If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WBA)   Maryland approves biology textbook without creationism. Also examining geography textbooks without Atlantis, physics textbook without ESP   (thewbalchannel.com) divider line 982
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

8134 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Feb 2005 at 9:30 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



982 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2005-02-16 12:09:50 PM
"Creationism, or intelligent design, if you prefer the term, is not science because it is impossible to test by experiment," Ellerton said. "It has no place in a science course."

What the hell is this... someone actually making sense.

BURN HIMMMMMM!!!!
 
2005-02-16 12:16:31 PM
we all know who created the earth for a 10 million year experiment.
 
2005-02-16 12:21:01 PM
42
 
2005-02-16 12:26:26 PM
I don't know why people can't accept that intelligent design isn't science.

Take something as complicated as the human eye. There's no possible way something that complicated could have come to exist without being designed by some super-intelligent external force; a super intelligent external force whos existence is proven by the existence of something as complicated as the human eye.

Oh...wait....

dammit!
 
2005-02-16 12:29:10 PM
miek:

a super intelligent external force whos existence is proven by the existence of something as complicated as the human eye

But all you have to do is bbeeeeeellllliiiieeeeevvvveeeeee
 
2005-02-16 12:30:07 PM
OlafTheBent

HE'S A WITCH!
 
2005-02-16 12:37:24 PM
Yes. Whereas a laughably incomplete fossil record showing no transitional species-to-species forms (the heart of my problem with macroevolution) is really scientific.

Evolution - Best guess of what happened, with strong evidence support in the area of Microevolution, and a dogmatic refusal to address problems in Macroevolution.

Creation - Totally dogmatic, but strangely satisfying to the religious bent

Intelligent Design - A compromise that satisfies neither group of zealots but recognizes that the evidence for macroevolutionary theory is weak, and assumes "Some outside force" involved. Problem is the 'aliens show up every million years to tinker with DNA' fits in this category as well as "The cosmic muffin placed us here to worship him"

The problem with this field is that most of the participants in the debate enter with preconcieved notions. I would consider most evolutionary biologists to be on par in the scientific community with economists. Apologies to any offended biologists, I was an economist. I've seen activist research before. It all has the same smell.
 
2005-02-16 12:57:02 PM

the evidence for macroevolutionary theory is weak

Do you mean actual macroevolution, or the twisted definition the creationists use? If you mean real macroevolution, there is substantial evidence for it.

 
2005-02-16 01:04:42 PM
Creation - Totally dogmatic, but strangely satisfying to the religious bent

... I'm not religious
 
2005-02-16 02:28:59 PM
Darkyn... Please illustrate where in the fossil record (i.e. the EVIDENCE)which shows transitional creatures.

The leaps in species seem leaps of faith in themselves.

We have the pre-cambrian period. No fossils because single celled organisms aren't very good at fossilizing. OK

Then come the fossils. Many different species, trilobytes, anelids, all sorts of creepy crawlies.

Are we to believe that single celled creatures jumped to a variety of whole complex organisms without leaving a single trace?

We are told that the transformation between fish and amphibian would be 1.5Billion years. We have 1.5 Billion years of fish in the fossil record, then whammo! Amphibians. No transitional creatures.

The mathematical unlikelyhood is daunting. First you need a mutation to a whole other species in an organism. Now since different species can not mate and produce fertile offspring, to develop a new species you need two matching mutated critters. At the same time, and place.

Mind you, mutations that potentially enhance a species would seem (based on our own observation of mutation) far more rare than mutations that are damaging.

But to follow macroevolution you need to
a) Ignore the fossil record and its lack of transitional forms, because dogma answers these questions.
b) Assume that species change from one form to another. Creatures suddenly and radically change their internal organs and even whole systems into compatible forms. Despite the odds alone of this happening, a second similar mutation of the opposite gender appears in the same time and area and they mate and produce fertile offspring which enter the record. Over and over again. No failed half species in the record.

The notion of every creature in existance coming into being by such a sudden and perfect process strikes me as greater evidence for intelligent design than a million religious texts.
 
2005-02-16 02:51:52 PM
miek: I don't know why people can't accept that intelligent design isn't science.

Because your Joe Average guy doesn't even understand what "falsifiable" means. The fact that most people don't understand why Intelligent Design cannot be considered science is evidence of exactly how woeful our science education system is in the U.S.
 
2005-02-16 03:27:04 PM

McRat

Everything you need is here.

 
2005-02-16 03:30:28 PM
McRat:
Darkyn... Please illustrate where in the fossil record (i.e. the EVIDENCE)which shows transitional creatures.

-A perceived lack of transitional creatures does not negate the fossil record. Every time a transitional species is presented, Creationists claim it's not really transitional enough.

-There are far more lines of evidence for macroevolution than the fossil record. Patterns of life on this planet today clearly indicate that macroevolution occured.

-Why are there no mammal or bird fossils older than 250 million years? Did the creator start experimenting with simple creatures and wait a while before tackling the tough stuff? How and when does the creator salt the earth with these creatures and why haven't we seen a few fully formed, unique creatures appear during our time on this planet?
 
2005-02-16 04:03:04 PM


/ Stops spinning in his grave long enough to blow a raspberry at McRat
 
2005-02-16 04:28:44 PM
Sorry Darwin... You expected transitional forms would be found too.
 
2005-02-16 04:40:03 PM

You expected transitional forms would be found too.

Still more information here.

 
2005-02-16 04:43:16 PM
So, I'll put down 'Evidence isn't necessary' then?

As for a perceived lack of fossil evidence, I'll go further, but try to be open minded. There is no evidence in the fossil record of transitional species... yet.

Might be. Would make the whole theory work better.

Do creatures of different species mate and produce fertile offspring? Is reproduction necessary to perpetuate a species? Does a fish "change gears" and instantly become a frog, or is there a transitional species?

I'm claiming confusion. I am not a source for TRUTH on this, as I wasn't there. But if macroevolution is true, should I accept it as true without questioning, or should I look for answers to nagging questions? I maintain that microevolution is observed, macro evolution is a theory, and creation is theology.

The fossil record, though woefully incomplete IS the history. The rest is theory. Theory is not fact. The fact that humans and hamsters share so much DNA doesn't impress. Similarities in the basic makeup of life point to creation, intelligent design, and evolution equally.

Thanks for putting up with me and my distrust of all partisans. It makes me quite a nuisance at family gatherings. I can always find the compromise that pisses everyone off.
 
2005-02-16 04:47:02 PM
Oh, but for the people who can't tolerate the idea of intelligent design, and also acknowledge that there is not enough evidence for macroevolution, there is the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

From wikipedia:

Punctuated equilibrium, or punctuated equilibria, is a theory of evolution which states that changes such as speciation can occur relatively quickly, with long periods of little change equilibria in between. This theory is one of the proposed explanations of the evolutionary patterns of species as observed in the fossil record, particularly the relatively sudden appearance of new species in a geologically short time period, and the perhaps typical lack of substantial change of species during their existence.
 
2005-02-16 04:53:00 PM
McRat

You're right. Transitional fossils are hard to come by.

The evidence for macroevolution, however, is not merely paleontological in nature. The evidence lies in the convergence of multiple strands of evidence that all point to the same conclusion.

This month's Skeptic article in Sci. Am. touches on it, and I lack the knowledge of the vast diversity of discplines that converge on the conclusion, but it's worth checking out if you're really not sold on macroevolution.
 
2005-02-16 04:54:35 PM
Buster

Isn't punctuated equilibria just one of multiple theories to explain macroevolution?
 
2005-02-16 04:56:15 PM
i love the state i live in. i'm so glad my daughter goes to a maryland public school, where she will have normal, reasonable textbooks. yeah!!

/yes, i'm feeling smug right now
 
2005-02-16 04:56:58 PM
McRat:
Similarities in the basic makeup of life point to creation, intelligent design, and evolution equally.

Can you enlighten us as to the theories of creation and intelligent design as related to the fossil record?
 
2005-02-16 05:05:20 PM
McRat: As for a perceived lack of fossil evidence, I'll go further, but try to be open minded. There is no evidence in the fossil record of transitional species... yet.

That's just plain false. You are emabarrasing yourself by making such claims.

Does your research and pessimism extend to reviewing the claims made by creationists, or do you take what they say at face value? 'Lack of transitional fossils' is their biggest deceit.
 
2005-02-16 06:03:41 PM
so when this thread is done we'll know for sure which side is right...right?
 
2005-02-16 06:08:17 PM
Deserves a hero tag.

McRat: give me evidence that proves creationism that's not "It's in a really old book written by a bunch of guys."
 
2005-02-16 06:12:40 PM

McRatSo, I'll put down 'Evidence isn't necessary' then?

I provided two links which deal directly with your questions. If you do not know how to use a hyperlink, allow me to enlighten you: place your cursor over the underlined text and click the left mouse button. The information you are looking for will open in a new window.

 
2005-02-16 07:42:08 PM
I shall pre-emptively paraphrase Homer.


Ahhhh, Bevets, Mike_71 & walkingtall, the Washington Generals of fark evolution threads.
 
2005-02-16 08:49:19 PM
McRat: the evidence for macroevolutionary theory is weak

Says you. Please tell us what university you received your population genetics degree from.
 
2005-02-16 08:52:47 PM
McRat:
The notion of every creature in existance coming into being by such a sudden and perfect process strikes me as greater evidence for intelligent design than a million religious texts.

You also don't seem to even know what intelligent design is. From wikipedia:

"Intelligent design (ID) is the assertion that empirical evidence supports the conclusion that the initial life on earth, and perhaps some of its present details, was deliberately designed by one or more intelligent agents; additionally, or alternately, it may include the idea that different empirical evidence supports a similar conclusion regarding the universe itself."

It's not just saying that it makes sense that something intelligent created all of this, but that they can show evidence for it to be true (other than "it MUST be true").
 
2005-02-16 08:56:06 PM
miek: I don't know why people can't accept that intelligent design isn't science.


Because it isn't.
 
2005-02-16 08:57:47 PM
McRat:

Evolution - Best guess of what happened, with strong evidence support in the area of Microevolution, and a dogmatic refusal to address problems in Macroevolution.


Microevolution and Macroevolution do not exist. They are terms make up by creationist nutballs to make arguments that don't involve science.
 
2005-02-16 09:32:38 PM
Damn those rats!

42
 
2005-02-16 09:34:59 PM
Great headline.
 
2005-02-16 09:35:04 PM
Get Bevets in here ASAP! Use the summon card please.
 
2005-02-16 09:35:33 PM
Next thing you know they're gonna be setting up equipment down at the church-house to measure the Holy Ghost.

Are Evangelicals really trying to turn into empiricists? Do they not consider the implications of this?

Personally, I hope they pick more and more fights with more and more people, opening up more fronts than they can sustain.

.
 
2005-02-16 09:36:00 PM
Not only is there no Creator, there was no Jesus. No Moses either.

Yep, you guessed it, here comes the smart-ass slash-flamebait:

/the gospels are complete bullshiat.
 
2005-02-16 09:36:55 PM
bulldg4life
WRONG! All you have to do is OBSERVE! The thing is that there is evidence to observe.
 
2005-02-16 09:36:56 PM
EVOLUTION IS JUST AS THEORETICAL AS CREATIONISM!!!1!!1!

TEH BIBLE IS A SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENT!!!1!1!!!eleven!1!

*drools, makes moaning sounds*
 
2005-02-16 09:37:23 PM
McRat

Yes, it is so much more plausible that an unseen, outside force got us to where we are than evolving through stages that were lost from the fossil record. After all, we've all seen the aliens, we know they are there - makes perfect sense. And just last week we saw Jesus heal a broken leg. We see this stuff all the time, why would we believe a broken fossil record?

/sarcasm
 
2005-02-16 09:38:04 PM
What exactly IS a transitional fossil, anyway? Every creature fits into a species; there are no such things as "in-between" species. Species do change through stuff like geographic isolation into different species (like say, 1 type of frogs gets split into two diff. locations: a swamp and a mountain; after many generations, it's likely that the two will be different species). But every step is its own distinct species.
 
2005-02-16 09:38:17 PM
Either believe what most educated people believe (evolution) OR believe a book that was written long ago by primitive humans who believed that the earth was flat and that sacrificing animals would magically make water fall from the sky (creation).
 
2005-02-16 09:39:00 PM
Them doggone liberals messin' wit' our god given rights to learn agin? 'Em bassturds, we'll sho' 'em, somebod' git me my shotty!!

oh, and mjr props to submitter. tha' headline sho' is brilliant!
 
2005-02-16 09:39:01 PM

You also don't seem to even know what intelligent design is. From wikipedia:


...

It's not just saying that it makes sense that something intelligent created all of this, but that they can show evidence for it to be true (other than "it MUST be true").

So offer the evidence. Nobody ever can or does. If there's evidence for it, display it, analyze it and present it scientifically.

And leave it to some creationist bible-thumping jackasses to also believe Wikipedia is a source of imperical knowledge. Hahahaha. farking awesome.
 
2005-02-16 09:39:35 PM
Here is my biggest issue, I believe in parts of creationism. ie. We cannot explain what happened BEFORE the big bang and we don't know how -time- will end. These are two big issues. HOWEVER, these two points are for science to address. Creationism by itself has religioius roots that should be taught BUT as philosophy, not science. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE!
 
2005-02-16 09:40:41 PM
"As for a perceived lack of fossil evidence, I'll go further, but try to be open minded. There is no evidence in the fossil record of transitional species... yet. "

Behe made a claim like this about the lack of whale transitionals in the early 90's. Then transitionals were found.

http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm

Creationists are just plain ignorant of evolutionary biology. They've been brainwashed into believing that there are no transitional and that evolution couldn't occur that they'll invent all sorts of ad-hoc reasoning why evolution is impossible.

It's sad.

In any event, transitional fossils aren't even required for evidence-even without them we can be confident that evolution occured.

I mean, how do you explain endogenous retroviral inserts without common descent?

You can't.
 
2005-02-16 09:40:50 PM
Rabble
Rabble Rabble Rabble Rable

/intelligent design is not a science, theory does not mean speculation, hurray for someone actually being smart for once.
 
2005-02-16 09:41:11 PM
excellent headline
 
2005-02-16 09:41:20 PM
If it isn't falsifiable, it isn't science. You might as well try to use hockey rules to defend a play in football. Something doesn't become science just because you REALLY REALLY want it to be science. There are rules to science. And if it isn't science, it has no business being taught in a science classroom. It belongs in a theology classroom.
 
2005-02-16 09:42:18 PM
I've always wondered why creationists are horrified by evolution, a theory, being taught in school, but have no problem with the Bohr Model or any of the other thousand theories we're taught.

Speaking of which, wasn't the Bohr Model disproved? It's still being taught.
 
2005-02-16 09:42:27 PM
I was sitting in an Evolutionary Biology class today and some tool behind me was biatching about evolution and calling it "not science". Let me say that again, I was in EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY and this tool was arguing against evolution. Yeah good luck on the exam there, pal.
 
2005-02-16 09:42:27 PM
GREAT HEADLINE!!
 
2005-02-16 09:42:43 PM
whatshisname:

Can you enlighten us as to the theories of creation and intelligent design as related to the fossil record?

Fossils are the bones of demons and devils put there to test our faith. If you believe solid evidence over the Word of God , you failed God's test, because the world is only 5376 years old.

/This was said to me with a straight face once.
 
2005-02-16 09:43:05 PM
Ah jeeze, not this... well, you know.
 
2005-02-16 09:43:28 PM
Creationists suck. "Our Dogma IS Science, and Your Science is just Dogma!" It's convenient that it's THEIR version of the creation myth that they feel must be taught in schools. What if we just turned around and said, "Fine, we'll teach intelligent design... that Brahma created the universe." Watch as their heads assplode.
 
2005-02-16 09:43:29 PM
If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
/kidding
 
fb-
2005-02-16 09:43:44 PM
I wish Christians would just craw back under whatever rock they crawled out of and let the rest of humanity progress.
 
2005-02-16 09:43:55 PM
 
2005-02-16 09:44:20 PM
StretchCannon

Of course the terms micro and macro evolution exist. Micro evolution is simply the changing frequency of alleles w/in a population. Macroevolution is the idea that these changes can lead to diversification of species.

/BSc
 
2005-02-16 09:44:24 PM
This wasn't Maryland state as a whole, but just the Cecil County District that did it.
 
2005-02-16 09:44:45 PM
You're all going to Hell.

/it had to be said
 
2005-02-16 09:44:47 PM
Honestly, the world laughs at you for even making this an issue.
 
2005-02-16 09:45:19 PM
McRat:

Yes. Whereas a laughably incomplete fossil record showing no transitional species-to-species forms (the heart of my problem with macroevolution) is really scientific.

Can you actually conceive of how long a million years is? 500 million years? a billion years? Over that much time of planetary change, can you actually expect there to be a complete fossile record??

Wow, I guess you actually are a creationist...only a god would be able to maintain a perfect fossile record over such a long time on a planet with such dynamic surface activity.

Yes, the fossile record is incomplete, but the timespans of that incompleteness are on the order of millions of years at times. A hell of a LOT can happen in that much time. The pre-cambrian -> cambrian "explosion" of life was rather quick on a geologic (i.e. talking in billions of years) time scale, but on a human time scale, that "explosion" probably took longer than the entire amount of time primates have been been walking bipedally and perhaps even an order of magnitude or two longer than said primates have been using tools...

Only a creationist would expect a complete, perfect fossile record.
 
2005-02-16 09:45:39 PM
Oh MD, how I love you. Way to not sell out to the man! And by the man, I mean the christian right.
 
2005-02-16 09:46:30 PM
"Creationist suck."

Good grief. I have my beliefs. You have yours. I believe in God. You believe we were spawned out of single-celled creatures. That's your belief.

I'm not going to bash you for being stupid. Don't bash me.
 
2005-02-16 09:46:40 PM
To anyone attempting to "debate" McRat:

Do Not Feed The farking Troll.
 
2005-02-16 09:47:14 PM
looks live bevets has a cabanaboy in mcrat. The blue states can teach their students biology, chemistry, astronomy and germ theory; the red steads can teach their students creationism, alchemy, geocentricism and the miasma theory. they can continue to be ignorant.
 
2005-02-16 09:47:19 PM
but ESP is REAL! I can see the future. I see a flamewar ensuing.

/outta here
 
2005-02-16 09:48:05 PM
MikeXpop:

I've always wondered why creationists are horrified by evolution, a theory, being taught in school, but have no problem with the Bohr Model or any of the other thousand theories we're taught.

Speaking of which, wasn't the Bohr Model disproved? It's still being taught.


The Bohr model is still useful to get a basic understanding of atomic structure. A realistic model would make heads explode.
 
2005-02-16 09:48:18 PM
How is McRat trolling? At least he's expressed his opinion on the issue, instead of pointing a finger at someone and calling them names...
 
2005-02-16 09:48:27 PM
My granddad use to joke that white mules never die. His evidence: Ever seen a dead white mule?

A friend of mine is a geology professor AND an evangelical. He was lecturing one day about new forms of atomic dating, and about the ages of some strata somewhere, when one of our fundie wackos jumped up and said WERE YOU THERE?
Which is what they are trained to do by their churches whenever someone says something that "threatens" their theology.

He then changed his lecture to how we developed nuclear weapons, and about how the behavior of nuclear reactions started out as a mathematical model. He asked the wacko if he believed that nukes actually contain stuff that can react and explode the way we are told they did in Hiroshima, and the kid says yes, to which the prof replied:

Were you there?

.
 
2005-02-16 09:48:28 PM


ID is a movement to get to public schools to promote Christianity in school. That's all it is.

ID is not scientific.
 
fb-
2005-02-16 09:48:58 PM
pshaw

It's hard to not bash you for being stupid when you're going against all logic, reason and common sense to say that an all powerful magical space monkey that loves you made you and everything else.

C'mon.. it's stupid.. and it's fair to call you stupid.
 
2005-02-16 09:49:15 PM
did i just see abe lincoln and george washington selling honda's?
 
2005-02-16 09:49:43 PM
I didn't come from no monkey!
 
2005-02-16 09:49:48 PM
Don't you evilutionists realize that everytime scientists find a transitional fossil, it creates two more gaps in the fossil record?
 
2005-02-16 09:49:56 PM
pshaw

Genetic evolution does not require "belief". Oh, and there's no reason why you can't put both creation and evolution into your worldview, either. There's really no necessary dichotomy.
 
2005-02-16 09:50:02 PM
 
2005-02-16 09:50:41 PM
I think alot of people are forgetting the definition of one keyword.

"theory"

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. (one of the many definitions)
 
2005-02-16 09:51:04 PM
Perhaps a minor point with the submitter, but the Atlantis legend is almost certainly a garbled record of the very real destruction of the Minoan civilization on Crete.

 
2005-02-16 09:51:06 PM
fb-

Enjoy the anonymity of the Internet. In 500 years, it will be Creationism VS. Something Else. You can't stop it.
 
2005-02-16 09:51:17 PM
McRat:

Yes. Whereas a laughably incomplete fossil record showing no transitional species-to-species forms (the heart of my problem with macroevolution) is really scientific.

In that case, you have no problem. Every fossil we have is of a transitional form. We are transitional form. 'Transition' (i.e. evolutionary change) is a continuous process. It's not something that started and stopped in the interstices between what fossils we have.

I think your complaint about the lack of 'transitional' forms is really a desire to see more fossils from more time periods. But that's disingenuous. If we have fossil A and fossil B, you will say 'We have no evidence of what happened in between!' Then we find fossil C, which falls between A and B, and you will say 'We have no evidence of what happened between A and C!" Ad nauseum. It's a fool's game.

And it's a moot point too, since the fossil record is only one of many brances of science which support the reality of evolutionary change. The evidence from molecular biology and comparative genomics is particularly compelling.
 
2005-02-16 09:52:11 PM
It's not believing or not believing intelligent design is true or not true. It's that is not scientific. That is like saying god exists or doesn't exists (actually its exactly that). How do you test this? What empirical evidence would show you that this is true? what empirical evidence would show you it is not true?

Saying "because its complicated therefore god exists". Is believing that Nothing but God can create complex things. and with the assertion nothing in the whole universe can make complex things except God. Hell microchips are about as complex as life. Therefore I guess everyone who makes microchips must also be god. This is just silly. And it is not science no matter how much you try to dress it up.

And saying it's a good compromise is stupid that like saying if one person says 2+2=4 and another says 2+2=6 you should say 2+2=5. Thats dumb people need to learn what science is and what science isn't.

Also by the way a "theory" is not an unproven fact. A theory is as "true" as a fact is. It just means it is a more complex system then a fact. And by the way fact does not mean we are 100% sure its right it means there has never been anything to prove it wrong and based on emperical testing it seems true.

It's bothersome that the president of USA doesn't even understand this. (or atleast pretends to not understand)
 
2005-02-16 09:52:15 PM
We have the pre-cambrian period. No fossils because single celled organisms aren't very good at fossilizing. OK

Seriously. Try here.
http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Books/Chapters/Ch%2019/Fossil-Embryos/NYtimes-m icrofossils.html

As for the rest of it, I'm to lazy to go over it right now, but I have to mention the 'tranistional'thing. All fossils are transitional. Every time a fossil is discovered which fills one of the 'gaps' it opens two new gaps.
 
2005-02-16 09:52:25 PM
"Ever noticed that people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved?" - Bill Hicks
 
2005-02-16 09:52:29 PM
whatshisname: Why are there no mammal or bird fossils older than 250 million years?

That one's easy. Earth is only like, 6,000 years old.
 
2005-02-16 09:52:42 PM
"As for a perceived lack of fossil evidence, I'll go further, but try to be open minded. There is no evidence in the fossil record of transitional species... yet. "

What about the archaeopteryx?
 
2005-02-16 09:53:02 PM
One can imagine that god created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding (which it is, and is measurable), there may be physical reasons why there had to be a begining. One can imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE DOES NOT PRECLUDE A CREATOR, BUT IT DOES PLACE LIMITS ON WHEN HE MIGHT HAVE CARRIED OUT HIS JOB!

- Stephen Hawkins
A Brief History of Time

Only in the US is this even an issue!
 
2005-02-16 09:53:12 PM
McRat - try googling "archaeopteryx"


Also consider how incredibly limited the fossil record really is. The conditions required in order for a dying animal to be fossilized are incredibly, massively rare. Then there's the likelyhood that someone will actually find said fossil. Also very rare.

But they do get found.


Let's also consider the massive amount of DNA shared by every living thing, not to mention vestigal organs, chemical dating, the counter arguments against the "intelligent watchmaker" (try comparing the visual pit of a limpet - just a series of nerve endings - to a human eye - and there are plenty of examples of steps between)...

There is plenty of evidence to support the theory of evolution, which is all you can ever do for a scientific theory - support it.

There is no evidence to support the theory that god created man.
 
2005-02-16 09:54:14 PM
McRat:

Please illustrate where in the fossil record (i.e. the EVIDENCE)which shows transitional creatures.


McRat Does Not Exist!

First, show me a picture of McRat being conceived! You cannot! But wait, I will prove through mathematical science and precision that the odds against his conception are so remote that he could not possibly exist!

Assume 200 million sperm per ejaculation.

McRat had a 1/200,000,000 chance of being conceived by the particular sperm whose DNA defined him.

His parents each had the same chance, so (1/200,000,000) times (1/200,000,000) is the chance of his parents being conceived by the particular sperm that they were. This is multiplied by McRat's 1/200,000,000 chance to result in:

1/8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Thats right! A 1 in 8 septillion chance! And that is just considering McRat and one generation before him! Imagine if we expand it to include even one more generation! I won't because you get the idea.

Assuming that the earth is 6 billion years old:

That is 72,000,000,000 months (chances for conception). Compared to the 1 in 8 septillion chance, it is clear that even if McRat's parents and grandparents had been busy permuting sperm since the beginning of the earth, it is very unlikely that he would have been concieved.



I have proved, with as much integrity as intelligent design-ists can muster, that McRat does not exist.
 
2005-02-16 09:54:34 PM
For some interestering dead ends of evolution, google "Burgess Shale", for such strange creatures such as Hallucigenia.



This formation has many critters that a totally unrelated to anything that survived one of the great extinctions. It must have been "God playing dice" again.
 
2005-02-16 09:54:49 PM
cuzin_it-You're kidding right?

I mean, you couldn't possibly be substituting the layman's definition of the word theory with the scientific usage of the word...

So I'll just assume you are kidding as opposed to assuming you are scientifically illiterate.
 
2005-02-16 09:55:15 PM
p424c just won the thread
 
2005-02-16 09:55:34 PM
Hornwrecker

Are those legs, spines, or something else on that thing?
 
2005-02-16 09:55:46 PM
I dont know too much about the whole thing, but I'm going to give it a try.

The idea of evolution and creationism both rely on a great deal of faith. Slamming either side with "SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!" isnt going to solve anything. The creationists believe in the creation of the universe based on the faith that they have in a Creator. The evolutionists believe that evolution is responsible for the state of flora and fauna today based on their belief that the fossil record is enough to show that evolution occurs on some level. So then, which takes more of a leap of faith: to believe in a Creator or to believe that fossils prove evolution. Micro-evolution exists as shown by the fact that we now drive cars and wear clothes - its all about adaptation. Macro-evolution? I dont know. I have never seen any hard evidence that would prove it. Neither have I seen scientific evidence of a Creator. Is it possible that they offer different viewpoints?

Those that say that intelligent design isnt scientific have no idea what they are talking about. Science is based on technology. If you can measure it, then you can call it science. If you can't measure it (as is the case with both evolution, creation, and intelligent design), then it is not science.

/not sure what his point was
//interested in the truth of the matter
 
2005-02-16 09:55:59 PM
And although it's been said before, and I know I've said it before in these flamewars, it certainly bears repeating.

Science is the method and body of knowledge used to gain information about the natural world. Intelligent design posits the existence of something external to the natural world - a supernatural being or beings. Conjecture about the contents and existence of the supernatural world have no place in a science class dealing exclusively with the natural world.

It should end the argument, but since many Christian fundamentalists insist that their children and others be exposed to Christianity in the classroom, it doesn't.
 
2005-02-16 09:56:21 PM
Quadruplator:

Honestly, the world laughs at you for even making this an issue.

Got to agree with Quadruplator here. It never ceases to amaze me that this is even a debate in the United States 21st century. I might expect it in a backwater like Afghanistan, but in the United States? It's a constant source of amusement.
 
2005-02-16 09:57:09 PM
"The idea of evolution and creationism both rely on a great deal of faith. Slamming either side with "SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!" isnt going to solve anything. The creationists believe in the creation of the universe based on the faith that they have in a Creator. The evolutionists believe that evolution is responsible for the state of flora and fauna today based on their belief that the fossil record is enough to show that evolution occurs on some level. So then, which takes more of a leap of faith: to believe in a Creator or to believe that fossils prove evolution. Micro-evolution exists as shown by the fact that we now drive cars and wear clothes - its all about adaptation. Macro-evolution? I dont know. I have never seen any hard evidence that would prove it. Neither have I seen scientific evidence of a Creator. Is it possible that they offer different viewpoints?"



In the future please do not commit the logical fallacy of equivocation. ;)
 
2005-02-16 09:59:25 PM
Meatros

I very well could be both.
 
2005-02-16 09:59:46 PM
p424c: McRat Does Not Exist!

Except that he's posting on the internet. Looks like another case of someone ignoring evidence.
 
2005-02-16 09:59:54 PM
42
 
2005-02-16 10:00:34 PM
cuzin_it:

cuzin_it


I think alot of people are forgetting the definition of one keyword.

"theory"

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. (one of the many definitions)


Why would you choose to state the layman's definition of "theory" in a scientific discussion? In science the term "theory" is the strongest wording in which to phrase an idea. It isn't, to paraphrase Isaac Asimov, just something some scientists dreamt up one night after getting drunk.
 
2005-02-16 10:00:35 PM
All your fossils are belong to me.

 
2005-02-16 10:00:43 PM
oops, forgot to include

/sattire
 
2005-02-16 10:01:24 PM
Who cares?

/athiest and doesn't give a damn how we got here.
 
2005-02-16 10:01:36 PM
2005-02-16 09:50:41 PM cuzin_it


I think alot of people are forgetting the definition of one keyword.

"theory"

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. (one of the many definitions)


It would seem that you also do not know what this word means when used by scientists.
 
2005-02-16 10:01:51 PM
Corvus: Also by the way a "theory" is not an unproven fact. A theory is as "true" as a fact is. It just means it is a more complex system then a fact. And by the way fact does not mean we are 100% sure its right it means there has never been anything to prove it wrong and based on emperical testing it seems true.

What a load. There is a reason that we have two different words, those being "fact" and theory." Might it be because they mean different things?

"Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"

/frightened by Hornwrecker's creature/thing/deal
 
2005-02-16 10:01:59 PM
canthaveitbothways:

The idea of evolution and creationism both rely on a great deal of faith.

Sorry, but this is not a true statement about evolution. There is monstrous amounts of evidence for evolution, it is available to be examined, tested, verified. There is ZERO evidence for creation. None. Nada. Zip. To accept it as a truth requires faith because you have no evidence for it, can't test it, can't verify it.
 
