Do you believe in evolution?

[Fen-Harel 1,176]

Oh, the topic is alive again; wonderful.

 

An apt video for the discussion, shared by a friend of mine  :)

 

Ah, Ray Comfort, who can forget him... A person with no biological knowledge and no understanding of evolution... and no knowledge of the common banana.

 

 

well the answer to this topic is some people believe in evolution and some don't. Big deal. Close this topic please

No, this topic shouldn't be closed, at least not now that it's seems to be active again. I tend to want to have as more true beliefs and as few false ones as possible. If someone thinks evolution is false, it's a change in my viewpoint. I want them to prove that it is false, so far I've seen no persuasive arguments to be so. However I'm still open to suggestions and of course will defend my position.

Edited December 15, 2013 by Fen-Harel

[Duck1001012account 1]

It's real, god sent us hear, and we evolved, duck100101 form his other acccount 

[Psycho 586]

Certain things we use, that non believers of evolution use are in fact things that prove evolution saying bones of old humans are just mutants is the dumbest thing i have heard, humans Didn't live with dinosaurs did they now it's impossible, open your eyes and you'll see science is believing. And psycho always right :)

[r_DidYouKnowThat0 1,662]

@ali1234: Nice video. Watched the whole thing.

[someone_knows 4]

I can't tell if the people voting for no are joking or not...  :unsure:

[Reckoning 178]

 video made for this topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFEoMO0pc7k

[Reckoning 178]

@ali1234: Nice video. Watched the whole thing.

thanks :)

[Reckoning 178]

Ah, Ray Comfort, who can forget him... A person with no biological knowledge and no understanding of evolution... and no knowledge of the common banana.

he may probably suck at biology, but the purpose of posting the video has been successful,thanks to your comment.

Lesson learnt from the video - Even a person who doesn't have the knowledge of a "common banana" can give a hard time to evolutionist. :)

Edited December 16, 2013 by Reckoning

[GoldRock2 290]

An apt video for the discussion, shared by a friend of mine :)

 

[media=vid]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r83ROf8coSU[/media]

 

Interesting video. However, I think the interviewer is missing some key understanding about science in general - for example, we can observe fossils as scientific evidence, so I don't know why he's discounting them as 'non-observable'... Please, explain to me how fossils are not observable, if they are physical and tangible pieces of evidence.

 

Basically, they got an interviewer who's decent at persuasive speech (but still rather misguided), and interviewed intellectuals who might not be so good at spontaneous responses. Even then, they have obviously cut out bits, and chosen to include the answers which were weaker on purpose. For those reasons, I do not think that this video is a fair way to represent macroevolution - there is obvious bias, the obvious selection of poor answers, and the wrong people have been interviewed.

 

Why not interview the 'experts' themselves? I would love to see that guy questioning Richard Dawkins, for example; I am sure the interviewer would be corrected on more than one occasion :lol:

[Fen-Harel 1,176]

he may probably suck at biology, but the purpose of posting the video has been successful,thanks to your comment.

Lesson learnt from the video - Even a person who doesn't have the knowledge of a "common banana" can give a hard time to evolutionist. :)

Hard time? The guy has no idea what observing something means. Ray thinks that evolution means that a monkey gives birth to a human. His ignorance is painful to listen to, he is simply a clown.

The reason we can't see the evolutionary process is because it takes millions of years. But that doesn't mean we can't observe it.

 

To those who think Ray is actually persuasive and/or intelligent, please learn about evolution from an actual scientist rather than this person.

 

Why not interview the 'experts' themselves? I would love to see that guy questioning Richard Dawkins, for example; I am sure the interviewer would be corrected on more than one occasion :lol:

I think Ray offered Dawkins 10 thousand dollars to debate him. Dawkins refused for obvious reasons, I don't remember exactly what he said, but I'll try and get his point through. "Debating Ray would be the same as a geologist arguing with a flat Earth believer"

[Reckoning 178]

Interesting video. However, I think the interviewer is missing some key understanding about science in general - for example, we can observe fossils as scientific evidence, so I don't know why he's discounting them as 'non-observable'... Please, explain to me how fossils are not observable, if they are physical and tangible pieces of evidence.

