cwcrenshaw

I was using dark matter as an example. Lets not get off on a tangent of newtonian physics or reinventing the wheel of general relativity. Let's stick to the more existential topic of this thread if possible. First of all, its not "my reasoning", its basic scientific principal. Secondly, I think you misunderstand String Theory...but again, lets stay on topic here. Correct, but this goes back to my previous point that is something is not measurable and does not affect other things in a measurable way, it does not meet the definition of existence.

Understood. But I would say that a "religious experience" and the like are phenomena that occur on the psychological level. It is merely a human attribute which can be shown by observing this phenomena outside the realm of religion. There are psychological terms for these phenomena but I will avoid getting too deep into that debate because it's outside my expertise. I agree that the "gap" that we humans feel the need to explain through the supernatural continues to shrink...and that there may come a point when we have learned all that we possibly can about our own existence. I would want to point out that if something does exist that is not "knowable", then obviously we would not "know" about it, which is precisely what the religious claim to "know". You're right, it is an extraordinary claim that by definition does not have extraordinary evidence...it is a matter of pure faith which is the antithesis of scientific knowledge. Some people are happy to leave it to faith, others cannot.

yes, I addressed the existence of the soul in my first post. To summarize, there is no evidence of for the existence of a soul...therefore it is highly unlikely (im not saying impossible) that one in fact does exist.

How many times is this flawed argument going to be used?

edit

I agree that is possible, for instance...dark matter in the universe...we know it exists but we dont have a good way to accurately measure it. We know it exists through its measurable effect on gravitational fields. If something is not measurable directly then it must have a measurable affect on other objects...if not, you can not claim that it "exists". That was point I was making though..if it did have an influence on our reality, there would by definition have to be a way to scientifically measure it. As for facing it after death, there is no (scientific) evidence for that so there's nothing for me to debate. "Theory" though is a term used only when an idea has mountains of evidence to back it up and has been scientifically tested over and over again. I think you mistake the word "theory" for "hypothesis". For example, gravity is a theory but i'm sure you would say that gravity exists without any doubt. Again I stress evidence...anything can be claimed without evidence, this does not make it so. Faith is the exact opposite; faith is the belief in something without the necessity of evidence...this means ANYTHING can be claimed through faith. Faith solves nothing my friend.

While I tend to try to stick to more scientific discussions than philosophical ones, there are a few issues with this article that I would like to bring up. 1) Of course our 5 senses aren't enough to experience every phenomena in the world...this is why we have scientific instrumentation that sees infrared light, can detect blackholes, etc. Most of what we know about science today would be not known to us were it not for scientific instrumentation. This extends the range of this purely scientific lense that humans are bound to. 2) While it is entirely possible (although improbable) that there is an existence outside of which science can measure, I would wonder what would this matter to humans? Humans operate in a scientific way...that is to say that everything we do in this world is measurable and bound by science. If something were to exist outside the realm of what we are capable of experiencing, it would have no bearing on our existence. This brings up another point which is that of the soul and afterlife. This is where I have to take issue again by saying that I disagree with the statement (in reference to the soul) "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense". I claim that is exactly what it is. Nothing can be said to exist (and again, have any bearing on us) if it does not make a perceivable difference in the realm in which we live. Lack of evidence is precisely evidence that something does not exist. 3) Science and faith operate in a fundamentally different way. This article does nothing more than expand on that. Science is based on empiricle evidence from which hypothesis and then theories are formed, tested, and reviewed. The ironic part of saying that there exists something outside the realm of science is that you can't prove it

philosophy does intersect with science, especially in 2007, when scientists are lauded as demi-gods, with all the answers the fact of adaptation/speciation/genetic drift has nothing to do with origins or ultimate questions, the latter is strictly religious/philosophical belief, no matter what spin you try to put on it darwinists are always trying to blur the line where the true science of their beliefs ends, and religious speculations begin You just called a statistic philosophy...nowhere did i mention anything about philosophy...its amazing, you will take every chance you get to take a swing at Darwinism even if the subject at hand is completely different. That borders on obsessive.

lol someone else called them "drive-by" posts Others have called them the words which led them to Christ. What could possibly be the issue wth that? t. Its the way he puts them together with quasi-poetic utter non-sense in between. While insanely amusing, it makes absolutely no sense.

Yes, I understand what dogma is. I was simply remarking on FresnoJoe's incoherent post.

umm...ok then.

the killing of unborns is not silly, the debate we would have about who is right and who is wrong and "who's facts are actually credible" would be silly though. And the amount of people killed in one event or another has nothing to do with the factual correctness of evolution. You're grasping at straws.

Well, the original poster stated that we should assume mankind is still around in 100 million years. Even so, I doubt we are killing people off faster than the Holocaust, Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, etc. CW, Check the worldwide abortion statistics sometime. Peace, Dave i'm not going to get into another silly debate so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one

edit

for all his high brow posturing, Dawkins isn't impressive...his escape hatch for any tough question is always "science will figure that out someday" sure.... actually he has painted many a theological scholar in a corner only to have them play the faith trump card...which is that they believe because they believe it because they believe it...there is nothing left to debate at that point.

disagree....the average joe may not understand all the technical aspects of Darwinism, but they understand the basic philosophy/message, which is "do what thou will" (same creedo of the satanic church btw)...no consequences, no accountability I don't know where you get this stuff, honestly.

i'll take a single educated guess over mountains of dogma anyday. CW, I thought you were here for polite debate? Peace, Dave I am, I view religion as dogma just like you guys view darwinism as dogma. Is that out of line?

