Rand's position on evolution - split thread

[hells_unicorn]

1. According to the Genesis story, you are correct that Adam and Eve never committed incest themselves, but the remaining question, is where did offspring come from that were not part of that original DNA set? By necessity, either Adam and Eve had to mate with their offspring, or their offspring had to mate with each other - which is the critique actually leveled against that story. I felt it necessary to provide it for you explicitly.

2. The tactic you use (which is a standard religious retreat), is to return to scripture and argue that the definition of incest didn't exist yet, so it was all good - which of course ignores everything we know about genetics and science.

3. The overall trend in the world is to less religion, which is a godsend. The imposition that the ultra-religious among us make is that we must submit to their view of how the world is - which is based on an old book, and stories passed down over hundreds (if not thousands) of years. This is the ultimate form of power abuse and is the theme of George Orwell's book, 1984: X is true, because I say X is true. I control reality. I control your reality.

1. This was covered in my answer, which you were too busy formulating a contrived answer for to actually full comprehend. Accepting the Genesis narrative means accepting that God exists and that creation is governed by his laws, ergo incest does not exist as a concept or a prohibition until it is put into effect in time. Furthermore, you can not have incest without the existence of potential mates outside of the nuclear family, which did not exist. Your entire argument is based on a fallacious premise, your "scientific" tone not withstanding.

2. The definition of incest didn't exist, unless you have historical evidence of it existing prior to it being committed. You can yammer all day about what you think religious people do, but I'm personally more interested in your lack of qualification for you assertions.

3. What if I told you that I don't give a rat's ass what George Orwell thinks on the topic of religion, or the general trend of "enlightened" thinkers? Just throwing that out there for you to chew on.

[DevilsAdvocate]

No. Evolution is a non-observational religious viewpoint that is assumed before any evidence is examined. There is no such thing as a "fact" that is just out there and true. What you think the "facts" are and how you interpret the "facts" is governed by your underlying presuppositions.

Evolution is observed? Where has it EVER been observed that one kind of animal becomes another kind of animal?

THIS is what I was talking about in my previous comment. You sound sort of idiotic when you say stuff like this.

Observed fact: Different individual animals have different traits, which are passed from parent to offspring
Observed fact: Different traits correspond to better or worse survivability in any given environment.
Logical fact: Animals with advantageous traits are more likely to survive and reproduce, meaning later generations have a greater likelyhood to inherit those traits.
Logical extension: Over time, the genome will shift gradually to match environmental conditions.

God gave you a brain, he demands that you use it. I'm sure He doesn't want you to intentionally fool yourself and blind your own eyes to the world around you. That doesn't sound like God, that sounds a little like the fella downstairs to me.

Now if you said that perhaps God had a hand in setting up the system, and possibly guided it along it's way, hey man you might have something there. But if you just flat out reject it, well then you close the ears of everyone with a brain. You are actively working to shrink Christianity by saying stuff like this. I'm sure you'll agree with me that Christianity holds great benefits for people, and could lead to a better world. Well then why are you fighting so hard to make more atheists?

This is such a low level argument, it's Jr. High School stuff.

[Sola_Fide]

The fossil record:

When you look at the plethora of fossils we have dug out of the ground, it becomes apparent that there have been species that have shifted from one, to another. It's like looking at a time-lapse series of photographs. The same argument is used to point out that at one time, South America and Africa were once united as part of the same continent - in fact, similar species were found on both continents, which eventually evolved into others once the plates drifted apart, adding credence to the argument that the environment shapes the development of a species.

DNA:

Modern technology has been able to provide us with a profound insight into the interrelatedness of different species of animals. These connections and similarities have been able to show us connections between species that we didn't realize were there previously.

Galapagos islands:

Different climates on each of the islands lead to different kinds of plants as the majority. These plants (being the dominant food source) in turn, drive certain adaptations among the animal set that live on each of the islands. A notable example are the different tortoises that make the islands their home. On one island, there is a food source that requires the tortoise to be able to reach very high - this has led to the adaptation (speciation) of having a shell which juts upward right at the tortoise's neck - allowing the animal to reach that previously unobtainable food source. This is an easy one, but you can literally look at any animal species as an example, since they are all subject to the same forces.