 

Basically, they got an interviewer who's decent at persuasive speech (but still rather misguided), and interviewed intellectuals who might not be so good at spontaneous responses. Even then, they have obviously cut out bits, and chosen to include the answers which were weaker on purpose. For those reasons, I do not think that this video is a fair way to represent macroevolution - there is obvious bias, the obvious selection of poor answers, and the wrong people have been interviewed.

As far as i understand the argument, he does not take fossil into consideration because it does not provide the "accurate" information about the animal.carbon dating or what ever the process by which they determine its age allows us just to speculate what sort of animal/being the fossil might have been,hence not hundred person accurate.  in earlier comments fossils had been much debated. you should actually have a look at that.

Secondly, i want you to consider this. the fact that we ARE debating evolution proves that its not have been hundred percent proven due to lack of evidence/connecting links.Nobody starts an argument like "Do you believe earth is round?" the fact of the matter is nobody debates established scientific facts.Evolution on the other hand is very promising but it does not cements its foundation.

Evolution according to me,is based on inductive reasoning.

[Reckoning 178]

Why not interview the 'experts' themselves? I would love to see that guy questioning Richard Dawkins, for example; I am sure the interviewer would be corrected on more than one occasion  :lol:

 

I think Ray offered Dawkins 10 thousand dollars to debate him. Dawkins refused for obvious reasons, I don't remember exactly what he said, but I'll try and get his point through. "Debating Ray would be the same as a geologist arguing with a flat Earth believer"

watch this video and see it for yourself. Ray comfort and Richard Dwakins are brothers in reasoning.I don't mean to spoil your mood and don't get much bothered about Richard. Hope this will change your perspective entirely about "Richard The Great".peace. :D 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8

[Fen-Harel 1,176]

As far as i understand the argument, he does not take fossil into consideration because it does not provide the "accurate" information about the animal.carbon dating or what ever the process by which they determine its age allows us just to speculate what sort of animal/being the fossil might have been,hence not hundred person accurate.  in earlier comments fossils had been much debated. you should actually have a look at that.

Secondly, i want you to consider this. the fact that we ARE debating evolution proves that its not have been hundred percent proven due to lack of evidence/connecting links.Nobody starts an argument like "Do you believe earth is round?" the fact of the matter is nobody debates established scientific facts.Evolution on the other hand is very promising but it does not cements its foundation.

Evolution according to me,is based on inductive reasoning.

Also, what's Ray's definition of a "kind"?

Again... genetic evidence alone is enough to prove evolution. And we have fossils on top of that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Again with the lack of connecting links and lack of evidence... Look at my previous posts.

So no one debates Earth roundness makes it true? And what of these guys: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/

[Fen-Harel 1,176]

watch this video and see it for yourself. Ray comfort and Richard Dwakins are brothers in reasoning.I don't mean to spoil your mood and don't get much bothered about Richard. Hope this will change your perspective entirely about "Richard The Great".peace. :D 

 

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8 

 

No... he didn't admit intelligent design. He said that it's possible (like most stuff are possible- doesn't mean it happened) that some other species (that evolved like us) left organic cells which later evolved into us. It could also be possible that a sandwich created us.

 

Interesting how ratings and comments are disabled on the video... couldn't imagine why?

[Irontank1v 836]

Guys Evolution can't be proven, Richard Dawkins himself said it in his book "The greatest Show on Earth". He said we scientist can try to disprove any hypothesis and if we can't disprove it then it gets the status of Theory. Only mathematicians can prove there hypothesis and get it to the level of Theorem. Take the example of Goldbach's conjecture/hypothesis it was tested upto 300 thousand million million and was correct but still no one proved it and when someone proves it it will be called Goldbach's Theorem.

Now about scientific observation
In the same book first chapter Richard shows how inference is more important than observation. He used the gorilla experiment done by Professor Daniel J. Simons, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQmdoK_ZfY. And this shows that observation can be wrong as well. Another good example is the crime scene. In a crime scene an eye-witness is the observer and left behind traces like finger prints and blood stains are inference. On the basis of observing 35 condemned people were arrested in Texas and when DNA evidence was accepted by the court to be used as evidence then on the basis of inference they found out that those 35 people were wrongfully held in prison. Now to conclude, we can't see the past we don't have access to actions that happened in past. The only thing we have is the traces left in the form of fossils, genetic makeup and etc.. 

