It is impossible to believe in Evolution and not be a racist

[Palem]

reasonably undeniable does not mean "based on nothing but superstition and precedent", which is where most of those Earth-centric models came from. the ancients either didn't know or didn't care to think about what was in the sky, so their conjecture was based on a lot of assumptions that were just wrong; for instance, the insistence that orbits were perfect circles because it was "elegant", and a convoluted explanation to fudge math so that the earth-centric model even worked (with the knowledge astronomers at the time could have).
you see a lot of that with ancient greek philosophy, where it actively held back human understanding until someone in the middle ages finally called bull**** on it. you don't want to know what the greek philosophers thought about biology...
And indeed, the very mentality you have there ("but you can't prove it unless you claim to know everything!") is a large reason why flawed and incorrect ideas persist for longer than they should, despite evidence to the contrary. usually, most people are too busy slaving, fighting, or dying to think too long on it. I for one am not an expert in anything, and a lot of biology is guesswork (didn't I say that lol)? That is something entirely different from believing that the theory of Darwinian natural selction is invalid in entirety (patently false because of observational and experimental evidence that supports it within reason), and then that is something completely different from the horse**** ideas idiots get in their heads ever since they latched on to Darwin's theory to justify good ol' racism and human ignorance.

The theory of evolution can be seen in practice because living things are still adapting, and genetic traits can be selected for in a controlled environment. Also, you can notice genetic traits that would only become favorable if humans, for instance, domesticated cows and developed a tolerance for lactose. As I said, nature is dumb, and "natural selection" as much as idiots try not to think about it, is a messy process which moves very, very, very slowly. Using an appeal to nature argument is something that can be easily debunked and I'm not going to waste my time, only reiterate that if someone who still uses that argument is a ****wit.

1. The observation that basically everything in the sky was revolving around the Earth is not "superstition". The Sun, the moon, the planets, the stars, all of them seemed to rotate around us in some way. That's literally thousands of data points. Those observations had a few "gaps", and in those gaps lied the truth.

2. Your lack of respect for Greek philosophy is sad.

3. If Earth-centered models are too far-fected for you to get the point. Newton's "laws" of gravity are wrong.

4. Do not tell me what you "know". String Theory may certainly be correct, but we do not "know" that it's correct. Again, I'm not saying the evolution is wrong. I'm actually pretty happy to admit that something close to our theory of evolution is probably in reality what really happens. But to suggest that beyond any reasonable doubt our exact theory of evolution is 100% correct and flawless is just downright stupid.

[tras19]

Yea guys there are no absolutes. There are only one kind of people that deal in absolutes, the Sith Lords... I think were all better than that here guys...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wgpytjlW5wU

[freemehul]

No you do not.

You believe that all of the information you know about evolution is reliable. There is a chance, however remote, that it's not. Even if you were 14 billion years old and you've watched animals "evolve" over time, you still could not know definitely that evolution exists.

there is DNA, DNA exists, this is proven, DNA can have mutations (also proven), so the hypothesis of evolution is true.

[freemehul]

Earth-centered models of the universe were pretty undeniable at one point too.

nope, not true. they were / are very deniable

[Palem]

there is DNA, DNA exists, this is proven, DNA can have mutations (also proven), so the hypothesis of evolution is true.

You realize there's more to the theory of evolution than the fact that we have DNA and it mutates right?

nope, not true. they were / are very deniable

Um...yes...it was very, very undeniable pre-Copernicus. Most credible science highly supported earth-centered models. There was really just a handful of data points that didn't quite make sense compared to the thousands of data points that totally did make sense.

[freemehul]

You realize there's more to the theory of evolution than the fact that we have DNA and it mutates right?

yeah I realize that. But that doesn't belay that evolution exists. Just what kind of evolution exists is a matter to debated by scientists. Like some scientist think that metagenomics is useful and it could prove theories of Lamarck to be partially true, while others disagree with that.

Um...yes...it was very, very undeniable pre-Copernicus. Most credible science highly supported earth-centered models. There was really just a handful of data points that didn't quite make sense compared to the thousands of data points that totally did make sense.

you're wrong there. There were other theories, pre during or post copernicus. And also enough observable data to deny earth-centered models. Why one would only have to point at solar eclipses, which is what the ancient Greeks knew and could calculate. There were also contemporaries of Copernicus who unfortunately got executed for their theories. Can't quite remember their names though. :(

[Palem]

yeah I realize that. But that doesn't belay that evolution exists. Just what kind of evolution exists is a matter to debated by scientists. Like some scientist think that metagenomics is useful and it could prove theories of Lamarck to be partially true, while others disagree with that.

you're wrong there. There were other theories, pre during or post copernicus. And also enough observable data to deny earth-centered models. Why one would only have to point at solar eclipses, which is what the ancient Greeks. There were also contemporaries of Copernicus who unfortunately got executed for their theories. Can't quite remember their names though. :(

I think we're getting sidetracked here.

Point I'm making: Even the strongest of scientific theories, which hold up for hundreds of years and are considered perfect are prone to being contradicted by future evidence. To suggest that any scientific theory we currently have is completely undeniable (i.e. you "know" it's true) is foolish and naive. You don't have be a flat-earth, earth-centered solar system, creationist to think that while evolution is a very strong theory and most generally describes how organisms change over time, it may not be perfect and we can by no reasonable means "know" it's fact.