Once again, I'm not trying to convince you. I'm attempting to present a few facts and arguments to people who are stuck on a story. Now, it's up to you to turn your question against your belief system: When has it ever been observed that an entire ecosystem sprung into existence spontaneously, and completely - operating in perfect harmony?

Not one of these is an example of an observation of macro evolution. Every one of these is an example of the presupposition of evolution being imposed on the evidence, rather than the other way around like you said.

[hells_unicorn]

1. So remember, children, incest is only incest if there's someone besides an immediate family member to $#@!. If there isn't, then it might be incest, but just because it is incest doesn't mean it's incest.

Remember, children, smoking marijuana was not smoking marijuana prior to 1937, because obviously no one could smoke marijuana before smoking marijuana was prohibited.

Tsk tsk, still struggling with the difference between making an argument and being a snarky douche bag, eh? Keep working at it, you'll figure it out eventually.

[Sola_Fide]

THIS is what I was talking about in my previous comment. You sound sort of idiotic when you say stuff like this.

Observed fact: Different individual animals have different traits, which are passed from parent to offspring
Observed fact: Different traits correspond to better or worse survivability in any given environment.
Logical fact: Animals with advantageous traits are more likely to survive and reproduce, meaning later generations have a greater likelyhood to inherit those traits.
Logical extension: Over time, the genome will shift gradually to match environmental conditions.

God gave you a brain, he demands that you use it. I'm sure He doesn't want you to intentionally fool yourself and blind your own eyes to the world around you. That doesn't sound like God, that sounds a little like the fella downstairs to me.

Now if you said that perhaps God had a hand in setting up the system, and possibly guided it along it's way, hey man you might have something there. But if you just flat out reject it, well then you close the ears of everyone with a brain. You are actively working to shrink Christianity by saying stuff like this. I'm sure you'll agree with me that Christianity holds great benefits for people, and could lead to a better world. Well then why are you fighting so hard to make more atheists?

This is such a low level argument, it's Jr. High School stuff.

What you describe in this post is change within species, which everyone accepts. You haven't proved (and can't prove because it is a non-observational religion) that animals become other animals.

Let's really think about who sounds dumb here. Rand sounded dumb.

[juleswin]

No. Evolution is a non-observational religious viewpoint that is assumed before any evidence is examined. There is no such thing as a "fact" that is just out there and true. What you think the "facts" are and how you interpret the "facts" is governed by your underlying presuppositions.

Is someone confusing evolution with abiogenesis again? remember folks we have enough evidence for evolution for anyone who is able to listen, its abiogenesis that we don't have full evidence for.

[hells_unicorn]

What you describe in this post is change within species, which everyone accepts. You haven't proved (and can't prove because it is a non-observational religion) that animals become other animals.

Let's really think about who sounds dumb here. Rand sounded dumb.

The only thing I disagree with here is that you left out the full qualification of why Rand sounded dumb, which is because he stated something even dumber than what the atheistkult types here are saying, namely that Christianity and Darwin are compatible. I have more respect for people who actually don't hide their contempt for religion than those who try to mix materialism with Christianity.

[hells_unicorn]

Is someone confusing evolution with abiogenesis again? remember folks we have enough evidence for evolution for anyone who is able to listen, its abiogenesis that we don't have full evidence for.

You are confusing Abiogenesis with Macro-evolution, they are not the same thing. Abiogenesis tries to argue how organic life came about from inert carbon matter via environmental causes, Macro-evolution posits how a singular type became all other types via adaptation to environmental influence.

I don't even believe in this crap and I can still keep my definitions straight.

[Mr Tansill]

1. Sola_Fide is not talking about shifts in species or speciation, he's talking about shifts in type/genus, which are not observed, and so-called transitional species accounting from these changes in genus in the fossil record are, at best, speculative evidence given the massive gaps between them, ergo no evidence for the so-called gradual transition over time that is being inferred.

2. The DNA record, like the periodic table, tells us that all organic life is interrelated. This does not itself presuppose a common ancestor for all types/genus groups, that part is wholly speculative.

