Of what real value is evolutionary "knowledge"?

Post Reply New Topic

Yes you did. You added to the list of people I hate when you did that.

The funny thing is that the connection between apes and humans was explored in one of the trials involving ID, and it was shown that not only was there similarity but also it was brought up that many apes have 48 chromosomes while people have 46, and evolutionary theorists explained that by saying that some chromosomes could have merged, and even showed that one of our chromosomes had an area where a centromere could have been due to the nature of the composition there as evidence of that hypothesis of common descent despite differing numbers of chromosomes. This oddity strengthens the case for evolution because of the unorthodox nature of the change, and how it can be explained within an evolutionary framework.

All this arguing brings me to my secondary point: Of what real value is all this arguing about evolution? What grand good is going to be accomplished if creationists begin to believe in evolution? WTF is gonna change the world for the better if creationists became converted to believe in a politicized "science" that has not been proven conclusively to have occurred, or to be in the process of occurring?

Geez, at least if non-creationists get converted, they can go to Heaven. But wtf are evolutionists offering creationists? Nothing but endless arguing with no great goal.

Hence, every time there's a thread debating evolution, it just goes around in circles, and everyone sticks to their original ideas.

So again, this arguing underscores this thread's title question.
Of what real value is evolution OR its debate attempts to convert creationists?

Are you hoping we'll "see the dark"?

Last edited by Ragtime on 11 May 2008, 1:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Actually, yes.

Heaven is a false promise. Evolution will never guarantee you an afterlife but at least explains where you came from.

Well, the value is that it prevents bad science from getting into the school system and justifies the proper conclusions. The grand good is that we will not have to listen to their bad arguments. Finally, creationists won't continue to spout out their BS and will just stop subjecting themselves or others to their idiocies. The science was not politicized, ID is politicized, not only that, but it is not the job of a theory to have things "proven conclusively", it is the job of a theory to put forward the best idea. Heck, you can be a creationist all you want, but just recognize that evolution is the better scientific theory.


Yes, Pascal's wager on the scientific spectrum. Frankly, the issue is not one of offering, but rather this: evolution is correct according to science, therefore it is a scientific theory. That is all. You can still go to heaven and believe that evolution is the correct scientific theory as frankly, God does not say that everything he says must be good science, nor would it make sense if it were.


No, it goes nowhere, not in a circle. A circle implies that it *really* moves, but mostly it dances in an absurd dance around the creationist trying to get him to recognize the scientific problems with his view of evolution.


The real value is that it is correct, that it underpins other biological understandings, and the efforts to convert are really efforts at justification to the less deluded, and perhaps the hope that one of those creationists will think on the issue.

Yes.

Some people value truth for its own sake.

To quote the Big Giant Head,
"That's extremely underwhelming."
Seriously, of what great value is "explaining where I came from", that it would be worth all the vitriol from evolutionists in these threads?

The vitriol stems from the fact that you are denser than lead, and continue to make yourself look like a fool. You put forth claims that have been refuted a number of times, and in intelligent conversation that is a cardinal sin. You have a level of hubris that I have never seen before, especially in someone who does not know a thing about the subject of which he is discussing.

Denser than lead? He's denser than neutron star matter. Now that's as dense as you can get without becoming a black hole.

One reason can be paraphrased from Thomas Huxley's retort (or one of the reported ones) to your question as to the amount of vitriol: I would rather be descended from an ape, than be descended from a man who uses their great gifts to obscure the truth.

Maybe we're making progress. Do you understand the concept of mathematical proof, how you test a mathematical theorem? Do you know how you test a scientific hypothesis or theory in the natural sciences? Can you go from there and compare the status of the claim that there is an infinite number of prime numbers, the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, and evolution?

If you can, you may understand how to apply the concept of proof to a theory in the natural sciences. What I have seen so far suggests to me that either you don't know, or you deliberately switch between two different meanings to confuse the argument, which would be a form of lie.


The second part of your answer has absolutely nothing to do with my question, so I don't know whether the first part refers to my question, or whether you misunderstood, or whether you deliberately fudge the issue.

I asked you whether there was anything that could persuade you. Not whether you have come across something that has persuaded you. I already know that you haven't. I have never yet come across anything that has persuaded me that ID has any merit, but there are things that would persuade me. Do you understand the distinction?

A correlation between two variables doesn't tell you which is cause and which effect. Here is an alternative scenario.

A religious person may choose a naturalistic or a supernatural explanation for an event (I forgot where I put my keys vs. God moved them to test my patience or Satan made me forget or hid them to make me angry and lead me into sin). Someone who doesn't think there are supernatural forces or entities has to rely on naturalistic explanations alone, providing a simple, and logical explanation for the correlation you observed. That doesn't make the naturalistic explanation anti-theist.

If accepting a naturalistic explanation did make one anti-theist, then theists would have to explain everything as the consequence of divine or demonic intervention. Even you and Ragtime don't do that.

Last edited by Gromit on 11 May 2008, 6:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

So your position is like that stated in the 1865 Declaration of the Natural and Physical Sciences: “We conceive that it is impossible for the Word of God, as written in the book of nature, and God’s Word written in Holy Scripture, to contradict one another, however much they may appear to differ.”

So what do you do when you find a contradiction? I have the impression you assume that your reading of the bible is infallible, and that the science has to be wrong. Has it occurred to you that you are human, and fallible, and that your interpretation could be wrong?

Here is one way in which you can test your method of interpretation: find a number of people who use the same method, let them interpret Bible passages where they don't already know the consensus interpretation, then see how much they agree. If the method is as reliable as you seem to think, people should either agree entirely, or they should be able to agree where someone made a mistake, same as mathematicians can come to an agreement whether a proof is valid and if it's not, what the mistake is. Has your method of interpretation been shown to be that rigorous? That level of rigour is a necessary condition before you can assume that if there is a conflict between your interpretation of the Bible and something else, then you must be right. And it is only a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition.

Of what value was arguing against the Ptolemaic astronomy? Should good is accomplished if all geocentrists beginning to believe in heliocentrism? Evolution is not politicized, except to the extent that creationists have MADE it political. It has been proven conclusively to have occurred; and there are numerous speciation events that have been observed in nature and in the laboratory. In the face of that, you really can't deny evolution without outright rejecting reality. We've already explained to you the value of evolutionary theory. Frankly, at this point you are advocating that people hold to a belief that has been demonstrated to be false, which simply can not accept. Maybe it's the Aspie insistence on a search for truth in me, but I can't stomach the idea of deliberately spreading ignorance.

That is delusion.

Unless the "science" you refer to is corrupted by human bias (as I've previously suggested). Creationism is not falsifiable;that it is, is perhaps the most absurd claim I've ever heard.

Ah, evolution. Bringing people closer together in love and respect, one hatred at a time.

See, Christianity teaches to love our enemies, and "enemies" is certainly a stronger term than simply "people who believe in evolution", so our command to love people is all the more applicable to them. If evolutionists don't listen to our arguments, we don't hate them for it. But you just admitted to hate Ben Stein. And I hear lots of hatred in the evolution threads coming from the evolutionists, but iamnotaparakeet and I have no hatred towards you -- to us, it's just a disagreement on positions, not a call to arms.
But this hatred from you and other anti-God people in the evolution threads evidences that you're on the wrong side of the spiritual spectrum. Consider that for a moment.

Last edited by Ragtime on 11 May 2008, 10:32 am, edited 1 time in total.