Does evolution take faith?

[Nilloc James]

I heard this,

"you use just as much faith to beleive in evolution"

Questions for debate;

Does it take faith to beleive evolution?

Does it take faith to beleive genisis?

Does it take faith to beleive intelligiant design?

Which takes the most faith?

[Alan Clarke]

Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.

Evolutionists have "faith" that macroevolution (based on what has never been seen) is an accurate portrayal of reality. Who wouldnt be left with a sick feeling if ones entire world-view was contradicted by actual observations:

...I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often make me feel uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!" (Darwin to Asa Gray Apr. 3, 1860)

The human mind has a built-in mechanism that suppresses painful thoughts such that we are driven "fairly easily" to comfortable solutions:

...I immediately began to doubt the existence of the deity. But it starts by giving up an active deity, then it gives up the hope that is in your life after death. When you give those two up the rest of it follows fairly easily. You give up the hope that there is an imminent morality. And finally, theres no human free will. If you believe in evolution, you cant hope that there be any free will. Theres no hope whatsoever of there being any deep meaning in human life. We live, we die, and were gone. Were absolutely gone when we die.

Richard Dawkins' choices led him to a similar state:

When I did understand it [evolution], then that finally killed off my remaining religious faith.

After Darwin's painful and "sickening" experience of viewing peacock tail feathers, 21 years passed. How did he fare then?

But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, [if developed by evolution], are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? (Letter to W. Graham, July 3rd, 1881)

As one can see, there is never any rest until there is complete confirmation that one's belief system coincides with reality. There is no differentiation between evolutionists and creationists in this respect. As logical as we would like to be, there is an inevitable departure from logic when we choose what we "feel" is correct:

All of our reasoning ends in surrender to feeling.

I must admit there is a certain aesthetic appeal to Darwinism. His statue may not have the smoothness and character of Michelangelos Moses, David, or Pieta, but it is located in the impressive Oxford Museum of Natural History:



Our choices have consequences:

Sigmund Freud: (assisted suicide)
"My dear Schur, you certainly remember our first talk. You promised me then not to forsake me when my time comes. Now it is nothing but torture and makes no sense any more." Schur administered three doses of morphine over many hours that resulted in Freud's death on 23 September 1939

Charles Darwin
The strain told, and by June he was being laid up for days on end with stomach problems, headaches and heart symptoms. For the rest of his life, he was repeatedly incapacitated with episodes of stomach pains, vomiting, severe boils, palpitations, trembling and other symptoms, particularly during times of stress such as attending meetings or making social visits. The cause of Darwins illness remained unknown, and attempts at treatment had little success.

William Provine
He [Provine's brother] wanted desperately to die but we couldn't help him die. I don't wanna die like that. I want to shoot myself in the head long before then. I'm gonna do something different. (source video)

Friedrich Nietzsche
Commentators have frequently diagnosed a syphilitic infection as the cause of the illness. While most commentators regard Nietzsche's breakdown as unrelated to his philosophy, some, including Georges Bataille and Ren Girard, argue that his breakdown may have been caused by a psychological maladjustment brought on by his philosophy. Manic-depressive illness with periodic psychosis, followed by vascular dementia, has been put forward. At least one study has suggested that brain cancer (rather than syphilis) led to his breakdown and killed him; others have classified Nietzsche's "madness" as frontotemporal dementia.

[Grumpy]

Alan Clarke

"Of course, it does take a certain strength of character and ability to face our own mortality, to give up the fantasies of a loving god and life after death(in heaven, of course. Few think they will go to hell). It's not easy to live without the mental crutch of religion. But it is the reality that we live in, if one is to grow up one must face the fact that one's invisible benifactor just doesn't exist. Many cannot face these facts and many of them hold a deep resentment toward those who can and do live this life as if it were all that there is. Those who hold on to their beliefs in spite of the evidence have a perfect right to do so, but they do not change the facts, they just reject them, they are deluding themselves with a mild form of dementia. Such dementia is usually harmless unless someone hears voices and acts according to their delusions."

