes are accurate. Your previous statements regarding evolution are incorrect and reveal a flawed understanding of the process.

You indicated a belief that species evolve in reaction to stimulus, such as being isolated. This is not true - your notes say it is not true. You failed to grasp your own written notes. Species mutate constantly, and at a steady and predictable rate. With or without pressure to adapt, they continue to mutate. When a viable mutation appears that gives that new mutation a survival advantage over the previous mutation, that new mutation will tend to survive, reproduce, and eventually supplant the original. That is evolution. Your notes describe it well. You said something entirely different.

You also said that people are being born without appendixes, and that is evidence of evolution. It is not. Being born without an appendix is a mutation. In humans, it conveys no survival or reproductive advantage, therefore it is not evolution. It is not evolution because this mutation does not increase the odds that people without appendixes will outbreed people with appendixes and eventually replace them. You posit that someday people will no longer have an appendix. This is not true, at least not based on evolution.

Again, your understanding of evolution is flawed. You believe in something that is in fact true, but your understanding is not true. Therefore, your belief is faith.

That does not invalidate evolution. It just makes your belief the same as that of a person who believes in God; an act of faith.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I would first like to say that I believe that evolution is scientific fact, not fiction.

Having said that, I would also like to say that I do not disbelieve in the concept of Creationism, even if it is not literally as described by many religious persons and texts. As a Catholic, my Pope has stated that the concept of evolution is not incompatible with that of Creation. They could well both be true, in ways that we do not yet understand.

With specific reference to videos such as this, I dislike setups designed to make another person look stupid as if that proves one's point. Yes, Dawkins is very intelligent, and the woman being interviewed is not an intellectual match for him. This hardly makes Dawkins right, it simply means he wins the debate.

Why must debate on serious topics be mockery? Is that the only way to make one's point, to 'win' the argument?

I have to agree with you. Dawkins is a really intelligent man, and for the most part, I agree with his arguments on their merits. But the way he addresses his opponents, or even those who don't take the argument as far as him, shows him to be very snide and condescending. I also got this impression from watching one of his speeches on TED.org.

So what if he's snide, so long as he's right? Well, the problem is that the evolution/creationism argument (ignoring for the moment whether that nomenclature is accurate) involves great personal feelings as well as rational argument, particularly in the US. Treating the other side like foolish little schoolchildren, even if they are wrong, is no way to bridge gaps or attempt to enlighten fellow humans. That's why even though I agree with Dawkin's argument, for the most part, I'm still not a fan of his.

 

[Omar B]

So he should gently rub their bellies and whisper scientific fact to them? Truth is truth, facts of reality need not be sugar coated or softened ... only to those who are unable to accept them, children. I've never read a science book/journal or historical account of anything that takes the time to be gentle with the listener because the truth might hurt.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So he should gently rub their bellies and whisper scientific fact to them? Truth is truth, facts of reality need not be sugar coated or softened ... only to those who are unable to accept them, children. I've never read a science book/journal or historical account of anything that takes the time to be gentle with the listener because the truth might hurt.

I completely agree with that.

I would further state that the purpose of the video on Youtube (and perhaps the OP's original purpose posting it here) was not to convince anyone of anything. The purpose was to belittle and demean someone for the pleasure of it.

They are different things.

 

[Omar B]

If you think so, I think religion does a fine job of belittling and demeaning itself and everything around it enough. If she could not formulate a cogent agrument she should not have taken the interview, not that there is such an argument to be made against fact.

 

[Jenna]

If I was presented with proof of a god I would believe, it's that simple.

Goodness I do not wish to argue semantics with you my friend though the fact that you are prepared to at least countenance the possibility of the existence of a deity means I think you are not an atheist, rather an agnostic. The atheist position is a little more adherent; rigid; I would say dogmatic. Either way of course is perfectly fine by me Jenna x

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If you think so, I think religion does a fine job of belittling and demeaning itself and everything around it enough. If she could not formulate a cogent agrument she should not have taken the interview, not that there is such an argument to be made against fact.

Look at the various videos of the 'No Touch Knockout' as an example of what I mean. Whether one believes or does not believe that George Dillman can knock people out without touching them, many of the videos posted around the 'net are posted by people who wish to make fun of him and his beliefs. It's not whether he is right or wrong, it is "OMG, look at this idiot!"

Cruelty is cruelty. It really doesn't matter how much the person being subjected to it deserves it in someone else's opinion.

I'm glad you brought this up, though. It seems to be a concept that a lot of people have trouble with.