2005-02-16 10:02:13 PM
Put the word "God" in place of "Evolution in the fundie arguments and they see how contradictory and ignorant they are.

If they do not believe evolution for lack of evidence, then they definately cannot believe in the inivisible man who lives in the sky.
 
2005-02-16 10:02:17 PM
Who gives a fark? Really, how much do you need to learn about creationism, its not if it takes more than a couple seconds to learn. And BTW, the pope believes that there is nothing conflicting between christianity and evolution. Its those crazy protestants and those crazy atheists that think that the separation between church and state means that atheism is the belief to be taught.

When my biology teacher was asked by a person what if they didnt believe in evolution, she told her to pretend. Its not like they are forcing you to believe in it. In health class they can teach you about STD's but they cant force you to not have sex.

I would challenge someone to find a biology book that has something about creationism in it.
 
2005-02-16 10:02:41 PM
cuzin_it - Yet another option that I hadn't considered...

Yet, you couldn't be just plain illiterate...because your posts would look like the following:


kl;jasfnsaoifhwuioghwp sadnoifpsa apf odsahf9uw
 
2005-02-16 10:03:09 PM
Leave it to the secular humanists and commie liberal elitists to undermine traditional American values.
 
2005-02-16 10:03:47 PM
Kaymon:

Except that he's posting on the internet. Looks like another case of someone ignoring evidence.



Yes, but can you prove that a third party has posted this in immitation of mcrat?

After all, someone who doesn't exist cannot post, therefore there is an "intelligent poster" somewhere, a title that surpasses us mere mortals in a non-specific, but suspiciously slashdot.org like way?


/still satire
 
2005-02-16 10:03:59 PM
Regarding the proof for macro-evolution for all you creationists.

The planet is not littered with fossils. Out of every million creatures, how many do you suppose survived as fossils?

And here is a news flash. The evolutionary throw-backs that were variations that failed, well they did not live very long so it is even less likely that there would be fossils of them.

Anthropic reasoning: All the "design" we see in biology and the physics and chemistry have succeeded; the mere consequence of which is that we are here to observe it.

If you climb a tree, there may be many possible branches you can take to reach the end of any one particular limb, but there is only one path back to the ground.

It seems obvious, our existence, because you are only looking at it from one direction.
 
2005-02-16 10:04:17 PM
Meatros: In the future please do not commit the logical fallacy of equivocation. ;)

Not a fallacy of logic if its true. Can't prove either one. That simple.
 
2005-02-16 10:04:30 PM
cuzin_it:

I think alot of people are forgetting the definition of one keyword.

"theory"

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. (one of the many definitions)


Gravity is a theory. How much do you doubt the existence of gravity?

Further, many biology in professors are calling evolution a fact
 
2005-02-16 10:04:40 PM
fb-:

I wish Christians would just craw back under whatever rock they crawled out of and let the rest of humanity progress.

Holy shiat, is this the REAL fb- making a return?

Good to see you back.
 
2005-02-16 10:05:06 PM
canthaveitbothways "What a load. There is a reason that we have two different words, those being "fact" and theory." Might it be because they mean different things? "

Theories are *explanations* of facts and laws. They can also be *fact*, ie, in relation to evolution, it's undeniable that the allele frequency in a gene pool evolves over time. That is fact. The theory, or explanation of that fact, is natural selection.
 
2005-02-16 10:05:15 PM
SHMFOCTAST.
 
2005-02-16 10:05:21 PM
canthaveitbothways: The evolutionists believe that evolution is responsible for the state of flora and fauna today based on their belief that the fossil record is enough to show that evolution occurs on some level.

Can I have "I don't Have a Clue What I'm Talking About" for $1000, Alex?

Fossil evidence backs up evolution, but it is far from the only evidence. There are numerous observed patterns in life on this planet today which back up evolution.
 
2005-02-16 10:05:47 PM
I always wondered what about the possibility of intelligent design with us as an experiment. I know all the athiests and such usually always go to the lowest level to attack the religous folks, but let us look at it another way. We create artificial habitats all the time, from antfarms to fishtanks. We attempt to simulate planets, galaxies and universes in computers. I read somewhere that scientists are attempting to bombarb gold ions to create a simulation of the begining of the cosmos. Is it so hard to imagine that *something* so far beyond made the planet or perhaps the universe as an experiment, a simulation or perhaps even an artificial habitat?
 
2005-02-16 10:05:48 PM
canthaveitbothways:

Those that say that intelligent design isnt scientific have no idea what they are talking about. Science is based on technology. If you can measure it, then you can call it science. If you can't measure it (as is the case with both evolution, creation, and intelligent design), then it is not science.

Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about.

Science is not based on technology - technology is independent of science.

Evolution can be measured, has been measured, and is measured. The theory of evolution (or more appropriately the theory of evolution by natural selection) was brought about by the way science works - through observation of the species, hypotheses regarding the way the variation of species occurred, testing and retesting (through the fossil record and other means), and finally acceptance in the scientific community regarding its validity as a theory.

ID and creationism work the opposite way - they both assume that there was an entity responsible for creating the universe, and then look for evidence to back up that assumption. The fact that they don't find evidence makes the effort all the more laughable.

I learned the scientific method in the 7th grade - and that's all the knowledge I would have needed to tell you that ID and creationism aren't science.
 
2005-02-16 10:06:30 PM
The fact that this is still an issue is just retarded, and probably the best argument AGAINST evolution, ever.
 
2005-02-16 10:06:33 PM
canthaveitbothways:

What a load. There is a reason that we have two different words, those being "fact" and theory." Might it be because they mean different things?

Might it mean that they have more meanings in context? You do have some idea, I hope, of the sheer quantity of words in the English language that have more than one definition?

Something doesn't become a theory in science until there are significant amounts of evidence to demonstrate it.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
 
2005-02-16 10:07:49 PM
McRat had a very well thought out post, that would spur intelligent discussion about some of the areas where the theory of evolution is lacking. Unfortunately he posted it on fark. He never claimed to be a creationist, he just said that some parts of the theory of evolution need to be looked at, questioned and if need be, modified. He also mentioned that accepting the current theory as dogmatic fact is a bad idea since that would tend to prevent people from challenging the theory and possibly improving upon it.

So everyone get off his back, questioning a theory is exactly what must be done to strengthen it. And those of you who don't understand that are just as intolerant as those who refuse to accept evolution.
 
2005-02-16 10:07:55 PM
Meatros: Theories are *explanations* of facts and laws. They can also be *fact*, ie, in relation to evolution...

Why with evolution are theories considered fact? Read this:

"These genes do not control the same body structures from species to species, so an evolutionary explanation does not fit so well. "If the same gene can 'determine' structures as radically different as a fruit fly's leg and a mouse's brain or an insect's eyes and the eyes of humans and squids, then that gene is not determining much of anything. There is no current mechanism to understand how a homeotic-switching gene can change from coding for one function to another in different organisms. Suddenly, this new great evidence of evolution is yet another problem for evolutionary biology."

-Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., University of California Berkeley
 
2005-02-16 10:08:11 PM
I'd like a scientologist's perspective.
 
2005-02-16 10:08:12 PM
In our time: The Origins of Life BBC radio show on evolution (Real Player required)
 
2005-02-16 10:08:30 PM
"Not a fallacy of logic if its true. Can't prove either one. That simple."

"Prove"? Proofs are for math and alcohol, not science. Nothing in science is 'proved'.

Again, you were equivocating the word 'faith', saying that it was the same with both evolution and creationism-when it's clearly not. Evolution has evidence, direct and indirect observation, and it's consistent. Creationism is not consistent, has only falsified evidence, and isn't observable. Therefore your argument is bankrupt.
 
2005-02-16 10:09:01 PM
Someone called me stupid in this thread.

I'll respond to him later when he's evolved a conscience.
 
2005-02-16 10:09:13 PM
michaeltrout: Science is not based on technology - technology is independent of science.

How far would science be if someone hadn't invented the microscope? Or the thermometer?
 
2005-02-16 10:10:01 PM
canthaveitbothways: -Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., University of California Berkeley


I swear I recognise you name. Do you happen to know someone named J. Satzinger?
 
2005-02-16 10:10:17 PM
essucht: Are those legs, spines, or something else on that thing?

They now think that the ones pictured on top are spines, although when it was first rediscovered, they had it kind of upside-down.

I think I'll steal some more bandwidth for purely educational purposes: I give you Anomalocaris. Orignally they thought that this was three separate animals as the parts are so strange. Particularly interesting is the mouth, which looks like a slice of canned pineapple. This was the largest known predator, some have been found that were about six feet in length. This beastie has no known links to any surviving groups.

 
2005-02-16 10:10:27 PM
Whenever a creationist asks me where the transitionary fossils are, I just ask him why it's so impossible that radical changes can't be made within a generation or two.

Usually he looks at me weird, so then I follow up with a, "Surely that's no more difficult to believe than that there's an invisible assembly line in the clouds churning out souls for the hundreds of babies born every hour, right?"

That nearly always ends the conversation.
 
2005-02-16 10:11:13 PM
html skills?

I hope reversibleSummerAsshat's post was sarcastic. Or is that Bevet's I sense?
 
2005-02-16 10:11:18 PM
llamalord:

Its those crazy protestants and those crazy atheists that think that the separation between church and state means that atheism is the belief to be taught.

A better statement is that many believe that no religion should be taught in schools and that any religion that is being taught should be done so in a church by those who want it.

Evolution, by the way, isn't a tool of atheism. It's neutral in philosophy and doesn't prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being or beings. Teaching it is irrelevant to a discussion about atheism.
 
2005-02-16 10:12:26 PM
canthaveitbothways: "Why with evolution are theories considered fact? Read this:

"These genes do not control the same body structures from species to species, so an evolutionary explanation does not fit so well. "If the same gene can 'determine' structures as radically different as a fruit fly's leg and a mouse's brain or an insect's eyes and the eyes of humans and squids, then that gene is not determining much of anything. There is no current mechanism to understand how a homeotic-switching gene can change from coding for one function to another in different organisms. Suddenly, this new great evidence of evolution is yet another problem for evolutionary biology."

-Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., University of California Berkeley"

Jonathan Wells is a moonie who went to school specifically to discredit evolution. His opinion on the matter is useless-as he hasn't contributed any scientific research to peer reviewed sources.

This quote of his isn't a problem for evolution-at all. Please explain how it prevents evolution from occuring and what relevance it has.

Also, while you are at it, please explain endogenous retroviral inserts.
 
2005-02-16 10:12:38 PM
canthaveitbothways:

Those that say that intelligent design isnt scientific have no idea what they are talking about. Science is based on technology. If you can measure it, then you can call it science. If you can't measure it (as is the case with both evolution, creation, and intelligent design), then it is not science.

Please explain what you mean by "measuring" science.
 
2005-02-16 10:12:48 PM
Meatros: "Prove"? Proofs are for math and alcohol, not science. Nothing in science is 'proved'.

All your friends above seem to think otherwise. I disagree that faith plays no role in the theory of evolution. I think that it takes some faith to believe that carbon-dating works correctly, that fossils originated from whichever period they are from. I think that it takes faith to believe that any scientific explanations are based on reality.

/skeptic of some science
//obvious statement
 
2005-02-16 10:13:19 PM
McRat must be the newest version of Bevets. Look you knuckleheads, people like you make our entire country look like complete and utter morons. This fight is no longer being fought in most places around the world. If you were half as faithful as you claim to be you would not feel the need to enlist the help of the government to help promote your god, nor would you have to invent your own pseudoscience to soothe your delicate sensitivities and reassure you as you shiver with doubt in the face of facts that contradict your outdated, dogmatic beliefs. You're still wandering around in the wilderness without realizing that nearly everyone else has already emerged and has gotten on with their lives.

PS: "Microevolution" and "macroevolution" are completely fictional terms invented by creationists to rationalize the fact that evolution really can be observed. These terms have absolutely no scientific meaning whatsoever. Every time someone uses these terms in an argument they lend just that much more validity to this nonsense.
 
2005-02-16 10:14:04 PM
"Evolution, by the way, isn't a tool of atheism. It's neutral in philosophy and doesn't prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being or beings. Teaching it is irrelevant to a discussion about atheism."

I disagree. Just listen to all the atheist in this thread who use evolution as a tool for the atheist movement.
 
2005-02-16 10:14:39 PM
canthaveitbothways:

How far would science be if someone hadn't invented the microscope? Or the thermometer?

You don't understand the difference between engineering and science. In your examples, had a scientist not figured out the principles of light refraction and magnification, then a microscope would not have been invented. Science isn't dependent on technology, it may be improved by it, but that just leads to better science. Sort of like building a house, you don't start with the roof.
 
2005-02-16 10:16:12 PM
Ilixivium, I mean that science uses "measurements" to define itself. You use feet to measure distance same as you use Pascals to measure pressure. Science is all about measuring, whether its nanometers or light years.

I have no idea what endogenous retroviral inserts are. I do know that just because you disagree with someone's statements on an issue does not make them less credible. Berkeley accepted his doctoral research as valid. I dont see a M.D. or Ph.D next you name...

/just saying
 
2005-02-16 10:16:48 PM
canthaveitbothways
from http://www.amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html

The problem created by the false hierarchical nature inherent in this myth is that theories and laws are very different kinds of knowledge. Of course there is a relationship between laws and theories, but one simply does not become the other--no matter how much empirical evidence is amassed. Laws are generalizations, principles or patterns in nature and theories are the explanations of those generalizations (Rhodes & Schaible, 1989; Homer & Rubba, 1979; Campbell, 1953).

Please do your own search on the web on google for law vs. theories so you can see the thousands of web pages showing how you and the others that say a theory is an unproven law are wrong. Please the more of you that learn this the better.

Yes they DO have different meaning but not what you think they are. I explaind this in my comment earlier which I guess you didn't read.
 
2005-02-16 10:17:02 PM
"All your friends above seem to think otherwise."

I doubt it, in fact, I think you misunderstand the word 'prove' and 'proof'.

"I disagree that faith plays no role in the theory of evolution."

I said you were equivocating the word faith, not that faith has no role in the theory. The problem with your idea of 'faith' is that it's applicable to the sun rising; in other words, under your definition I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. Which is quite a different thing then believing in a 6 day creation without a shred of evidence.

"I think that it takes some faith to believe that carbon-dating works correctly, that fossils originated from whichever period they are from."

You think they use carbon-dating to date anything over 50,000 years old?

That's interesting.

"I think that it takes faith to believe that any scientific explanations are based on reality."

Yet you type away on the fruits of science and I'm betting you get immunity shots-which are the fruits of evolution.
 
2005-02-16 10:17:56 PM
pshaw:

I disagree. Just listen to all the atheist in this thread who use evolution as a tool for the atheist movement.

Example?

Even if you do find one, however, it doesn't negate what I said. They are as foolishly free to believe it supports them as the religious are to foolishly believe that it attacks their faith. Evolution explains a process of change. It has nothing to do with origin. The starting point may or may not have come from some supreme being, but evolution makes no claims about that at all.
 
2005-02-16 10:19:22 PM
canthaveitbothways:

How far would science be if someone hadn't invented the microscope? Or the thermometer?

Context. Context is important.

Your point was that science is based on technology. It isn't. Science is based on the natural inclination of man to try to understand the world around him. That a scientist uses products of technology to aid him in this quest does not make science "based on technlogy".

Science wouldn't be very far along if there was no written communication. Does this mean that science is based on written communication?

Science may use technological advances as tools, and can in turn produce advances in technology - but technology is in no way the basis of technology.

And, of course, you could always try to focus on the meat and bones of my response to you, if you'd like to.
 
2005-02-16 10:19:27 PM
Oh, the CREATION OF HUMANITY!

Evolution: Has evidence based on real things.
Creationism: Has no evidence other than "because we said so" argument

anyone care to disagree? *fisticuffs*
 
2005-02-16 10:19:30 PM
"I have no idea what endogenous retroviral inserts are."

Figures.

"I do know that just because you disagree with someone's statements on an issue does not make them less credible."

I take it you know nothing about Dr. Wells do you?

"Berkeley accepted his doctoral research as valid."

That's because it wasn't anti-evolution.

"I dont see a M.D. or Ph.D next you name..."

You see my name on here?

How interesting. By the way, why would a medical doctor be an appropriate source for evolutionary discourse?

Do you talk to physic's Phds about heart surgery?
 
2005-02-16 10:19:34 PM
McRat

The mathematical unlikelyhood is daunting. First you need a mutation to a whole other species in an organism. Now since different species can not mate and produce fertile offspring, to develop a new species you need two matching mutated critters. At the same time, and place.


The problem with trying to debate with people that don't believe in evolution is that they have absolutely no understanding of population genetics and molecular evolution.
 
2005-02-16 10:19:46 PM
Ilixivium, I mean that science uses "measurements" to define itself.

You must have a pretty weak argument if the only way you feel you can make any progress is to completely redefine the terms being used.
 
2005-02-16 10:19:56 PM
spqr_ca: Science isn't dependent on technology, it may be improved by it, but that just leads to better science. Sort of like building a house, you don't start with the roof.

True, but you wouldn't get very far in your building of a house if one had never been built very far and you had no tools that were designed to aid your construction. I respectfully disagree though, and suggest that if you wish to better your argument, you present a branch of science that does not rely on technology for measurements or experimentation.
 
2005-02-16 10:20:41 PM
" Sort of like building a house, you don't start with the roof"


Duh.....what sort of thinking is this

if you started with the roof you could build it in the rain


/laughs at non-evolved morons who cannot build roof first
 
2005-02-16 10:20:55 PM
Saying that you "accept microevolution but do not accept macroevolution" (leaving aside for the moment the fact that these terms are completely meaningless) is like saying that you accept that putting one foot in front of the another will take you from your driveway to the end of the block, but you do not accept that this same process can be used to get from New York to Los Angeles.
 
2005-02-16 10:20:57 PM
p424c: I swear I recognise you name. Do you happen to know someone named J. Satzinger?


Im bumping this because i think you missed it, and I'd really like to know if you are who I think you are.
 
2005-02-16 10:21:13 PM
pshaw i wouldn't mess with fb- if i were you. He could prove evolution without even bringing up examples beyond his own progeny.
 
2005-02-16 10:22:42 PM
p424c-Who are you talking to?
 
2005-02-16 10:24:05 PM
p424c

I got the impression that was just a quote.
 
2005-02-16 10:24:14 PM
Meatros: Figures. I take it you know nothing about Dr. Wells do you? That's because it wasn't anti-evolution. You see my name on here? How interesting. By the way, why would a medical doctor be an appropriate source for evolutionary discourse? Do you talk to physic's Phds about heart surgery?

I would guess that since medical schools usually teach something about biology, that a medical doctor or geneticist (who also recieve MDs) and their investigation of the realization of genes and their processes, that they might be able to give some sort of outlook on the process of the human body and how they differ from other animals might be relevant.

Still waiting on your explanation of endogenous retroviral inserts.
 
2005-02-16 10:24:14 PM
Ahhh atheism, the religion devoted to the worship of one's own smug sense of superiority.

Colbert rules.

/NOT a creationist, just someone with a sense of humor.
 
2005-02-16 10:24:26 PM
canthaveitbothways:

I respectfully disagree though, and suggest that if you wish to better your argument, you present a branch of science that does not rely on technology for measurements or experimentation.

I'd suggest that all of them don't. I can perform a chemistry experiment with the natural minerals around me. I can use *physics* to build a lever (technology) from the natural things around me. I can observe and engage in biological experiments with nature around me. The list goes on. Technology is a RESULT of science, not the other way around.

http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/Technology

This is basic stuff. You can't have technology without science, but you can have science without technology.
 
2005-02-16 10:25:09 PM
Athiest Movement? I had no idea, so I googled it. Wow. California seems to be leading the way in the U.S., but, as a country, we are far behind other nations in this movement.
 
2005-02-16 10:26:25 PM
stuie: You must have a pretty weak argument if the only way you feel you can make any progress is to completely redefine the terms being used.

Actually, I think that in order to have any discussion that is intelligent or coherent, we need to have sort of consensus on what the terms we are throwing out mean. Far from weak, it seems like an intelligent thing to do, do have some sort of grounds for arguing.
 
2005-02-16 10:26:46 PM
canthaveitbothways:

lixivium, I mean that science uses "measurements" to define itself. You use feet to measure distance same as you use Pascals to measure pressure. Science is all about measuring, whether its nanometers or light years.

What makes you think we can't "measure" evolution? We can quantitatively examine the genetic frequencies in a population. We can quantitatively characterize the environment surrounding it. Using this data we can see how they interact and even predict how the genetic frequencies are likely to change. What do you call that? I'll give you one guess.
 
2005-02-16 10:28:18 PM
"I would guess that since medical schools usually teach something about biology, that a medical doctor or geneticist (who also recieve MDs) and their investigation of the realization of genes and their processes, that they might be able to give some sort of outlook on the process of the human body and how they differ from other animals might be relevant."

They usually do, but that's not the same thing as making them experts now is it. Also, AFAIK, geneticists aren't MD's.

"Still waiting on your explanation of endogenous retroviral inserts."

I wasn't aware that you had ask me for one.

Rather then muddle my way through an explanation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses

"Endogenous retroviruses provide yet another example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry. "

See the link for the rest.
 
2005-02-16 10:30:52 PM
Prospero424:

Ahhh atheism, the religion devoted to the worship of one's own smug sense of superiority.

"If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color"
-Author unknown, AFAIK
 
2005-02-16 10:31:14 PM
Prospero424:

Ahhh atheism, the religion devoted to the worship of one's own smug sense of superiority.

As a fan of The Daily Show, I was sad to hear such an ignorant comment come from Colbert. I realize he was trying to be funny, but the last thing atheism needs is statements like that to further perpetuate all the ridiculous connotations that have been attached to it.

Atheism = not religion
 
2005-02-16 10:32:07 PM
Sigh. Hey, im too tired tonight to call the fundies stupid idiots. Can one of you farkers with brains take over?



/Clocks out and goes to bed. I put my time in with these idiots on the last evoloution vs. stupidity thread.
 
2005-02-16 10:32:13 PM
nice timing
 
2005-02-16 10:33:31 PM
Swindmill: nice timing

Ha! 'Sup? :)
 
2005-02-16 10:34:31 PM
Actually, I think that in order to have any discussion that is intelligent or coherent, we need to have sort of consensus on what the terms we are throwing out mean. Far from weak, it seems like an intelligent thing to do, do have some sort of grounds for arguing.

There is a consensus on the definition of science, either you are unaware of it or are being dishonest in continuing to use incorrect definitions.
 
2005-02-16 10:34:43 PM
Evolution? Tell me what the fark this evolved from.
 
2005-02-16 10:34:55 PM
Man, I've been in too many of these flamewars. Let me sum up the entire thread right now:


Creationist will say:

*It's just a theory.
*Evolution and Creatonism are both religions.
*Science is a religion.
*Atheism is a movement, and a religion.
*_______ is too complicated to have happened any other way than to have been created by God.
*Carbon-14 dating is bunk.
*Water taints the results of Carbon-14 dating, the big flood messed it all up!
*Missing fossil records
*Intelligent Design is science.
*Both science and religion require faith.
*Anything else I can copy and paste from the wacko fundie sites that invented my rhetoric.


Then the scientific people will beat them down. It's what aways happens. It's what always has happened. It's what always will happen. The newbie creationists will bow out early realizing they are trying to argue with their canned arguments against hardcore scientists. The hardcore creationists will simply ignore what they don't want to believe, and keep using play on words and "please let it be true!" arguments until they scream profanities, call everybody satan worshippers, and leave. The scientist will end the very long thread with some discussion about some band, or hot chick while laughing at the creationists as they storm out of the thread, completely embarassed. I'm going to hang around and watch for it again. Hopefully Hank the Gobot makes an appearance. Flame on.
 
2005-02-16 10:34:59 PM
michaeltrout:

"Context. Context is important"

agreed. context is key.

"Your point was that science is based on technology. It isn't. Science is based on the natural inclination of man to try to understand the world around him. That a scientist uses products of technology to aid him in this quest does not make science "based on technlogy"."

I believe that the inclination of man leans more towards exploration. Science is the derivative of curiousity.

"Science wouldn't be very far along if there was no written communication. Does this mean that science is based on written communication?"

No, it does not mean that. Instead, perhaps, it means that without some medium by which to share discoveries (ie: written communication), it makes no difference to anyone besides the original discoverer. Then the relevance and purpose might be questioned. Science is not based on written communication. Perhaps it is made legitmate by it?

"Science may use technological advances as tools, and can in turn produce advances in technology - but technology is in no way the basis of technology."

Technology does seem to be the basis for some science. I understand that the technology isnt created with the idea to create new techonolgy, but I disagree that technology is NEVER the basis for more technology. Improving the measurements should be the basis - to refine and perfect the system we have - that should be the point. That would create a more secure scientific method.

"And, of course, you could always try to focus on the meat and bones of my response to you, if you'd like to."

Hope that was better.
 
2005-02-16 10:36:32 PM
In all honesty who really cares how life begain? Its not important. What is important is how we live in this moment and how we step into the next.

Issues like this only matter to dogmatists who refuse to explore the rest of their faith or their beliefs, scientific or otherwise. They only accept those things that cater to their prejudices and ignore everything else.

Now lets end this thread and get back to whats important:

Boobies.

/boobies.
//i like saying "boobies".
///"boobies".
////heh heh, yeah, heh.
 
2005-02-16 10:36:47 PM
canthaveitbothways i belive there are giant herds of invisible green unicorns living on the moon, hunting the flying pink hippos in the purple haze who live on the dark side of the moon. some people have a theory that i'm wrong, as all the evidece points to me being wrong, but my theory is equivalant to theirs.
 
2005-02-16 10:38:39 PM
strechcannon: Brilliant. I have stolen this, and pasted it in my bio page, credited to you, and will use it to smite the idiots from now on. I will of course credit you. I love it.
 
2005-02-16 10:39:03 PM
Whoa!!!

A Flame War in the comments section on something based on the seperation of religion and schools. Who would have figured.


Go both sides, you are both morons for arguing about it. Neither of you are going to change your opinions because you are both set in your ways. Quit trying to convert the other to your side because it isn't going to happen.

The other person isn't going to say "Oh, I get what you are saying now, how stupid was I to believe otherwise." It just isn't gonna happen. Quit being f'ing morons.
 
2005-02-16 10:39:14 PM
pshaw

Verbal slapfight time is now!
You and your God Vs. Me and my fancy-pants!
 
2005-02-16 10:40:17 PM
Damn!

I want to be a scientist!

A real one.
 
2005-02-16 10:40:39 PM
These debates are getting pointless. Hmm... already were is more like it. Clearly, having a scientific debate with people who don't understand even the basic terminology of science is akin to banging your head against the wall.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. While this applies equally to the arguments of faith and science here, it rather neatly knocks the anti-evolution arguments I keep seeing out of the picture. What we are left with is mounds of evidence for evolution that, while not complete, is significantly greater than the zero evidence for creationism/intelligent design. Given that, paraphrasing Sherlock Holmes, the likely conclusion is that evolution is accurate since no other options have supporting evidence.
 
2005-02-16 10:40:57 PM
Sigh.

Atheism isn't necessarily the absence of religion, which is nearly impossible to define, it's the absence of belief in God or a god or gods.

I'm an atheist, but that doesn't mean I have no sense of spirituality.

As to the whole "false connotations" thing; give me a break. It's a joke, and jokes are only funny when they have a ring of truth to them. Sorry, but at least I can laugh at myself and my own beliefs just as I can others and theirs.
 
2005-02-16 10:41:30 PM
bingo the psych-o: Now lets end this thread and get back to whats important:

Boobies.

Agreed. I have had fun agruing with some of you, while others need a refresher course in logic. I can see that I am in the majority in this conversation, but I want to thank those of you who responded for making the points you did. Now, I am tired...

/props to smart people with well-thought out responses
//shakes head at people that cant seem to form coherent ideas
///this was my first flame war and it was good
 
2005-02-16 10:41:33 PM
Sandelaphon, if said unicorns are invisible, along with the pink hippos, then they cannot have the colors pink or green, as they do not appear in the visible spectrum where pink or green would occur.

/Goes both ways. Let the reader understand, QED.
 
2005-02-16 10:41:50 PM
I've only taken a couple college level classes on evolution (auditing them both:p) and I guess I wasn't sold on evolution as this end all science. However, even though many of Darwin's theories turned out false, many haven't. These theories have turned into what is modern day evolutionary science, which has formed it's own set of theories.

Evolution isn't a fact, it is a theory. A damn good theory, and probably the best explination of life on earth so far. And it too will evolve into something closer to understanding.

And then the Vorgons will destory earth.
 
2005-02-16 10:42:10 PM
Ignoring the rest of the thread, that whale link f'ing ruled.
 
2005-02-16 10:42:11 PM
One more anomaly from the Cambrian explosion {google it}. I give you Opabinia, a little bottom dweller with five eyes, a long proboscis like a vacuum cleaner hose, and the hind end of a shrimp-like thing. Of course it is completely unrelated to anything alive, and is another example of a bizarre dead end that won the Darwin award.



You may ask, or not, why I'm spamming this thread with animals that have no known relatives, species, or groups. After reading about the lack of continuity in the fossil record, and the continuing semantics about what the definition of theory is, I decided to take another tack.

For an interesting, but dated read about the Burgess Shale, look at Stephen J. Gould's "Wonderful Life:The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History."
 
2005-02-16 10:42:12 PM
canthaveitbothways:

Technology does seem to be the basis for some science. I understand that the technology isnt created with the idea to create new techonolgy, but I disagree that technology is NEVER the basis for more technology. Improving the measurements should be the basis - to refine and perfect the system we have - that should be the point. That would create a more secure scientific method.

I think we are arguing semantics now. My point - science of course uses technology and is improved by it, and in turn generates improvments in technology.

But science is not based on techology - the basis of science is curiousty about the natural world. And I think we agree on both of those points.

As to the meat and bones of my post, I was referring to either:

"Science is the method and body of knowledge used to gain information about the natural world. Intelligent design posits the existence of something external to the natural world - a supernatural being or beings. Conjecture about the contents and existence of the supernatural world have no place in a science class dealing exclusively with the natural world."

Or:

"Evolution can be measured, has been measured, and is measured. The theory of evolution (or more appropriately the theory of evolution by natural selection) was brought about by the way science works - through observation of the species, hypotheses regarding the way the variation of species occurred, testing and retesting (through the fossil record and other means), and finally acceptance in the scientific community regarding its validity as a theory.

ID and creationism work the opposite way - they both assume that there was an entity responsible for creating the universe, and then look for evidence to back up that assumption. The fact that they don't find evidence makes the effort all the more laughable."
 
2005-02-16 10:44:22 PM
 
2005-02-16 10:44:36 PM
Its pretty obvious that intelligent design isn't 'science' its faith, but the definition of biology isn't "the science of life" Biology literally means "the study of life"

Since no one can eaither dis-prove or prove creationism or darwinism, I think they should both offered up as a probable cause in our text books.

Sorry if someone already said this, too many comments to read though.
 