Richard Dawkins The God Delusion

Grumpy

[Alan Clarke]

Before 800 million years, the only life was single celled life existing for almost 3 billion years. These are the facts, they are not theories. Those of us not afraid to face these facts do have theories to explain these facts. Do you???

A "fact" which rests on an assumption that nothing has upset the apple cart for 3 billion years is nothing more than a "hope" or "imagination". Even various non-creationist cosmologic theories are based on a non-Euclidean universe where time is not linear. Since the BB theory is already riddled with numerous problems, why should anyone trust in a dogmatic interpretation that a certain rock is 3 billion years old?

Here is proof that evolutionists believe in miracles:

"Miraculous" 66 Million Year-Old Preservation

Protein-recovery techniques used on the skin and a claw detected amino
acids, the building blocks of proteins. "Thats like finding fragments of a
broken vase instead of the intact vase." - Thomas R. Holtz Jr., vertebrate
paleontologist, Univ. Maryland (source)

Miracles Become an Everyday Occurrence

Team Claims Second Batch of Soft Dinosaur Tissue
A team of researchers led by the N.C. State University scientist famed for the controversial discovery of soft tissue in the fossilized bone of a 68 million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex in 2005 has found more soft tissue in an even older dinosaur skeleton.

Results of the more recent discovery, from the femur of an 80 million-year-old duckbill dinosaur, appear today in the journal Science. The new evidence not only undermines skeptics of Mary Schweitzer's earlier work, but also may offer clues about where more bones with such material may be found.

Read full story.

Those of us not afraid to face these facts do have theories to explain these facts. My theory is that the Earth's sedimentary layers were laid down in quick succession. I can support my theory using repeatable, observable, scientific procedures. Can you? (see end of my post for what you can do)

Linear Flume with Stratified Layering


Crossbedding


More photos with explanations from same source.

Global Flood Liquefaction
Mechanism Described
(click illustration)


Grumpy, perhaps you could create something tangible to support your theory. You could construct a flume and deposit material slowly over millions of years. I know you won't live long enough to finish the experiment but you could accelerate the time to emulate millions of years. You could emulate precipitation, rivers, wind, and dead animals being covered slowly. You could attempt to create a mini Grand Canyon by running water uphill over the Kaibab Uplift. I can't imagine how you'll achieve stratified layers but perhaps you could fossilize bones before they decay by incorporating a technique similar to U.S. patent (No. 4,612,050) whereby wood can be treated with a silicate solution rendering the characteristics of petrified wood: A mineralized sodium silicate solution for the application to wood has a composition causing it to penetrate the wood and jell within the wood so as to give the wood the non-burning characteristics of petrified wood. Of course youll want to stretch out the time so as not to give credence to my theory.

[Grumpy]

Alan Clarke

A mineralized sodium silicate solution for the application to wood has a composition causing it to penetrate the wood and jell within the wood so as to give the wood the non-burning characteristics of petrified wood.

You really think having the " non-burning characteristics of petrified wood" is BEING petrified wood??? That's just...wow!!! Petrified wood is wood that has had it's organic matter replaced by rocks and mineral, not wood that has been infused with plastic or silicone. Having a characteristic of something does not equal being the same as something.

A "fact" which rests on an assumption that nothing has upset the apple cart for 3 billion years is nothing more than a "hope" or "imagination".

The 3.5 billion year history of life on Earth is not an assumption, it is a verified fact. Reject it if you want, it does not change the facts, no matter how much you wish it was so.

"How old are the oldest fossils?
The metasedimentary rocks associated with the early Archaean-aged Itsaq Gneiss Complex on Akilia Island, southwestern Greenland, are reported to contain graphite microparticles that are depleted in 13C that have been interpreted to be the products of organic life (McGregor and Mason, 1977; Mojzsis and others, 1996; Nutman and others, 1996, 1997; Mojzsis and Harrison, 1999). The 13C-to-12C ratio in the graphite microparticles is essentially the same as in modern organisms (Stanley, 1986). These graphite particles were originally thought to be ~3.83-3.85 billion years in age (Nutman and others, 1997; Mojzsis and Harrison, 2002), but a recent review of the relevant geological and isotopic evidence by Kamber and others (2001) concludes that the graphite is contained in rock that is 3.65 to 3.70 billion years old.