There are those who took former President Bush to task for his 'lack of intelligence'. One of the things they pointed to was his lack of public speaking ability. But while that is a valid point to attack, the viral spread of hate-based videos that were posted merely to say "OMG, look how stupid this guy is!" were not designed to prove or disprove his intelligence, they were created to demean and insult.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Goodness I do not wish to argue semantics with you my friend though the fact that you are prepared to at least countenance the possibility of the existence of a deity means I think you are not an atheist, rather an agnostic. The atheist position is a little more adherent; rigid; I would say dogmatic. Either way of course is perfectly fine by me Jenna x

I was raised believing that atheism was a disbelief in God. However, many atheists claim that they do not disbelieve in God, they are against theism. They sound the same, but they are different.

Atheists are a very diverse group - it would be a mistake to assume they all believe (or disbelieve, LOL) the same things.

 

[Omar B]

Goodness I do not wish to argue semantics with you my friend though the fact that you are prepared to at least countenance the possibility of the existence of a deity means I think you are not an atheist, rather an agnostic. The atheist position is a little more adherent; rigid; I would say dogmatic. Either way of course is perfectly fine by me Jenna x

Nope, I'm not an agnostic, I find those mealy mouthed half way, please every side people the worst of all. Like any person who believes in reality and proof I would believe in a god or gods if there were, but there is not. You call atheism dogma, as if to say gravity, sunrise and the tides are dogma rather than fact.

It's a christian fallacy that there is such a thing as "atheist dogma." No such thing, I and many like me just don't believe in magic men in the sky. There are no atheist churches, nor are there any doctrines. There is fact and recognition of that fact. Unless one were to heap all natural, explainable phenomena as doctrine.

Dogma -

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See synonims at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" (Abraham Lincoln).

 

[cdunn]

You indicated a belief that species evolve in reaction to stimulus, such as being isolated. This is not true - your notes say it is not true. You failed to grasp your own written notes. Species mutate constantly, and at a steady and predictable rate. With or without pressure to adapt, they continue to mutate. When a viable mutation appears that gives that new mutation a survival advantage over the previous mutation, that new mutation will tend to survive, reproduce, and eventually supplant the original. That is evolution. Your notes describe it well. You said something entirely different.

You also said that people are being born without appendixes, and that is evidence of evolution. It is not. Being born without an appendix is a mutation. In humans, it conveys no survival or reproductive advantage, therefore it is not evolution. It is not evolution because this mutation does not increase the odds that people without appendixes will outbreed people with appendixes and eventually replace them. You posit that someday people will no longer have an appendix. This is not true, at least not based on evolution.

Again, your understanding of evolution is flawed. You believe in something that is in fact true, but your understanding is not true. Therefore, your belief is faith.

That does not invalidate evolution. It just makes your belief the same as that of a person who believes in God; an act of faith.

Because of the slow drumbeat of mutation, whenever a structure exists, it requires constant selective pressure to maintain. That is, mutants without the structure must not reproduce effectively. Whenever the need for the structure disappears, the gene rapidly becomes 'fossilized', as mutants with non-functional versions of the gene do not die, and various versions of the the new allele spreads. Given sufficent time, all versions of the allele are non-functional, as it has no defense against mutation.

For example, there is a class of scent receptors common across all mammals that is coded for by a set of genes called the V1r genes. There are a total of approximately 200 of these genes. In mice, who are highly dependant on their sense of smell to survive, about 140 of these genes produce functional receptors - they allow the mouse to recognize a very wide spectrum of smells, while the roughly other 60 are non-functional. In humans, who use their full color spectrum eyes, a relatively rare adaptation, as their primary interaction with the world, only 4 of these genes still work.

Use it or lose it.

 

[Omar B]

I was raised believing that atheism was a disbelief in God. However, many atheists claim that they do not disbelieve in God, they are against theism. They sound the same, but they are different.
Atheists are a very diverse group - it would be a mistake to assume they all believe (or disbelieve, LOL) the same things.

Heck, religion's been around for thousands of years and they can't even get straight what they belive. How many interpretations of the bible and different sects of the same religion are there?

There are no shades of truth, nor are there different flavors like religion. Facts stand as immutable, not to be interpreted one way or another by different churches. A=A

 

[yorkshirelad]

Dawkins, a premier scientist in his field explains to this woman countless times the evidence for evolution, every time she dismisses him with a condescending laugh, then she has the hubris to actually try and explain to him how science works...and he is the one being patronizing and an a-hole?