2005-02-16 10:44:59 PM
No no, telekinesis goes in the Physics book.

ESP is like home economics or something.
 
2005-02-16 10:45:11 PM
"Evolution isn't a fact, it is a theory."

So you actually deny that the alleles in a gene pool can change over time?

"A damn good theory, and probably the best explination of life on earth so far."

You mean, best explanation of how life descended from the original organism.

How life got here is through abiogenesis.

"And it too will evolve into something closer to understanding.

And then the Vorgons will destory earth."

No they won't. The Vorgons have clearly made a peace treaty with us and want to live in perfect harmony. Just because they want us to eat a lot of food and become fat doesn't mean we are going to become soylent green...I mean, that's just the paranoia taking hold.

Right?
 
2005-02-16 10:46:03 PM
mafiachuck:

Whoa!!!

A Flame War in the comments section on something based on the seperation of religion and schools. Who would have figured.

Go both sides, you are both morons for arguing about it. Neither of you are going to change your opinions because you are both set in your ways. Quit trying to convert the other to your side because it isn't going to happen.

The other person isn't going to say "Oh, I get what you are saying now, how stupid was I to believe otherwise." It just isn't gonna happen. Quit being f'ing morons.


Thanks for the insight, but I think you've missed the point of debate. You should take your flamewar against people who enjoy debate straight to the big leagues, and give a stab at doing away with college debate teams, then you'd be really cool; much cooler than the guy who stops in on a FARK thread to offer ridiculous commentary

moral of the story = think before you type
 
2005-02-16 10:46:09 PM
Creationists aren't cool.
 
2005-02-16 10:46:40 PM
pnaimoli: Since no one can eaither dis-prove or prove creationism or darwinism, I think they should both offered up as a probable cause in our text books.

No one can disprove that we were planted here by a race of giant purple slugs. Should that one go before or after evolution in this textbook?
 
2005-02-16 10:47:29 PM
 
2005-02-16 10:47:35 PM
mafiachuck:

Go both sides, you are both morons for arguing about it. Neither of you are going to change your opinions because you are both set in your ways. Quit trying to convert the other to your side because it isn't going to happen.

The other person isn't going to say "Oh, I get what you are saying now, how stupid was I to believe otherwise." It just isn't gonna happen. Quit being f'ing morons.


You're an idiot. This is a discussion thread about evolution, religion, and intelligent design, among other things. And the people in it are having a discussion. Does the fact escape you that people enjoy discussing these things regardless of the fact that we won't change the other side's view? Do you understand that people enjoy discussing and commenting on things that interest them?

Just go fart in your soup, or anything more productive than stepping in here and calling everyone morons.
 
2005-02-16 10:48:01 PM
pnaimoli:

Since no one can eaither dis-prove or prove creationism or darwinism, I think they should both offered up as a probable cause in our text books.

What if I claim that Santa Claus is actually responsible for the diversity of life on this planet? Can anyone truly disprove that? Does that mean we should offer both as probable causes in science classes?
 
2005-02-16 10:48:09 PM
"No one can disprove that we were planted here by a race of giant purple slugs. Should that one go before or after evolution in this textbook?"

Neither...It should go in place of evolution...That would rock.

I figure, if we are going to start teaching out kids B.S., might as well make it entertaining, right? Let's hire the kind folks from the World Weekly News to write up the new biology books.
 
2005-02-16 10:48:09 PM
 
2005-02-16 10:48:34 PM
I'm entirely too drunk to give it a decent rendering, but if someone doesn't beat me to it, I'm going to make a Creationist Bingo card for threads like these. I may even cook up a drinking game. Night yall.
 
2005-02-16 10:48:40 PM
Personally, I believe that every creation myth from every surviving culture should be compiled into one tome and that our children should be forced to read this along with being taugh evolution.

That ought to shut 'em up.
 
2005-02-16 10:48:44 PM
moral of the story = think before you type

Brilliant, now if only you would heed your own advice. Also, think when you read. You guys are all farking idiots for arguing about this.

None of you have said anything that hasn't been said many times before. You just retype everything that everyone else has said many times before and the other side has heard everything you have said in here. Your stupidity is amazing.
 
2005-02-16 10:49:08 PM
whatshisname
No one can disprove that we were planted here by a race of giant purple slugs. Should that one go before or after evolution in this textbook?

Actually, that was offered up as an explination in out text books. You'll be happy to know the author choose to put it after evolution, and noted that it to was just another theory.
 
2005-02-16 10:49:19 PM
Teh headline is the shizzle!
 
2005-02-16 10:49:24 PM
canthaveitbothways:

Your argument is post hoc in regards to technology. New science may arise as the result of the implementation of technology, but is not caused by the technology. At best, technology enables the furtherance of a branch of science, such as mathematics was with the advent of computers. Computers certainly did not cause mathematics as a science to appear. Before you say it, computer science is an outgrowth of mathematics enabled by computers, the name is indicative of its purpose not its source.
 
2005-02-16 10:49:42 PM
Evolution, or Intelligent Design?



Discuss:
 
2005-02-16 10:50:09 PM
Prospero424:

As to the whole "false connotations" thing; give me a break. It's a joke, and jokes are only funny when they have a ring of truth to them. Sorry, but at least I can laugh at myself and my own beliefs just as I can others and theirs.

My disappointment was clearly directed at Colbert's comment. It was a follow up to your post, not an attack on it. Calm down.
 
2005-02-16 10:51:16 PM
pnaimoli: and noted that it to was just another theory

I'm guessing they didn't start the book with the definition of a scientific theory, though?
 
2005-02-16 10:51:45 PM
Hornwrecker: Evolution, or Intelligent Design?

Show us pictures of all of her anscestors and we'll let you know.
 
2005-02-16 10:52:42 PM
 
2005-02-16 10:52:51 PM
This flame war isn't reaching infinity as fast as the one right above it about Bush. Come on, we can't lose to those guys!

Absolutely, it gives me great pleasure to do what I do; far more than you could ever imagine. In fact, I have an orgasm every time I paste a quote from my website. If you can hit that trifecta of being off-topic, out-of-context, and condescending at the same time, when quoting someone, thats a beautiful feeling. Its like having Kent Hovind give you a blowjob while Ken Ham massages your prostate with the spine of an original Guttenberg Bible.
~ Bevets
 
2005-02-16 10:53:15 PM
2005-02-16 10:36:32 PM bingo the psych-o

In all honesty who really cares how life begain? Its not important. What is important is how we live in this moment and how we step into the next.

Issues like this only matter to dogmatists who refuse to explore the rest of their faith or their beliefs, scientific or otherwise. They only accept those things that cater to their prejudices and ignore everything else.


People do care how life began. Just because you aren't curious about this subject doesn't mean the rest of aren't. The intricacies of biological systems are intriguing, beautiful and often useful. Evolutionary theory is the basis for a lot of modern medicine, so please join me in thanking the medical molecular biologists for "caring how life began" and not just blindly following Genesis.
 
2005-02-16 10:53:30 PM
My flaccid stinkyworm has evolved into pulsating lovemuscle. It must be god's work. Dear god, I'll do your laundry for a week if I can have her.
 
2005-02-16 10:53:48 PM
a definition of scientific theory? .. they might have.

That sounds really lame to me though, kind of like one of my less intelligent friends trying to tell me he used to have a book of math, that contained all math in it ... right. the all encompassing book of math, I always liked that story.
 
2005-02-16 10:53:53 PM
Hornwrecker-Evolution obviously. If she were intelligently designed, she would be naked, holding a beer and a joint, and she would have already called me in sick for tomorrow...
 
2005-02-16 10:54:05 PM
Imagine the dork that complained about the textbook at the meeting: "Uh b'deah b'deah, there's no mention of Intellegent Design, b'deah..."

A child, looking at the workings of a fine wristwatch, might insist that elves must have made it -- that humans could not have done it. He might honestly believe it, but it would not make it so.
 
2005-02-16 10:54:13 PM
Swindmill:

"My disappointment was clearly directed at Colbert's comment. It was a follow up to your post, not an attack on it. Calm down."

I realize that, I just don't understand how you can be offended by something so innocuous, that's all.

Maybe I'm not the one who needs to calm down.
 
2005-02-16 10:54:45 PM
Meatros-
^_^ You took me a little to literally. Macroevolution as a whole is more theory than fact, but is based off of facts.

I normally don't expect people to actually read my posts, so I just kinda write my thoughts on the subject without making sure I say what I mean. My whole point was that Evolutionary Science is our best explination to what the hell is going on around us, but will eventually turn into something else.

And I meant the Vogons. The Vorgans are just a bunch of time-traveling sexpots. It's the Vogons who want to build that damned intergalactic highway.
 
2005-02-16 10:55:28 PM
Looscannon

Not unless you send pictures of the pants first.
 
2005-02-16 10:55:31 PM
Cthulus_Toaster: nah. invisible just means we can't see em. They've got something like an SEP field going on.
 
2005-02-16 10:56:05 PM
Buddha04:

Cool book....though a little depressing knowing that octupi will one day be our masters.

All hail Cthulhu...
 
2005-02-16 10:56:51 PM
AcornMan

"Microevolution" and "macroevolution" are completely fictional terms invented by creationists to rationalize the fact that evolution really can be observed. These terms have absolutely no scientific meaning whatsoever. Every time someone uses these terms in an argument they lend just that much more validity to this nonsense.

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No. ~ Roger Lewin Science November 21 1980 p. 883

The question of origins is a question of History (whatever happened only happened once) not science.

Please explain how the scientific method applys. i.e. observe, predict, experiment, repeat -- how do we repeat ANCIENT (pre human) history? Here's a helpful suggestion repeat the transition from reptile to bird in a lab (that would be fascinating!) After you have repeated this transition, explain why your lab experiment proves that this is EXACTLY how it happened historically.
 
2005-02-16 10:56:56 PM
lord_spap-oop
A child, looking at the workings of a fine wristwatch, might insist that elves must have made it -- that humans could not have done it. He might honestly believe it, but it would not make it so.

If you traveled to the moon and found a wrist watch there, wouldn't you say someone put it there, not that if formed by natural proccesses.

life > watch.
 
2005-02-16 10:56:58 PM
Go Darwin?
 
2005-02-16 10:57:09 PM
2005-02-16 10:53:30 PM xebeche_tzu [TotalFark]
My flaccid stinkyworm has evolved into pulsating lovemuscle. It must be god's work. Dear god, I'll do your laundry for a week if I can have her.


Dude, you haven't seen God's laundry. I swear the guy, like, never wipes properly.
 
2005-02-16 10:57:10 PM
McRat:

Darkyn... Please illustrate where in the fossil record (i.e. the EVIDENCE)which shows transitional creatures.

The leaps in species seem leaps of faith in themselves.

We have the pre-cambrian period. No fossils because single celled organisms aren't very good at fossilizing. OK

Then come the fossils. Many different species, trilobytes, anelids, all sorts of creepy crawlies.

Are we to believe that single celled creatures jumped to a variety of whole complex organisms without leaving a single trace?

We are told that the transformation between fish and amphibian would be 1.5Billion years. We have 1.5 Billion years of fish in the fossil record, then whammo! Amphibians. No transitional creatures.

The mathematical unlikelyhood is daunting. First you need a mutation to a whole other species in an organism. Now since different species can not mate and produce fertile offspring, to develop a new species you need two matching mutated critters. At the same time, and place.

Mind you, mutations that potentially enhance a species would seem (based on our own observation of mutation) far more rare than mutations that are damaging.

But to follow macroevolution you need to
a) Ignore the fossil record and its lack of transitional forms, because dogma answers these questions.
b) Assume that species change from one form to another. Creatures suddenly and radically change their internal organs and even whole systems into compatible forms. Despite the odds alone of this happening, a second similar mutation of the opposite gender appears in the same time and area and they mate and produce fertile offspring which enter the record. Over and over again. No failed half species in the record.

The notion of every creature in existance coming into being by such a sudden and perfect process strikes me as greater evidence for intelligent design than a million religious texts.



Two words: Punctuated Equilibria. Let me say that again: Punctuated Equilibria Punctuated Equilibria Punctuated Equilibria Punctuated Equilibria Punctuated Equilibria Punctuated Equilibria Punctuated Equilibria

If you have the balls to see how wrong you are, google it.
 
2005-02-16 10:57:41 PM
People keep talking about transitional forms, and it's clear they don't know what the heck one is. A transitional form is one that is between phyla, not species or genuses(geni?). Like, reptile/bird, fish/reptile, etc.

Maybe that will clear up some confusion.
 
2005-02-16 10:59:21 PM
Prospero424:

I realize that, I just don't understand how you can be offended by something so innocuous, that's all.

Maybe I'm not the one who needs to calm down.


I wasn't offended by his comment in the least, I was disappointed by it. I never used the word offended.
 
2005-02-16 10:59:37 PM
Let's look at this from a logical perspective. Both evoltuoion and "intellgent design" have yet to fully disprove the

opposing viewpoint. Thus we determine which "theory" is the strongest, in other words -- the one with the most material

evidence. By using the process of elimination, we can use the current knowledge that ID has no hard evidence

whatsoever to safely say it is not the strongest. This leads us to the conclusion that evlotion is a more logical and more

likely theory. Having done this, the "debate on evolution" should, in fact be the "debate on ID." Why? Because the best

possible explanation available at the time should be used as a benchmark for other explanations.

The actual debate is another story completely and I won't go into it, as a post on Fark isn't going to change anyone's

deep-seated beliefs. Suffice to say that if you look at each belief's track record, it is evident that science has slowly but

surely unseated most "classic" beliefs (Magic, etc.).
 
2005-02-16 10:59:46 PM
pshaw: I'm not going to bash you for being stupid. Don't bash me.

So you're admitting you're stupid?

/just sayin'
 
2005-02-16 10:59:50 PM
Bevets:
The question of origins is a question of History (whatever happened only happened once) not science.

And evolution is not a question of origins.

There is functional science, and historical science. Both are equally valid methods for examining our place in the Universe. Both rely on falsifiable theories.
 
2005-02-16 10:59:58 PM
Philosophy of Science is fun :-)

Although I like the arguments above and references to empirical data, they are almost unnecessary. One of the most vocal claims of the creationists is that evolution is "only a theory". Of course, this immediately reveals a pretty deficient understanding of science in general because, after all, what is NOT a theory when it comes to science? As others have pointed out, the definition of theory is not simply an assumption based upon evidence (first and foremost, that's an inference). There is a complex dance between data and theory. Data does not simply provide the basis for arriving at a conclusion! Example: All ravens are black. Seems simple enough, right? The fact is that no matter how many ravens you observe, this can NEVER become a deductive truth, it can only be a inductive liklihood. This holds even if there are only 10 ravens in the world and you've all 10 in front of you. Why? Because those ravens may reproduce and eventually produce an albino. Now what about the assertion all ravens which exist presently are black? Eh, that one could possible be a deductive truth, but you would have to be certain you had every last raven before you. Whole books and theories have been written on this subject (i.e. the crazy interesting Bayes' Theorem. Don't know if I agree with it, but damn is it a compelling way of looking at science).

Analysis of "creation science" and science as a whole yields interesting results. The question transforms from an issue of church vs. state and instead focuses on the issue of whether creation science qualify as a science or as a pseudo-science. For something to qualify a scientific, it must be testable (empirically), it must make predictions (preferably risky ones), etc. I would recommend reading the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education decision for some insight. Larry Laudan, in "Science at the Bar--Causes for Concern," argues against that decision and defends the potential scientific qualities of creation science. Interestingly enough, he grounds his opinion on the idea that, since creation science has been falsified, that implies it is testable and is subsequently a debunked--though scientific--theory. But because it is debunked, there's no reason to teach it. Michael Ruse, in "Pro Judice," argues much the opposite. Anyway, those two articles, coupled with the court case, give a pretty great introduction to the complexities surrounding this issue.

/both still agree that it shouldn't be taught in the classroom
//ramble
 
2005-02-16 11:00:02 PM
"Creationism, or intelligent design, if you prefer the term, is not science because it is impossible to test by experiment," Ellerton said. "It has no place in a science course."
:
:
:

What the hell is this... someone actually making sense.

BURN HIMMMMMM!!!!


So lets test evolution. Start with a sterile container of different chemicals, mixed with a sterile air supply. (Too lazy to look up what the air was composed of 50 gabillion years ago.) Irradiate it and zap it with electricity. How long until you get life? How long before that single cell life sprout wings and flies?
Don't have the time to wait? Lets take a shortcut. Take something like mayflies that have a fairly short time between generations. Put them in a container where you can control the environment. How long to evolve them into a starfish?

FYI: some of these experiments have been tried. See:
Evolution Disproved (pops)

I can accept micro evolution. Except that's not a "real" term according to 3/4 of the posters here. But I don't believe that random chemicals turned themselves into life that macro evolved into eagles. Oops. There's another term that doesn't exist. It's a lot easier to win the debate when you get to define the terms. Sort of like 1984 all over again.
 
2005-02-16 11:00:06 PM
i've got one question for all of you evolution freaks out there:

If we have evolved, and every aspect of our existance is there basically to encourage mating, why do we have the human emotion of love? Assuming that evolution was an entity, and capable of though, wouldn't monogamy be the exact oppposite of what 'it' 'wanted'? Polygamy offers a much higher level of genetic diversity, and therefore faster evolution. So why do we have love?
 
2005-02-16 11:00:15 PM
"Meatros-
^_^ You took me a little to literally. Macroevolution as a whole is more theory than fact, but is based off of facts."

Macroevolution; aka speciation, is a fact as well. It's been witnessed in the lab. Additionally common descent is a fact as well, as it's the only explanation for the twin nested heirarchies and endogenous retroviral inserts.

The theory of evolution is what explains these facts, how common descent occured and such.

"I normally don't expect people to actually read my posts, so I just kinda write my thoughts on the subject without making sure I say what I mean. My whole point was that Evolutionary Science is our best explination to what the hell is going on around us, but will eventually turn into something else."

Maybe, but then again it might not. Science isn't dogmatic, it's tentative, in that new facts can come in and change what we thought was solid. Granted this is probably what you are saying, but if so, I'm too sleep deprived to notice...

"And I meant the Vogons. The Vorgans are just a bunch of time-traveling sexpots. It's the Vogons who want to build that damned intergalactic highway."

Heh, reminds me of the new movie trailer up on Amazon for Hitchhiker's guide...
 
2005-02-16 11:00:20 PM
/Ouches, sorry about that, typed it up in notepad
 
2005-02-16 11:00:29 PM
DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke

I believe that evolved from an early batlike creature.

And I'd just like to have everyone do a little experiment. Imagine that you grew up never hearing of the concept of religion, god, or any deity. Then, at age 25 or so, you are presented with the bible and told that it is the true story of how everything came to be. Would you believe as strongly? Even those of you who are truly religious, which I am not objecting to, can you really say that your faith and belief are not due to early indoctrination and constant affirmation throughout your upbringing?

And those of you who switch later in life, I'm not sure what to say. You just want there to be more than there is. I'd love to believe in invisible omnipresent beings and magic and ghosts and men who die and then are resurrected, it would make the world a lot more interesting. But there is a lack of evidence of any of these things. Honestly, I'd love for all that to be around, but it just isn't. So lets not push this in our public schools.
 
2005-02-16 11:00:47 PM
Bevets has arrived; now we're cooking with gas!


Absolutely, it gives me great pleasure to do what I do; far more than you could ever imagine. In fact, I have an orgasm every time I paste a quote from my website. If you can hit that trifecta of being off-topic, out-of-context, and condescending at the same time, when quoting someone, thats a beautiful feeling. Its like having Kent Hovind give you a blowjob and play with your balls, while Ken Ham massages your prostate with the spine of an original Guttenberg Bible.
~ Bevets
 
2005-02-16 11:00:48 PM
McRat:

Sorry Darwin... You expected transitional forms would be found too.

Darwin was wrong about a lot of things... because there was no knowledge of genetics at the time.
 
2005-02-16 11:02:26 PM
I didn't know ESPN was a topic in Physics.
 
2005-02-16 11:03:29 PM
Wizzard_Of_Odds

Believing in Creationism does not make one "stupid".
 
2005-02-16 11:03:43 PM
Cthulus_Toaster
"Sandelaphon, if said unicorns are invisible, along with the pink hippos, then they cannot have the colors pink or green, as they do not appear in the visible spectrum where pink or green would occur. "

This is just another desperate argument from the non-unicornians. You dont take the time to look at the FACTS! Lets get it straight.
The green unicorns were green from 1746 to 1923, then they became invisible. However Their enemies, the teal unicorns (who had been teal since 1758) became invisable also in 1923. We say green unicorns not because they are accualy green, but rather to distinguish the two sects of invisible unicorn.
The same applies with the pink hippos, only the dates are different slightly and their rivals (who they made peace with in 1987) were invisible all along. Both massive unicorn armies need the hippos to use as artillery shells. The moon remains to this day a charred battleground from the continuing years of constant invisible battle.
 
2005-02-16 11:03:48 PM
Nuclear Monk

Actually it's the giant Spiders that are our future overlords.

They spin giant webs that collect seeds, then feed the seeds to the last mammals that they have raised. And then they eat them all up...

/get in my belly
// cool DVD too
 
2005-02-16 11:04:27 PM
Bevets -
Please explain how the scientific method applys. i.e. observe, predict, experiment, repeat -- how do we repeat ANCIENT (pre human) history? Here's a helpful suggestion repeat the transition from reptile to bird in a lab (that would be fascinating!) After you have repeated this transition, explain why your lab experiment proves that this is EXACTLY how it happened historically.


Paleontological experiments are slightly different from laboratory experiments. We formulate a theory about what happened based on observations (fossils found) and then later evidence (more fossils we find) support or refute this theory. If it refutes it, we revise or expand our theory, and yet more evidence from future discoveries will either support or refute the revised/new theory.

See, the key is actually doing some damn legwork, and not just sitting at home reading the Bible (a perfectly good activity, to be sure, but not a very good way to figure out how anything around you is actually happening).
 
2005-02-16 11:04:36 PM
Swindmill

To be disappointed in something, by definition, you have to have been offended by it or it's actions, otherwise what have you been disappointed by?

I'm using offend in the literal sense.

Nevermind, this is silly :)
 
2005-02-16 11:04:59 PM
A big STFU goes out the fine people of Maryland.

Creationism is a belief or theory, just as evolution or the big bang. So to not even recognize a theory that a large portion of the country believes in is not doing justice to the education of the kids in that system.
 
2005-02-16 11:05:33 PM
Blhack:
Polygamy offers a much higher level of genetic diversity, and therefore faster evolution. So why do we have love?

Sexual selection does play a part in evolution, but it's by no means the only mechanism. Natural selection occurs due to random mutations.

Read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. There are many good arguments for monogamy.
 
2005-02-16 11:05:54 PM
"So lets test evolution. Start with a sterile container of different chemicals, mixed with a sterile air supply. (Too lazy to look up what the air was composed of 50 gabillion years ago.) Irradiate it and zap it with electricity. How long until you get life? How long before that single cell life sprout wings and flies?"

That's not evolution you are referring to; it's abiogenesis.

"Don't have the time to wait? Lets take a shortcut. Take something like mayflies that have a fairly short time between generations. Put them in a container where you can control the environment. How long to evolve them into a starfish?"

That's not evolution either, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of common descent. Mayflies and starfish share a common ancestor, in the distant past. They didn't come from one another.

"I can accept micro evolution."

Then by default you must accept macro, unless you can come up with a mechanism to prevent it from occuring.

"Except that's not a "real" term according to 3/4 of the posters here. But I don't believe that random chemicals turned themselves into life that macro evolved into eagles."

Nor do scientists. Perhaps you should crack open a biology textbook to understand what you are talking about (which is abiogenesis btw).

"Oops. There's another term that doesn't exist. It's a lot easier to win the debate when you get to define the terms. Sort of like 1984 all over again."

Clearly you have no idea what the terms mean.
 
2005-02-16 11:06:18 PM


Maryland swings the scales back toward science.
 
2005-02-16 11:06:23 PM
I'm continually astounded that there is actually debate on the issue of evolution. Every time I get into an argument about this in real life with somebody, they are a completely ignorant simpleton mongoloid, so I assume its the same case for the internet.

And every time I do argue about this, I simply bring up the human tailbone, the fact that human embryos actually grow a tail inside the womb, and the fact that the evolutionary process is perfectly visible in micro-organisms like HIV.
 
2005-02-16 11:06:36 PM
p.s. All you guys talking about falsificationism alone... You read too much Popper and not enough Lakatos!
 
2005-02-16 11:07:32 PM
"i've got one question for all of you evolution freaks out there:

If we have evolved, and every aspect of our existance is there basically to encourage mating, why do we have the human emotion of love? Assuming that evolution was an entity, and capable of though, wouldn't monogamy be the exact oppposite of what 'it' 'wanted'? Polygamy offers a much higher level of genetic diversity, and therefore faster evolution. So why do we have love?"

This would require a dissertation to answer. It's been addressed though-and for common consumption too. Please pick up the book: Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice for all creation, if you are serious about understanding the complexities involved.
 
2005-02-16 11:08:25 PM
The question of origins is a question of History (whatever happened only happened once) not science.

whatshisname

And evolution is not a question of origins.

What was the title of that book Charles Darwin wrote? Can you remember?

There is functional science, and historical science. Both are equally valid methods for examining our place in the Universe. Both rely on falsifiable theories.

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is hopelessly metaphysical, according to the rules of etiquette laid down in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry and widely believed in by practicing scientists who bother to think about the problem. The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure of the world? If scientists are going to use logically unbeatable theories about the world, they might as well give up natural science and take up religion. Yet is that not exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism? The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of offspring in different environments... Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything. ~ Richard Lewontin
 
2005-02-16 11:09:07 PM
Blhack:

i've got one question for all of you evolution freaks out there:

If we have evolved, and every aspect of our existance is there basically to encourage mating, why do we have the human emotion of love? Assuming that evolution was an entity, and capable of though, wouldn't monogamy be the exact oppposite of what 'it' 'wanted'? Polygamy offers a much higher level of genetic diversity, and therefore faster evolution. So why do we have love?


Way start out with a flame, guy.

And there are several possible answers to your question; a definite contender is that love creates a bond between a male and a female, meaning that there will be two providers for an infant, ensuring better odds that the child will reach maturity and then propagate its genes as well.

But I suspect you're just out for a nighttime troll. =D
 
2005-02-16 11:09:18 PM
Prospero424:

To be disappointed in something, by definition, you have to have been offended by it or it's actions, otherwise what have you been disappointed by?

I'm using offend in the literal sense.

Nevermind, this is silly :)


No, by definition, it just has to fail to satisfy my expectations. That's the "literal" meaning. But yes, this is silly
 
2005-02-16 11:09:20 PM
chewyjackson1:

Creationism is a belief or theory, just as evolution or the big bang. So to not even recognize a theory that a large portion of the country believes in is not doing justice to the education of the kids in that system.

Except evolution and the big bang are based on empirical evidence. Creation is a theological doctrine. It has no place in a scientific text book. What evidence do you have for creationism besides the bible or logic arguements about how life is too complicated not to have a creator?
 
2005-02-16 11:09:29 PM
"chewyjackson1

A big STFU goes out the fine people of Maryland.

Creationism is a belief or theory, just as evolution or the big bang. So to not even recognize a theory that a large portion of the country believes in is not doing justice to the education of the kids in that system. "

Creationism isn't a scientific theory.

Please learn the terms in a scientific context before you embarrass yourself.
 
2005-02-16 11:10:03 PM
Meatros

Organisms that give birth to few offspring, as humans do, are more likely to have a physiological drive towards monogamy because it allows for a greater chance of the survival and well-being of the offspring.
 
2005-02-16 11:10:34 PM
ChewyJ... Whatever.

Creationism is NOT a theory.
It is faith. Faith does not, nor should it not, seek proof. The beauty of faith is that it requires no proof. You should go right on believing in God and not try to prove anything. That is when faith is at its finest; when it seeks nothing but God, not to prove God, simply to believe.

Scientists can present Evolution not as a belief, as one would describe faith, rather as something that they seek to validate. That process of seeking to validate, and thus disprove, evolution, puts it at a level of scrutiny that had its place in science textbooks.

Religion does not offer this process, nor should it, and thus has no place in these texts.
 
2005-02-16 11:11:44 PM
Bevets: What was the title of that book Charles Darwin wrote? Can you remember?

"The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection - or - The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

not

"On the Origins of Life"
 
2005-02-16 11:11:57 PM
God help us with these religious zealots.
 
2005-02-16 11:12:10 PM
If p then q:

p.s. All you guys talking about falsificationism alone... You read too much Popper and not enough Lakatos!

I think both Popper and Lakatos made some good points, but overall, I think Kuhn gave the better description of the actual process by which theories are proposed, accepted, and discarded. His emphasis on the sociology of science did get a bit too much for me at times, though.

/developmental biology PhD student who took a some philosophy in undergrad
 
2005-02-16 11:12:10 PM
That's a good point Prospero424.
 
2005-02-16 11:12:19 PM
NiteClerk -
So lets test evolution. Start with a sterile container of different chemicals, mixed with a sterile air supply. (Too lazy to look up what the air was composed of 50 gabillion years ago.) Irradiate it and zap it with electricity. How long until you get life? How long before that single cell life sprout wings and flies?
Don't have the time to wait? Lets take a shortcut. Take something like mayflies that have a fairly short time between generations. Put them in a container where you can control the environment. How long to evolve them into a starfish?


Wow, you really don't understand science at all. Oh, and your starfish experiment would still be a 100-million-year project even if it did work :D

2005-02-16 11:00:06 PM Blhack

i've got one question for all of you evolution freaks out there:

If we have evolved, and every aspect of our existance is there basically to encourage mating, why do we have the human emotion of love? Assuming that evolution was an entity, and capable of though, wouldn't monogamy be the exact oppposite of what 'it' 'wanted'? Polygamy offers a much higher level of genetic diversity, and therefore faster evolution. So why do we have love?


Love encourages mating, and it encourages supporting the children of those matings. Since humans have evolved to produce a small number of high-maintenance offspring, a stable pair-bond increases fitness by increasing the quality of care for those few offspring, thus increasing the likelihood they will survive to have offspring of their own... thus spreading the genes that give us "love".

Evolution is not an "entity capable of thought", which is why your argument doesn't work. "Faster evolution" is not the "goal", having more offspring survive to reproduce is.
 
2005-02-16 11:12:21 PM
NiteClerk:

Take something like mayflies that have a fairly short time between generations. Put them in a container where you can control the environment. How long to evolve them into a starfish? FYI: some of these experiments have been tried. See:

This is wrong on so many levels. Can you create a laboratory that perfectly simulates every single aspect of the entire world through a period of millions of years? Some of you numskulls seem to think if it can't be perfectly recreated in a lab, then it must not be science. Well we can't recreate the birth of Julius Caesar, or YOU, for that matter, so I guess that means you can't possibly exist.

I can accept micro evolution. Except that's not a "real" term according to 3/4 of the posters here. But I don't believe that random chemicals turned themselves into life that macro evolved into eagles. Oops. There's another term that doesn't exist. It's a lot easier to win the debate when you get to define the terms. Sort of like 1984 all over again.