3. Again, we are not talking about speciation, whether it be in plants or animals, which could simply be pre-programmed adaptations based on an existing genetic schematic if one takes any type of a "design" position. Show me an oak tree that can be observed morphing into a cactus when it is planted in a desert and you'll be closer to the absurdity being presupposed by what macro-evolution implies.

Such a demonstration is not possible, but such demands levied against the theory of evolution are the standard means of the religious attempt to undermine it: i.e. prove the impossible!

Massive gaps? There is a nearly continuous picture that is painted by the fossil record. At best, your critique that there are gaps in the record is simply a statement the we humans do not possess full knowledge - which is tautologically true, and is hardly a criticism. "You don't know everything!!"...yeah, no $#@!.

I am not an evolutionary biologist, and I don't claim to be one. What is going on though (writ large), is a lack of (honest) investigation on part of those religious types to actually see if there is evidence that contradicts their story of how the world is. Of course there are (seemingly) "scientific" attempts to undermine the science - such as attacking C14 dating etc, but there is no actual science on the side of a spontaneous ecosystem springing into action out of nothing - the religious claim.

[acptulsa]

Tsk tsk, still struggling with the difference between making an argument and being a snarky douche bag, eh? Keep working at it, you'll figure it out eventually.

Tsk, tsk, still struggling with the obvious fact that redefining words to mean something they don't, or saying words have no meaning in the early days before the word was invented, as if we make up words and then do what they say, instead of making up words to more easily think and talk about what we have already observed, is valid debate, eh?

And still accusing people of using your own fallacies, whether they are or not, because you have your head so far up your own ass that you can only see your own $#@!, too? Too bad--they might be committing fallacies of their own, and if you could only open your eyes long enough to see their fallacies, instead of ignoring their fallacies and falsely accusing them of committing your favorite fallacies, you might actually be able to win an argument.

And still purposely trying to piss people off, so if they get pissed off you might stand a chance of winning, and if they don't get pissed off, you can say you regret that you are pissing them off, and use it as an excuse to declare victory and run away? How many times do you expect that rather childish tactic to work?

What you describe in this post is change within species, which everyone accepts. You haven't proved (and can't prove because it is a non-observational religion) that animals become other animals.

Well, let's see who is glorifying God and who is dissing God, shall we?

God invented the sabretooth tiger, figured out that wouldn't work, and fixed his mistake by making the sabretooth extinct and coming up with an improved model.

Or, God invented the sabretooth tiger for the express purpose of evolving into better cats that could survive.

No contest. Intelligent design glorified God. Creationism accuses God of being a damned fool.

[juleswin]

What you describe in this post is change within species, which everyone accepts. You haven't proved (and can't prove because it is a non-observational religion) that animals become other animals.

Let's really think about who sounds dumb here. Rand sounded dumb.

We've had this argument a million times now. That is not how evolution works, you cannot witness the change from one thing to another because it takes a lot of time to happen and also its like a spectrum where the change is very gradual and the changes blend to the point you can tell of a new species by looking way back in time.

You are thinking about this with your heart but Rand is thinking with his head and I don't consider any of the approaches dumb

[Sola_Fide]

The only thing I disagree with here is that you left out the full qualification of why Rand sounded dumb, which is because he stated something even dumber than what the atheistkult types here are saying, namely that Christianity and Darwin are compatible. I have more respect for people who actually don't hide their contempt for religion than those who try to mix materialism with Christianity.

Agree.

[Sola_Fide]

We've had this argument a million times now. That is not how evolution works, you cannot witness the change from one thing to another because it takes a lot of time to happen and also its like a spectrum where the change is very gradual and the changes blend to the point you can tell of a new species by looking way back in time.

You are thinking about this with your heart but Rand is thinking with his head and I don't consider any of the approaches dumb

So, macro evolution cannot be observed? Thank you for admitting that. Other people in this thread have said it is observational.

[Mr Tansill]

1. This was covered in my answer, which you were too busy formulating a contrived answer for to actually full comprehend. Accepting the Genesis narrative means accepting that God exists and that creation is governed by his laws, ergo incest does not exist as a concept or a prohibition until it is put into effect in time. Furthermore, you can not have incest without the existence of potential mates outside of the nuclear family, which did not exist. Your entire argument is based on a fallacious premise, your "scientific" tone not withstanding.