Well, the original poster stated that we should assume mankind is still around in 100 million years. Even so, I doubt we are killing people off faster than the Holocaust, Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, etc.

Darwinism does not equal Social Darwinism...they borrowed the term "Darwinism" but it is not related.

If God has left us to our own devices though, why do Christians insist that he continues to intervene? If he chooses to intervene on a small scale, why not intervene at a larger scale? You make it sound as though he created us, we sinned, and he walked away to leave us on our own. The dead sea scrolls pertain to the old testament, which I would agree is more historically accurate than the new testament. You cannot lump them together. The new testament is of suspect origins to put it politely. Historical accuracy aside, this proves nothing about its claims. Right, but obviously not every male lion is killed off or they would cease to exist. Also, lions travel in small prides naturally, too many members would upset their natural balance...you can not use this same arguments for humans, who obviously have a greater chance of survival in larger groups. And yes you are correct that evolution is only concerned with the survival of the individual...but often times (as in humans), the survival of the group is beneficial for the survival for the individual. You see this universal moral code as God, I see it as a set of benefial behaviors embedded through evolution...that is probably the essense of our different world views. Of course there are other species who do not exhibit these behaviors, but there also those that do...and this is a far more important observation. About the spiritual side of the argument, I do not feel that belief in the Christian god is necessary for being spiritually fulfilled. I get this same feeling when I look up at the stars at night and think about the magnificence of the universe. I choose not to cheapen this experience by attributing it to God though and instead stand in awe of the beauty of nature itself. I won't address your ad hominem attacks, they are unneeded and childish. I do agree with your guarantee that non-christians have killed, cheated, etc....this is the "evil people doing evil things" part. You have done nothing to prove the quote invalid besides attack the man. Richard Dawkins rocks. If you believe that looking at things from a humanistic and realistic point of view only leads to nothing but disappointment and negativity, then I would say you have a very sad view of humanity. I appreciate your assumption of knowing how I think about the world...as I assume you probably think all atheists see the world...but again, you are wrong. To call myself an atheist does not mean that I do not have faith. My faith is in mankind and the ability of man to do good. I see the world around me and I constantly think how lucky we are to exist and that we should make the best of it. Yes there are people who seek to do nothing but bad things in the world, but my faith is that the number of good people in the world far exceeds that of bad people. Furthermore, I think that the belief in a creator fails to allow mankind to recognize the fact that we control our own existence and ultimately stands in the way of human advancement. I think that you have a very sad grasp of reality and I wonder what has made you lose your faith in the goodness of mankind. The proof that God is optional is the fact that we are not forced to accept him. Even he did exist he would still be optional...this is called free will. The fact that atheists are the fastest growing minority in the USA is proof that God is optional. I have lived a great life up to this point without God and will continue to do so into old age thanks to mankind's advancement in medicine...not out of God's benevolence. yes, saying that one things is ok while something else is not, is a basic ethical premise...claiming to know the mind of God is not. It disturbing to me that you are ok with not knowing why it is that God would put us here...but I guess that is the problem I have with religion in general...it teaches us to be ok with those things that we do not understand...this is not how I operate. Repeat the explanation? You haven't yet offered a single valid one...how can you repeat? And no, you don't have to argue about any of this if you don't want to.

In response to the original topic: Evolution over the next 100 million years will be far different than it has been in the past. Humanity has come to the point where "survival of the fittest" is no longer necessarily true. The rise of civilized culture and medicine means that far more people are able to survive for longer in the modern day world, increasing the probability for reproduction. This means that evolution will operate much more inefficiently than it has in the past due to our mental capacity to overcome the mechanisms that have classically driven evolution. Where our technology overcomes evolution though, it also introduces new variables into the equation. For example, the ease of world travel now days (and most likely more so in the future) will probably lead to a disappearance of races given enough time through interracial reproduction. The reason we have different races today is simply due to the fact that groups of prehistoric humans became geographically remote from eachother...leading to unique changes in each group to better suit their environments. This geographic barrier has disappeared and, given enough time, so might races. I also see the possibility that mankind becomes increasingly weaker physically while increasing greatly in mental capacity. Modern day conveniences have made the need for physical strength less and less mandatory for survival. Also, you could say that people of greater intelligence tend to take better care of their health than those who don't know any better. This may lead to evolutionary changes over time. You might try googling this too, I know there has been quite alot of speculation about this subject.

both.

i'll take a single educated guess over mountains of dogma anyday.

right, and as you're reading up about c14 dating right now you might also want to check out the part about having to be specific with calibration. Someone who doesn't know what they are doing with c14 dating can horribly alter results. If done correctly though, c14 is incredibly accurate. Also, avoid the ad hominem attacks, they are usually a sign of weakness in a debate.

but not common descent...there is no evidence for that, other than the constructs of religious zealots If you believe that every scientist that shows evidence for Darwinism is out to get you...it doesnt matter what they find, you have already made up your mind.