Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[3rdAngel]

I propose a discussion about the evidence for this theory of origins. AKA, 'the theory of evolution', it is the most widely believed theory about life in the modern world. It is also criticized as being based on speculation and unproven assumptions.

I know there are a lot of threads on this subject, & have been, over the years. I have been involved in many of them. I hope that this one might avoid the pitfalls of emotional hysteria, ad hominem, & jihadist fervor that this subject seems to generate. By keeping it factual, based on science, & examining the evidence, we can evaluate it from the evidence, & not by the propaganda of the True Believers.

This will not be an easy task, as knee jerk reactions and talking points seem to dominate this debate. But i am willing to examine the science, if anyone else is.

Here are a few rules i request.

1. Be civil. This is an examination of scientific theories & opinions.. no need to be insulting.
2. Be logical. Try to use sound reason & avoid logical fallacies.
3. Be factual. Verify your facts, & source them. 'What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'.
4. Provide arguments. Make your case, support it with evidence, & present a conclusion. Provide a premise in your posts, or a rebuttal to someone else's premise.
5. Be concise. Premise a specific point. Post ONE bit of evidence at a time, and we can evaluate it's validity. Obviously there is much to be said in this discussion, & soundbites or one liners will be inadequate. But walls of pasted text do not aid communication. Keep your points simple & specific, & use links or quotes to support them.
6. Don't feed the trolls. Ignore hecklers, even if they seem to support your 'side'. They do not aid in communication or understanding. Begging the mods to close the thread is censorship.
7. Religious texts, and statements of belief are irrelevant. This is about evidence and reason, not belief.

If there is interest in a truly scientific examination of the evidence, i will participate. But if the thread devolves to heckling and religious hysteria, i will not.

My time is limited, so i will not always have a real time response, but i endeavor to reply to any evidence based and rational points made.

Hi thanks for the OP. I have not read through every single page but have read a lot. It is a good OP although some of the responses could be a little better as there is no need for belittling anyone. If you have evidence and proof for your claims let it do the talking. There is no need to belittle and redicule anyone. It only shows you do not have and proof for your claims.

I just wanted to ask a few questions. If science has the answer for the theory of evolution why is it still a theory and why does science still exist? What I see that is ironic here is that the majority of Nobel prize winning scientists are christian while it seems to be those who follow the religion of athiesm and agnosticism try to use the theories behind science as a crutch to try prove that there is no God. Can science prove or not prove that there is a God? There is not one shred of data anywhere that has proved that there is no God. If so than why pretend that there is? From what I can read here the great pretenders are the ones that claim science teaches that there is no God. To think otherwise is not to be very well informed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hi thanks for the OP. I have not read through every single page but have read a lot. It is a good OP although some of the responses could be a little better as there is no need for belittling anyone. If you have evidence and proof for your claims let it do the talking.

I just wanted to ask a few questions. If science has the answer for the theory of evolution why is it still a theory and why does science still exist? What I see that is ironic here is that the majority of Nobel prize winning scientists are christian while it seems to be those who follow the religion of athiesm and agnosticism try to use the theories behind science as a crutch to try prove that there is no God. Can science prove or not prove that there is a God? There is not one shred of data anywhere that has proved that there is no God. If so than why pretend that there is? From what I can read here the great pretenders are the ones that claim science teaches that there is no God. To think otherwise is not to be very well informed.

What do you mean "why is it still a theory"? What else do you think it is going to become? There is nothing in science that outranks a theory.

Are you trying to establish that popularity is evidence for science?

What about those that are not agnostic or atheist that understand and accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation we have for the evidence? Your argument is not very strong. You are trying to establish that science can be dismissed for reasons unrelated to the validity of the science.

You join the ranks of everyone on here that has been trying to get him to address science and use the findings of science to support his argument. So far, that appears to be a futile effort, but thank you for trying your hand at it as well.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hi thanks for the OP. I have not read through every single page but have read a lot. It is a good OP although some of the responses could be a little better as there is no need for belittling anyone. If you have evidence and proof for your claims let it do the talking.

I just wanted to ask a few questions. If science has the answer for the theory of evolution why is it still a theory and why does science still exist? What I see that is ironic here is that the majority of Nobel prize winning scientists are christian while it seems to be those who follow the religion of athiesm and agnosticism try to use the theories behind science as a crutch to try prove that there is no God. Can science prove or not prove that there is a God? There is not one shred of data anywhere that has proved that there is no God. If so than why pretend that there is? From what I can read here the great pretenders are the ones that claim science teaches that there is no God. To think otherwise is not to be very well informed.