2. The definition of incest didn't exist, unless you have historical evidence of it existing prior to it being committed. You can yammer all day about what you think religious people do, but I'm personally more interested in your lack of qualification for you assertions.

3. What if I told you that I don't give a rat's ass what George Orwell thinks on the topic of religion, or the general trend of "enlightened" thinkers? Just throwing that out there for you to chew on.

1. Exactly right. You must accept (as a premise) the truth of a non-scientific work that has existed for well over a thousand years - against the overwhelming evidence on the other side. I responded exactly as I intended, and pointed towards the Orwellian tactic continuously used on your side, which is to redefine, or in the present case, deny the existence of, concepts. In this case, you are denying the concept of incest (at least in the past).

3. It would make complete sense to me. Discarding critical thinking when it upsets a world view is the standard retreat of those who want to remain comfortable - out of sight, out of mind.

[hells_unicorn]

1. Such a demonstration is not possible, but such demands levied against the theory of evolution are the standard means of the religious attempt to undermine it: i.e. prove the impossible!

2. Massive gaps? There is a nearly continuous picture that is painted by the fossil record. At best, your critique that there are gaps in the record is simply a statement the we humans do not possess full knowledge - which is tautologically true, and is hardly a criticism. "You don't know everything!!"...yeah, no $#@!.

3. I am not an evolutionary biologist, and I don't claim to be one. What is going on though (writ large), is a lack of (honest) investigation on part of those religious types to actually see if there is evidence that contradicts their story of how the world is. Of course there are (seemingly) "scientific" attempts to undermine the science - such as attacking C14 dating etc, but there is no actual science on the side of a spontaneous ecosystem springing into action out of nothing - the religious claim.

1. Are you saying that it is impossible for one type to become another by shifting the environment? If so, I agree with you.

2. Human beings not possessing full knowledge is a given, and was not what I was arguing. What I was arguing is that the fossil record tells us nothing about the development of life outside of the species box. It is just as plausible that each type/genus had a specific starting point in time and came pre-programmed with the necessary internal biodiversity to account for all the variations in species over a smaller length of time, but when this is proposed, thin-skinned Darwin cultists start whining about religion and invisible spaghetti monsters.

3. I'm not an evolutionary biologist either, but I'm a former atheist that was schooled in evolutionary theory being "rational" throughout my primary and intermediate education, ergo I received the same basic indoctrination that you have. My parents hold the same view of evolution and Christianity that Rand Paul does. Tell me, where is my lack of investigation? I've read a fair amount on the topic from both Neo-Darwinist and Classical Darwinist thinkers, including Dawkins' "Selfish Gene", and I find none of it convincing. Am I lacking diligence? Or are you just upset that I'm not reaching the same "rational" conclusion as you?

[acptulsa]

So, macro evolution cannot be observed? Thank you for admitting that. Other people in this thread have said it is observational.

So fossils cannot be observed? Thank you for admitting you think that. Now we've all seen that your dogma causes blind spots in your vision.

[Mr Tansill]

Not one of these is an example of an observation of macro evolution. Every one of these is an example of the presupposition of evolution being imposed on the evidence, rather than the other way around like you said.

You rely very heavily on the word presupposition, yet ironically, never seem to notice that you take the bible for granted...

[Sola_Fide]

You rely very heavily on the word presupposition, yet ironically, never seem to notice that you take the bible for granted...

Yes, I do presuppose the propositions of Christianity. Everyone has presuppositions that determine how they interpret the "facts". I understand this, you don't yet.

[hells_unicorn]

1. Exactly right. You must accept (as a premise) the truth of a non-scientific work that has existed for well over a thousand years - against the overwhelming evidence on the other side. I responded exactly as I intended, and pointed towards the Orwellian tactic continuously used on your side, which is to redefine, or in the present case, deny the existence of, concepts. In this case, you are denying the concept of incest (at least in the past).

3. It would make complete sense to me. Discarding critical thinking when it upsets a world view is the standard retreat of those who want to remain comfortable - out of sight, out of mind.