[freemehul]

hey I didn't say completely undeniable for all times. It's undeniable as far as we currently know. But what we do know is that creationism, earth-centered system, eugenics and social darwinism are wrong, therefore not true, and therefore can be denied. In fact even if the current hypothesis about evolution is later proven to be wrong, it doesn't change the fact that creationism, earth-centered system, eugenics and social darwinism can be denied. Even if the hypothesis is proven to be wrong, it also doesn't mean that evolution is wrong. It only says that the hypothesis needs altering.

[Palem]

But what we do know is that creationism, earth-centered system, eugenics and social darwinism are wrong, therefore not true, and therefore can be denied.

I have no disagreement with this.

[Elldallan]

1. The observation that basically everything in the sky was revolving around the Earth is not "superstition". The Sun, the moon, the planets, the stars, all of them seemed to rotate around us in some way. That's literally thousands of data points. Those observations had a few "gaps", and in those gaps lied the truth.

2. Your lack of respect for Greek philosophy is sad.

3. If Earth-centered models are too far-fected for you to get the point. Newton's "laws" of gravity are wrong.

I agree that it's sad to not respect Greek philosophy, in fact it was the greeks who produced actual evidence for a heliocentric world view several hundred years BC, then came the great oppressive darkness known as the catholic church which hated progress and science since it was a direct threat to the hedgemony of the church, and declared that we're the chosen master race, we're the spawn of "God" and therefore we're the centre of the universe and anybody who claims otherwise must be persecuted and murdered.

Sure the greeks had a lot of weirdness going on but if their era had continued I'm sure we'd have been better off scientifically than we were with the catholic church, the greeks had their weirdness because that's the best understanding they could produce at the time, as time pregressed and knowledge expanded they changed their views, you can't say the same thing for the catholic church, they still claim that contraceptives is a sin and perversion of "God's" masterplan.

So beyond the greeks it's silly to claim an earth centric worldview, the church did it for religious reasons because science and progress was a direct threat to them, so they repressed science and persecuted intellectuals.

In fact even if the current hypothesis about evolution is later proven to be wrong, it doesn't change the fact that creationism, earth-centered system, eugenics and social darwinism can be denied. Even if the hypothesis is proven to be wrong, it also doesn't mean that evolution is wrong. It only says that the hypothesis needs altering.

Technically since we can't with absolute certainty say what's true we can't really say that those other things can be denied either, we can just say that Occam's razor would discard them as infinitely less likely and that the onus to prove their correctness lies with their believers. It's not up to the rest of us to disprove them, it's up to them to prove the correctness of their stance and until they do I'm gonna call it silly superstition.

[freemehul]

well that depends on what you call technically. You can deny it. But like Lamarck was denied, with today's metagenomics you can't deny it fully anymore. That is if you accept metagenomics.

[khronosschoty]

Yea guys there are no absolutes. There are only one kind of people that deal in absolutes, the Sith Lords... I think were all better than that here guys...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wgpytjlW5wU

That is an absolute. That Star Wars quote is garbage.

[Elldallan]

well that depends on what you call technically. You can deny it. But like Lamarck was denied, with today's metagenomics you can't deny it fully anymore. That is if you accept metagenomics.

Well considering the sort of people we're dealing with unless you take "the missing link" and skullf**k them with it they're still going to claim their "intelligent" design idiocy.

As long as there's even the slightest bit of doubt they're gonna grab a hold of that and blow it out of proportion.

PS. I have no idea what Metagenomics are so I have no opinion on it but I guess I'll have to check it up :)

[freemehul]

Well considering the sort of people we're dealing with unless you take "the missing link" and skullf**k them with it they're still going to claim their "intelligent" design idiocy.

As long as there's even the slightest bit of doubt they're gonna grab a hold of that and blow it out of proportion.

PS. I have no idea what Metagenomics are so I have no opinion on it but I guess I'll have to check it up :)

yeah well fools will be fools. The thing with intelligent design is that it is not so intelligent. You can't prove the existence of god, therefore you can't prove the validity of intelligent design. Why people choose a bad hypothesis that can't be verified over a valid hypothesis beats me, but alas we aren't all clear and logical thinkers.

There is a decent article about it on wikipedia. The reason I know about it is through highschool biology class and a physical geography course at the university and a National Geographic documentary about metagenomics, with a case about poverty, famine, weight issues, immunity and breastfeeding in Sweden. Evolution theory of Darwin is largely biology, but also for a large part based on geology. In fact Darwin wouldn't have formulated his theory if he hadn't been a first hand witness of an earthquake in Chili (a geological process), when he was on his way to the Galapagos islands. Since you're mostly dealing with soil in physical geography, you need to know how it came about and that can be explained through geology, hence you also hear some stuff about evolution. Though I can't really say that I have a opinion about metagenomics either. I am not a biologist, so many of the details about the theories elude me.

[noobium]

people would rather prove the point that they can be flagrantly wrong, as a demonstration of and appeal to naked power for the sake of power. the people who promote ID bull**** know it's bull**** and don't even hide it, but showing such a total lack of intellectual integrity and being praised for it is its own reward.