The theory of evolution is the scientific answer for the evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hi thanks for the OP. I have not read through every single page but have read a lot. It is a good OP although some of the responses could be a little better as there is no need for belittling anyone. If you have evidence and proof for your claims let it do the talking.

I just wanted to ask a few questions. If science has the answer for the theory of evolution why is it still a theory and why does science still exist? What I see that is ironic here is that the majority of Nobel prize winning scientists are christian while it seems to be those who follow the religion of athiesm and agnosticism try to use the theories behind science as a crutch to try prove that there is no God. Can science prove or not prove that there is a God? There is not one shred of data anywhere that has proved that there is no God. If so than why pretend that there is? From what I can read here the great pretenders are the ones that claim science teaches that there is no God. To think otherwise is not to be very well informed.

Science does is not trying to answer questions about the existence of God. The theory of evolution has nothing to say about the existence of God. What others try to do with the findings of science regarding ideology has nothing to do with the validity of the science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi thanks for the OP. I have not read through every single page but have read a lot. It is a good OP although some of the responses could be a little better as there is no need for belittling anyone. If you have evidence and proof for your claims let it do the talking.

I just wanted to ask a few questions. If science has the answer for the theory of evolution why is it still a theory and why does science still exist? What I see that is ironic here is that the majority of Nobel prize winning scientists are christian while it seems to be those who follow the religion of athiesm and agnosticism try to use the theories behind science as a crutch to try prove that there is no God. Can science prove or not prove that there is a God? There is not one shred of data anywhere that has proved that there is no God. If so than why pretend that there is? From what I can read here the great pretenders are the ones that claim science teaches that there is no God. To think otherwise is not to be very well informed.

What makes you think that the fact that you and I are apes is used as "proof" that God does not exist? I do not know of any atheists that make that poor argument.

By the way, your chart actually speaks poorly of Christians. In the western world they are a much more dominant religion than 65.4%, yet atheists which until recently were only a percentage or two still got 7% of Nobel Prizes. That indicates that they are outperforming Christians by a factor of more than three times.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you mean "why is it still a theory"? What else do you think it is going to become? There is nothing in science that outranks a theory.

Are you trying to establish that popularity is evidence for science?

What about those that are not agnostic or atheist that understand and accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation we have for the evidence? Your argument is not very strong. You are trying to establish that science can be dismissed for reasons unrelated to the validity of the science.

You join the ranks of everyone on here that has been trying to get him to address science and use the findings of science to support his argument. So far, that appears to be a futile effort, but thank you for trying your hand at it as well.

I find it so ironic when I see "still a theory". They might as well say "still a fact" Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[3rdAngel]

What do you mean "why is it still a theory"? What else do you think it is going to become? There is nothing in science that outranks a theory.

Are you trying to establish that popularity is evidence for science?

What about those that are not agnostic or atheist that understand and accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation we have for the evidence? Your argument is not very strong. You are trying to establish that science can be dismissed for reasons unrelated to the validity of the science.

You join the ranks of everyone on here that has been trying to get him to address science and use the findings of science to support his argument. So far, that appears to be a futile effort, but thank you for trying your hand at it as well.

Please read what you are responding to. It does not say what you are claiming or stating at all in this post as well as your others. This is a religous forum. Ultimately in support of your religious belief your trying to use some theories behind science as an argument to say that there is no God in support of your religious views of atheism or agnosticism. It just does not work as there is no scientific evidence either way that can prove that there is no God and if there is no evidence why do you pretend that there is?

Thanks for sharing though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please read what you are responding to. It does not say what you are claiming or stating at all in this post as well as your others. This is a religous forum. Ultimately in support of your religious belief your trying to use some theories behind science as an argument to say that there is no God in support of your religious views of atheism or agnosticism. It just does not work as there is no scientific evidence either way that can prove that there is no God and if there is no evidence why do you pretend that there is?

Thanks for sharing though.

He is? Dan, did you hear that? As a Christian you are using evolution to argue against your God. Frankly I am shocked by such behavior

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I find it so ironic when I see "still a theory". They might as well say "still a fact" Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

It is obvious that many of the people that deny science have little or no understanding about science. They do not understand what is being said in science about the very things they deny. Their denial is not based on solid, rational ground, but on the discomfort that science causes them regarding their personal religious views.