A second occurrence of isotopically light graphite microparticles within graded beds in the Isua supracrustal belt of southwestern Greenland may provide better evidence of the earliest life on Earth, from ?3.7 billion years ago (Rosing, 1999; Lepland and others, 2005).

Other fossils reported from the Archean Eon, 4.6 to 2.5 billion years ago, include:

3.5 billion year old filaments of cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) from the Warrawoona Group at North Pole, western Australia
3.4-3.5 billion year old stromatolites composed of cyanobacteria and sediment from the Pilbara Shield of Australia
3-3.4 billion year old spheroidal structures resembling cyanobacteria from the Fig Tree Group of the Barberton Mountain region of southern Africa
3 billion year old stromatolites from the Pongola Supergroup of southern Africa
2.8 billion year old stromatolites from the Bulawayan Group of Rhodesia "

http://www.baylor.edu/Geology/index.php?id=26727

Our lab is the whole Earth, we have all of the fossil evidence, you lose.

Grumpy

[Alan Clarke]

You really think having the " non-burning characteristics of petrified wood" is BEING petrified wood???

I said, "...incorporating a technique similar to U.S. patent..." You'll have to work out the bugs.

The 3.5 billion year history of life on Earth is not an assumption, it is a verified fact.

"There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths. There are no facts, only interpretations." - Friedrich Nietzsche

"How old are the oldest fossils? ...McGregor... Mason... Nutman... Mojzsis and Harrison... Stanley... Kamber... Lepland... Rosing... and others... conclude... 3.65 to 3.70 billion years old.

You must have taken Oprah Winfrey's advice: Surround yourself with only people who are going to lift you higher.

Our lab is the whole Earth, we have all of the fossil evidence, you lose.

My lab is the whole Earth. I have the same evidence as you. You must live with yourself.

[Grumpy]

Alan Clarke

"There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths. There are no facts, only interpretations." - Friedrich Nietzsche

So, you are guided by Nietzsche now, interesting. I got the impression you didn't give credence to anyone born after the 20th century BC.

My lab is the whole Earth.

Your lab is an ancient book of myths and fables which you cannot see beyond. The real world is much more interesting for those who actually see it unfiltered by the opinions of ignorant, superstitious men like you.

I have the same evidence as you.

No you do not, you reject all evidence you don't like because it doesn't agree with your interpretation of the Bible. I deal with ALL valid evidence, whether it agrees with my views or not. Science is a series of increasingly accurate approximations of reality, your reality was set in stone ~4000 years ago.

You must live with yourself.

Better than living with ancient, ignorant, unlearned shepherds full of superstitious nonsense. Of course, you are a hypocrit, using the fruits of modern science while denying it's veracity. If you really had the courage of your convictions you would be living in a cave.

Grumpy

[Jester]

Moderator Comment

Alan Clarke

"There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths. There are no facts, only interpretations." - Friedrich Nietzsche

So, you are guided by Nietzsche now, interesting. I got the impression you didn't give credence to anyone born after the 20th century BC.

My lab is the whole Earth.

Your lab is an ancient book of myths and fables which you cannot see beyond. The real world is much more interesting for those who actually see it unfiltered by the opinions of ignorant, superstitious men like you.

I have the same evidence as you.

No you do not, you reject all evidence you don't like because it doesn't agree with your interpretation of the Bible. I deal with ALL valid evidence, whether it agrees with my views or not. Science is a series of increasingly accurate approximations of reality, your reality was set in stone ~4000 years ago.

You must live with yourself.

Better than living with ancient, ignorant, unlearned shepherds full of superstitious nonsense. Of course, you are a hypocrit, using the fruits of modern science while denying it's veracity. If you really had the courage of your convictions you would be living in a cave.

Grumpy

These kind of comments are better suited to a sixth grade playground than a debate site.
If you feel that your opponent is wrong about something, point out the flaws in his/her reasoning. Comments about personal character are not allowed, polite, or at all useful in making your points.