Why is it so easy for you accept "microevolution", but so hard to make the leap that "macroevolution" is simply the direct result of "microevolution"? Where are you willing to draw the line?



Absolutely, it gives me great pleasure to do what I do; far more than you could ever imagine. In fact, I have an orgasm every time I paste a quote from my website. If you can hit that trifecta of being off-topic, out-of-context, and condescending at the same time, when quoting someone, thats a beautiful feeling. Its like having Kent Hovind give you a blowjob and play with your balls, while Ken Ham massages your prostate with the spine of an original Guttenberg Bible.
~ Bevets
 
2005-02-16 11:13:22 PM


Trick question, they both make the same amount of sense.

It scares the hell out of me that people still fight to have creationism put into science books. I mean, leaving your kids unprepared for the real world by teaching them that fairy tales are true is just child abuse, plain and simple. Forcing the state to do it on the taxpayers' dime is criminal. The resulting devastation it has on the future of society is unfathomable.

I've had enough of people who throw around the arguement "there are conflicts in Darwin's theory" when the only conflict is that they don't understand the theory.

-c
 
2005-02-16 11:13:45 PM
The universe is obviously the result of a very intelligent design, and evolution is one part of that brilliant design. Why is that so hard for fundies and secularists to accept.
Neither one is right to it's extreme conclusion.

The earth was probably not made in seven days and there is no way random collisions of hydrogen atoms eventually resulted in the human organism without any intelligent intervention (Carl Sagan explicitly promoted this idea on Cosmos).

Get a brain Morans!
 
2005-02-16 11:14:00 PM
It's threads like these that illustrate the poor state of American schools.
 
2005-02-16 11:14:55 PM
In my humble opinion, creationism and intelligent design should be taught side-by-side with the theory of evolution in our classrooms. I think it's only fair that both sides have their say, and I think a science class is a totally appropriate forum for this discussion.

Also in my humble opinion, every Bible should include Darwin's The Origin of Species immediately after Genesis, and every sermon on Genesis in every church in the country should be followed by a lecture on evolutionary biology. Becuase if it's appropriate to debate evolution in a science class, then it is equally appropriate to debate Genesis in a church.

Because if you really think school is about indoctrination, and not about educating young men and women to use real science in the real world where creationism is complete tripe, then it's only fair that we indoctrinate equally, you biatches.

/I'm going to found a church with the sole intent of questioning the theory of gravity in school district in the country.
//"What evidence is there for this gravity that you believe in, science man?"
///"How could the same force of gravity that keeps us on the earth also turn the earth in a circle around the sun, science man?"
////"Can you explain a floating helium balloon with gravity, science man? CAN YOU??"
 
2005-02-16 11:16:16 PM
WTF? I'm arguing with Bevets. I need to go to bed.

Got some science to do in the morning, and it's hard work, unlike sitting with your thumb in your ass or whatever Bevets' day job is.
 
2005-02-16 11:16:34 PM
JereIC:

//"What evidence is there for this gravity that you believe in, science man?"
///"How could the same force of gravity that keeps us on the earth also turn the earth in a circle around the sun, science man?"
////"Can you explain a floating helium balloon with gravity, science man? CAN YOU??"


LMAO, funniest stuff written in this thread by far.

Absolutely, it gives me great pleasure to do what I do; far more than you could ever imagine. In fact, I have an orgasm every time I paste a quote from my website. If you can hit that trifecta of being off-topic, out-of-context, and condescending at the same time, when quoting someone, thats a beautiful feeling. Its like having Kent Hovind give you a blowjob and play with your balls, while Ken Ham massages your prostate with the spine of an original Guttenberg Bible.
~ Bevets
 
2005-02-16 11:16:38 PM
universe is expanding (which it is, and is measurable)

This of course is based on a couple of generatinos of "scientists" ASSUMING a red-shift is only caused by the doppler effect. But I'm digressing.

This creation of the non-existant argument about so-called "transitional" species is just another smoke screen trying to confuse people. If you can confuse someone you help to open their psyche that much more to intrusion by whatever religious meme can worm its way into them.

The very purpose of science is to study and understand. Its purpose is not to explain away theocracy or spirituality or a faith in a creator. However, the purpose of any successful meme, such as most major religions, is to completely displace any other beliefs, no matter how logical or analytical. Indeed, the more logical and analytical, the more those beliefs constitute a threat to the religious meme, and the more important it is to supplant them.

For example, some of the most successful of religious memes use a story about a "tree of knowledge and wisdom..." consuming the "fruit" of which leads to death (as the story goes). Here the meme uses the fear of death (be it physical or metaphorical) to manipulate the weak, or those in a weakened mental state, into actually choosing to refrain from imperical analysis. The meme actually scares those it infects into not questioning its validity.

The religion, to survive, requires its believers to spread this fear and this aversion to thought to others. This means, no matter how stupid the individual looks when they speak (the individual is irrelevant, as long as the meme survives), they are compelled through thousands of years of memetic development, to argue and biatch and whine and complain about asinine things like how science "has no evidence of evolution" and how science "can't explain WHY we are here" and therefor science MUST be wrong.

It's a mass-hysterical act of people whos religion is, by their own admission, an act of "pure faith", demanding "evidence" that science is correct, even in light of mountains and mountains of evidence. All this when, in fact, their spirituality is not being threatened in any way; Only their mind-hijacking, brain-warping, dogma need fear.
 
2005-02-16 11:17:17 PM
chrismac:

I've had enough of people who throw around the arguement "there are conflicts in Darwin's theory" when the only conflict is that they don't understand the theory.

Bingo.
 
2005-02-16 11:17:43 PM
pshaw: Believing in Creationism does not make one "stupid".

Of course not, but believing that it belongs in a science class means one doesn't know what science is. And given the requirement that all children attend school, the standardized teaching requirements, and the expectation that one has participated in that system to some extent, then yeah, I'd say that's a strong indicator that one may in fact be stupid.
 
2005-02-16 11:18:15 PM
Thank Zombie Jesus I live in Maryland.
 
2005-02-16 11:18:52 PM
Meatros: "Prove"? Proofs are for math and alcohol, not science. Nothing in science is 'proved'.

At some point someone 'theorized' that there was zero gravity in outer space. And then one day we were able to measure this. I'd say that was 'proven'.

Someone also 'theorized' that splitting a hydrogen atom would release a large amount of energy. And then it was done, I'd also say that was 'proven'.

/seriously
 
2005-02-16 11:19:09 PM
Saying "There is no god." is like saying "I'm a farker, but there is no Drew."

Intelligent Design is not some religious zealot's idea. It's a plausible way to describe why we are here.
 
2005-02-16 11:19:12 PM
chrismac
It scares the hell out of me that people still fight to have creationism put into science books. I mean, leaving your kids unprepared for the real world by teaching them that fairy tales are true is just child abuse, plain and simple. Forcing the state to do it on the taxpayers' dime is criminal. The resulting devastation it has on the future of society is unfathomable.

Did you know Sir Issac Newton wrote about 10 times more about god and religion than he did anything about physics? Fact is, beleiving in something doesn't make you stupid, and doesn't damage society. In fact, beleving is a supreme being gives people a sence of accountibility, something that people in this country severly lack. I don't think you will ever go into a prison and find a high population of devout christians.
 
2005-02-16 11:19:35 PM
Nougat:

The universe is obviously the result of a very intelligent design, and evolution is one part of that brilliant design.

So the entity that created the universe was either incapable or unwilling to do so by simply setting it spinning in the final form it wanted? And the entity that created the universe is either incapable or unwilling to simply reveal itself and its method, plan and soforth in a way accessible to all people?
 
2005-02-16 11:20:40 PM
Personally, I don't believe in intelligent design. I prefer the theory of stupid accident.

Too bad all those accidents caused by bad drivers, those who were simply foolish, or were just too drunk or stoned to drive, didn't just take themselves out of the gene pool.

 
2005-02-16 11:21:51 PM
pshaw:

Intelligent Design is not some religious zealot's idea. It's a plausible way to describe why we are here.

but it's not a scientific idea, and it is religious zealots who are trying to pass it off as science

the plausibility is debatable
 
2005-02-16 11:21:51 PM
pshaw:

Intelligent Design is not some religious zealot's idea. It's a plausible way to describe why we are here.


Only there is 0 evidence for it.
 
2005-02-16 11:22:05 PM
Here is an idea: Teach creationism in your bloody churches where it belongs.

Why is this a difficult concept? We dont study physics or biology in church? Why should we study creationism at school?

They dont study ancient non-biblical history at churches, why should we accept biblical history presented as fact in schools?

Conclusion? People go to school to learn real things, people go to church to learn mythology. Keep the mythology in the church, thanks.
 
2005-02-16 11:22:43 PM
pshaw:

Intelligent Design is not some religious zealot's idea. It's a plausible way to describe why we are here.

So you'd have no problem with your kid going into a science class and being told little green men with tentacle arms landed on this planet long ago and created life?

Why can't you creationists get it through your head that this stuff doesn't belong in a science classroom? Teach your kids about God in church and in your home, if you like. If their faiths are swayed by what they learn in science class, they probably weren't worth saving.


Absolutely, it gives me great pleasure to do what I do; far more than you could ever imagine. In fact, I have an orgasm every time I paste a quote from my website. If you can hit that trifecta of being off-topic, out-of-context, and condescending at the same time, when quoting someone, thats a beautiful feeling. Its like having Kent Hovind give you a blowjob and play with your balls, while Ken Ham massages your prostate with the spine of an original Guttenberg Bible.
~ Bevets
 
2005-02-16 11:23:37 PM
iollow: Of course not, but believing that it belongs in a science class means one doesn't know what science is.

Actually, I agree with you. We don't need religion in the class room. If it was there, it would just be watered down religion and fruitless. I'm just disappointed at the ridicule of another person's beliefs that have been demonstrated in this thread.
 
2005-02-16 11:24:14 PM
JereIC: ////"Can you explain a floating helium balloon with gravity, science man? CAN YOU??"

Where are your gravitons Science-boy? And none of the this 11 dimension string theory crap either. : )
 
2005-02-16 11:25:21 PM
Despite the fact that I embrace the scientific process, I have no truck with people who operate on faith. I am not sure that teaching children about creationism will leave them unprepared. It is just a life different. Many people have no idea the basic reasons behind many readily observable events that are part of daily life.

Faith is a wonderful way to get through life.
Why do you love boobies? "Because I do" is as good an answer as any.

You do not have to understand the principles of digestion to enjoy a good meal.

Live life the way that allows you to live happy.

Just leave the rest of us to our own path.
 
2005-02-16 11:25:36 PM
Personally I like the idea that no one has yet proven time cannot flow forwards and backwards. I kind of like the idea that in a hundered years or so we invent a time machine and go back 3.5 billion years to see how life started, but in doing so, leave genetic material behind. We leave 3.5 billion years finding no evidence of life, but not realizing that we accidently created outselves :)

I should write a book on this stuff.
 
2005-02-16 11:25:39 PM
pshaw

Just because YOU believe that there is a God doesn't make it the undeniable truth. Saying that Drew doen't exist is demostrably false. Saying there is no God is not.

On the flip side of this; if someone tells you that there is no God and that THIS is the undeniable truth, they are just as wrong.

Intelligent design may very well be a plausible theory to many people, but because it cannot be supported by scientific evidence and because it starts with a theory (there is a God) and works down from that, instead of the other way around, it has no place in public schools.
 
2005-02-16 11:25:56 PM
neongoats:

Here is an idea: Teach creationism in your bloody churches where it belongs.

Why is this a difficult concept? We dont study physics or biology in church? Why should we study creationism at school?

They dont study ancient non-biblical history at churches, why should we accept biblical history presented as fact in schools?

Conclusion? People go to school to learn real things, people go to church to learn mythology. Keep the mythology in the church, thanks.



Couldn't have said it better!
 
2005-02-16 11:26:48 PM
lixivium, neongoats, Swindmill, thornhill

Four to one: That's pretty good odds.
 
2005-02-16 11:28:08 PM
pshaw: Four to one: That's pretty good odds.

for what?
 
2005-02-16 11:28:17 PM
I posted this in the Hawaiian cricket thread a couple of days ago, but it was towards the end of the thread so I never really got an answer; just wondering what anti-evolutionists have to say about it:
---

If there was an intelligent Creator, wouldn't he/she/it design the creations with a built-in mechanism for adapting to and surviving in an ever-changing world? Think about it... natural disasters are ocurring, global climates are fluctuating, entire pieces of land are disappearing while new ones are being created, entirely new ecosystems are being created and transformed. If life had no mechanism of changing along with the earth, one ice age, one meteor impact, one massive volcanic eruption could end it all forever. Yet life persists despite all these things. Pretty neat trick.

It seems to me that evolution, rather than undermining the credibility of an intelligent designer, could only serve to demonstrate the genius of that designer.

So what's the problem? That the bible doesn't say anything about evolution? How about maybe, just maybe, as the human species progresses, we are able to understand more and more about "the mind of God" (as Einstein put it), and the writing of the bible was not the end-all, be-all of human knowledge. Maybe humans' understanding of God and the universe did not end in 100AD. Perhaps the extent of human knowledge has yet to be realized. Perhaps the Creator, if it exists, actually wants us to learn more and more about how the world works, and that's why we were given the capacity to do so.

If creationists actually took the time to learn about what it was they thought they were fighting against, they might learn a thing or two about their God, whom for some reason they feel needs their protection.

"Folks, it's time to evolve ideas. We... you know, evolution did not end with us growing thumbs. You do know that, right? It didn't end there. We're at the point now where we... we're going to have to evolve ideas. The reason the world is so farked up is because we're undergoing evolution, and the reason our institutions, our traditional religions are all crumbling is because they're no longer relevant." -- Bill Hicks
 
2005-02-16 11:28:24 PM
Okay evolution people, CALM IT, not everybody is a bible thumping baptist! I've been raised catholic and still have an open mind okay! I have no problem with evolution, i mean, i certainly have questions, and naturally question it's validity (just like i question the validity of everything that i hear), but am still willing to accept it. It's like this: there are thousands upon thousands of questions that i have about our universe, christianity seems to answer most of them. I'm not going to try and cram my belief down your throat, so please extend me the same grace and don't cram yours down mine! Can't we please just have a discussion without having an argument! I wish fark were just a huge coffee house, that way we could all sit down with our respective cups of yerba matte/coffee/tea/chai/etc. and just discuss things, as opposed to arguing them!
 
2005-02-16 11:28:31 PM
Doc Daneeka,

I said that same thing to my philosophy prof a couple days ago. He basically said that he couldn't argue that all three have corespondence to the *history* of science but Kuhn, with his psychological/sociological leanings (even if he sadly backpeddled into oblivion later in life), is ONLY describing the history of science. In other words, Kuhn does not address science as it ought to be done. Was Priestly being scientific when he refused to give up phlogiston, even though he had the oxygen theory explained to him? Kuhn would blame incommensurability...but I personally think that's a cop-out. Priestly loved his theory and wouldn't give it up, thus he was ascientific then (though his theory and his testing methods were scientific...up until he started trying to talk about phlogiston having a variable weight in different substances. That's an ad hoc adjustment which destroys theory credibility). So, in other words, three days ago I would have agreed with you ;-)
 
2005-02-16 11:28:44 PM
hehehe, for us enlightened Europeans these discussions between sensible people and reli-freaks are truly hilarious, please continue.

/where`s the popcorn?
 
2005-02-16 11:28:58 PM
pshaw

The pants are quite very real but no picture can be taken of them. Their fancyness has made it impossable for the human mind to comprehend them in full. We must all rely on faith that the pants are as fancy (very fancy) as was foretold.

The challenge remains
 
2005-02-16 11:29:12 PM
pshaw: lixivium, neongoats, Swindmill, thornhill

Four to one: That's pretty good odds.



I'll say. Four responses in a row is the kind of attention only people like Bevets enjoys. You must be feeling pretty good.


Absolutely, it gives me great pleasure to do what I do; far more than you could ever imagine. In fact, I have an orgasm every time I paste a quote from my website. If you can hit that trifecta of being off-topic, out-of-context, and condescending at the same time, when quoting someone, thats a beautiful feeling. Its like having Kent Hovind give you a blowjob while Ken Ham massages your prostate with the spine of an original Guttenberg Bible.
~ Bevets
 
2005-02-16 11:30:11 PM
Prospero424
Intelligent design may very well be a plausible theory to many people, but because it cannot be supported by scientific evidence and because it starts with a theory (there is a God) and works down from that, instead of the other way around, it has no place in public schools.

Evolutions starts with the assumption that simularities indicate common ancestory, and works down from that, not the other way around ... should it not be alowed in achools eaither?

Biology sucks, just get rid of the course all together.
 
2005-02-16 11:30:43 PM
pnaimoli
In fact, beleving is a supreme being gives people a sence of accountibility, something that people in this country severly lack. I don't think you will ever go into a prison and find a high population of devout christians.

How does believing in a system that rewards only loyalty and not virtue give a sense of accountability? Jesus H. Christ, how could you see that as anything other than damaging?

-c
 
2005-02-16 11:31:08 PM
I was pointing out that evolution has not been totally tested. The Boobies here quotes from the article "Creationism, or intelligent design, if you prefer the term, is not science because it is impossible to test by experiment" and others say that evolution is tested and proved. Yet what they mean is that little tiny parts of it have been tested. (There's that pesky micro evolution again.) Not the entire concept.
 
2005-02-16 11:31:12 PM
 
2005-02-16 11:33:06 PM
ipsiad what you have just stated is the official belief of the catholic church. God created us, but we are still in an ever evolving state.
 
2005-02-16 11:34:14 PM
pnaimoli

No, evolution starts with the question of how life originated and diversified. Then, using observable phenomenon, forms the theory most likely to be true.

It doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is flawless, just that it's the most likely theory to be true given available, observeable, scientific evidence.
 
2005-02-16 11:34:21 PM
chrismac
How does believing in a system that rewards only loyalty and not virtue give a sense of accountability? Jesus H. Christ, how could you see that as anything other than damaging?

I guess you've never heard of the 7 deadly sins ... your ignorence is amazing even if you don't beleive in a religion.
 
2005-02-16 11:35:29 PM
I am too lazy to link it:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/evolution.htm

Read up!

Also:

At the April 26, 1985 Vatican symposium on "Christian Faith and the Theory of Evolution," Pope John Paul II made the following comments, which no doubt reflect the collective view of the Academy, but which nevertheless appear inconsistent with the actual findings of modern science:

"Rightly comprehended, faith in creation or a correctly understood teaching of evolution does not create obstacles: Evolution in fact presupposes creation; creation situates itself in the light of evolution as an event which extends itself through time - as a continual creation - in which God becomes visible to the eyes of the believer as 'creator of heaven and earth.' "


Pope Paul II revisited the question of evolution in a 1996 a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Unlike Pius XII, John Paul is broadly read, and embraces science and reason. He won the respect of many scientists in 1993, when in April 1993 he formally acquitted Galileo, 360 years after his indictment, of heretical support for Copernicuss heliocentrism. The pontiff began his statement with the hope that we will all be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science. Evolution, he said, is an essential subject which deeply interests the Church. He recognized that science and Scripture sometimes have apparent contradictions, but said that when this is the case, a solution must be found because truth cannot contradict truth. The Pope pointed to the Churchs coming to terms with Galileos discoveries concerning the nature of the solar system as an example of how science might inspire the Church to seek a new and correct interpretation of the inspired word.


When the pope came to the subject of the scientific merits of evolution, it soon became clear how much things had changed in the nearly since the Vatican last addressed the issue. John Paul said:


Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.


Evolution, a doctrine that Pius XII only acknowledged as an unfortunate possibility, John Paul accepts forty-six years later as an effectively proven fact.
 
2005-02-16 11:36:24 PM
The problem is that people don't understand that DNA changes, that's the only thing that matters. What a creature looks like is just an external expression of DNA. If I looked at a poodle and dobberman, I might wonder if they are even the same species but they have almost identical DNA.
 
2005-02-16 11:37:20 PM
"At some point someone 'theorized' that there was zero gravity in outer space. And then one day we were able to measure this. I'd say that was 'proven'."

Hey, wait a minute. We're in a giant gravity well of a solar system, a galaxy, a galactic cluster, and a cluster of galactic clusters...amoung other things. I'd hardly agree that anyone has proven zero gravity exists anywhere. [smirk]

Perhaps this is an unnecessary splitting hairs.
 
2005-02-16 11:38:12 PM
Blhack
Can't we please just have a discussion without having an argument! I wish fark were just a huge coffee house, that way we could all sit down with our respective cups of yerba matte/coffee/tea/chai/etc. and just discuss things, as opposed to arguing them!
Doesn't work face to face either. People still get all worked up, holler, and constantly interrupt someone who dares to disagree with them. At least here, someone may not read my post, but they can't interrupt me & keep others from seeing it.

BTY: The link I posted below was half a joke. Even I don't believe that that web site represent a scientific experiment.
 
2005-02-16 11:38:18 PM
Prospero424
No, evolution starts with the question of how life originated and diversified. Then, using observable phenomenon, forms the theory most likely to be true.

It doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is flawless, just that it's the most likely theory to be true given available, observeable, scientific evidence.


Thats not true. The theory before darwin ever came around was that god had a series of "creations", each 'creation' was beuried and became a new fossile layer.

Then darwin came along and said, "hey guys, some of these fossle have simularities, its possible that they wern't destoryed by god, but just changed over time" evolution was born. it started with an assumption. Starting with assumptions is a big no no in science.
 
2005-02-16 11:39:34 PM
pnaimoli:
Evolutions starts with the assumption that simularities indicate common ancestory, and works down from that, not the other way around

No, evolution started with the observation of the natural world, then worked UP from there. There were a number of evolutionary theories prior to Darwin's. None made the grade.
 
2005-02-16 11:40:46 PM
pnaimoli
I guess you've never heard of the 7 deadly sins ... your ignorence is amazing even if you don't beleive in a religion.
gluttony, wrath, sloth, avarice, pride, envy and lust? 1) that's not in the bible anywhere, 2) christianity still offers redemption from all of them by belief in jesus. i'm an atheist and i know that, sweet farking christ. have you ever even read the bible?

-c
 
2005-02-16 11:41:16 PM
pnaimoli: Starting with assumptions is a big no no in science.

Your definition seems a little too narrow. Would you say that the theory of gravity starts with the assumption that objects with mass are attracted to each other? That the theory of electromagnetism starts off with the assumption that they are one and the same? Do you have a problem with either of those theories?
 
2005-02-16 11:41:59 PM
I noticed that things quieted down when I said that Creationism shouldn't be taught in school. That was a relief.

Loosecannon

Maybe next time.
 
2005-02-16 11:42:34 PM
pnaimoli:

"...its possible that they wern't destoryed by god..."

This is the crux of the point. Evolution started as a way to explain these types of phenomenon in a way that didn't rely entirely on the supernatural.

Your point is that because Darwin eschewed the supernatural in his theory, that this is an unacceptable assumption. That is an inherently flawed argument.
 
2005-02-16 11:44:20 PM
NiteClerk:

FYI: some of these experiments have been tried. See:
Evolution Disproved (pops)


Is that website for real? I looked for the Landover name and didn't see it (except in a link condemning the Landover folks) but the whole thing looks like a joke... especially with things like:
"Some have criticized my stance on triclavianism as being counterproductive, arguing that making a point of doctrinal contention over not making a point of doctrinal contention over adiaphora is itself non-salvific. However, my critics are overlooking the dangers of triclavianistic doctrines: allowing adiaphora to creep into our credenda -- while possibly pushing the theologoumenic envelope and providing exciting new opportunities for supererogative works -- will most often serve to muddy the soteriological foundation of Faith, leading in general to ultramontane excesses and, in extreme cases, ebaptization (which is unacceptable pastoral malpractice, however rare it may be.) Doctrinal integrity, and hence salvific effectiveness, is best served by working to end triclavianism and similar erroneous, or simply adiaphoric, doctrines."

It's satire, right? Right?

/hopes it's satire
 
2005-02-16 11:44:28 PM
whatshisname
No, evolution started with the observation of the natural world, then worked UP from there. There were a number of evolutionary theories prior to Darwin's. None made the grade.

the observations are flawed though, it has been covered a million times in this thread alone. Incomplete fossle records, terrible dating methods, lack of transition fossiles.

on the other hand, my observation of the natural world is that about 9/10 of us beleive in some kind of religion, yet you say its false.
 
2005-02-16 11:45:57 PM
damn right neongoats
 
2005-02-16 11:46:36 PM
lixivium

Gravity is a lie perpetuated by world governments for centuries! It's a lie used to control a mostly ignorant and confused populace and I for one will not stand for it (I'll float)
 
2005-02-16 11:47:46 PM
pshaw: Don't even think about crossing fb-, he could impregnate you, your dog, your goldfish, and your grandmother, all in the blink of an eye.

/doth my eyes decieve me, is that the real Fb-?
 
2005-02-16 11:47:49 PM
lixivium
Your definition seems a little too narrow. Would you say that the theory of gravity starts with the assumption that objects with mass are attracted to each other? That the theory of electromagnetism starts off with the assumption that they are one and the same? Do you have a problem with either of those theories

neither of them are theories, they are proven and measured. Go take a basic physics class and come back here when you are stupid, and not trying to change the subject.
 
2005-02-16 11:48:34 PM
"not stupid" typo
 
2005-02-16 11:49:27 PM
Cpu_thrasher

I'll take that as good advice.
 
2005-02-16 11:49:56 PM
pnaimoli: the observations are flawed though, it has been covered a million times in this thread alone. Incomplete fossle records, terrible dating methods, lack of transition fossiles.

Oh no. I guess you haven't read much of the thread, then?
-The fossil records are just fine, thanks.
-There's so much more evidence than fossils, anyway.
-I don't think anybody has mentioned dating methods. But thank you for pulling that little chestnut from your handbook of creationism. The dating methods used by science are quite accurate.
-There are many transitional fossils.

on the other hand, my observation of the natural world is that about 9/10 of us beleive in some kind of religion, yet you say its false.

-I have never said any kind of religion is 'false'. I am merely defending science. Where did you come up with the 9/10 figure? And which religion is the right one?
 
2005-02-16 11:50:00 PM
pnaimoli
on the other hand, my observation of the natural world is that about 9/10 of us beleive in some kind of religion, yet you say its false.

yeah, a whole lot of people believe that "a ducks quack doesn't echo and nobody knows why."

an overwhelming majority of people also believe that if red comes up on a roulette wheel 3 times in a row, that black has a better chance of coming up next.

you can spend an entire day at snopes.com finding retarded things that lots of people believe in for no good reason. just because you happened to base your farked up sense of reality on one of the more retarded ones doesn't make it any more true.

-c
 
2005-02-16 11:51:12 PM
pnaimoli:

the observations are flawed though, it has been covered a million times in this thread alone. Incomplete fossle records, terrible dating methods, lack of transition fossiles.

THERE IS NOTHING FARKING WRONG WITH THE FOSSIL RECORD

If you want to see how wrong you are, goole "Punctuated Equilibria."
 
2005-02-16 11:51:45 PM
propero424

pnaimoli:

"...its possible that they wern't destoryed by god..."

This is the crux of the point. Evolution started as a way to explain these types of phenomenon in a way that didn't rely entirely on the supernatural.

Your point is that because Darwin eschewed the supernatural in his theory, that this is an unacceptable assumption. That is an inherently flawed argument.


Thats not fair, you can't selectivly break up my whole comment and just read the part that supports your argument... well, you can, did, but its wrong and not what I said.
 
2005-02-16 11:53:57 PM
smartgirl63

I'm not sure about the people who made the site. I think they are serious. I threw it in as a joke. Actually, I enjoy science. But I don't accept every scientific "fact" that comes along.

Oh Yeah. I see that a couple of post earlier I reference the original person to post in this thread and got caught by the Boobies filter. Doh!!
 
2005-02-16 11:55:01 PM
pnaimoli
neither of them are theories, they are proven and measured. Go take a basic physics class and come back here when you are stupid, and not trying to change the subject.

what the hell is wrong with you? if gravity isn't a theory, how does it work? come on, tell me how it works. i dare you. i farking dare you. tell me how it works and show proof.

-c
 
2005-02-16 11:55:32 PM
thornhill
THERE IS NOTHING FARKING WRONG WITH THE FOSSIL RECORD

If you want to see how wrong you are, goole "Punctuated Equilibria."


I'll google it later, just promise me you'll do a GIS for our human ancestors, then see how they 'prove' from two teeth and part of a jaw bone the size of your fingernail that the animal was "part human part ape, that probably walk upright" Then how they date it .. cabon dating is a joke, a lot of you are going to flame me for saying that, but yeah, I've actually done a bit of research on that.
 
2005-02-16 11:58:03 PM
Has anyone said that white labratory mice and dolphines are smarter than humans yet?

That reminds me. Everyone check out the front page of Amazon.com
 
2005-02-16 11:58:19 PM
chrismac
pnaimoli
neither of them are theories, they are proven and measured. Go take a basic physics class and come back here when you are stupid, and not trying to change the subject.

what the hell is wrong with you? if gravity isn't a theory, how does it work? come on, tell me how it works. i dare you. i farking dare you. tell me how it works and show proof.


I don't need to know how it works to make it not a theory, I can prove gravity is there, I can prove matter attacts matter, I can measure big G the universal gavitational constant.

I have a car in my drive way.. it moves really fast, I don't know how it works, but its a fact that it is there and moves. not a theory, you must have no idea what a theory is to say gravity is a theory.
 
2005-02-16 11:58:37 PM
pnaimoli

You said that the theory of evolution, like intelligent design, started with an assumtion. You then related how this assumtion was that God didn't directly guide the process of life on this planet.

I explained how the "assumption" was not an assumtion, but an attempt to explain our world in a way that doesn't rely entirely upon the supernatural.

Just because you want to obfuscate the issue by arguing about fossil records and such won't make me ignore the very foundation of your error. :)
 
2005-02-16 11:58:38 PM
"it started with an assumption. Starting with assumptions is a big no no in science."

What "school" did YOU learn your science in???

Those are called theories. A theory is different from a mere list of facts in that a theory *IS* a momentary assumption based on the [few] facts which ARE available, in an attempt to explain a system.

To come up with a theory requires an assumption on the part of the scientist. The theory is then proved or disproved as each of the original assumptions is confirmed or denied through experimentation.
 
2005-02-16 11:59:32 PM
pnaimoli:
cabon dating is a joke, a lot of you are going to flame me for saying that, but yeah, I've actually done a bit of research on that.

Then you'd know that they would never use it to date a 'part human - part ape" skeleton, because it isn't accurate for anything older than 50,000 years, wouldn't you!!!!

You are a complete troll. Good night.
 
2005-02-16 11:59:39 PM
Out of here. Nite all.

/Faxes TPS report & leaves.
//Wonders about new cover sheet.
 
2005-02-17 12:00:20 AM
Then darwin came along and said, "hey guys, some of these fossle have simularities, its possible that they wern't destoryed by god, but just changed over time" evolution was born.

That's a vast oversimplification. As I remember it, most of his theory involved the observations of living things, not fossils.
 