IANS is correct in the gap that separates belief-based thinkers from evidence-based thinkers and he may be right that the twain shall never meet. I can only counsel that they seek to educate themselves on the basics of science and the specifics of the science they deny. Borrowing that, they will continue to shoot at their own feet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, no "proof" is needed to be an atheist. We do not need to disprove a god. We only need to point out that there is no reliable evidence for a god.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please read what you are responding to. It does not say what you are claiming or stating at all in this post as well as your others. This is a religous forum. Ultimately in support of your religious belief your trying to use some theories behind science as an argument to say that there is no God in support of your religious views of atheism or agnosticism. It just does not work as there is no scientific evidence either way that can prove that there is no God and if there is no evidence why do you pretend that there is?

Thanks for sharing though.

I asked some questions and made a few points regarding yours. What I am trying to do is understand what you are saying. If you are here to promote your view, it would seem reasonable that you clarify it where others are having problems understanding it.

I am not using science to claim there is no God and I have never done that. Why would a Methodist attempt to disprove what he believes in? That does not make any sense. Accepting science is not a denial of God. It is using the gifts that have been granted me to recognize the results of what I believe God has done. You are at liberty to believe as you choose, but if you start posting accusations, you should have the courage and accept responsibility for supporting those accusations.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please read what you are responding to. It does not say what you are claiming or stating at all in this post as well as your others. This is a religous forum. Ultimately in support of your religious belief your trying to use some theories behind science as an argument to say that there is no God in support of your religious views of atheism or agnosticism. It just does not work as there is no scientific evidence either way that can prove that there is no God and if there is no evidence why do you pretend that there is?

Thanks for sharing though.

I did read it and am awaiting a rational and on point response to my questions. Is that going to happen?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please read what you are responding to. It does not say what you are claiming or stating at all in this post as well as your others. This is a religous forum. Ultimately in support of your religious belief your trying to use some theories behind science as an argument to say that there is no God in support of your religious views of atheism or agnosticism. It just does not work as there is no scientific evidence either way that can prove that there is no God and if there is no evidence why do you pretend that there is?

Thanks for sharing though.

I do not know that atheism and agnosticism are religious views, but even if they are, they are not my religions. I would imagine that my not doing something would not work anywhere, but your entire point is incorrect and misguided.

I do not pretend that there is evidence to demonstrate that there is no God. I never have. Why would you say that, considering there is zero evidence to support that assertion. Are you sure you read my posts?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

By the way, no "proof" is needed to be an atheist. We do not need to disprove a god. We only need to point out that there is no reliable evidence for a god.

I accept that as logical argument for why you hold your position and recognize that even that argument does not deny the existence of God, but elaborates and supports your particular reasoning for your position. I am fairly confident that this is not understood or is purposefully overlooked by others, however.

 

[3rdAngel]

I asked some questions and made a few points regarding yours.

No you didn't you simply tried to twist what I posted to try and claim I was saying things I was not. Then with your friend you tried to belittle and redicule what was posted without addressing the post.

What I am trying to do is understand what you are saying. If you are here to promote your view, it would seem reasonable that you clarify it where others are having problems understanding it.

Not sure what you find hard to understand in what was posted in post # 362. If you are unclear about something that I have posted ask and don't assume or pretend I am saying things I am not. What is it that you do not understand as to what was posted?

I am not using science to claim there is no God and I have never done that. Why would a Methodist attempt to disprove what he believes in?

So you are a Christian? As a Christian do you believe the bible is God's Word? If you do not how can you call yourself a Christian and deny God's Word? If you do not believe in God's word it seems you have more in common with unbelievers than believers don't you think? By default this would put you in the camp of the religion of the agnostic or athiest.

That does not make any sense. Accepting science is not a denial of God. It is using the gifts that have been granted me to recognize the results of what I believe God has done. You are at liberty to believe as you choose, but if you start posting accusations, you should have the courage and accept responsibility for supporting those accusations.

There you go again. Who said accepting science is a denial of God?

I did read it and am awaiting a rational and on point response to my questions. Is that going to happen?

It seems you have read it but did not understand it that is why you are providing irrational responses.