1. So man-made science is the only god worth following. That's all you had to say. I don't accept the premise, and quite frankly, I think it will do humanity a world of good if the current intellectual elite that pushes this worldview loses a good amount of the power that they've amassed over the past century. It's ironic you keep bringing Orwell into this discussion when you consider which party has control of the schools and is pushing their agenda with the thinly veiled threat of a failing grade. Think about it.

3. Indeed, which is why you should knock it off and start critiquing the "court educators" that are controlling the narrative, aka the Darwinists.

[Mr Tansill]

So, macro evolution cannot be observed? Thank you for admitting that. Other people in this thread have said it is observational.

To be clear, it is not observable in the span of a human life - which is one reason people have difficulty accepting it. It is observable when examined through the lens of the fossil record, however.

[juleswin]

You are confusing Abiogenesis with Macro-evolution, they are not the same thing. Abiogenesis tries to argue how organic life came about from inert carbon matter via environmental causes, Macro-evolution posits how a singular type became all other types via adaptation to environmental influence.

I don't even believe in this crap and I can still keep my definitions straight.

This is weird, I swear I just read a post where Sola conflated the 2 definitions but I have just read the whole thread she did not do it. Thanks for the post that made me look back and check and apologies to Sola

[Sola_Fide]

So fossils cannot be observed? Thank you for admitting you think that. Now we've all seen that your dogma causes blind spots in your vision.

Macro evolution, one kind of animal becoming another kind of animal, has never been observed and will never be observed. There is no way to know that a set of bones you look at in the ground had any offspring at all.

Secondly, you don't believe Jesus. You think Jesus is a liar, because Jesus affirmed Adam and Eve.

[hells_unicorn]

So fossils cannot be observed? Thank you for admitting you think that. Now we've all seen that your dogma causes blind spots in your vision.

Nope, the fossils don't tell us macro-evolution, that's where you guys like to get imaginative.

[Sola_Fide]

This is weird, I swear I just read a post where Sola conflated the 2 definitions but I have just read the whole thread she did not do it. Thanks for the post that made me look back and check and apologies to Sola

I'm a man, bro.

[acptulsa]

Yes, I do presuppose the propositions of Christianity. Everyone has presuppositions that determine how they interpret the "facts". I understand this, you don't yet.

He understands. He understands your valid point that the theory that all life evolved from one single zygote is just as much a religion as what you believe. And he might just agree.

And he understands something you don't. He understands that some people are able to look at facts without clouding them with presuppositions, or that they can discard the presuppositions if the facts contradict and disprove them. These people are called scientists, and they are very different from the "scientists" that you prefer to focus upon when you want to rail on the fossil record for disproving your silly presuppositions.

[Mr Tansill]

Yes, I do presuppose the propositions of Christianity. Everyone has presuppositions that determine how they interpret the "facts". I understand this, you don't yet.

I do, and is a point I like to make - we all start from some set of axioms, or assumptions. My point is that those religious people are starting with a story book that is over a thousand years old, and that the scientific among us start with observation, and ultimately work towards inference, followed by a logical, testable theory about the world which they are willing to modify in the face of contradiction, which is the ultimate basic difference between the two sides - one is subject to questioning, the other is not.

This basic difference doesn't bother me from the individual rights or choice standpoint because I think we all have the right to believe as we choose. It does bother me from a human standpoint however, when I see fellow human beings cling so vigorously to something that is so obviously arbitrary.

[nikcers]

http://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-sho...ain-on-prayer/

Here is why you guys cant agree, your brains are literally different so your realities are different.

[DevilsAdvocate]

1. Adam and Eve committing incest presupposes that they were brother and sister, that is never stated nor otherwise implied in the Genesis narrative. They are recognized as man and wife, and as far as I know, brothers and sisters don't arise from the ribs of one another. You might have a point if you wish to argue that their children committed incest, but the biblical prohibition on incest does not occur until the giving of the Levitical Law, which occurs after Genesis. Furthermore, one has to question whether incest is possible if there are no existing alternative mates to one's siblings, which is how we qualify the distinction between incest and normal marital relations. The only way you can presume that incest occurs prior to it being enunciated via a prohibition and the alternative being possible is that there is a standard higher than God's Law and, consequently, God himself, which is nonsensical.