2005-02-17 12:00:57 AM
not being a troll, but can someone tell me what is used to test the age of something. in other words, when they find a fossil, what method are they using to say "this item is about 20 million years old" and is that method infallible?
 
2005-02-17 12:01:03 AM
pnaimoli:

Starting with assumptions is a big no no in science.

Clearly you never took a science class in high school or college. Step 1 of the scientific process is "forming a hypothesis."
 
2005-02-17 12:01:04 AM
I don't know pnaimoli.
 
2005-02-17 12:01:30 AM
pnaimoli:

neither of them are theories, they are proven and measured. Go take a basic physics class and come back here when you are [not] stupid, and not trying to change the subject.

Okay, perhaps I was a little unclear. I apologize if that was the case.

By your definition, the Theory of Gravity (according to General Relativity) assumes that matter creates a dent in space-time like a bowling ball on a rubber sheet. This is one heck of an assumption. Do you have a problem with this? Do you want it kept out of science classrooms?

But since you don't have a problem with gravity or electromagnetism...
If I set out to formulate a theory of gravity, with the assumption God didn't create all matter in the universe, what difference does it make?


Absolutely, it gives me great pleasure to do what I do; far more than you could ever imagine. In fact, I have an orgasm every time I paste a quote from my website. If you can hit that trifecta of being off-topic, out-of-context, and condescending at the same time, when quoting someone, thats a beautiful feeling. Its like having Kent Hovind give you a blowjob while Ken Ham massages your prostate with the spine of an original Guttenberg Bible.
~ Bevets
 
2005-02-17 12:03:22 AM
"what the hell is wrong with you? if gravity isn't a theory, how does it work?"

You're NOT flying off into space. That is empiracal evidence of the existance and bahvior of gravity.


"Faithers" demanding "proof". This is so stupid.
 
2005-02-17 12:04:29 AM
pnaimoli ... you must have no idea what a theory is to say gravity is a theory.

ahem....Gravitation Theory

I know you have a habit of not clicking on links to webpages refuting your claims though.
 
2005-02-17 12:04:39 AM
pnaimoli
I don't need to know how it works to make it not a theory, I can prove gravity is there, I can prove matter attacts matter, I can measure big G the universal gavitational constant.


I have a car in my drive way.. it moves really fast, I don't know how it works, but its a fact that it is there and moves. not a theory, you must have no idea what a theory is to say gravity is a theory.


have i been trolled? or are you just a retard? because the theory of gravity is very much a theory. can i get a push from one of my science-friendly buddies here?

-c
 
2005-02-17 12:04:39 AM
holy cow....just read above and realized you guys were already talking about this. still looking for an answer because i had read (non religious articles) about carbon dating being not completely accurate and was wondering if that was the only method

ironic on my Boobies and then reading the above posts though.
 
2005-02-17 12:04:46 AM
bluesfan:

not being a troll, but can someone tell me what is used to test the age of something. in other words, when they find a fossil, what method are they using to say "this item is about 20 million years old" and is that method infallible?


I believe they use radio carbon dating, or geological evidence generally, which is good for ballpark numbers. And IMHO those methods are probably more factual than a 2000 year old book of fairy tales.

/totally not trying to flame ya
 
2005-02-17 12:04:53 AM
bluesfan:

not being a troll, but can someone tell me what is used to test the age of something. in other words, when they find a fossil, what method are they using to say "this item is about 20 million years old" and is that method infallible?

Same method as carbon dating, only you use radioisotopes that have a much longer half life than carbon-14.
 
2005-02-17 12:04:57 AM
lazslo fark
What "school" did YOU learn your science in???

Those are called theories. A theory is different from a mere list of facts in that a theory *IS* a momentary assumption based on the [few] facts which ARE available, in an attempt to explain a system.

To come up with a theory requires an assumption on the part of the scientist. The theory is then proved or disproved as each of the original assumptions is confirmed or denied through experimentation.


I know evolution is a theory, im not saying evolution is wrong. Im saying its also an assumption that there was inteligent design, there are also a few facts that point to inteligent design. it is also a theory. I don't think one or the other should not be tought in schools.

BTW I can't restpond to everyone, so im just going to respond to the ones that don't insult me or say something stupid.
 
2005-02-17 12:05:00 AM
 
2005-02-17 12:05:14 AM
My word remains divine.
 
2005-02-17 12:05:20 AM
cabon dating is a joke, a lot of you are going to flame me for saying that, but yeah, I've actually done a bit of research on that.

Would you mind explaining the basics of carbon dating and why it is a joke then? I struggle to see why someone who understands the concepts and does not have their judgment clouded by preconceived religious notions can come to such a conclusion.
 
2005-02-17 12:05:22 AM
pnaimoli
"on the other hand, my observation of the natural world is that about 9/10 of us beleive in some kind of religion, yet you say its false."

OK... I just have to say that this is such an amazingly horrible bit of reasoning that I cannot let it go.

Throughout the centuries various people have erroneously stated that we have reached the limits of practical technology.

Example:
640K ought to be enough for anybody. -Bill Gates

at one time...
Most of the world believe that the stars and planets were embedded in crystal spheres...

The world rested on the back of a giant turtle.

The Earth was the center of the universe...

I could go on, but why?

There are small groups of people that are learning things that very few people understand in their daily lives.

Luckily, knowledge trickles down. Eventually, generations from us will know as fact, the nature of gravity as a property of space/time and other such amazing things we all know so little.
 
2005-02-17 12:05:35 AM
let's try that again

Gravitation theory
 
2005-02-17 12:06:25 AM
"and is that method infallible?"

Oh, who's going to take the bait in THAT one?

Are you actually asking a scientific question (try google), or just trying to fish people into an argument over "absolute certainty"?

I'm sure radioactivity was put on earth only as a "test of faith", yes?
 
2005-02-17 12:06:37 AM
lmao...ok i have no idea how the word "boobies" got in my last post.
 
2005-02-17 12:07:26 AM
Sometimes I'm on the side that dominates the flamewar and I can just heckle from the balcony, and sometimes there's tonight.

G'night everyone. Everyone.
 
2005-02-17 12:07:44 AM
pnaimoli:

...so im just going to respond to the ones that don't insult me or say something stupid.

You mean like "come back when you're not stupid"?
 
2005-02-17 12:08:35 AM
thornhill:
HOw accurate is it, or is it a very proven method yet?

/just curious
 
2005-02-17 12:08:43 AM
I know there is still theory about gravity, we don't know everything about gravity therefor some of it is still theory. But it is verifiable that gravity is a force. It does exist, it is a fact. Please all of you, go outside and jump up and down a few times.
 
2005-02-17 12:08:54 AM
chrismac have i been trolled? or are you just a retard?

If you're going to call people names for trying to have a conversation, then the answer is yes, you ARE a retard.
 
2005-02-17 12:10:10 AM
Prospero424

pnaimoli:

...so im just going to respond to the ones that don't insult me or say something stupid.

You mean like "come back when you're not stupid"?


He doesn't have to respond to me if he doesn't want to :) Really, I insist he doesn't.
 
2005-02-17 12:10:11 AM
Why the hell have I been leaving the P out of assumption?

/smacks self in head
 
2005-02-17 12:10:34 AM
bluesfan:

and is that method infallible?

Unlike the Pope, science never claims to be infallible.

Radioactive dating is a very sound method; there really isn't any evidence against it.
 
2005-02-17 12:10:35 AM
This ID garbage seems like a lame rehasing of Descarte's Proof of the Existence of God. That proof is often used in freshmen level logic classes as a prime example of alleged certainty, which is exactly the same logical falacy that ID suffers from. Both make a very similar (false) assumption. With Descartes its that the idea of perfection must come from a higher source, with ID its that the complexity of biological beings must have been designed by a higher being. Neither of these assumptions have any logical or scientific basis.
 
2005-02-17 12:11:24 AM
pshaw: Sometimes I'm on the side that dominates the flamewar


In these pathetic evolution threads, you are never on the side that dominates the flamewar. In every single evolution/creation flamewar, the creationists get their asses handed to them every single time. I don't even know why you bother. You might as well be arguing brain surgury with a brain surgeon.
 
2005-02-17 12:11:29 AM
pnaimoli

Oh, I know, I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy, that's all.
 
2005-02-17 12:11:37 AM
bluesfan: thornhill:
HOw accurate is it, or is it a very proven method yet?


http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm
 
2005-02-17 12:12:12 AM
Hey bluesfan, you might have put the word "first" in front of the word "post". The server converts that automatically to "Boobies".

At least that's the theory. :)
 
2005-02-17 12:12:41 AM
bluesfan: can someone tell me what is used to test the age of something. in other words, when they find a fossil, what method are they using to say "this item is about 20 million years old" and is that method infallible?

The decay of radioactive compounds in the sample: Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.

You can use a few different isotopes and a few different labs, and you'll get an agreement to about 1%.
 
2005-02-17 12:14:43 AM
pnaimoli

I know there is still theory about gravity, we don't know everything about gravity therefor some of it is still theory. But it is verifiable that gravity is a force. It does exist, it is a fact. Please all of you, go outside and jump up and down a few times.


So, I guess you understand the difference between the law of gravity and the theory of gravitation? The law states that it happens, the theory states how it happens. Same goes with evolution: the theory is an attempt to explain how it happens. ID on the other hand, attempts to prove something for which there can be no evidence. It makes no attempt to explain the "how", because with the supernatural, there is no "how".
 
2005-02-17 12:15:04 AM
bluesfan

Just leave now, these people will grasp at any straws they can to try to make anything you say wrong at this point forwards, even if they don't have any knowledge of what their talking about.

In phychology we called these schemas(sp?) a way of connecting information in your brain to help you remember and make sence. Trying to get someone to change their schemas is like ripping out their heart.
 
2005-02-17 12:15:31 AM
Man... y'all treat fossil dating like it was the word of God or something.

A troll, but an easy troll.
 
2005-02-17 12:16:58 AM
Laszlo Fark

You're NOT flying off into space. That is empiracal evidence of the existance and bahvior of gravity.


"Faithers" demanding "proof". This is so stupid.


not to be a pest, but i'm not a faither. i'm a rather vocal atheist. my point was that, in asking for proof on how gravity works, he'd realize that there was no proof, only theory. theory backed with really great evidence that i am not going to try to refute, mind you. his prior point was that calling gravity theory "theory" was incorrect and a waste of time, but i think my point was lost somewhere. i also think i'm starting to ramble.

-c
 
2005-02-17 12:17:09 AM
Of course Maryland did this, they are a Blue State. The laws of reason and common sense still apply in the Blue States.

Unlike the redstates, where they take their laws out of the Taliban play-book.
 
2005-02-17 12:17:32 AM
pnaimoli:

these people will grasp at any straws they can to try to make anything you say wrong at this point forwards,


Yeah, damn those pesky facts!!!!!!
 
2005-02-17 12:18:09 AM
pnaimoli:

I know there is still theory about gravity, we don't know everything about gravity therefor some of it is still theory. But it is verifiable that gravity is a force. It does exist, it is a fact.

Evolution exists, it is a fact, and it happens all the time. To deny that would be to deny all the mechanisms of evolution (mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc.) and all the results of evolution (speciation, etc.) that, like gravity, has been observed, replicated, predicted, the whole shebang.

Answer this: You believe in gravity, yes? But how can gravity be valid if it starts with the assumption that there is no God? Wait, you say that Gravity doesn't assume that there's no God? Well why on Earth would you think Evolution assumes such a thing? And even if it did, what difference does it make?


Absolutely, it gives me great pleasure to do what I do; far more than you could ever imagine. In fact, I have an orgasm every time I paste a quote from my website. If you can hit that trifecta of being off-topic, out-of-context, and condescending at the same time, when quoting someone, thats a beautiful feeling. Its like having Kent Hovind give you a blowjob while Ken Ham massages your prostate with the spine of an original Guttenberg Bible.
~ Bevets
 
2005-02-17 12:18:22 AM
Like this:

Richard Fairbanks' tavern in Boston was the Boobies office in the United States
 
2005-02-17 12:18:51 AM
I don't even know why you bother.

"Sometimes lost causes are the only causes worth fighting for."
-- Mr. Smith, from Mr. Smith goes to Washington.

That'll be a sappy conclusion to the evening. Oh, and I updated the profile for the occasion.
 
2005-02-17 12:18:52 AM
pnaimoli

lord_spap-oop
A child, looking at the workings of a fine wristwatch, might insist that elves must have made it -- that humans could not have done it. He might honestly believe it, but it would not make it so.

If you traveled to the moon and found a wrist watch there, wouldn't you say someone put it there, not that if formed by natural proccesses.

life > watch.


That is really dumb, pnaimoli. If you traveled to the moon and saw munchkins square dancing, that would prove the existence of Oz. And what if the world was made of ice cream? Huh, huh?
 
2005-02-17 12:20:02 AM
crazy_gaijin

So, I guess you understand the difference between the law of gravity and the theory of gravitation? The law states that it happens, the theory states how it happens. Same goes with evolution: the theory is an attempt to explain how it happens. ID on the other hand, attempts to prove something for which there can be no evidence. It makes no attempt to explain the "how", because with the supernatural, there is no "how".

I know the difference between the law of gravity and the theory of gravitation. I can't say im an expert on eaither. But I know that when someone tells me gravity is a theory they are wrong, even though there is theory about gravity.

There is no attempt to explain "how" the big bang happened, they just call it first cause, but it still makes it into all of our physics books and a theory.
 
2005-02-17 12:22:21 AM
Gravity...proof...

Drop something. It falls. That is imperical evidence that gravity exists. Its behavior is obvious and after hundreds of years of study appears comfortably predictable. I can prove it's there by sitting here.

What kind of idiot does it take to say there is no evidence that gravity exists based on the argument that "we don't understand exactly what it is"?

I know the answer! A BIG idiot! A raving idiot who doesn't seem capable of having a productive conversation; A blithering idiot; A bumbling idiot.
 
2005-02-17 12:22:27 AM
pshaw:

Good grief. I have my beliefs. You have yours. I believe in God. You believe we were spawned out of single-celled creatures. That's your belief.

I'm not going to bash you for being stupid. Don't bash me.


Here's the thing, you're beliefs are stupid.
 
2005-02-17 12:22:30 AM


Glad to see some things never change
 
2005-02-17 12:24:12 AM
Prove I was talking to YOU.
 
2005-02-17 12:25:14 AM
So far this year Marylanders got Sammy Sosa and also decided to stay in the 21st century.

Big year for them.

/Go Sox.
 
2005-02-17 12:25:14 AM
pnaimoli
There is no attempt to explain "how" the big bang happened, they just call it first cause, but it still makes it into all of our physics books and a theory.


WTF does the big bang have to do with evolution? Evolution is a biological theory, it has nothing to do with cosmology or abiogenesis for that matter. For all evolution knows, some deity could have created the universe and the planet earth with all the necessary stuff to spawn life.

People talk about creation and how god "designed" everything with so much thought, but really, which sounds more like an act of design: speaking something into existance or millions of years of trial and error?

ID, creation, and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
 
2005-02-17 12:25:28 AM
Here's the thing, you're beliefs are stupid.

I would have said dangerous, ignorant and depressing. But I probably would also have said "your" (sorry, couldn't help myself).
 
2005-02-17 12:25:29 AM
BrotherAlpha: Here's the thing, you're beliefs are stupid.

Gee, thanks. I think the number of comments from the main page should tell you that's been said once or twice.
 
2005-02-17 12:27:10 AM
Pshaw-

It's not that your beliefs are stupid, but they are by most standards pretty ill-informed.
 
2005-02-17 12:27:50 AM
i never implied that gravity didn't exist, i said that you can't explain gravity without getting into the theory behind it. just like how evolution exists, but you can't explain it without getting into the theory behind it. the point is that evolution is as much theory as gravity...and they both exist.

but hey, i'm just using that "science" again that's so hip with the kids these days. it must be a fad.

-c
 
2005-02-17 12:28:12 AM
lord_spap-oop

A child, looking at the workings of a fine wristwatch, might insist that elves must have made it -- that humans could not have done it. He might honestly believe it, but it would not make it so.

If you traveled to the moon and found a wrist watch there, wouldn't you say someone put it there, not that if formed by natural proccesses.

life > watch.

That is really dumb, pnaimoli. If you traveled to the moon and saw munchkins square dancing, that would prove the existence of Oz. And what if the world was made of ice cream? Huh, huh?


im dumb? all I did was restate what you said but change the wording and add life > watch at the end.

I thought that was a pretty profound statement. You can't seriously argue with the logic of my statement, let me make it simpler for you.

is even the simple is form of life more complicated than a very basic watch? = yes

watches are made though inteligent design. = yes

if you went to any random planet in the galaxy and found a watch, you would assume right away that someone was there before you and put it there. = yes

if you went to any random planet and found a watch, you would assume it formed naturally from the ground, it itself being made from natural materials. = no

the chance of life forming naturally is much much less than a watch forming naturally. = yes

if I lost you some where, plese don't call me stupid just because you lack understanding.
 
2005-02-17 12:30:42 AM
pnaimoli, do you not have anything to say in response to my 2005-02-16 11:58:37 PM post?
 
2005-02-17 12:31:40 AM
crazy_gaijin


WTF does the big bang have to do with evolution? Evolution is a biological theory, it has nothing to do with cosmology or abiogenesis for that matter. For all evolution knows, some deity could have created the universe and the planet earth with all the necessary stuff to spawn life.

People talk about creation and how god "designed" everything with so much thought, but really, which sounds more like an act of design: speaking something into existance or millions of years of trial and error?

ID, creation, and evolution are not mutually exclusive.


I don't know what the big ban has to do with evolution, for that matter I don't know what gravity has to do with evolution or why it was ever brought up.

Im glad you see you agree with me, evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive. They should both be put in text books.

now that you see we agree, help me convince the rest of these people
 
2005-02-17 12:32:21 AM
"origin-of-life theories" sounds like a good way to open up these discussions in the classroom. I'd say the theory of evolution has the advantage here because it is supported by ummm, let me see....THE EVIDENCE!!!
 
2005-02-17 12:32:44 AM
pnaimoli

is even the simple is form of life more complicated than a very basic watch? = yes

watches are made though inteligent design. = yes

if you went to any random planet in the galaxy and found a watch, you would assume right away that someone was there before you and put it there. = yes


It's not profound, it's idiotic. (I'm not saying you're an idiot, but the statment is illogical) The reason is that watches are not biological, they don't reproduce, they're mechanical. Organisms reproduce, therefore the watch argument does not apply.
 
2005-02-17 12:34:58 AM
Prospero424


pnaimoli, do you not have anything to say in response to my 2005-02-16 11:58:37 PM post?

..

You said I was wrong about something.. I don't think im wrong about. not to mentions im not really sure what that post was supposed to be reffering too, im kind'a tired and it was written poorly.
 
2005-02-17 12:36:00 AM
pnaimoli:

Im glad you see you agree with me, evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive. They should both be put in text books.

Absolutely, creationism should be in a religious textbook, evolution should be in a science textbook. Now that we agree, help me convince Bevets and Co.

In case you missed it earlier:

I know there is still theory about gravity, we don't know everything about gravity therefor some of it is still theory. But it is verifiable that gravity is a force. It does exist, it is a fact.

Evolution exists, it is a fact, and it happens all the time. To deny that would be to deny all the mechanisms of evolution (mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc.) and all the results of evolution (speciation, etc.) that, like gravity, has been observed, replicated, predicted, the whole shebang.

Answer this: You believe in gravity, yes? But how can gravity be valid if it starts with the assumption that there is no God? Wait, you say that Gravity doesn't assume that there's no God? Well why on Earth would you think Evolution assumes such a thing? And even if it did, what difference does it make?


Absolutely, it gives me great pleasure to do what I do; far more than you could ever imagine. In fact, I have an orgasm every time I paste a quote from my website. If you can hit that trifecta of being off-topic, out-of-context, and condescending at the same time, when quoting someone, thats a beautiful feeling. Its like having Kent Hovind give you a blowjob while Ken Ham massages your prostate with the spine of an original Guttenberg Bible.
~ Bevets
 
2005-02-17 12:38:03 AM
pnaimoli
Im glad you see you agree with me, evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive. They should both be put in text books.

Not quite. The reason I say they aren't mutually exclusive is that they have different jurisdictions. Creation is a religious belief that a deity brought everything into being, it does not say how. Evolutions states how all living things decended from a common ancestor. ID is a religious belief that says that some deity is behind all of the workings of the universe. (essentially creationism but less specific)

ID and creation are religious beliefs, and should therefore, not be taught in public schools. If you want you kid taught this stuff, a.teach them yourself b. sunday school c. private xian school.
 
2005-02-17 12:38:17 AM
crazy_gaijin


It's not profound, it's idiotic. (I'm not saying you're an idiot, but the statment is illogical) The reason is that watches are not biological, they don't reproduce, they're mechanical. Organisms reproduce, therefore the watch argument does not apply.

I think you and him both missed the point I was trying to make, which was about probability. I guess since you bring it up, a watch that could repoduce, repair its self, and react to the enviorment around it would be a pretty impressive peice of engeneering.
 
2005-02-17 12:38:23 AM
you know, i really thought this was going to be settled once and for all tonight and nobody would ever have reason to argue religion vs. science ever again.

i guess i was wrong

going to bed

-c

(yes, i was being sarcastic)
 
2005-02-17 12:39:06 AM
crazy_gaijin:

Thanks for clearing that up for him. Isn't it nice to actually KNOW something?
 
2005-02-17 12:40:02 AM
A professor of my religious studies class in college put it really well right before he commenced to explaining the Pagan beginnings of Christianity: "There is faith and there is fact. Faith is the belief in that which cannot be proved. I will teach you fact." Simple. No need to argue. Those who believe will continue to and all our facts will never change their minds. Only their lack of faith will. We cannot debate that which is unprovable. I DO get upset however, when the Christian right pretends that their faith somehow trumps my liberty to learn facts. It's called an education not sunday school class.
 
2005-02-17 12:42:00 AM
Gravity has everything to do with evolution. It's integral to the atmospheric, hydro/biological conditions required for photo-ynthesis.
 
2005-02-17 12:42:11 AM
farkertx

Well put.
 
2005-02-17 12:42:52 AM
crazy_gaijin


Not quite. The reason I say they aren't mutually exclusive is that they have different jurisdictions. Creation is a religious belief that a deity brought everything into being, it does not say how. Evolutions states how all living things decended from a common ancestor. ID is a religious belief that says that some deity is behind all of the workings of the universe. (essentially creationism but less specific)

ID and creation are religious beliefs, and should therefore, not be taught in public schools. If you want you kid taught this stuff, a.teach them yourself b. sunday school c. private xian school.


But their both theories, why would you deny your kid the opertunity to make his own decisions on which one he likes best.

6 months ago I might have been fighting along side all of you for evolution, but in that time I've done a lot of reading (on both sides) and came to the conclusions they they both make no sence. But I can prove evolution makes no sence, so I might as well stick with the one I can't disprove.
 
2005-02-17 12:43:05 AM
Bah, this flamewar has been subpar; Bevets has only made 1 appearance. I guess evolution vs. creationism just can't compete with Bush vs. Liberals. I'm going to bed.


I know there is still theory about gravity, we don't know everything about gravity therefor some of it is still theory. But it is verifiable that gravity is a force. It does exist, it is a fact.

Evolution exists, it is a fact, and it happens all the time. To deny that would be to deny all the mechanisms of evolution (mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc.) and all the results of evolution (speciation, etc.) that, like gravity, has been observed, replicated, predicted, the whole shebang.

Answer this: You believe in gravity, yes? But how can gravity be valid if it starts with the assumption that there is no God? Wait, you say that Gravity doesn't assume that there's no God? Well why on Earth would you think Evolution assumes such a thing? And even if it did, what difference does it make?


Absolutely, it gives me great pleasure to do what I do; far more than you could ever imagine. In fact, I have an orgasm every time I paste a quote from my website. If you can hit that trifecta of being off-topic, out-of-context, and condescending at the same time, when quoting someone, thats a beautiful feeling. It's like having Kent Hovind give you a blowjob while Ken Ham massages your prostate with the spine of an original Guttenberg Bible.
~ Bevets
 
2005-02-17 12:44:09 AM
pnaimoli


Ahhh, the old "ignore the points that I can't refute and they'll go away" routine.

That, or you really can't understand what I was saying, which is kinda sad.

Oh, and someone who repeatedly misspells explanation, similarity, believe, buried, and fossil REALLY should not call others' posts "poorly written" and use that as an excuse as to why they didn't reply. Just sayin'.
 
2005-02-17 12:45:13 AM
Oh, and sense, too.
 
2005-02-17 12:45:55 AM
Err...I didn't mean to post that stuff again. I wish Fark would let you edit your posts...and have signatures.

Night all.


Absolutely, it gives me great pleasure to do what I do; far more than you could ever imagine. In fact, I have an orgasm every time I paste a quote from my website. If you can hit that trifecta of being off-topic, out-of-context, and condescending at the same time, when quoting someone, thats a beautiful feeling. It's like having Kent Hovind give you a blowjob while Ken Ham massages your prostate with the spine of an original Guttenberg Bible.
~ Bevets
 
2005-02-17 12:47:30 AM
im a programmer, not an english major, Ill speel as purly as eye want to.

BTW, nicely put farkertx.
 
2005-02-17 12:49:08 AM
pshaw-thank you. And isn't it sad people would rather argue? I have one question of all of you involved in the argument: Just tell me what you get out of this? Seriously.
 
2005-02-17 12:49:09 AM
pnaimoli

Then you shouldn't be complaining about my "poor" writing.

Hehehe, you're easy. No, not in THAT way :)
 
2005-02-17 12:51:03 AM
Your right, I shouldn't have, but I did.

on a side note, im done here, and im going to go play starcraft BW. have fun.
 
2005-02-17 12:52:35 AM
Bevets
Please explain how the scientific method applys. i.e. observe, predict, experiment, repeat -- how do we repeat ANCIENT (pre human) history? Here's a helpful suggestion repeat the transition from reptile to bird in a lab (that would be fascinating!) After you have repeated this transition, explain why your lab experiment proves that this is EXACTLY how it happened historically.


Oh man... again?

Look... I've responded to this EXACT post from you many times already, and you've never followed up. Ever.

OK... let's see...

Suppose we set up this lab experiment, and duplicate the entire ecosystem down to the smallest detail...we then watch a reptile to see if it turns into a bird. Suppose we don't get a bird...suppose we get a duck billed platypus. Or, suppose we start with a lizard and end up with a turtle. Did my experiment fail? Does that disprove evolution, since we didn't get a bird?

OK...now... let's suppose we do get a bird at the end. Now you want me to go back for the second part, which is to prove that my experiment proves exactly how it happened historically. How am I supposed to do that, short of building a time machine? Even if I demonstrate evolution in my experiment, I'm no further ahead because now I have to show that history agrees with my experiment. How would you propose I do that, seeing as how we don't even agree on how it happened historically? How do I prove that my version of history is how it really happened? Do I whip out the time machine?

If I need to build a time machine to compare my experiment with real world history, why even bother with the experiment? Why not just go back and see for myself?

Hey...if I build a time machine, you wanna come for a ride? If I see God sculpting people from clay, I'll have to take that as pretty convincing evidence for special creation. Would you accept direct first-hand evidence of evolution if you saw it?
 
2005-02-17 12:54:03 AM
But their both theories, why would you deny your kid the opertunity to make his own decisions on which one he likes best.

they're not both theories. Theories try to explain how something happens. ID merely tries to prove that it's plausible that the universe is a product of intelligent design. That's perfectly fine, but it's not a theory and it's not science. Like I said, if you want to teach your kid both, that's fine, but not at public school. If they taught philosophy in highschool, then I might support that, but let's not go calling creation or ID science.
 
2005-02-17 12:54:31 AM
All you theists are just frightened because you know that one day, you WILL die and as a weak human, you settle for stories that make the whole process seem easier to accept. A godless universe is very exhilarating and much easier to come to terms with than an universe governed by some entity that is supposedly all-knowing and all-loving, yet, is eager to punish, with the most awful torments, those who aren't willing to worship him the right way.

Shed the belief in your God, and you will achieve true "spiritual" happiness. You'll never do such a thing though, by believing in incredible stories and illogical and irrational "beliefs".
 
2005-02-17 12:57:11 AM
farkertx

Just tell me what you get out of this? Seriously.

bringing fairy tales disguised as fact into public school scares the bejesus out of me. while the scientific community has a lot of people that aren't always honest, in the end the point to science is to uncover the answers, no matter what they are.

the point to religion is to make sure, at any cost, that the answers you get match the ones you've already decided on.

it scares the hell out of me that the state could fund that sort of thing in public schools, let alone make it legal to teach to kids in any respect.

this is the future of society we're talking about. it gets me really, really upset when people screw with it on purpose.

-c
 
2005-02-17 12:57:58 AM
See? This is the point I always reach with those defending the idea of teaching Intelligent Design or Creationism in public school; when it's made obvious to them how these theories require faith in the supernatural to even exist, but the theory of evoluion does not, they do one of two things: give up and stop talking to me or start in with the whole ridiculous "science is religion too!" diatribe.

This is why I only bother when I'm really, really bored. Like now.
 
2005-02-17 12:58:00 AM
Here's a question for all you creationists out there. Do you believe in economics? Do market forces promote the strongest and most capable and do the prices for goods reach an efficient outcome in a capitalistic market? If no, you pinko commie scum. ^_^ If yes, why do you not believe in evolution? It's the same mechanism; in fact, there's a branch of game theory - evolutionary game theory - that posits no rationality at all (unlike traditional game theory) and still reaches the exact same conclusions as traditional game theory. Random chance produces evolutionarily stable states (ESSes) that are equivalent to the Nash equilibria reached by rational beings.

What's that mean? The same end results can be reached without the additional complexity of a rational being - an 'intelligent designer' - for whose existence we have no evidence. I find this an interesting parallel for biology, where one can either take things as they are (evolution) or add an extra bit (ID) and reach the same conclusion. However, evolution is falsifiable, ID as creationism is not.

To be completely fair, there is a scientific ID. It is the 'extraterrestrial ID' - the theory that alien biology reached earth in some form and began the process of evolution. Mind you, this is falsifiable, in that there could be evidence against it. However, creationism ID is what most people are talking about when they try to put it in textbooks, and that form is completely ludicrous.
 
2005-02-17 12:58:15 AM
the desire to escape death greatly overpowers the desire to follow links that clearly show "transitional" fossils. yeah, they're up there toward the top of the thread. there should be no arguing because it's right there. "la la la I can't see you!" would at least be more honest. I came into these threads with an "open mind" (by which I mean I tried to put asside everything I already knew) and the evolutionists win in a big way every time. know why? because there's PROOF ALL OVER THE PLACE and if you'd pull your heads out of your asses you would SEE IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU! yeah I know, you're not listening. either that or you don't care about reality one bit. I guess there's the people who don't care, who have the agenda, and the ill informed sheople they lead around. I think the sheople outnumber the agenda people by far, and they will come to our side more and more as the truth spreads. all that will be left then are a small number of cult-leader types who disbelieve in reality and have no say over anything. yeah, they're usually called "insane people." we just have to get the numbers down before we can use that term as appropriately as we can without offending a huge group of armed people. then we can lock up and/or treat the loonies. it's going to be a painful transitional period while the loonies struggle to maintain control of the majority of the US population that they currently have. but I have reason to believe that truth will overpower superstition: it's called history. your kind are about to become it.
 