Maybe you and her should go on a date, you seem both seem to exist in the same alternate reality.

You seem to forget that Dawkins chose HER for the interview. His aim was to find a certain type of believer in order to tar all others with the same brush. In that respect, the ball was squarely in his court. He went easy on her because he knew that she was an easy target. His patronizing tone was meant for the faithful in general, you seem like an intelligent person, why would you believe such nonsense.

You obviously have an affinity with Dawkins, but your tactics seem to be a tad more overt.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Heck, religion's been around for thousands of years and they can't even get straight what they belive. How many interpretations of the bible and different sects of the same religion are there?

There are no shades of truth, nor are there different flavors like religion. Facts stand as immutable, not to be interpreted one way or another by different churches. A=A

I can't disagree with any of that.

You propose to measure religion with the yardstick of science and then deny it because you cannot do so. I agree that it cannot be done. Science requires falsifiability. Since the tenets of religious belief cannot be falsified, they cannot be subject to scientific rigor; they are not scientific.

As the song "Industrial Disease" points out, "Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong..." Yes, one of them must be wrong. Both of them could be wrong. However, it would not be correct to say that both of them must be wrong, because the religious concept of a human who is a mortal aspect of God cannot be falsified.

You claim atheism, apparently, not on the basis that you do not agree with religion or that you do not believe in God, but on the basis that God does not exist. Please correct me if I am wrong in this assumption.

This is the error that gives rise to people believing atheists are faith-based in their own way. No one can know with certainty or prove that God does not exist. One can only know that there is no proof God exists. God is not falsifiable, therefore God cannot be subjected to scientific rigor.

Consider the difference between the terms 'guilty' and 'not guilty'. Guilty means the guy did it (at least in legal terms, it is considered to be proven fact). However, 'not guilty' does not mean the guy didn't do it - it means it was not proven.

 

[celtic_crippler]

No. It is something that does not have to be supported by fact. Your own definition you posted awhile back says so.

Exactly. So why do you continue to assert that people that believe in evolution are doing so based on faith?

You are misreading the definition you posted yourself. Please read it again:

"Faith [noun]: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof."

Does it say that logical proof is required? No. Does it say logical proof is not required? No. It says 'especially without.' Meaning that one can have faith even with.

Huh? Who's misreading what here? I think I know what I mean more than you know what I mean... just sayin'...unless you're somehow in my head!

If you cannot read and understand the definition you posted yourself, we don't have much more road to travel together.

I think "understanding" has flown the coup and the road you speak of is a one-way street.

Correct. I have never said otherwise.

No, but you seem to confuse belief with faith.

If you think I have an agenda, please do not make sly innuendo. Just say it.

OK, I will... I think you're an alien and your agend is to get into my brain and suck it dry in order to nurish your alien seedlings so that they can hatch and help you take over the world. There...I said it.

Where have I said otherwise?

Right there... you said "otherwise." It's right there in a quote box for everyone to see. :burp:

Seriously, my point was that you continue to assert that people who recognize evolution is real do so based on faith; not the simple fact that it simply does and the fact that it does is based on scientific fact. The same can not be said of faith in a god.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking anyone's beliefs but no religion can provide evidence that their particular god is the one and only or the "right" one. You sure can't do it based on which one's been around the longest. :uhohh:

Your error is that your logic is skewed. Faith does not require proof. But you presume that the existence of proof therefore makes a belief not faith. This is an error, and your own statements show it:

"...faith does not require evidence or proof..."

Obviously. :shrug: As I am the one asserting that belief in evolution is based on faith. :duh: what was I thinking!?

By your own words, faith is not dependent upon proof. Proof in the affirmative or proof in the negative. One can have faith in things which are true, even things which are provable. Proof, as you say, is not required.

Huh? What "faith" are you referring to? Are we off the "religeous faith" thing now? Because I thought this thread had to do with how evolution is disputed by those with "religious faith" that adhere to creationism. :idunno:

I will not take issue with your teacher, because I do not know what she taught you. Your understanding is flawed.

She taught me college level Biology and my notes prove that my understanding is flawed as well as her teaching. We all know that you have a PhD in Biology and have given many lectures regarding evolution at all the top schools. Right?

You still seem to believe I am taking issue with evolution. I am not. I am taking issue with your belief in it. What you believe in as 'evolution' is not correct. Therefore, your belief is 'faith'. That's the way it is. It has nothing to do with the fact of evolution.