[Fen-Harel 1,176]

 

Guys Evolution can't be proven, Richard Dawkins himself said it in his book "The greatest Show on Earth". He said we scientist can try to disprove any hypothesis and if we can't disprove it then it gets the status of Theory. Only mathematicians can prove there hypothesis and get it to the level of Theorem. Take the example of Goldbach's conjecture/hypothesis it was tested upto 300 thousand million million and was correct but still no one proved it and when someone proves it it will be called Goldbach's Theorem.

 

Now about scientific observation

In the same book first chapter Richard shows how inference is more important than observation. He used the gorilla experiment done by Professor Daniel J. Simons, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQmdoK_ZfY. And this shows that observation can be wrong as well. Another good example is the crime scene. In a crime scene an eye-witness is the observer and left behind traces like finger prints and blood stains are inference. On the basis of observing 35 condemned people were arrested in Texas and when DNA evidence was accepted by the court to be used as evidence then on the basis of inference they found out that those 35 people were wrongfully held in prison. Now to conclude, we can't see the past we don't have access to actions that happened in past. The only thing we have is the traces left in the form of fossils, genetic makeup and etc..

 

Well, nothing can be proven since we cannot prove anything for 100% outside ourselves. Since in the end this all might be an illusion of my mind and that I'm in a matrix, and outside of it there are completely different natural occurrences.That is irrational to think about though. But we can find patterns and make models of this realty we are in to help us live in it. Science doesn't deal with truth that is 100% absolute. It gives us predictive models of reality.

 

I don't get your second point here... You're saying that all the evidence we saw is false/falsely interpreted? This is why there's peer review in science, where others can test the claim and see if it stands. Again we get a model of reality.

[Irontank1v 836]

^Second point was to show that we can't take inference as inferior to observation. And im not saying all the evidence is false/falsely interpreted  -_-

 

In the same book first chapter Richard shows how inference is more important than observation. He used the gorilla experiment done by Professor Daniel J. Simons, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQmdoK_ZfY. And this shows that observation can be wrong as well. Another good example is the crime scene. In a crime scene an eye-witness is the observer and left behind traces like finger prints and blood stains are inference. On the basis of observing 35 condemned people were arrested in Texas and when DNA evidence was accepted by the court to be used as evidence then on the basis of inference they found out that those 35 people were wrongfully held in prison. Now to conclude, we can't see the past we don't have access to actions that happened in past. The only thing we have is the traces left in the form of fossils, genetic makeup and etc.. 

 

Edited December 17, 2013 by Irontank1v

[Reckoning 178]

Also, what's Ray's definition of a "kind"?

Again... genetic evidence alone is enough to prove evolution. And we have fossils on top of that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Again with the lack of connecting links and lack of evidence... Look at my previous posts.

So no one debates Earth roundness makes it true? And what of these guys: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/

I am not ray i cannot tell you that,probably my best guess would be that he meant a different organism?maybe.....

Does genetic evidence alone is enough to "prove" evolution? really? 

When i said "no one debates" i meant in the scientific community. there are many biologist ad scientist who doesn't follow the lead of evolutionist/atheist. posting the link to flatearthsociety shows that you take me for a stupid person which i am not.

 

 

No... he didn't admit intelligent design. He said that it's possible (like most stuff are possible- doesn't mean it happened) that some other species (that evolved like us) left organic cells which later evolved into us. It could also be possible that a sandwich created us.

 

Interesting how ratings and comments are disabled on the video... couldn't imagine why?

The darling of Neo atheist,richard dawkins firmly asserting to the possibility of a intelligent design (to elaborate- aliens starting life on earth).doesn't go down very well with atheist 

i know youtube in not credible and i never base my argument on a  video. but why i posted the video because of its content.never mind if comments and ratings are disabled for video it doesn't negate the fact what richard dawkins said and believes.

Do you believe in an "Intelligent design" too or do you discard that idea? i would like to know if you are with Richard who thinks Prometheus 2013  movie might be a true story.