2005-02-17 01:00:53 AM
Its science class; you teach science not a religious belief. Stick to the facts. If religion is such a big deal then make a religion class that teaches about every religion. Science is not a religion.

/probably already been said
 
2005-02-17 01:00:55 AM
BrotherAlpha: Here's the thing, you're beliefs are stupid.

pshaw:

Gee, thanks. I think the number of comments from the main page should tell you that's been said once or twice.

Yeah, and it needed to be said again.

In fact, it is so important that I'll say it again but with different words:

Creationism is a stupid belief and in this day and age only stupid people believe in it.
 
2005-02-17 01:01:03 AM
Hey!

Stop calling us super-scientific, ultra-enlightened creationists stoopid! Just because we believe in what we believe, which is the absolute truth (because we believe it). We know it's true because people who believed what we believed wrote it down... so there's the proof! Just because there's no actual evidence, we can still believe in an all-powerful, super-nice invisible creator. We believe it, and it's true. You can't disprove it, so it's true. And it's our version, not some other peoples' version (they're the stoopid, dumb, crazy ones, because they don't believe the way we believe).

We're not crazy. Or desperate. Just because we scream at the top of our lungs and point furiously every time a random occurance lends the flimsiest bit of "evidence" to our belief (truth), like a pattern of burns on toast or an irregular stain on a rug that looks like the person we believe (know) to exist. That doesn't make us crazy. Or Stoopid. Or desperate. Or stubborn. Not at all.

We're not stoopid, or dumb or crazy because we believe in magical invisible man who will take us to a sooper-nice place when we die. It makes us happy, it is how we like to look at the world, so therefore it must be forced upon you and your kids, too. And we outnumber you, so obviously we're right. And not crazy. Or dumb. Not at all. Because we know we're not crazy.

If you think we're crazy, then you must be under the control of the other invisible guy, the boogeyman, who makes all bad things that we don't like. So you're crazy. And dumb. And a poopy-head. And when we kill you, you're not going to come to the super-nice place to be with the super-nice, magical man that is exactly how we say he is. Because we say so.

So there. [ stamps foot, sticks out tongue ]

/Not reading this thread any more so don't bother replying.
//I won't hear your arguments, because I'm right.
///Because I believe I am.
 
2005-02-17 01:02:02 AM
Bevets is here!

I'll try my own:

"May it not suffice for me to say ... that, of course, like every other man of intelligence and education, I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised." -- President Woodrow Wilson, 1922
 
2005-02-17 01:02:29 AM
mmcoder:

Whatever it is you're on, I don't think you should be driving or operating heavy machinery tonight.
 
2005-02-17 01:03:33 AM
just stuck around to see what people would say, now im really off.

crazy_gaijin , a theory explains stuff you say? Creation explains where we came from therefor its a theory, despite what you may think a "theory" is.


Prospero424 I don't run away :) if you want to continue this discussion of what an assumption (that is what your saying im running away from isn't it?)is tomorrow then IM me 'proloto' and we'll have a nice 1 on 1 and probably still reach no logical conclusion.
 
2005-02-17 01:05:44 AM
Dano64CC -I agree with you up to a point. I think even if we accept a godless universe humans will continue to avoid the reality of death. We can experience it on TV, in a car accident, or as a tragedy in the paper. Death is something that happens to everyone else, not you. Look at American funerals. Sterile, made-up-to-look-alive corpses, and a nice box to put them in. We ignore the fact they are decaying in that expensive box. ("Wow, doesn't she look good/they did a good job?" Ever heard that at a funeral?)
 
2005-02-17 01:07:11 AM
come on.... everyone's just arguing how much an "evident" have to be evident enough to become an evident.... there's no definition on it!
for me, i dun see enough evidents to convince me on macro-evolution... some ppl think the fossils are transition enough and patterns are clear enough... well, not to me...
 
2005-02-17 01:07:15 AM
The scientific definition of a theory: A theory is a logical explanation or model based on observation, facts hypotheses, experimentation, and reasoning that attempts to explain a range of natural phenomena. Theories are constantly subject to testing, modification, and refutation as new evidence and ideas emerge. Theories also have predictive capabilities that guide further investigation.

creationism does not fit this bill, as there are no predictive capabilities for futher investigation, it is not based on observation, but dogma. Creationism is not subject to testing
 
2005-02-17 01:09:41 AM
Answer this: You believe in gravity, yes?

Yep, keep's me on the ground

But how can gravity be valid if it starts with the assumption that there is no God?

It Does?! Burn the physicist!!!

Wait, you say that Gravity doesn't assume that there's no God?

Oh right... Burn the physicists just to be sure.

Well why on Earth would you think Evolution assumes such a thing? And even if it did, what difference does it make?

....teh bible says............

Little hint kiddies: the bible is a bunch of nice stories of cultural significance written by a bunch of dudes that died over 2000 years ago. Using it as the basis for scientific thought is backward and self-stupifing.

Basing all scientific thought on the notion that we can't think for ourselves and the writers of the bible knew every answer to every question (and that any question we have that can't be answered is one put there by "the devil") is one of the reasons why there was a 500 year gap between the first design of the helicopter and the first working prototype.
 
2005-02-17 01:10:02 AM
somebody should really set up a betting pool on the tired arguements that come up on this topic.

within 100 posts to get to the 'watchmaker' bullshiat
within 30 posts to get to the 'bastardize all scientific terms, then claim it's science's fault you don't understand it' routine
within 200 posts to get to pascals wager, no matter how non-topical and easily bunkified it is
etc.etc.etc.

i guess all i've got to ask of the creationists in this topic...could you just post the link to your tracts and save us some time? re-wording it is just a waste.
 
2005-02-17 01:10:58 AM
pnaimoli

neither of them are theories, they are proven and measured. Go take a basic physics class and come back here when you are stupid, and not trying to change the subject.

Yeah, because we have been to every damn point in the universe, and measured everything, and therefore, nothing in the universe can disagree with them.

They are theories because they are falsifiable. We know that until now observation has agreed with them. But noone can say they will work forever (btw, classic theory of gravity has been "falsified" when results demonstrated some general relativistic space-time warp effects [now I sound out of a shiatty scifi movie]). If anyone says any positive theory is proven, it is bullshiat. You just can't measure every instance to see if they apply everywhere. Think about this: until now, "general relativity works everywhere" is as good as "general relativity works everywhere in the known universe, outside it, things move always to left". None has been proven false, and they are contracting, so, no, you can't say either of them is proved. Oh, by the way, "things move as god goddamn pleases, he's just moved everything according to general relativity when we were looking" is just as true (except it is not falsifiable).

This is exactly why creationism isn't science. It can't be proven right, nor can it be proven wrong. Non falsifiable speculations have no place in science. Think about it, if I say "god moves earth as he goddamn please", no useful info about earth's future or remotely past position can be gathered from that.

Now, go take a basic epistemology class, and come back when you understand what science and falsifiable mean.

/is there an easy way to make nicknames bold and quotes italics (besides html)
 
2005-02-17 01:11:23 AM
To me ID boils down to saying "I can't figure out how an eyeball could evolve, so the big Intelligent Designer in the sky must have done it". Or more to the point, Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry who has yet to put out any peer reviewed articles on ID (AFAIKT), can't figure it out. So if HE can't figure it out, It's got to be the work of... well, you know.

/The mice!
//What is six times seven?
 
2005-02-17 01:12:58 AM
meh, couldn't find a game right away, so I'll respond to another post since im having fun here anyway.

Crazy_gaijin

I can modify the theory of creation though I wouldn't for historical purposes, your refuting it, I say it explain a range of natural phenomen. Testing is a little bit harder, for to test creation you have to disprove everything else. I think eventually scientists are going to inadvertantly prove evolution false :)

back to look for a 4v4
 
2005-02-17 01:15:00 AM
Transitional forms for Fun & Profit



Lungfish:


Duck billed Platypus:



Abe Vigoda:
 
2005-02-17 01:15:19 AM
chrismac-like I said, religion and education are antithetical. We are not marching into churches demanding sunday school kids sit down with a nice "On the Origin of Species..." Problem is, arguing with these absolutists quite frankly, gets you nowhere. Call your state rep, organize parents or like-minded folk. Lots of wasted energy on them I think. I think they like it too. Gives them time to preach;)
 
2005-02-17 01:16:08 AM
Ahh, gluestick, you mean the Argument From Personal Incredulity?

I just love the name.
 
2005-02-17 01:19:10 AM
fb-

I wish Christians would just craw back under whatever rock they crawled out of and let the rest of humanity progress.

AcornMan

McRat must be the newest version of Bevets. Look you knuckleheads, people like you make our entire country look like complete and utter morons.

lord_spap-oop

Imagine the dork that complained about the textbook at the meeting: "Uh b'deah b'deah, there's no mention of Intellegent Design, b'deah..."

BrotherAlpha

Here's the thing, you're beliefs are stupid.

It is an honor to bask in your superiority.

When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff. ~ Cicero

fo_sho!

There is no evidence to support the theory that god created man.

Genesis 1.26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

bingo the psych-o

In all honesty who really cares how life begain? Its not important.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20050208.shtml

heap

i guess all i've got to ask of the creationists in this topic...could you just post the link to your tracts and save us some time?

http://bevets.com/evolution.htm
 
2005-02-17 01:19:24 AM
lemonjello12:

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke

I believe that evolved from an early batlike creature.

And I'd just like to have everyone do a little experiment. Imagine that you grew up never hearing of the concept of religion, god, or any deity. Then, at age 25 or so, you are presented with the bible and told that it is the true story of how everything came to be. Would you believe as strongly? Even those of you who are truly religious, which I am not objecting to, can you really say that your faith and belief are not due to early indoctrination and constant affirmation throughout your upbringing?

And those of you who switch later in life, I'm not sure what to say. You just want there to be more than there is. I'd love to believe in invisible omnipresent beings and magic and ghosts and men who die and then are resurrected, it would make the world a lot more interesting. But there is a lack of evidence of any of these things. Honestly, I'd love for all that to be around, but it just isn't. So lets not push this in our public schools.


I'm sure that everybody on this forum was indoctrinated early in life with beliefs on many different subjects, some of which were counterfactual and/or counterintuitive. The validity or lack thereof of those beliefs have no bearing on the issue whether or not religious beliefs should be promoted with tax dollars. The crucial aspect, in my mind, is the historical examples that people frequently, regularly kill each other over religious beliefs and it is therefore extremely dangerous to empower any religion with tax monies, especially as the fear and resentment created may well result in religious warfare in a country as powerfully divided on theological issues as the United States.
 
2005-02-17 01:19:38 AM
Lungfish



Never turn off the preview checkbox...
 
2005-02-17 01:21:50 AM
Reading the whole thread, but will now mention interesting/suspious posts as I come upon them. Respont in kind.

2005-02-16 12:37:24 PM McRat

a laughably incomplete fossil record showing no transitional species-to-species forms (the heart of my problem with macroevolution) is really scientific.


And of course you are aware of how much organic matter becomes fossilized, in general, and how incredibly unlikely that process is. And, of course, that speciation is exacerbated by isolation, which means that "transitional" forms would be rare even if everything got fossilized. And, naturally, you do know that people have only been looking for fossils for under two hundred years.

Yeah, you know all that, don't you?
 
2005-02-17 01:21:54 AM
bevets

you're the rare exception. you don't waste time rewording it...you just cut and paste your tracts.

thanks, tho.
 
2005-02-17 01:33:14 AM
Maybe we should be teaching some calculus or general relativity in "Fairy Tales 101 - The wacky adventures of Jebus".

How about making a book of Einstein, Newton and Planck and tacking it on to the bible some where between 'the earth was without form and void' and Revelations?

Einstein 12:24 - As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

Drew 16:7 - Keepest thou the holy sacraments of Beer and Boobies close by your side, and ye shall proper.

Or perhaps we should have schools in which nothing at all factual or true is taught to the students at all? They get fed lies and horseshiat for 12 years and emerge as utterly disfunctional nutjobs, yeah what a great plan.
 
2005-02-17 01:33:35 AM
pnaimoli
...your refuting it, I say it explain a range of natural phenomen.


It doesn't explain anything, it just says "god spake it, and it was so"

Testing is a little bit harder, for to test creation you have to disprove everything else.

In other words, it's not testable or falsifiable. Thank you for conceeding.
 
2005-02-17 01:35:54 AM
BrotherAlpha

Nu-un. You're stupid.
 
2005-02-17 01:38:56 AM
I agree that the "fact", er, theory, um, whatever, that Atlantis existed must be taught in out public school system. I cannot believe that none of you have read and take as absolute truth the Akallabeth.

(*Fools!*)
 
2005-02-17 01:39:01 AM
More Transitional Forms


Whatever that means....
Horsie horsie do not cry...


Birdie...(Archaopteryx)




Shelley Winters

 
2005-02-17 01:42:16 AM
farkertx:

I agree with you, and yet I don't really see where you disagree with me, maybe I'm too drunk.

But you're right. You said that humans would continue to avoid the reality of death, even in a godless universe. This is where I might disagree.

Think about it. No one believes in god. We (an advanced atheistic society) know that once we're dead, we're dead. The entire belief in thiesm is extinct at this point in time.
Humankind might actually start to advance in light of such circumstances.

You said that death is something that happens to someone else, not me, and I would agree, of course, that I don't know what it's like to die, no one really does. Not even people that have "died", just to come back minutes later.

My point is, humans will continue to avoid the reality of death because we just don't have enough experience with it, socially. It scares us, and compells us to create mythologies that suit our wants and desires.

I agree with you about about how we make up the dead to look like they're happy, etc. But as an athiest, I'll be cremated and not have to worry about how I look in my fancy casket.

But there is a certain sterility associated with death, and I think that stems from our overly religious ancestors. There's some need to prepare the body for its otherworldy existence, which is silly and mundane, and won't be fixed until the world reaches a post-theistic mentality.
 
2005-02-17 01:42:42 AM
Headline of the week!
 
2005-02-17 01:42:45 AM
I have finally deciphered the great mystery of evolution.


Specifically, the part of the problem where otherwise intelligent people still believe that the evidence is weak or non-existent.

Here goes (clears throat): The type of believer (in evolution) who gets riled up the most when confronted by a non-believer is very often the last person you want explaining evolution.

They have a faith in science, but lack of specific knowledge.

If you cannot fully explain a complex science, do not respond to the ignorant God nut who demands you prove it. Walk away.


At least half the reason people disbelieve evolution is that they've had it explained to them by an opinionated, yet delightfully uninformed, person whos faith lies in science.
 
2005-02-17 01:50:28 AM
A pony with toes:


A whale with a nose:
 
2005-02-17 01:53:30 AM
rauol.duke:

I fail to see the point of your post. Are you implying that science requires "faith" and that "believers" in evolotion simply had their opinions force-fed to them?

I have a B.S. in Astronomy from A.S.U. and I have, of course, taken several classes in both Biology and Zoology. Everything I say comes from something that I learned to be the truth based upon the notion of scientific testing and falsifiablilty.

Your last paragraph is completely worthless because you pulled those statistics out of our ass.
 
2005-02-17 01:54:52 AM
(thanks, Shipud - GIS is fun)

Isn't every species a "transitional form"? Or do creationist types believe that science postulates some sort of teleological goal for evolution? I don't quite get that one.
 
2005-02-17 01:56:03 AM
I like how Bevets uses quotes out of the bible as scientific evidence.
 
2005-02-17 01:59:23 AM
pnaimoli

But you've been here for more than an hour after I asked the question. Why do you refuse to answer it here, instead insisting that we have a 1-on-1 chat on IM? You've had PLENTY of time to expain your point or refute mine, but you choose not to do so. I have to wonder why, even though I'm pretty sure I know the answer.

This pattern is, as I said, remarkably familiar to me. The last person wanted to do it over email only, the one before that, on a religious site where, I'm sure, he would have had "backup".

The bottom line, again, is this: Intelligent Design and Creationism require faith in the supernatural to even exist as theories. Evolution does not. THAT is why Evolution has a place in schools and the others don't. It really is simple when you break it down.
 
2005-02-17 02:01:50 AM
I'm up late observing (or not observing due to clouds) at Kitt Peak National Observatory tonight using science to learn something about the universe.

The anti-evolution farktards screaming and whining here disgust and sadden me.

You're all intellectually worthless human beings who need an education and a spanking.

Now to go get some magnitudes for some X-ray sources and contribute to humanity's knowledgebass.
 
2005-02-17 02:02:55 AM



Let there be Bubba, y'all. Ayyight?


Today while moving some Science Channel programs off of the Tivo to the DVR, I watched the 10 Greatest Discoveries episode. Evolution was listed as number one. It was refreshing to watch scientists discuss the process of natural selection and talk about examples. As they discussed Darwin's thought processes, it all seemed so clean, so rational, and like such blatantly simple common sense. It was fun.

Then I have to come back to the real world. A world where the last two hundred years of advancement seem to be slipping away during the last 20. A real world where I read about young people passionately arguing for religious tripe dressed up as some silly thing called "Intelligent Design". Its sad.

I guess in my near half a century on this pretty little world I started out with the basic misunderstanding that once a culture makes an advancement they get to keep that tenuous toe-hold and keep going forward. I never dreamed that those behind would try to kick the legs out from under those coming up out of the dark. It would never occur to me that those who made a little progress would slip back down and join the anti-progress project. There's a lot of work to do before the next Renaissance. But now that we're going backwards it looks like we'll have to weather another Dark Age first. I didn't see that coming.
 
2005-02-17 02:03:45 AM
You creationists are goddam idiots.

I believe in God. You know why? Because GOD GAVE ME A FARKING BRAIN. And with this brain, I'm able to reason with evidence, logic, experiment, and observation. Thank you God, for giving me a brain.

Now maybe you people should do us all a favor and start using your brains for once instead of letting a book written by people over 2000 years ago dictate your thoughts for you.

When you say shiat like "Don't make fun of me! It's my BELIEFS!!!", you just ask for it. That's like me saying "Hey, I BELIEVE that 1 + 1 = 3. Don't make fun of me!!!"

Does 1 + 1 = 3? No, it doesn't. But if I came on fark every single farking time someone brought up this simple equation and vehemently expressed my beliefs that 1 + 1 does indeed equal 3, you'd call me a farking idiot.

You guys got nothing. NOTHING. Every single farking thing you guys say comes from what is written down in a book that you didn't write that was written thousands of years ago by people you don't know. Every single thought, opinion, conclusion, explanation, EVERYTHING YOU PEOPLE SAY, is a house built with straw ready to be blown away by the gentlest breeze.

All while the rest of us are standing on rock solid foundations of observation, experiment, deductive reasoning, critical thinking, logic, mathematics, and recorded conclusions.

Just please go away, all of you. I'm sick of this shiat. You're stifling us with your bullshiat and it's allowing the upper class asshats to do whatever the fark they want at the expense of the rest of us.
 
2005-02-17 02:08:01 AM
pnaimoli:

I can modify the theory of creation though I wouldn't for historical purposes, your refuting it, I say it explain a range of natural phenomen. Testing is a little bit harder, for to test creation you have to disprove everything else. I think eventually scientists are going to inadvertantly prove evolution false :)

As has been said before, if it aint testable, it aint science. If you're proposing a theory, then you also have to identify tests that would falsify that theory. Falsification of another theory is NOT proof of yours.
 
2005-02-17 02:08:45 AM

I just found a transitional life form for you to ponder as proof of Retarded Design, as opposed to Intelligent Design.



 
2005-02-17 02:12:41 AM
Listen up, Creationists, know matter how much you want to believe in your God fantasies, no amount of praying and no amount of religious pontification is going to make our rockets go faster, our cars get better milage, and our computers make our computer games scream more insanely. Scientific advancements require science and people studying science, not brainwashing innnocent children into believing your sweet little fairytales about "God."
 
2005-02-17 02:19:23 AM

The Aristotelian Universe should be taught alongside the Copernican Universe. Or, at the very least, there should be a sticker on the inside of science textbooks that points out that Copernicanism is just a theory.


 
2005-02-17 02:21:49 AM
holy shiat, fb- and Bevets in the same thread? Engage UltraFa...... NO CARRIER.
 
2005-02-17 02:26:32 AM
I agree it's been a very disillusioning last few years but I try to keep some perspective. The only major attacks on evolution (and other sciences) in western civilization are in a few states in the US. Progress will be continue to be made, if not here, then elsewhere.

FWIW, I think it's also very unlikely that ID (and other equally baseless "alternatives" to evolution) will ever be taken seriously at the university level, even in the US.
 
2005-02-17 02:40:08 AM
Bevets
There is no evidence to support the theory that god created man.

Genesis 1.26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.


There you go folks. That sums it up right there. You can't argue with that kind of irrationality, so don't even try.


mbrother

I bought your book the other day (enjoy the 25 cents or whatever they throw your way). It is #3 in my queue. I'll let you know what I think. Enjoy your scope time.
 
2005-02-17 02:41:21 AM
A friend of mine fired off a rather lengthy rant on this subject. He wondered how the Intelligent Design people cope with microwave ovens, airplanes, electricity, sun centered solar system, radio, etc. Wouldn't they need to sling holy water at the 7-11 microwave while it heats their hot dog? Why don't they reject the voices in the TV as evil spirits.

Whenever I've seen Science and Faith flirt with each other, its always a disaster. Scientists who have 'faith' in the outcome of an experiment, 'believe' that a control group is not necessary, or 'just know' there's a higher purpose for a system they observe and therefore it does not need further study... these are people who are asking to fail. Likewise, when a religious person takes things from their book of fantasies and tries to verify or otherwise quantify them in the real world, they too will not get the results they had hoped.

I wish I knew more Anthropology so I could study them better, but in the example of Christians they must already have a mechanism for dealing with huge inconsistencies even when comparing their bible to itself. They must be programmed to steer around holes in the road. Why is Evolution and Natural Selection the sinkhole that swallows the whole road for them? They gloss right by real early goodies like:

-------------------------------------------------
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
-------------------------------------------------

But when they find Evolution out here in the real world they are completely enraged that it would contradict the perfect word of God(tm).

Niggling details about the creation of man and woman like:

--------------------------------------------------
GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.
--------------------------------------------------

But a process whereby the literary act of creation may be a represenation of a process that took a very long time via Natural Selection just ruins everything. Heck, their God is even welcome to use Natural Selection to nudge things this way or that if he likes. We just don't want any more arms-folding, blinking and tossing the pony tail causing more stuff like the platypus to show up.

I mean, if their bible was already a pinacle of impenetrable perfection and this Evolution thing was the only mud that stuck on the wall I might see the reason for worry.
 
2005-02-17 02:42:25 AM
pnaimoli

If I had gone to the moon and found a watch, I would think it had been put there.

If I then excavated the moon and found evidence of previous, less-complicated versions of the watch had existed in the past, I might think that there was some natural process that formed the watch.
 
2005-02-17 02:43:07 AM
cannibolic
The Aristotelian Universe should be taught alongside the Copernican Universe.

I have heard of a astronomy lecturer who teaches the copernican model of the universe at the start of one of his courses. Apparently it is really convincing.... but then he does it the proper way
 
2005-02-17 02:48:55 AM
Abagradro: I bought your book the other day (enjoy the 25 cents or whatever they throw your way). It is #3 in my queue. I'll let you know what I think. Enjoy your scope time.

Thanks! Hope you enjoy it. Evolutionary issues actually play a serious role in the book.
 
2005-02-17 02:51:12 AM
Weren't Muslim societies once the hieght of culture and knowledge on our planet, way back in the day...

...before the religious nuts took over?
 
2005-02-17 02:51:20 AM
02:08:45 AM BearToy

Ahahahah, I really like that the third leg is untagged. :)

02:19:23 AM cannibolic

Ahahahah, learn some quantitative experimentation and (hopefully at least look into) ontology please.
 
2005-02-17 02:51:21 AM
I find it fascinating that the two most lopsided thread types are those about Evolution/Creationism or the War on Drugs.
 
2005-02-17 03:04:32 AM
So we either base a science book off of a very very good amount of evidence, or part that and part another book that could very well be b.s? For that matter then,I want reincarnation in my science book!!

"It's not god you have to worry about, it's his fan club."
 
2005-02-17 03:34:33 AM
I can't farking believe that nobody considered bacterial evolution, which we have plainly watched go through multiple evolutions.

Fossils are really rare in terms of discovery and require very special circumstances to form.

Evolution is very real, and just because your head-up-his-ass evangelist hack says it's not true, it doesn't mean its false.

Yes, I believe in something greater than man, and yes I believe that the recipe to build modern life is so complex it must have some greater scheme than we understand now,

BUT COME ON...
Don't deny new knowledge... embrace it.

ffs, according to the church, Galilieo was wrong until what? 1992 or something?

remember, you could be wrong about the whole "brand of god" thing...

WHAT IF THE MORMONS ARE RIGHT?
 
2005-02-17 03:42:43 AM
I am still disappointed they dont teach jedi-philosophy during religion-classes in the US of A.
 
2005-02-17 03:47:29 AM
irulebiatch: "It's not god you have to worry about, it's his fan club."

Close.


It's not God you have to worry about. It's controlling his fan club.


And once again, the creationists have had their asses handed to them by the scientists. It's what always happens. It's what always will happen. It's what always has happened. Fighting the truth is impossible.
 
2005-02-17 03:52:54 AM
gluestick:

To me ID boils down to saying "I can't figure out how an eyeball could evolve, so the big Intelligent Designer in the sky must have done it".

I feel the exact same way. and I'm trying to write a paper on the arguments for and against god. It's incredibly hard to discuss that and the watchmaker argument without becoming informal and condescending. When a farking college student with a semester of critical thinking can pick out your logical fallacies you need a new argument.
 
2005-02-17 04:34:40 AM
Dano64CC:

I fail to see the point of your post. Are you implying that science requires "faith"

Made no reference to a requirement.

and that "believers" in evolotion simply had their opinions force-fed to them?

Nope. Nowhere.

I have a B.S. in Astronomy from A.S.U. and...
...just because my post came after yours doesn't mean I was responding to you. More to the whole thread, in an ironic and sarcastic tone...

Your last paragraph is completely worthless because you pulled those statistics out of our ass.

I pulled the whole post out of my ass. It's opinion.

I expressed the humor in the fact that the loudest voices in any complex argument are often the least informed.
 
2005-02-17 04:35:12 AM
Well, that was some ownage of unparalleled beauty.
 
2005-02-17 04:56:49 AM
You all know, of course, that classical science was created out of religion to explain God (ie Mendel).

But if ridiculing the belief in a supernatural being brings you great joy, have at it. Seems like you all get a kick out of being circle jerks who feel an intense desire to defend their right to bandwagon on a centuries-old religion.

Yes. I was young once. I know what peer pressure is like out here on the interweb. I forgive you all.
 
2005-02-17 05:22:54 AM
Science is our observations of the world around us. As we find new (to us) things, our models and ideas change. Many people have made knee-jerk comments that things are this way or that and if you don't believe like me, you're an idiot who is not even worthy to draw breath on the same planet as me. Keep an open mind people. Tomorrow, you might eat crow.

/We all have a point of view...Our perspectives may differ.
//There can be only one truth. Examine the evidence and choose your side.
 
2005-02-17 05:24:04 AM
archimedes640 - come on now, I bet if you tried you could be MUCH more patronising than that, hmm?
 
2005-02-17 05:38:58 AM
El_Alacran
Keep an open mind people.

i have an incredibly open mind on this topic.

i do believe in a higher power, and i do believe i see the hand of a creator in the world around me, and the universe as i understand it.

thing is, i've yet to see any form of intelligent design theory that approaches this in any scientific manner.

the most common angle, for example's sake... irreducable complexity. what is the unit of measurement for complexity? what is the threshold where complexity is reducable?

it's just not science. its closer to philosophy.

pointing out that people attempting to pass this off as science are in fact stupid is less a comment on their religious beliefs, as it is a comment on how their religious beliefs need to be supported in such a manner.
 
2005-02-17 05:39:40 AM
archimedes640: "You all know, of course, that classical science was created out of religion to explain God (ie Mendel)."

That was why Copernicus only published on his deathbed? And Galileo was arrested? And Darwin and Wallace ended up as agnostics? There are religious and areligious scientists and your statement is a load of crap. And now everyone knows your opinion is either biased or ignorant on such topics.

And many here have not ridiculed the belief in supernatural beings, but simply pointed out that such beliefs have no bearing on issues of science or on what should be taught in science classes.

Yes. I was young once. I know what peer pressure is like out here on the interweb. I forgive you all.

And some of us here are actually scientists, experts on science, you know? And I don't forgive you your ignorance. It shames me as an educator. Only an education can give you forgiveness.
 
2005-02-17 05:44:08 AM
Tryptillicious:
Weren't Muslim societies once the hieght of culture and knowledge on our planet, way back in the day...

...before the religious nuts took over?

If you can't get simple human history correct, don't post on something that goes beyond that.
 
2005-02-17 05:47:20 AM
A question for the creationists:

Whose truth is right? The facts you believe about creation of life, the facts Muslims believe about creation of life, the facts Hindi believe about creation of life, the facts Buddhists believe about creation of life, the facts Wiki-Wiki believe about creation of life, the facts the Jedi believe they created life?

Why should the Christian belief be the right one? As one of the most youngest religious beliefs one could think these questions or faiths are not the ones applied too.

/Believer in Offler the Crocodile god
 
2005-02-17 05:49:03 AM
Heap
That is exactly what I mean. You're looking for truth.
 
2005-02-17 05:51:32 AM
If you believe in Creationism, you can't be helped. You are too stupid to function in intelligent society.
 
2005-02-17 06:05:26 AM
Religion is Fairy Tales... it serves all the same purposes and makes as much sense.... Do you really believe that Jesus turned water into wine? WTF... makes no sense, with that kind of power is he feeding liquor to booze hounds? Get real folks. All your sciences are belong to us! Evalotion Rulz!!! *WEG*
 
2005-02-17 06:37:02 AM
heap:

it's just not science. its closer to philosophy.

Creationism and ID are philosophical theories, in that they attempt to reach a conclusion from a set of postulates. They are also science (or are at least based in empiricism, though they ignore many tenets of science), in that they draw from external incidences (the watchmaker argument).

They're just crappy theories, that's all. Saying something is a crappy scientific theory doesn't push it into philosophy.

/Well, I guess it does, as science is philosophy. Still irritates me, though.
 
2005-02-17 06:38:08 AM
StretchCannon:

You forgot one thing... the majority of posters. They're the ones who sit there and pretend to understand the logic of "hardcore" scientist and post one or two-sentence trash-talk about the two subjects that they obviously don't understand enough to actually make a real point -- science and religion. They can be from either camp, but they're usually from the religion-bashing camp (at least on Fark).