No, I take issue with your assertion that people's belief in evolution is based on faith and that you continue to try and place them in the same vein as people who believe in a god based on faith. It's not the same. That's what I take issue with. One is based on fact, the other is based on a belief taught to you from childhood with no basis in fact.

I also take issue with the fact that you continue to assert that my understanding of evolution is flawed, though it is based on an actual education and the accepted rule of science while you continue to fail in backing up anything you claim to be as fact.

I think what you fail to understand and can't seem to accept is that your opinion is not fact. I understand that it's your opinion and is indeed important to you, but your opinion is not the foundation of scientific facts. And neither is mine or anyone else's for that matter. Until you can prove or at least support your position it is simply hot air.

Your notes are accurate. Your previous statements regarding evolution are incorrect and reveal a flawed understanding of the process.

Alrighty then... So my notes are accurate yet the statements based on those notes are incorrect? Gotcha'. Glad we got that straightened out.

I don't suppose you simply didn't understand what I was saying? No... that couldn't be it. It was definately me. :shrug:

You indicated a belief that species evolve in reaction to stimulus, such as being isolated. This is not true - your notes say it is not true. You failed to grasp your own written notes. Species mutate constantly, and at a steady and predictable rate. With or without pressure to adapt, they continue to mutate. When a viable mutation appears that gives that new mutation a survival advantage over the previous mutation, that new mutation will tend to survive, reproduce, and eventually supplant the original. That is evolution. Your notes describe it well. You said something entirely different.

Funny...my notes say otherwise... you know...the ones you said were accurate. It is in fact a reaction to stimulus within the environment that causes species to adapt; heat, cold, dry, wet...availability of food ..etc.

When a group of a species migrates into another environment... and become isolated from the original group, the factors of the new environment influence how they evolve but have no influence on the original group...BECAUSE THEY AREN'T THERE!

Darwin points this out by using the examples of the different species of finch in the islands pointing out that their beaks evolved to adapt to the available food sources.

I think you perhaps misunderstood what I meant by "isolated." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and apologize for confusing you.

You also said that people are being born without appendixes, and that is evidence of evolution. It is not. Being born without an appendix is a mutation. In humans, it conveys no survival or reproductive advantage, therefore it is not evolution. It is not evolution because this mutation does not increase the odds that people without appendixes will outbreed people with appendixes and eventually replace them. You posit that someday people will no longer have an appendix. This is not true, at least not based on evolution.

Perhaps I'm not the one who confused you after all. I don't know where you're drawing this infinite knowledge of science from (propbably because you don't back up anything) but it's terribly skewed and incorrect.

If a mutation, as you put it, occurs due to an environmental influence it's not evolution? That's what you're saying. Do you know what an appendix is used for? That is...in animals that actually do use one. Here's a homework assignment for you... research that. Then perhaps you'll figure out why humans aren't using them much any more.

Darwin stated that those best adapted to their environment would survive. If my environment has no meat, and I don't adapt to eating grass then I will likely die. It's really not that complicated.

Again, your understanding of evolution is flawed. You believe in something that is in fact true, but your understanding is not true. Therefore, your belief is faith.

Of course it is, because Bill says so. I don't suppose you'd like to actually present any facts or evidence to prove your assertion? I know it'd be a change for you but change is good! You should try it sometime, you know... evolve a little. :rofl:

That does not invalidate evolution. It just makes your belief the same as that of a person who believes in God; an act of faith.

Did you learn to "stretch" like that in MA class or does it come naturally?

 

[crushing]

Nope, I'm not an agnostic, I find those mealy mouthed half way, please every side people the worst of all. Like any person who believes in reality and proof I would believe in a god or gods if there were, but there is not. You call atheism dogma, as if to say gravity, sunrise and the tides are dogma rather than fact.

I find your reality interesting. A reality where things don't exist until they are proven to exist. For example, does Jupiter's moon, Europa, have a global ocean that contains some form of life? I don't know if you have a mealy mouthed half way answer of "I don't know" or if you will stick to your guns and say that it doesn't exist until someone proves it does. If a probe is sent to Europa and it does find life, did that life exist before we found it? Reminds me of that age old question about a tree falling in the woods.

I find the possibility of life on Europa fascinating and I'm not afraid to say that I don't know if it exists, even if it is a mealy mouthed and half way. And I'm not just saying that to please anyone!

Fortunately, people knowing that they don't really know has led to great advances in knowledge (and/or faith in that knowledge) for everyone.