2. What you've said isn't necessarily hateful or harsh, but it is wrong and also fairly stupid.

3. These are the words of a skeptic rewriting revelation based on his own whims, not of a Christian.

4. In other words, you are a humanist, hence you are not a Christian. That's fine, just don't lie about it.

5. Is that you talking or Richard Dawkins? I don't recall stating anything about pigs flying, that's nonsensical hyperbole that border on the spaghetti monster cliche, a non-sequitur and quite boring to be honest.

6. So in other words, we need to make up a fictitious God in order to control people? That doesn't make any sense.

7. I'm still waiting for you to actually address my points about the current taxonomy model used for the earth's age is speculative, and I have a feeling that I'll be waiting for a very long time, all the malarkey about what "you think" religion and science happen to be not withstanding.

It's very interesting how you sort of explained away the "incest" issue there. I'd never heard an argument addressing that before. And Richard Dawkins is an immature A-hole who gets into petty online trolling wars, but if a guy like him can garner supporters, you have to wonder whether maybe your arguments have a couple issues that need to be addressed. You shouldn't hate your critics, thank them for deconstructing your weak arguments so that you can find stronger ones.

Christianity has a branding problem. What really, desperately needs to happen is for them to disconnect from making positive scientific statements about the nature of the universe, and instead focus more on interpersonal questions of morality, decency, and consciousness. You're distracting people from what being a Christian is SUPPOSED to be about with all this gobbeldeygook nonsense!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Many times in science, particularly the fields of Particle Physics and Quantum Mechanics, the "truth" is arrived at inductively, using many pieces of disconnected evidence that point to, but don't necessarily outright prove, a certain law or theory. It's like the universe is screaming at you "yes, yes, THIS is the way it is!" Often the solution is so beautiful and simple, you know it must be correct, because it just makes so much sense.

The fact that religion, in particular Christianity, works so well at producing a productive, safe, happy society is not proof that it's the correct "truth". But it's a major hint! It's like the universe is screaming, "This is it! This is it! This is the way things are supposed to be!" It isn't proof of the Christian God, but it's a heck of a hint that they're close to some sort of higher truth. We're on the right track for sure. At least, that's my view. You can put any labels on me you want (humanist?).

[acptulsa]

Macro evolution, one kind of animal becoming another kind of animal, has never been observed and will never be observed. There is no way to know that a set of bones you look at in the ground had any offspring at all.

You're changing the subject. As usual.

Secondly, you don't believe Jesus. You think Jesus is a liar, because Jesus affirmed Adam and Eve.

Well, I've pointed out where you've called Jesus a liar often enough that I don't blame you for being desperate to tar me with that same brush. But your tar won't stick.

Nope, the fossils don't tell us macro-evolution, that's where you guys like to get imaginative.

And changing the subject, then saying that your completely unfounded, off-topic claim is what 'you guys' believe, is where you get imaginative. And off track. And pwned.

[Mr Tansill]

1. So man-made science is the only god worth following. That's all you had to say. I don't accept the premise, and quite frankly, I think it will do humanity a world of good if the current intellectual elite that pushes this worldview loses a good amount of the power that they've amassed over the past century. It's ironic you keep bringing Orwell into this discussion when you consider which party has control of the schools and is pushing their agenda with the thinly veiled threat of a failing grade. Think about it.

3. Indeed, which is why you should knock it off and start critiquing the "court educators" that are controlling the narrative, aka the Darwinists.

I don't think that every social agenda that is pushed in schools is the right idea - for instance the normalization of homosexuality. I do think, however, that attempting to critique an agenda is made far more difficult when you are speaking from the side that uses a blind appeal to authority (i.e. the bible) in order to argue against such agendas.

In many ways, you do your own cause a disservice by speaking. If a rational basis for opposing the "social agendas" could make it to light, without being immediately lumped in with the bible-thumpers, there would be hope for preserving some of our grounding as a society. But when it is so easy for the "social engineers" to undermine every argument that comes up against them (because they are all invalid), it hurts the ultimate cause - hence my dissatisfaction with the religiously "loud" among us.