I personally find these threads rather disappointing, because if there is any good discussion, it's completely padded by a bunch of idiots trying to feel superior by spouting crap about how creationists prove that all religion is for idiots. I just skimmed the thread, but that is literally all I saw, except for three or four posts. Should I join the mindset and argue that all evolutionists must not be able to construct a syllogism?

Usually, I don't post in these discussions because for the most part I find them pointless. However, the mass of ineloquent ego-stroking in this thread is ridiculous.

My personal take on the issue is this: The purpose of science is to explain nature. Evolution is the best explanation of one particular aspect of nature that is currently available. Therefore, if you're going to teach biology, a science, then why shouldn't the best and most widely accepted theory be taught? Understanding the evolutionary theory relates directly to being able to understand science and scientific method. Tacking "Oh, and some people believe that God created the world in 7 actual days" on the end doesn't hurt anything, I suppose, but it's not really in context, either.

However, attacking religion because of creationism is misguided. Creationism is literalism taken to an extreme. Even the bible itself indicates that it is symbolic and spiritual. The intent of religion is to understand and shape ourselves on a metaphysical level, not to understand the physical universe. It's my personal belief that both types of understanding should be pursued through the two respective courses.

Of course, if you choose to believe that the psyche is completely limited to the 5 senses, then you'll believe that any pursuit other than science is vain. But I'll wager you'll have a tougher time making me look like a fool than those "fundies" that you so easily accept as representative of the religious sector.
 
2005-02-17 06:42:54 AM
Does this mean they're finally replacing our ancient biology textbooks?

The ones we've got now are from the farking 1980s.
 
2005-02-17 06:48:23 AM
Quadriplegic

i guess another way of putting it... i've yet to see an intelligent design theory that gave even decent lip service to any scientific method.

you are right, the fact that it's crap science doesn't make it philosophy, it just makes it crap science. the watchmaker argument (which is really just irreducible complexity framed differently) is more in the philosophical scope of things, least as i see it.
 
2005-02-17 07:06:37 AM
alanmusician:

However, attacking religion because of creationism is misguided. Creationism is literalism taken to an extreme. Even the bible itself indicates that it is symbolic and spiritual. The intent of religion is to understand and shape ourselves on a metaphysical level, not to understand the physical universe. It's my personal belief that both types of understanding should be pursued through the two respective courses.

Should we not criticise the system from which a faulty claim originates? The originator may not be faulty, but it does merit some inspection and critical analysis. If several (obviously) silly ideas are rooted in a central theory, perhaps the central theory is faulty as well.

For a long time religion was a tool to understand things on the physical level, and science continues to push the bounds of what can be understood through the physical world, intruding further into what could once only be explained through religion. They are not completely unrelated spheres of thought, but two systems standing in opposition. The only reason they don't stand in complete opposition is because science doesn't have all the answers yet, God can still exist in the gaps of scientific knowledge.

If we can agree that believing in a seven day creation is pretty wacky, where do we draw the line? If we reject some tenets of the Bible, then the Bible is not perfectly true. If the Bible is not perfectly true, there is no evidence for its divinity. If there is no evidence for its divinity, there's no (self-contained) reason to believe in any of it.

So where do we go? I'm happy saying that the Bible has some good morals, but that those morals are good not because they are in the Bible, but because they are simply good rules to live by. Any further belief is equally (well, almost) as ridiculous as creationism, as far as I'm concerned. Creationism is just one silly offshoot of a silly belief system. Insulting Chrisianity as a whole along with creationism is getting two birds with one stone.
 
2005-02-17 07:25:05 AM
heap:

the watchmaker argument (which is really just irreducible complexity framed differently) is more in the philosophical scope of things, least as i see it.

First, thanks. I'm just getting sick of hearing people slag philosophy for being somehow more open, free or nonjudgemental. Whether it's philosophy or science, a theory still has to hold together in order to accepted as anything worthy of consideration. Whew, sorry, that's been building in me for a while.

The Irreducible Complexity argument is a synthetic a priori argument, combining a physical thing (the irreducibly complex object, without which there would be no argument) and deriving (or attempting to) from that the existence of a creator through a priori necessity.
 
2005-02-17 07:26:50 AM
I like this theory:

Everything we know will eventually be proven WRONG.
 
2005-02-17 07:30:21 AM
Check out this debate between Frank Zindler, a prominent scientist and atheist, and Dr John Morris a prominent ICR nutball. Zindler provides a transcript with footnotes that is highly amusing. Oh yeah. The debate is about Noah's Ark and the Great Flood, but Dr Morris also tries to defend the idea that the Earth is only approx 6000 years old. Enjoy:

http://www.atheists.org/evolution/morrisdebate.html

Another one about how dishonest/delusional Dr Duane Gish is (ICR nutball and someone I met in person) including Dr Gish's rebuttal:

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html
 
2005-02-17 07:36:31 AM
Evolution and Creation is that around the time of darwin they were both complete theories. Any person could have been forgiven for thinking that either living things had evolved to their current form or were created and had their designs set in stone.

All evidence since then has pointed to evolution being correct until now we can explain exactly how natural and sexual selection effect the statistical distribution of genes within some population. i.e. how evolution occurs. There is no doubt any more. Evolution is what happens. Creations is a fairy tale.
 
2005-02-17 07:39:59 AM
Quadriplegic


first off, no slag was intended. philosophy was one of the few highschool courses i actually liked. that said, i'm no closer to an armchair philospher than i am an armchair scientist. i could be way off base, but it just seems thats where a lot of this topic would be relevant to teach.

The Irreducible Complexity argument is a synthetic a priori argument, combining a physical thing (the irreducibly complex object, without which there would be no argument) and deriving (or attempting to) from that the existence of a creator through a priori necessity.

something that is simultaneously hard to answer, and completely flaky sounding...even with a belief in a creator, that leaves you with the question 'who created the creator?'. its just a hard concept to express without it sounding like a stoner 'have-you-ever-really-looked-at-your-haaaaands-maaaan?' statement, but at the same time no answers to that question sit well with me. the typical answer (god's just always been there) just screams cop-out.
 
2005-02-17 08:01:37 AM
heap:

first off, no slag was intended.

I know, I just over-reacted a bit. People have been getting on my nerves recently, and for some reason your comment (for all its reasonability) pushed me over the edge.

who created the creator?

It's an ugly problem. I'd join the religious folks in taking the infinite existence of something as an explanation over the possibility of complete nothing suddenly generating something. Still, there's no reason it has to be a conscious entity at all.
 
2005-02-17 08:13:58 AM
I'm jumping in late to be significant, but here goes.

Even if evidence for evolution is incomplete (some would argue it isn't), that says nothing about intelligent design.

Why can't people get it through their heads:

!evolution [does not imply] intelligent design

The only 'evidence' ID'ers bring to the table is that there may be flaws in the theory of evolution. Well then, given that kind of evidence, wouldn't it be just as likely that John Tesh's angelic harmonies have echoed from our time into the past and future to create everything that we survey? Long live John Tesh.
 
2005-02-17 08:14:47 AM
Post-Enlightenment, it's disturbing this is even an issue.
 
2005-02-17 08:16:49 AM
Ever notice that the people who defend creationism most are the ones who are least evolved? =)

/flamebait
 
2005-02-17 08:22:00 AM
I love how McRat comes out questioning Creationism and some aspects of Evolution and is instantly dubbed the second coming of Bevets.

When it comes to Fark, no matter what the subject is, you are either with a group or against it. That is the only concept agreed upon on Fark.
 
2005-02-17 08:41:34 AM
I have dug in on just about every Evolution debate on Fark for at least a year and here I am to be ridiculed and called names again but here goes:

Evolution is not only a scientific fact but it is not even a very good theory. There is no evidence to support it except very biased and selective reading of evidence by not only scientists but the general public believing scientists are the bastion of truth and integrity and that is a big steaming pile of poo. Scientists are just as prone to bias and outright lying as anybody else. As the Scopes monkey trial shows lies by scientists are considered truth. EVERY example given in that trial to prove evolution has since been shown to be a downright falsehood or extremely questionable.

There are two things that if they existed would show evolution to be the most reasonable explanation for not only the diversity of life on earth but its beginning also. The first is a mechanism by which traits that affects an organism's response to its enviornment can be shown to arise in the extreme ease and amount that would be necessary for the diversity of life on earth. Not just one trait in one bacteria. I am talking about physical and biochemical and biomechanical changes that could enable an organism that did not previously have the ability already in its DNA to cope better with its enviornment. There has never been shown a way, except for mutations, that a population can INCREASE its DNA. Mutations have been shown not to increase available DNA but scramble what is already there. That is just not good enough for any reasonable person to conclude evolution and natural selection explains life on earth.

The second thing that if it were true would prove evolution as a theory stood a chance. It would not be definitive but it would give it some credibility. That is if every organism on earth had every trait of every other organism that has EVER lived. I mean all the DNA necessary for gills, for scales, for feathers, for flight for every trait in every population ever. Then show a mechanism by which traits are turned on to create all the different animals. While there is commonality in DNA between organisms there are also extreme differences. DNA is very sensitive to changes. Mess with one area and another area gets messed up. Just ask some molecular biologists and geneticists what happens when you start tinkering with DNA. And that is with INTELLIGENCE. You are expecting me to swallow the fact that random natural processess did all this. I am not buying it. Even when I was an evolutionists I saw the holes in the theory. I just had faith that science would fill them. Now I realize the holes cannot be filled because not only is it not a fact it is a very very bad and destructive theory.
 
2005-02-17 08:43:31 AM
Yes - physical evolution is evident in everything. Any idiot can see that certain living things have evolved in certain ways over a course of time. That is definitely not the issue here. If we are talking creationism, then we are also talking the counter-theory to it which is abiogenesis. If creationism was omitted because of the inability to test its accuracy, then who wants to step up and test abiogenesis? If creationism is top be left out, then so should all other theories regarding the begininning of the universe because one is as unprovable in terms of scientific theory and process as the next.
 
2005-02-17 08:46:26 AM
meh - can't type this morning...
 
2005-02-17 08:47:24 AM
Mc Rat, you do realize that TalkOrigins is a creationism website, right?

An example of a unquestionable transitional fossil is the ancestor to the modern dolphins, who's blowhole is directly between that of a modern dolphin, and that of a land mamal.

An example of a current transitional species is the Panda, who is an herbivore, but has a digestive tract similar to that of a carnivore, but which is shortening.
 
2005-02-17 08:49:54 AM
In my religious days I was ashamed of my lack of knowledge of the Bible. I got a notebook and started reading taking notes along the way. It didn't take long before I ran into a conflict. Gen 1's sequence is different from Gen 2. Got on the net and searched for "Genesis + Rabbi". It was written by the Hebrew people and the studied it alot longer than Christians. The answer was it is allegory. There are two versions (Remember Judea and Israel?) It is considered a book of instruction on our obiedence to God.
Gen: 1 - Man is made last as God's crowning achievement.
Gen: 2 - God provides for man with fields of grain, ect.
There are Orthodox Jews who follow the belief that it is as written and do not question the conflict in the first two chapters.

Now shall we discuss the smart serpent who God created in the Garden of Eden? Or the fact that the devil or satan is not mentioned? Before you say,"O, Lucifer". Maybe you should realize they were condemning those who look to the stars for guidance. Lucifer = bright star = venus.
 
2005-02-17 08:50:23 AM
walkingtall:

Evolution is not only a scientific fact but it is not even a very good theory. There is no evidence to support it except very biased and selective reading of evidence by not only scientists but the general public believing scientists are the bastion of truth and integrity and that is a big steaming pile of poo.

Wow. Just... wow.

You live in a red state I imagine?
 
2005-02-17 08:50:47 AM
Mr. Clarence Butterworth

Post-Enlightenment, it's disturbing this is even an issue.

I always found this very interesting that a book at least 5000 years old cannot be proven false.
 
2005-02-17 08:51:28 AM
Anyway, the terms "Microevolution" and "Macroevolution" are false terms designed by creationists to confuse people. Evolution has no such terms. The difference between two groups of fruit flies diverging into separate species, and a fish evolving into a reptile is a difference only in degree. The same mechanics govern both of these changes, one is just the accumulation of many, many such changes.
 
2005-02-17 08:52:34 AM
So what exactly would be taught regarding Intelligent design in a classroom setting anyway ? Unless the Christians admit to the agenda they actually have (teaching straight out of their Bible) there's not a whole lot to say. One choice would be to say "Well, the universe is here and someone/something created it..." and then class is over since there's nothing more concrete to discuss. The other choice is to cover every known religion and teach all the speculations on how some creator pulled off his/her/it's miracle, except that this choice would have Christian parent's heads exploding when the lecture didn't revolve around their book.

So what is the class about then ?
 
2005-02-17 08:57:52 AM
That is the catch with all of these debates. No one has the balls to argue abiogenesis - life from non-life.

Look at the human reproductive cycle for instance. Who can possibly give creedence to the notion that the process in which a sperm cell and an egg combine to form the inner-workings of the complex human anatomy originated by a chance occurence of carbon and various non-living matter in the atmosphere? To believe this , you must have more faith in science than any Christian has ever had in creationism.
 
2005-02-17 09:01:25 AM
Mordant

Simply placing the possibility on the table and allowing the students to make a fair decision based on their own opinion and intelligence would be sufficient. Offer the theories as theories and let the students do the rest. Don't force either agenda down one's throat.
 
2005-02-17 09:01:28 AM
I always found this very interesting that a book at least 5000 years old cannot be proven false.

Not the moral or ethical content, but the magic tricks and supernatural activity?

Man made from dust and woman made from a rib? C'mon!
 
2005-02-17 09:02:55 AM
ArloBeanswatt

In my religious days I was ashamed of my lack of knowledge of the Bible. I got a notebook and started reading taking notes along the way. It didn't take long before I ran into a conflict. Gen 1's sequence is different from Gen 2. Got on the net and searched for "Genesis

You did not study very hard if you consider this definitive proof against Genesis. If you read it real carefully there is not a conflict. They are talking about two different things. ONe is an overall view and one is about one specific time.
 
2005-02-17 09:03:42 AM
If the "intelligent design" angle is to be used with any credibility, you have to allow for the designer to be alien, and not exclusively divine, and that lends even less credence to the postulate.
 
2005-02-17 09:07:34 AM
barjockey - Dude are you retarded? How can you compare the acceptance of abiogenesis to the acceptance of an all powerfull, all creating all knowing eternal GOD? HOW?!

I think the odds of a few carbon molecules mergin together to created chains and the precursors of life are way better than the odds that the Christian Bible's view of life and the universe is true! And since if you want to accept CHristian Creationism, you need to accept the whole religion....


...Seems to me accepting a one-time molecular event is way way easier than accepting the whole universe-view postulated by the Bible. Just a smaller set of data. Like deciding who's going to win a single game or who's going to win the season before the season has begun.

Please try again, tho!
 
2005-02-17 09:09:55 AM
"Simply placing the possibility on the table and allowing the students to make a fair decision based on their own opinion and intelligence would be sufficient. Offer the theories as theories and let the students do the rest. Don't force either agenda down one's throat."

Fine, but then we're not really talking about a class but just a 10 minute discussion. Back to my original question, how do you fill a semester with enough material to compete evenly with the science class ?
 
2005-02-17 09:11:09 AM
Not the moral or ethical content, but the magic tricks and supernatural activity?

How about a functioning brain with the ability to form rational thought, decisive conclusions, to dream, to control reflex functions, the ability to love and to hate, the ability to create and to imagine, all formed by dust and various random debris in space - if that's not a supernatural magic trick, I don't know what is.
 
2005-02-17 09:11:12 AM
mbrother I picked up Star Dragon and read it on the plane over the weekend. I enjoyed it, very pleasant reading. Congrats.

/threadjack over
 
2005-02-17 09:12:22 AM
Anyway, the terms "Microevolution" and "Macroevolution" are false terms designed by creationists to confuse people. Evolution has no such terms. The difference between two groups of fruit flies diverging into separate species, and a fish evolving into a reptile is a difference only in degree. The same mechanics govern both of these changes, one is just the accumulation of many, many such changes.

And this is the flat out absolute LIE you have been fed and told to believe. There is not one shred of proof in any branch of any science that an organism has evolved traits outside the limits of its DNA that would lead to a different phyla of organism. Not one. I went on an archelogical expedition when I was an evolutionists to as site where there was some good fossils. The professor smugly told us that the proof of evolution was right there in the ground. He showed us the layer with one set of fossils and then showed us another layer with a set of fossils and stated with much satisfaction in his voice that A > B. I wanted to believe very badly and yet I still looked at him and stated "How on earth did A > B? There are literally billions of changes needed to the DNA and biochemical processess for A > B. Either there should be many steps in between or there has to shown a way for all these changes to come about in a short time. He laughed in my face as a stupid hick and the class had a good laugh at me but his only answer is that in the future it will be shown how it happened but this is the proof of the validity of the theory. After that I started asking some hard questions and eventually abandoned evolution as a good theory. So you have been fed a line and you believe it. As atheists point out all the time to me belief does not equal proof.
 
2005-02-17 09:12:52 AM
 
2005-02-17 09:15:36 AM
Seems to me accepting a one-time molecular event is way way easier than accepting the whole universe-view postulated by the Bible.

A one time event? I don't even know how to respond to this rubbish. Are you saying that the same event that formed the first amoeba is the exact same event that brought about human intellect?
 
2005-02-17 09:20:42 AM
pnaimoli

lord_spap-oop

A child, looking at the workings of a fine wristwatch, might insist that elves must have made it -- that humans could not have done it. He might honestly believe it, but it would not make it so.

If you traveled to the moon and found a wrist watch there, wouldn't you say someone put it there, not that if formed by natural proccesses.

life > watch.

That is really dumb, pnaimoli. If you traveled to the moon and saw munchkins square dancing, that would prove the existence of Oz. And what if the world was made of ice cream? Huh, huh?

im dumb? all I did was restate what you said but change the wording and add life > watch at the end.

That's a lie. You did not simply restate what I said -- you said some idiotic thing about finding a watch on the moon. That's like suggesting the teddy bear's picnic suggests proof of the divine.
 
2005-02-17 09:20:44 AM
"After that I started asking some hard questions and eventually abandoned evolution as a good theory."

Did you ever think to ask "hard questions" when someone tells you that a man lived inside a whale's stomach, or that another man lived 900+ years, or that another man built a boat big enough for two (or more) of every species on earth (including baby dinosaurs) with the help of his immediate family, or lots of other stories.

How did those tales gain such automatic credibility ?
 
2005-02-17 09:22:08 AM
walkingtall

I always found this very interesting that a book at least 5000 years old cannot be proven false.

I always found this very interesting that a book at least 5000 years old cannot be proven.
 
2005-02-17 09:22:17 AM
barjockey The topic was biogenesis. Your crude attempts to change scope by waving your hands will not work. Your imaginary god would be very dissapointed. Are you enjoying the government payouts you get for being mentally deficient?
 
2005-02-17 09:24:46 AM
cause' i'm proud to live in maryland where at least I know i'm free
 
2005-02-17 09:26:29 AM
walkingtall:
Either there should be many steps in between or there has to shown a way for all these changes to come about in a short time.

There are. For example, the brachiopod Eocoelia shows a clear succession of shell forms. But when these types of examples are presented to creationists they claim that they don't show enough of a transition.

If one then presents something like the series of evolution of the horse, there are claims that these show too much of a transition, so they aren't a series at all.

Creationists conveniently ingnore the fact that the fossil record goes from simpler forms to more complex over time, whether or not they choose to ignore the transitional fossils. Why did the creator make single-celled animals first, then move on to invertebrates, then vertebrates. Was he practicing? Was he not a very good creator?

As to an explanation as to how evolution can occur relatively rapidly, read up on Punctuated Equilibria.
 
2005-02-17 09:27:24 AM
Your crude attempts to change scope by waving your hands will not work. Your imaginary god would be very dissapointed. Are you enjoying the government payouts you get for being mentally deficient?

And your crude attempts to insult me simply based on my differing opinion is extremely childish and immature. As to your comment about government payouts, I really have no idea what you are talking about.

Ignorance is not the unwillingness to accept another's perspective, but rather the unwillingness to listen to it.
 
2005-02-17 09:32:09 AM
Wow...just read alot of this thread...not all because my eyes would bleed. It seems to me that:

Christians aren't being very christian.
Creationist aren't being very crea....tion...uhm...

...nevermind.

//(slaps head) I coulds had a freakin v8!
 
2005-02-17 09:34:55 AM
There's as much "evidence" for intelligent design as there is that Santa Claus exists.
 
2005-02-17 09:39:14 AM
Is it true that to have a book you need an author?
If so, then how did the most complex code (DNA) write itself?
According to evolution it did, and that is more of a fantasy than any religion.
 
2005-02-17 09:39:56 AM
Is creationism or intelligent design actually taught in some schools? Maybe it's because I'm from Connecticut, the land of eduacated rich white insurance people, that I've never even heard of intelligent design until I started reading fark. It certainly wasn't ever mentioned in school. I never even heard a peep about evolution in school. In biology, we learned about science, not mythology. I even had an openly atheist physics teacher and an openly gay biology teacher. Maybe we're just more evolved up here...oh wait, I forgot evolution is just a "theory".
 
2005-02-17 09:40:58 AM
From NiteClerk's link:

High School Level

1st Place: "Using Prayer To Microevolve Latent Antibiotic Resistance In Bacteria"

Eileen Hyde and Lynda Morgan (grades 10 & 11) did a project showing how the power of prayer can unlock the latent genes in bacteria, allowing them to microevolve antibiotic resistance. Escherichia coli bacteria cultured in agar filled petri dishes were subjected to the antibiotics tetracycline and chlorotetracycline. The bacteria cultures were divided into two groups, one group (A) received prayer while the other (B) didn't. The prayer was as follows: "Dear Lord, please allow the bacteria in Group A to unlock the antibiotic-resistant genes that You saw fit to give them at the time of Creation. Amen." The process was repeated for five generations, with the prayer being given at the start of each generation. In the end, Group A was significantly more resistant than Group B to both antibiotics.


That is some funny shiat!

Here is my science experiment for the Christian Science Fair:

1. Attach magnets to the dead bodies of the following people: a. Alexander Fleming, b. Charles Darwin, c. My college biology teacher

2. Wrap copper wire around their coffins

3. Read the above first place winner's experiment to the dead bodies

4. Free electricity!

5. Profit!
 
2005-02-17 09:43:41 AM
There's as much "evidence" for intelligent design as there is that Santa Claus exists.

For me, the proof is in the pudding as it were. Let's just examine the human eye for example. Whether you believe that it was created by some cosmic fart or by an omnipotent creator, it is certainly an intelligent design.



How a gelatinous object could take on the ability to perceive light, objects, and textures and report them to the brain for processing is amazing. How you can look at things like this and compare the notion of intelligent design to a fat man that travels around once a year on a cart pulled by glorified flying donkeys is beyond me.
 
2005-02-17 09:44:02 AM
[barjockey]-------------------------------------------
That is the catch with all of these debates. No one has the balls to argue abiogenesis - life from non-life.
Look at the human reproductive cycle for instance. Who can possibly give creedence to the notion that the process in which a sperm cell and an egg combine to form the inner-workings of the complex human anatomy originated by a chance occurence of carbon and various non-living matter in the atmosphere? To believe this , you must have more faith in science than any Christian has ever had in creationism.
-------------------------------------------------------

[JC Superstar]
Barjockey. The combination of sperm and egg involves two cells that are already fully alive that simply combine their DNA and cytoplasm. That's nothing at all like abiogenesis.

As to why nobody feels the need to discuss abiogenesis in Evolution discussions is that evolution does not require abiogenesis.

Evolution simply states that due to genetic mutation and natural selection, organisms change over time. That's all. It doesn't ask any questions or provide any answers as to how that life came about.
 
2005-02-17 09:44:21 AM
buried_alive: eduacated

educated
 
2005-02-17 09:45:47 AM
The irony is Maryland was created as a haven for Catholics in the New World so Catholics could live in peace and not have to worry about good Queen Bess and her rabid Protestant hordes who had effectively stamped out the practice of Catholicism in Britain, utterly squashed the Spanish Accession, and sent the Armada to the bottom of the channel.
 
Ewe
2005-02-17 09:46:08 AM
i'm a commited secularist and anti organised religion, but it's quite scary how some of you are just as rabid in your defense of evolution. it is just a theory and is just as likely to be proven wrong, modernity proved things wrong, yet modernity is just a concept so it's likely that what we believe now we will be discredited sometime in the future
 
2005-02-17 09:47:50 AM
barjockey:
Let's just examine the human eye for example. Whether you believe that it was created by some cosmic fart or by an omnipotent creator, it is certainly an intelligent design.

Not really. It could have been done better. For one thing, as your illustration clearly shows, the blood vessels run in front of the retina. The intelligent design would be to put them behind, so they don't get in the way.

There are at least 8 types of eyes known to science. All evolved seperately. Why would an intelligent designer do something 8 different times?
 
2005-02-17 09:48:30 AM
How about a functioning brain with the ability to form rational thought, decisive conclusions, to dream, to control reflex functions, the ability to love and to hate, the ability to create and to imagine, all formed by dust and various random debris in space - if that's not a supernatural magic trick, I don't know what is.


If the particles and dust are following the laws of physics as we know them, there is nothing random about it. Conditions were favorable for life to take hold, and it did.
 
2005-02-17 09:49:00 AM
[barjockey]-------------------------------------------
For me, the proof is in the pudding as it were. Let's just examine the human eye for example. Whether you believe that it was created by some cosmic fart or by an omnipotent creator, it is certainly an intelligent design.

How a gelatinous object could take on the ability to perceive light, objects, and textures and report them to the brain for processing is amazing. How you can look at things like this and compare the notion of intelligent design to a fat man that travels around once a year on a cart pulled by glorified flying donkeys is beyond me.
-------------------------------------------------------

[JC Superstar]
Complexity does not equal design.
The eye has many problems that would reflect "bad design." For example, the positioning of the lense creates an upside-down image that must be corrected in our brains. Also, the eyes age much more quickly than most of the rest of our body, and the lense becomes too dense to work correctly.

There are plenty of instances of "poor design," such as the Panda's digestive tract and thumb, or the human's non-functioning vitamin-C genes.

And why did the designer put the same non-functional viral insertions, into the same places in Humans and Chimpanzees? Evolution can explain this easily, can creationism?
 
2005-02-17 09:49:04 AM
As of being a former citizen of Elkton, let me tell you they're mostly athiests down there, so if you're looking for a place to worship, prepared to be stoned:P
 
2005-02-17 09:49:29 AM
If one then presents something like the series of evolution of the horse, there are claims that these show too much of a transition, so they aren't a series at all.

2My Old & New World Equus
\ | /
\ | /
4My Hippidion Equus Stylohipparion
| | Neohipparion Hipparion Cormohipparion
| | Astrohippus | | |
| | Pliohippus ---------------------------
12My Dinohippus Calippus \ | /
| | Pseudhipparion \ | /
| | | |
------------------------------------------- Sinohippus
15My \ | / |
\ | / Megahippus |
17My Merychippus | |
| Anchitherium Hypohippus
| | |
23My Parahippus Anchitherium Archeohippus
| | |
(Kalobatippus?)-----------------------------------------
25My \ | /
\ | /
|
35My |
Miohippus Mesohippus
| |
40My Mesohippus
|
|
|
45My Paleotherium |
| Epihippus
| |
Propalaeotherium | Haplohippus
| | |
50My Pachynolophus | Orohippus
| | |
| | |
------------------------------
\ | /
\ | /
55My Hyracotherium


This is the best that science has for the evolution of the horse. There is no way to show how each step of the ladder became the next. This is simply a dream that evolutionists have and try to sell as reality. There is no mechanism for one step to become the following step. I have not gone back and studied the different species this chart organizes in such a scientifically impossible way but there is no way to go from A > B except in somebodys's dreams.
 
2005-02-17 09:49:33 AM
barjockey

You are our proof of the current existence of de-evolved forms of our species.

What torques me is this push for "intelligent design" and right wing crap goes against their own best interest. You luddites sure don't biatch when stem cells regrow skin on your burn victim kid. Or when cancer is cured or you don't have to walk around with a polio limp or worry about the "black death". This waxing nostalgic for simpler times seems really cool, until you die from an infected tooth. For all the faults with science, it's much better than mysticism.

If you want to pray... pray. If you want to help, pick up a shovel and start digging, Sparky.
 
2005-02-17 09:51:01 AM
If the ID crowd allows for alien intervention instead of just divine, I might be more amenable to it, but it doesn't. Classic bait & switch.
 
2005-02-17 09:53:57 AM
Barjockey, At some point you will have to choose to accept what you now reject. Is there an infinite (literally) chain of increasingly complex creators going back through time or did nature just "come together" in a complex form at some point ?
 
2005-02-17 09:54:14 AM
Quad:

While I didn't come here to argue the validity of Christianity, many Christians subscribe to the idea that the Bible represents the concepts of the metaphsyical (God's thoughts, to use a term often misunderstood) as translated as best could be by men. This doesn't mean that it is untrue or contradictory, but it can often be mis-interpreted by literal-minded thinkers. If the bible is intended (by God, or whatever force you want to call it) to teach about the "spiritual," then why is it being used to analyze the physical? From Isaiah and Ecclesiastes to the epistles of Paul, it is clearly indicated that the physical terminology used is a shadow of the spiritual or conceptual.

This is just christianity -- Buhddism and other religions also tackle the metaphysical. Your argument -- that it is valid to attack Christianity or religion because a dogmatic literalism is based in a mis-interpretation of religion -- is purposefully ignoring the data. If someone was using bad science to support a theory, you wouldn't condemn science.
 
2005-02-17 09:54:47 AM
walkingtall: There is no mechanism for one step to become the following step.

Yes there is. You have clearly ignored the first part of my reply, pointing out that small transitional steps in evolution aren't enough for the creationists. And made my point.

What is your alternate explanation for this series? Please explain the general fossil sequence from simpler to more complex forms in terms of creationism.
 
2005-02-17 09:54:53 AM
binky_boy

Your misguided strawman attempts to insult me are almost cute. I never said that SC13NC3 = teh 3V1L!111 Science certainly has its value and need for explaining and researching many things. I happen to enjoy science. It just falls short of explaining the origins of life.
 
2005-02-17 09:58:25 AM
Hey Bar Jockey, how about responding to Whatsinthename's and my statements about the eye. How can you account for these many, many flawed designs?

(and "god did it that way just because" is not an explaination.)
 
2005-02-17 09:59:38 AM
You want your kids to learn creationism? Teach 'em at home.

But that's not what these people are really concerned about. This is about their views being taught to others.
 
2005-02-17 10:02:47 AM
It's just a theory. Like gravity. But you don't see anyone questioning whether or not they're gonna hit the ceiling unexpectedly.
 
2005-02-17 10:03:52 AM
binky_boy

What torques me is this push for "intelligent design" and right wing crap goes against their own best interest. You luddites sure don't biatch when stem cells regrow skin on your burn victim kid. Or when cancer is cured or you don't have to walk around with a polio limp or worry about the "black death". This waxing nostalgic for simpler times seems really cool, until you die from an infected tooth. For all the faults with science, it's much better than mysticism.