 

[3rdAngel]

I do not know that atheism and agnosticism are religious views, but even if they are, they are not my religions. I would imagine that my not doing something would not work anywhere, but your entire point is incorrect and misguided. I do not pretend that there is evidence to demonstrate that there is no God. I never have. Why would you say that, considering there is zero evidence to support that assertion. Are you sure you read my posts?

Yes I did read your posts. You are trying to deflect what was posted earlier by making claims no one is making. Your belittling of others that do not hold your view is noted but does not support your claims. If your a Christian why do you not believe God's Word or how can you call yourself a Christian without believing God's word? Seem you have a little problem to consider here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No you didn't you simply tried to twist what I posted to try and claim I was saying things I was not. Then with your friend you tried to belittle and redicule what was posted without addressing the post.



Not sure what you find hard to understand in what was posted in post # 362. If you are unclear about something that I have posted ask and don't assume or pretend I am saying things I am not. What is it that you do not understand as to what was posted?



So you are a Christian? As a Christian do you believe the bible is God's Word? If you do not how can you call yourself a Christian and deny God's Word? If you do not believe in God's word it seems you have more in common with unbelievers than believers don't you think? By default this would put you in the camp of the religion of the agnostic or athiest.



There you go again. Who said accepting science is a denial of God?



It seems you have read it but did not understand it that is why you are providing irrational responses.

What was there to address? You made a claim that begged for ridicule. Atheists do not use the fact that we are the product of evolution to deny the existence of a God. @Dan From Smithville is a Christian that accepts the theory of evolution and in no way at all uses that to argue against his God.

Some Christians make the error of reading Genesis literally. Refuting that version of "God" is not refuting God. This is a concept that may be difficult to understand. One does not need to believe all of the myths of the Bible to be a Christian. In fact it tends to make one a better Christian.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@3rdAngel , would you care to get back to the OP of this post? Would you like to know how there are mountains of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution and none (at least that I know of and I am certain none that you can find) for creationism?

A good starting point is to understand what scientific evidence is in the first place. It is highly ironic the the poster that began this thread evidently does not understand the concept and appears to be very reluctant to discuss the topic. Perhaps he realized, all too late of course, that specifying "scientific evidence" may have been a mistake to make as a creationst.

 

[3rdAngel]

What was there to address? You made a claim that begged for ridicule. Atheists do not use the fact that we are the product of evolution to deny the existence of a God. is a Christian that accepts the theory of evolution and in no way at all uses that to argue against his God.

Some Christians make the error of reading Genesis literally.

Why would you think that Genesis should not be read litrally? You do not believe in God and do not know him or His Word. You follow the religion that there is no God. You are free to believe as you wish. Mine says we all answer to God come judgment day.

Refuting that version of "God" is not refuting God. This is a concept that may be difficult to understand. One does not need to believe all of the myths of the Bible to be a Christian. In fact it tends to make one a better Christian.

Of course it is. If you deny God's word and do not believe God than you have denied God himself. It is your religion that says the bible is a myth not mine. There is nothing hidden that shall not be made plain. You are free to believe as you wish we all answer only to God come judgment day.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No you didn't you simply tried to twist what I posted to try and claim I was saying things I was not. Then with your friend you tried to belittle and redicule what was posted without addressing the post.

No. I did not twist anything. I asked questions and am awaiting answers to those questions. Are you sure you read my post?

Not sure what you find hard to understand in what was posted in post # 362. If you are unclear about something that I have posted ask and don't assume or pretend I am saying things I am not. What is it that you do not understand as to what was posted?

I did not assume. Hence the questions. Very puzzling responses.

So you are a Christian? As a Christian do you believe the bible is God's Word? If you do not how can you call yourself a Christian and deny God's Word? If you do not believe in God's word it seems you have more in common with unbelievers than believers don't you think? By default this would put you in the camp of the religion of the agnostic or athiest.

I am not a literal interpreter of the Bible, but that does not make any less Christian than you. It does not put me in the camp of the agnostic or the atheist and you do not have the authority to place anyone in a camp. That would be up to God, even if you do try to usurp the ability.

There you go again. Who said accepting science is a denial of God?

I believe you did. Since you choose not to answer my questions, that is the only conclusion I can draw.

It seems you have read it but did not understand it that is why you are providing irrational responses.

I read it and did not understand what you meant, so I asked questions. Is it really that difficult to understand?