[Fen-Harel 1,176]

I am not ray i cannot tell you that,probably my best guess would be that he meant a different organism?maybe.....

Does genetic evidence alone is enough to "prove" evolution? really? 

When i said "no one debates" i meant in the scientific community. there are many biologist ad scientist who doesn't follow the lead of evolutionist/atheist. posting the link to flatearthsociety shows that you take me for a stupid person which i am not.

Yes, really. It proves it to a high enough degree of certainty that it would change everything we know from the evidence presented.

I've watched enough videos with Ray Comfort, and he always changes his definition of a "kind" to what suits him.

 

 

The darling of Neo atheist,richard dawkins firmly asserting to the possibility of a intelligent design (to elaborate- aliens starting life on earth).doesn't go down very well with atheist 

i know youtube in not credible and i never base my argument on a  video. but why i posted the video because of its content.never mind if comments and ratings are disabled for video it doesn't negate the fact what richard dawkins said and believes.

Do you believe in an "Intelligent design" too or do you discard that idea? i would like to know if you are with Richard who thinks Prometheus 2013  movie might be a true story.

The reason the comments and ratings are disabled is because the poster knows he is using a cheap tactic to try and put words into Dawkin's mouth. As I said-- if it's possible doesn't mean it happened, and it doesn't mean that he believes it happened if he says it's possible. I can come up with loads of absurd claims that have the same chance of happening as the intelligent design idea.

[Fresh 2,390]

what are we try to find out with this topic

[Fen-Harel 1,176]

what are we try to find out with this topic

Well, I'm trying to figure out whether I or someone else is wrong since I like to know the truth as much as I can.

[explosionxxx 0]

i think that it MIGHT  be true but im not shure.

i think that the monky was rrelated to us cause:

we r both smart,

we both have no claws or sharp teath,

we both use tools  (no mater how simple)

and we have a larger brain than eany other anamal on earth.

 

 

i do beleve that the earth WAS created by god for he is all mighty.  and i also believe that the first people were adime and eve we could have been in heavin if they hadent picked the apple.  but they didint pick it for a long time  (a lot longer than eany of could do)  they where not eany worse than u and me.  this is my opinyon i dont expect eany one to freek out and think there wrong    this is just what I beleve to be true.                               ( may god rule for eturity and in happyness )  :D

[explosionxxx 0]

Well, nothing can be proven since we cannot prove anything for 100% outside ourselves. Since in the end this all might be an illusion of my mind and that I'm in a matrix, and outside of it there are completely different natural occurrences.That is irrational to think about though. But we can find patterns and make models of this realty we are in to help us live in it. Science doesn't deal with truth that is 100% absolute. It gives us predictive models of reality.

 

I don't get your second point here... You're saying that all the evidence we saw is false/falsely interpreted? This is why there's peer review in science, where others can test the claim and see if it stands. Again we get a model of reality.

one way u can be shure that ur not halusinating is that u can think about things   in a dream u can THINK think  like u can now u cinda just DO things

[Fen-Harel 1,176]

i think that it MIGHT  be true but im not shure.

i think that the monky was rrelated to us cause:

we r both smart,

we both have no claws or sharp teath,

we both use tools  (no mater how simple)

and we have a larger brain than eany other anamal on earth.

 

 

i do beleve that the earth WAS created by god for he is all mighty.  and i also believe that the first people were adime and eve we could have been in heavin if they hadent picked the apple.  but they didint pick it for a long time  (a lot longer than eany of could do)  they where not eany worse than u and me.  this is my opinyon i dont expect eany one to freek out and think there wrong    this is just what I beleve to be true.                               ( may god rule for eturity and in happyness )  :D

Well, not exactly. We know we are related to not only monkeys but to all animals using DNA analysis.

And we're evolved from an ancestor of the modern apes and us.

The Adam and Eve story can be completely falsified since there is not enough genetic material to create a species out of 2 people. But you'll probably keep believing no matter what I say.

 

one way u can be shure that ur not halusinating is that u can think about things   in a dream u can THINK think  like u can now u cinda just DO things

"I think, therefore I am" Yes, but you cannot prove anything outside of yourself with that. Since your brain is electrical and chemical impulses which you cannot know are correct.

[Psycho 586]

i evolved to a new rank