Well said!
 
2005-02-17 10:04:53 AM
binky_boy

You are our proof of the current existence of de-evolved forms of our species.

What torques me is this push for "intelligent design" and right wing crap goes against their own best interest. You luddites sure don't biatch when stem cells regrow skin on your burn victim kid. Or when cancer is cured or you don't have to walk around with a polio limp or worry about the "black death". This waxing nostalgic for simpler times seems really cool, until you die from an infected tooth. For all the faults with science, it's much better than mysticism.

If you want to pray... pray. If you want to help, pick up a shovel and start digging, Sparky.



And according to the laws of evolution in order for human beings to move forward "less" evolved members must be removed. This is good logic. Many people have tried to move humanity forward by removing less "evolved" members of the human race. I guess these people are your heroes. There is no conflict between science and religion. There never really has been. Just conflict within groups of people in power both by religious leaders and secular or atheist leaders. Power struggles does not make religion and science antagonistic towards each other.
 
2005-02-17 10:05:13 AM
barjockey

Well, intelligent design was not concieved by science. And if you think evolution is flawed and "enjoy science", form another hypothesis that can be tested...

How can you "enjoy science" when your whole stance is "anti-science". Science is your enemy because all it is looking for is objective fact.
 
2005-02-17 10:05:18 AM
JackBach,

I do love that one, ID'ists love to try to confuse the layman's term for theory with the scientific term for theory.

They also love to refer to ID as a theory, even though it's untested, untestable, and has no supporting evidence.
 
2005-02-17 10:08:52 AM
walkingtall

Nice train-wreck of thought. I love being baited and called a nazi. I am a bit too jewish to be convicted of that crime.
 
2005-02-17 10:08:56 AM
Intelligent Design is more of a postulate than a theory.
 
2005-02-17 10:10:20 AM
Walkingtall,

Bringing up the fact that some "evil" people have assisted or believed in evolution doesn't do anything to the validity of the theory.

Plenty of evil people have believed in creationism as well, but again, that fact doesn't detract from the "theory" of creationism. Unfortunately for creationists, the mountains of evidence do.
 
2005-02-17 10:11:05 AM
JC Superstar

Hey Bar Jockey, how about responding to Whatsinthename's and my statements about the eye. How can you account for these many, many flawed designs?


It is amazing how often for the past 100 years nincompoops like you have stood up and shouted about all the bad designs and as we learn more we find the design is great we just do not completely understand the interrelationships and as we find more the better the design is. Let me start with "evolution leftovers" like the appendix and the tonsils just to name a few. After years of just yanking these "unnecessary" organs medicine has now discovered they have good uses after all. Now doctors do not yank tonsils unless necessary. Just because we can limp along without it does not make it "unnecessary". The "design flaws" you state about the eye are also in question. It seems the parts need to be the way they are.
 
2005-02-17 10:11:46 AM
Mr. Clarence Butterworth,

Yes, but they've made no attempt to test it, so it's really not even that. It's simply a statement of religious faith.
 
2005-02-17 10:12:08 AM
this doesn't mean that [the bible] is untrue or contradictory, but it can often be mis-interpreted by literal-minded thinkers.


Christian's Bible Defense Rule #1:

When someone calls bullshiat on the hilariously impossible claims in the Bible, tell them that it's not meant to be taken literally.

Social conservative's addendum to this rule:

Still feel free to interpret it literally when it suits your purposes, like justifying your disgust of gay people, your sense of superiority over darker-skinned people, or your fear of non-subjugated women.


The empirical proof that there is no such thing as a divine entity with a divine plan toward humanity is evidenced by the willful self-delusion, hypocrisy, belligerent ignorance, and selective departure from reality by those who claim to believe in it.
 
2005-02-17 10:16:29 AM
Yes, but they've made no attempt to test it, so it's really not even that. It's simply a statement of religious faith.

Exactly, along with the bait & switch about how the designer MUST be God.
 
2005-02-17 10:17:44 AM
JC Superstar

Okay - but I don't expect you to accept my position.

Flaws in the design of anything are not due to God's incompetence. In the beginning, everything was created perfect, and absolute harmony existed between all things. After the fall of man, imperfection was admitted into the world. Pain, suffering, disease, famine, and every scourge of the earth eventually came about. Death was also introduced. By Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit, God said that they would no longer live forever. Death is nothing more than the eventual deconstruction of life. Things grow old and discontinue working. Organs grow weak and become exhausted. Over time, sure, evidence of imperfections are present in organs due to thousands of years of abuse and degeneration. I never said that evolution did not exist (see earlier posts)I simply discredit it as an explanation for the origins of life. I believe God instilled the ability for things to evolve as a form of adaptation and de-evolve as a form of degeneration. Thus is the cycle of life.
 
2005-02-17 10:18:46 AM
"After years of just yanking these "unnecessary" organs medicine has now discovered they have good uses after all. Now doctors do not yank tonsils unless necessary."

I had thought it was just a matter of it not being worthwhile to remove them, not that they were actually beneficial. Can you point me to some details ?
 
2005-02-17 10:19:42 AM
whoflungpoop

By the way, cute username.

I personally believe the Bible is literal truth written by humans under God's direction. Do you know why there are 4 gospels? Why should there be 4 gospels? Could not one person make a definitive account of Jesus's life? The reason is that there is 4 writers with 4 different points of view. Each gospel emphasizes different aspects of the same events. I simply believe that every distortion or bias in the Bible is there for a reason. However, in the areas that are important the Bible is dead on. All 4 gospels agree in what is important. They just have different flavors. That is how God works through us. We are not slaves. We have our own intelligence and unfortunately sin nature and He allows us to have it and use it. That is what I believe. There may be some slight inaccuracies in the Bible. I simply beleive it was the best God could do using flawed human beings.
 
2005-02-17 10:20:25 AM
[walkingtall] ------------------------------------------
It is amazing how often for the past 100 years nincompoops like you have stood up and shouted about all the bad designs and as we learn more we find the design is great we just do not completely understand the interrelationships and as we find more the better the design is. Let me start with "evolution leftovers" like the appendix and the tonsils just to name a few. After years of just yanking these "unnecessary" organs medicine has now discovered they have good uses after all. Now doctors do not yank tonsils unless necessary. Just because we can limp along without it does not make it "unnecessary". The "design flaws" you state about the eye are also in question. It seems the parts need to be the way they are.
-----------------------------------------------------------
[JC Superstar]
So your answer is basically "God did it for a reason, and we shouldn't question it." yeah, that's a common creationist statement.

If scienfitic disciplines did that, then we'd get nowhere. Science is all about questioning and being skeptical. Creationism is all about not questioning and being faithful.

I do enjoy the double standard though. We have mountains of evidence in support of evolution. From the nested heirarchy of the fossil record, filled with transitional species, to our present-day DNA, which shares certain viral vectors with all primates, certain ones with apes, and some only with Chimps.

There's the predominance of Sickle-cell anemia in africans, and the fact that we have actually seen speciation in fruit flies.

But your "proof" that creationism exists is that there are some missing links that didn't fossilize. Great.

So it's fine for Creationism to have no positive evidence, no hypothesis, no expermients, and mountains of unexplained, conflicting data, but evolution is wrong because certain animals didn't fossilize.

Yeah.
 
2005-02-17 10:20:44 AM
Evolution is not meant to explain the origins of life, but life's adaptation to changing environmental situations.
 
2005-02-17 10:21:06 AM
my children... please come hither so that I can explain how I created all things for which you see... I know each of you to the numbers of hairs on your heads...
when I created you from the beginning of your time I was on acid and had made numerous errors that I am still trying to fix. (ie... dinosaurs etc...) but please do not argue about my existence for I am he who is called "I AM"...


behold my perfect figure but dont look to long for the goodness and rightesnous of my being will be to strong for your mortal eyes and could cause your eyes to explode from your sockets.


 
2005-02-17 10:21:43 AM
How can you "enjoy science" when your whole stance is "anti-science". Science is your enemy because all it is looking for is objective fact.

You have obviously never heard of a strawman argument. This is your second one toward me. You are consciously misrepresenting my position in an effort to demonize me through your distorted interpretation. Let me tell you how it ends - it won't work.
 
2005-02-17 10:22:26 AM
>b> walkingtall

And according to the laws of evolution in order for human beings to move forward "less" evolved members must be removed.

Whoever told you that evolutionary theory implies anything like that was either misinformed or deliberately lying to you. There is no system of value judgements involved in, implicit in, or even suggested by evolution.

Some individuals make more babies than other individuals. There are reliable correspondences between the phenotype (body and behaviour) of an individual, that individual's environment, and that individual's number of offspring. If you live in the mountains and have characteristics more suited to the plains, you will likely have fewer offspring that a neighbor who has a mountain-adapted body and behaviour. If you both lived on the plains, you would be more likely to have offspring than the neighbor who is suited for mountain life.

Your claim about evolution favoring the deliberate elimination of some variants is simply false, and reveals that you don't know enough about what evolution is actually about to permit you to pose valid criticisms. Frankly, I couldn't care one way or the other if you accept the findings of biology, geology, paleontology, etc. I *do* care that your basis for criticism is a misunderstanding. Your critiques are structurally analogous to someone criticising Christianity because it teaches people to eat wood. Since Christianity teaches no such thing, that's a foolish criticism.

If you want to criticise aspects of evolutionary biology, you'll need to understand what it is actually about. The Talk Origins FAQs are a good place to start.

There is no conflict between science and religion. There never really has been. Just conflict within groups of people in power both by religious leaders and secular or atheist leaders. Power struggles does not make religion and science antagonistic towards each other.

That much is true. There are many ways to understand religious beliefs such that they do not conflict with scientific discoveries. I wish the creationists would recognise that fact. But this "debate" is not about science. Nor is it about reconciling faith with fact. It's about political power. Creationists want to force others to believe what they believe, and are angry that they can not yet divert some of my taxes to teaching their religious beliefs to non-believers.
 
2005-02-17 10:22:40 AM
An Apologia for Rude Evolutionists

Sometimes creationists get upset because evolutionists call them stupid and ignorant. On behalf of evolution supporters, I apologize for such uncivil behavior, and further make this humble effort to explain it. Name-calling toward creationists is generally based on one or more of the following reasons:

-"Evolution is just a theory." As has been said countless times, the scientific definition of "theory" is not equivalent to the word's use in expressions such as "I've got a theory as to who ate the last cookie." Evolutionists sometimes get frustrated that creationists keep trying to conjure up evidence for their beliefs by misusing language.

-"There is no evidence to support evolution" OR "The evidence that exists is hopelessly flawed." Evolutionists may get upset at such statements for a few reasons. First, evolutionists find the existing evidence for evolution credible. Second, they feel like their intelligence is being insulted when creationists say things like this, because creationism itself lacks any supporting evidence whatsoever. Evolutionists resent creationists' attempts to use any deficiency in evolutionary theory to support creationism; they do not agree that a perceived flaw in evolution has anything to do with the validity of creationism. They sometimes grow tired of creationists' inability to do anything more than attack the evidence for evolution without explaining why creationism deserves *scientific* recognition, especially when such attacks are based on misuse of language (see above) or a misunderstanding of the evidence or theory (see below).

-"It is inconceivable that something as complex as X evolved by a random process." The oft-said creationist argument that things in this world are just too perfect or complicated to have been the product of natural phenomena is meaningless to the evolutionist, for many reasons. The statement seems to presuppose that things on this planet turned out the "right way," instead of the infinite possibilities that would have been the "wrong way," and only a God could have ensured that things would turn out right. The evolutionist is more inclined to see the world as having turned out a certain way, as the result of billions of years of development, the sort of time span in which all sorts of complex and awe-inspiring things can develop naturally, in a universe of such immense size that a life-filled world developing somewhere within it really isn't such a stretch. The evolutionist is also frustrated with the characterization of evolution as randomness or chance. If evolution were truly random, it would hardly make much sense as a scientific construct, as it would posit that species change in ways unrelated to their environment. Evolution is not random, but is instead based on a species' need to survive and reproduce as effectively as possible.
 
2005-02-17 10:22:45 AM
Walkigtall and BarJockey,

I have a simple question for you. Define "Kind."

Keep in mind that your definition has to be broad enough to enable Noah to have fit two of every animal into his boat, but specific enough for those "kinds" to diverge into every single modern-day species known, and travel to their current habitats.
 
2005-02-17 10:23:07 AM
That is how God works through us.

Speak for yourself, nobody works through me or died for my "sins".
 
2005-02-17 10:26:06 AM
barjockey

I do not know you or what your beliefs are but demonizing creationists and Christians in general is the #1 debate tactic on Fark. It gets very tiring but that is the way it is. I am glad to see someone else sees it. I try to point out that there are consequences to evolution, as history has shown. Logically if you believe in evolution there are some things that go along with it. Not by twisting it but simply taking the theory as it is and following it to its logical conclusion. That is different then using straw man arguments to demonize Christians and/or creationism.
 
2005-02-17 10:26:13 AM
Awesome. Sometimes my home state can really make me proud.
 
2005-02-17 10:26:21 AM
[BarJockey]---------------------------------------------
Flaws in the design of anything are not due to God's incompetence. In the beginning, everything was created perfect, and absolute harmony existed between all things. After the fall of man, imperfection was admitted into the world. Pain, suffering, disease, famine, and every scourge of the earth eventually came about. Death was also introduced. By Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit, God said that they would no longer live forever. Death is nothing more than the eventual deconstruction of life. Things grow old and discontinue working. Organs grow weak and become exhausted. Over time, sure, evidence of imperfections are present in organs due to thousands of years of abuse and degeneration. I never said that evolution did not exist (see earlier posts)I simply discredit it as an explanation for the origins of life. I believe God instilled the ability for things to evolve as a form of adaptation and de-evolve as a form of degeneration. Thus is the cycle of life.
--------------------------------------------------------

[JC Superstar]
Your answer doesn't account for the fact that we see the *same* flaws in humans and chimps, and we see some other flaws in humans and gorillas. In fact, just by looking at non-functional DNA, we can see a heirarchy of shared viral insertions that matches what we see in the fossil record, and what we expect though evolution.

Was this coincidence? Did god put these in there to decieve us?
 
2005-02-17 10:28:10 AM
Walkingtall,

I hear that Flat-earthers and geocentricists also have a hard time on the Fark forums, so don't think that you're alone.
 
2005-02-17 10:28:22 AM
Evolution:
First there was nothing... and then it exploded.
 
2005-02-17 10:29:21 AM
walkingtall

You seem like a devout person, and I am sure you will rise above such calumny.
 
2005-02-17 10:30:51 AM
Mordant


I had thought it was just a matter of it not being worthwhile to remove them, not that they were actually beneficial. Can you point me to some details ?

There is some evidence in juvenile mammals that the appendix is a site of production of B lymphocytes that are important in limiting bacterial growth in the intestines (a common site of infection). Rose Mage and her team are working on that issue, as are many others.

That's no real comfort to creationists (except insofar as any new discovery is twisted to say "see, they changed their minds about something, therefore all of science is wrong and God made everything by magic").
 
2005-02-17 10:31:18 AM
bevets
Before we take on this rather lengthy Leewontin quote, would you care to provide a source for the quote? A google search for (lewontin darwin "hopelessly metaphysical") over all of the websites in the world turns up a resounding 3 hits for this quote; all of which were generated by... you. See ( this search ). Regardless of the source of the quote, it is incorrect when applied to genetic darwinism (sometimes referred to as neo-darwinism, since darwin had no knowledge of genetics when he penned his theory), as we will see.

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is hopelessly metaphysical, according to the rules of etiquette laid down in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry and widely believed in by practicing scientists who bother to think about the problem.

Thesis statement. Very good. Darwinism is metaphysical. We shall assume the reference here is to the theory of Evolution in its current form, and not to Darwin's original theory which lacked our modern insights into genetics (indeed it lacked any insight into genetics). And certainly the poster is interested in attacking the modern theory of evolution and not Darwin's original work.

The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure of the world? If scientists are going to use logically unbeatable theories about the world, they might as well give up natural science and take up religion. Yet is that not exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism?

Many observations would conflate the modern theory of evolution. Some of these include the appearance of pre-cambrian bunny rabbit fossils, and form following function instead of lineage (if penguins had gills, or mammalian lungs, for example, instead of avian lungs, or if dolphins had gills, birds from cold climates with hair, etc). In fact, any evidence of creatures appearing before their "genetic" ancestors as well as the above would cause serious problems for the modern theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of offspring in different environments... Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection of a new character.

Modern evolutionary theory does much more than this. It also asserts that the methodologies by which traits are passed on are genetic in nature, and that therefore changes should be evident in the genetic code of creatures as we move backwards in the history of life. It also means that sudden and abrupt changes should be exceedingly rare, which is what we find as regards horse evolution, whale evolution, etc. Furthermore since evolution is un-directed in some sense we should see evidence of what a designer would call "mistakes". Vestigial legs in whales, for example, but not in fish. In fact, vestigial legs in fish would be another deeply disturbing (see: falsifying) fact for the modern evolutionist.

It is existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything. ~ Richard Lewontin

Here it seems that Lewontin is specifically attacking the early concept of natural selection, particularly those versions that lack genetic underpinning. Whether "natural selection" without modern ideas of genetics is hopelessly metaphysical is not really an issue, since we understand genetrics and evolution in modern terms; what is not hopelessly metaphysical is our current concept of evolution as genetic change passed down through generations. Of course, a citation to where this quote was found would help clarify what exactly Lewontin is referring to here. I am particularly interested in the paragraphs following this quote.

We would not want to be caught quoting out of context, would we?
 
2005-02-17 10:31:38 AM
Evolution:
First there was nothing... and then it exploded.


Creationism:
Some thing that always has existed (or spontaneously appeared) just up and decided to create everything out of nothing.
 
2005-02-17 10:32:31 AM
Creationism:
First there was nothing, then good "poofed" it into existance. Unfortunately, he didn't do a good job.

Then he set up the fossil record, and our own DNA, to look like it evolved.

We know that he did this, even though there's absolutely no evidence that anything supernatural exists, and all known evidence refutes creationism.
 
2005-02-17 10:33:49 AM
walkingtall
Logically if you believe in evolution there are some things that go along with it.

Only if you're silly enough to attempt to draw parallels between natural laws and laws of ethics, or to try and divine higher purpose from a scientific theory.
 
2005-02-17 10:35:06 AM
JC Superstar

I have a simple question for you. Define "Kind."

Keep in mind that your definition has to be broad enough to enable Noah to have fit two of every animal into his boat, but specific enough for those "kinds" to diverge into every single modern-day species known, and travel to their current habitats.


Aha that my friend is a very good question. 100 years ago it was thought impossible and that was one big argument against the Bible. 100 years later as we have learned more there have been possibilities put forward that there needed to be about 85,000 different animals to make every ground based animal on earth. Remember the Bible only says ground based animals. Water based and insects and bacteria etc were on their own. There have also been experiments done about how to take care of all those animals and food and waste removal etc. Lo and behold it has been found that if God assisted in making the animals come to the ark Noah and his 7 companions COULD have done so. I found the fact that animals missed the tsunami very interesting. Animals live in a different plane then we do. We have free will. They do not. Is it really that hard to imagine God giving animals the instinct to come together for the ark? Remember God has no problem using animals. He created us to love him and be loved by him. Animals were created as our companions on this earth. He did not give them free will.
 
2005-02-17 10:35:35 AM
Has anyone mentioned that you can observe evolution on a cellular scale by looking at certain bacteria that genetically modify themselves by exchanging DNA.
 
2005-02-17 10:35:54 AM
evolutionists, et. al

Lets clarify. I believe that the occurences of evolution exists. Who can say that God did not design it that way? There is evidence pointing to the fact that organisms have demonstrated change and adaptation. This stance and the theory of God and intelligent design are in no way mutually exclusive. I think that God is capable of much more than our feeble minds could ever conceive. He probably set evolution into motion as a way of perpetuating adaptation over time to an ever-changing environment. This is still a separate argument as to how the origins of life began. Abiogenesis holds absolutely no water. Not only is it an insult to creationists, but it is also an insult to science because science is not based on non-derivative speculation. Proponents of science save face by maintaining rational credibility. Life from cosmic flatulence is a very degrading insult to science.
 
2005-02-17 10:36:20 AM
Franky17

The context of a bevets quote is irrelevant. The quote itself stands outside of time and space as a discreet metaphysical truth. (In this context, being metaphysical is a good thing. Also, in this context, context is relevant.)
 
2005-02-17 10:38:34 AM
I'm late, but just had to say farking awesome headline.
 
2005-02-17 10:40:08 AM
"Remember God has no problem using animals. He created us to love him and be loved by him. Animals were created as our companions on this earth. He did not give them free will."

It's a shame he made them able to feel pain though, seems pointless given that their behavior can be controlled directly anyway, but I guess the fact that they suffer sometimes in their service to us is just another mystery.
 
2005-02-17 10:42:37 AM
Barjockey.

There is no "theory" of ID. A theory is a well tested, well supported explaination for something. ID has no tests, no criteria, and no evidence.

That said, yes, religion and evolution can certainly go hand in hand. The Catholic Church believes that God created life and then guided evolution and common descent.

Science can't prove or disprove god, so the Catholic explaination is perfectly acceptable. Science can and has disproven biblican creation, old-earth creation, flat-earthism, geocentricism, and many other primitive ideas that were based on the bible.

As for abiogenesis, it most certainly does hold water, and is currently the most accepted and best explaination as to how life appeared on earth. RNA can self-replicate, and phospholipid bilayers form naturally. Amino acids can form on their own in certain situations. Over a billion of year, yes, this can produce life.
 
2005-02-17 10:42:40 AM
Franky17

Only if you're silly enough to attempt to draw parallels between natural laws and laws of ethics, or to try and divine higher purpose from a scientific theory.


Please explain to me why after supposedly 4 million years of evolution without "ethics" or "love" or any of those higher functions that we should limit evolution now? Why should we as a species limit our growth into "higher" beings? What possible logical argument or law of evolution could you use to explain stopping it how with intelligent intervention. According to you, evolution created a wonderful, diverse world. Why should everyone have to live by limiting it now? It may be painful and maybe many people would have to either die or never be born but so what? Evolution is based on death and destruction of entire populations to make room for growth. Death and destruction is the engine of growth even. Why stop now? What gives us the right to stop our own evolution? What gives one group of people the right to stop forward progress for the entire species? What gives you that right to tell me that my descendents are not going to have all those wonderful "advancements" because of some silly idea such as "ethics" or morality? Since when in evolution was there any room for "ethics" or morality? Please logically explain this to me.
 
2005-02-17 10:43:27 AM
barjockey
Who can say that God did not design it that way?
No one. Such a statement is "hopelessly metaphysical", to quote a prominent evolutionist. As far as science goes that statement is "without scientific merit", or "not even wrong", it is a purely meaningless statement as far as science goes. This, however, has no bearing on the factual validity of the metaphysical statement "God designed evolution". It is important to discern between the two. The statements "without scientific merit" and "not even wrong" are not comments on the validity of your claim, they are statements regarding the scientific provability of your claim. The statements "we should respect our elders" and "don't eat your children" are also "without scientific merit" and "not even wrong" as far as science goes, but they are still both good rules to live by.

Any scientist who claims to make metaphysical claims on the basis of the theory of evoltion is likely confusing what the theory states with what their own personal ideas, which is easy to do in many cases.
 
2005-02-17 10:44:07 AM
barjockey

"Life from cosmic flatulence" is one way to put it, and it does sound a bit degrading to all life-forms, but that's your way of putting it. And it's really not much support for anything. We don't have to like the way life came into being on this planet, or how it developed into its current forms. You may prefer to believe in a divine hand, but your preference does not lend credence to that divinity's existence. Others may prefer to believe in a world without that divinity; surely you wouldn't argue that such a preference is a valid argument for atheism.

Life, in its simplest, single-celled form, is just the right chemicals mixing together, the product of any petri dish. Perhaps God ensured those chemicals would mix just the right way, perhaps they mixed by chance. But to say that abiogensis holds no scientific water does not get you to Genesis. It doesn't get you in the ballpark.
 
2005-02-17 10:45:32 AM
Um, who created GOD? Why do we have a strange yet better resemblance to cavemen and monkeys (both socially and physically)...EVOLUTION! Why do we have an appendix we don't need...EVOLUTION! Why do some catfish have the ability to walk on land like an amphibian...EVO-freakin-LUTION!
 
2005-02-17 10:46:02 AM
walkingtall

Remember the Bible only says ground based animals. Water based and insects and bacteria etc were on their own.

Ok, so, in your opinion, Genesis 7:014-16 and Gen. 7:021-23 are not meant to be taken literally. So then, what is your criterion for deciding which passages are literal and which are parables or metaphors?
 
2005-02-17 10:46:13 AM
walkingtall


Umm...I'm pretty sure that there are alot more than 4 gospels. Some were included the bible, some weren't. The selection of gospels was most likely in order to present a coherent story. IE: They picked the gospel's they liked.
Constantine picked gospels that aided his cause (supressing a christian revolt)
 
2005-02-17 10:47:18 AM
Walkingtall, you'll either need to show your work or link to it for me to believe that two of every land animal, as well as their food and fresh water, could fit on a boat.

And the bible doesn't say that god helped him gather the animals, but I'll let that slide.

So please, explain it. Keep in mind that there are many thousands of land species.

Also, how did fresh water fish survive when the seas overflowed, if they weren't helped?

And why is there no fossil evidence of a flood?

But fist, let's hear your definition of Kind, and explaination as to how all of those animals and their food and fresh water could have fit on a boat.

Also, if there's no evolution, and only two of each species was aboard, why do we see so many alleles of each gene within each species?
 
2005-02-17 10:49:08 AM
NOTE:

Those who compare creationists to proponents of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, geocentrists, flat-earthers, and people who believe that Detroit will ever win a Super Bowl, do not belong in this discussion. These things are easily disproved whereas creationism is not. If you think it is, then you are already way in over your head.
 
2005-02-17 10:49:16 AM
walkingtall

You are confusing evolution with Social Darwinism. The former is an explanation for the development of life on this planet. It has nothing to do with ethics; it simply explains how traits and mutations are passed down to descendants to result in new and changed species. Social Darwinism is an ideology, not a scientific theory. It is premised on the fallacy that evolutionary theory justifies the oppression or extermination of those perceived as "inferior." It is, in other words, a misuse and abuse of evolution.

There is nothing whatsoever about evolution per se that endorses immorality.
 
2005-02-17 10:49:27 AM
Mordant

It's a shame he made them able to feel pain though, seems pointless given that their behavior can be controlled directly anyway, but I guess the fact that they suffer sometimes in their service to us is just another mystery.


Do you have any idea how valuable pain is to the health of any organism? Have you ever studied animal behavior. Or even human behavior? There are rarely people and animals born without the ability to feel pain. Neither the animals nor the humans live very long. They simply have no way of knowing what is bad for them and what is good and they end of killing themselves doing things we would not do because it hurts. Pain is a good thing. It can be a bad thing with chronic pain and other problems but overall we all need it. So that argument is false.
 
2005-02-17 10:49:39 AM
Genesis 7:14-16 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

Public Domain
A Public Domain Bible KJV at Zondervan Zondervan

14They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
 
2005-02-17 10:51:33 AM
Bar Jockey,

Creationism is just as easily refuted as Flat-earthism or Geocentricism. Sorry, but your claiming the opposite does not do anything. All three are primitive beliefs that have been disproven for over a century.

Did you know that heliocentricism is also just a theory?
 
2005-02-17 10:52:02 AM
Why does this debate still occur? For those that insist there aren't "missing links", I suggest you read "The Fossil Fallacy: Creationists' demand for fossils that represent "missing links" reveals there deep misunderstanding of science" by Michael Schermer in the March 2005 issue of SciAm.

For those that don't care to read it, let me stress some of the points made in the article.

No single branch of science can prove conclusively that evolution happened/happens. But combine evidence from fields such as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many others combined and we they reveal that life evolved in a sequence by a particular process.

One can't prove with fossils that the numerous species of dog derived from Old World wolves, yet archeological, morphological, genetic, and behavioural "fossils" reveal all dogs spawned from an East Asian wolf.

The Ambulocetus natans transitional fossil is discredited by Creationists because they claim there are two gaps in the fossil record, therefore it is rendered bunk. Creationists fail to see that proof is derived from combining evidence from multiple lines of inquiry and many independent inductions that point to a solid conclusion.


For those that think creationism is just as much a "theory" as evolution because nothing has been proven..
Evolution has evidence to support it, Creationism is a belief based solely on faith. Empirical evidence supporting faith renders faith not faith.

A hunch or speculation is not in any way a scientific theory.
Scientific Theory: [n] a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

Are there any scientific observations for creation? Is God falsifiable? The only "evidence" creationists have is to surrender intellectually. "Well, we don't know so it must be something greater than us, even if we have no evidence or logic to support it."

"Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all."
----Herbert Spencer


And finally, there is a piece in the Feb 2005 SciAm dealing with the stickers on science books. The author, Steve Mirsky, make some comical parodies.

The sticker stating evolution is "just a theory" should read, "Variation coupled with natural selection is the most widely accepted theory that explains evolution. Evidence for evolution itself is so overwhelming that those who deny its reality can do so through nonscientific arguments. They have every right to hold such views. They just can't teach them as science in this science class."

He goes on to further patronize the creationist sticker craze by making some other suggestions.

On a Physics for freshman book: "We know that a lot of what's in this book is wrong, and with any luck they'll eventually find out even more of it is wrong. But it's not too far off, it took some real geniuses to get us this close, and it's way better than nothing."

Stcker on Collegiate Chemistry: "Electrons. They're like little tiny ball bearings that fly around the atomic nucleus like planets orn=bit the sun. Except that they're actually waves. Only what they really are are probability waves. But they do make your MP3 player run, seriously."

Sticker on Earth Science: "You are free to exercise your first amendment rights in this class and to identify all stratigraphic layers as being 6,000 years old. We are free to flunk you."

Sticker in Intro to Cosmology: "Astronomers estimate the age of the universe to be approx 13 billion years. If evolution ticks you off because you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, cosmology should really make smoke come out of your ears. There's a fire extinguisher next to the telescope."
 
2005-02-17 10:53:52 AM
walkingtall
Please explain to me why after supposedly 4 million years of evolution without "ethics" or "love" or any of those higher functions that we should limit evolution now?

What do you mean "limit evolution"? You have conflated a scientific theory of how life evolved with ethical theories of how we should behave.

Your question is akin to asking "what can the internal combustion engine tell us about how to treat our parents?".

Why should we as a species limit our growth into "higher" beings?
The concept of "higher" beings is a purely human one that has little bearing on scientific theory of evolution. Evolution predicts that species will become more adapted to their surroundings, whether this involves "higher" beings or not is unclear.

What possible logical argument or law of evolution could you use to explain stopping it how with intelligent intervention. According to you, evolution created a wonderful, diverse world. Why should everyone have to live by limiting it now?

I do not understand your question. Have to live by limiting what? Evolution did create this diverse world. It also created moral agents (you and me) and it tells us absolutely nothing about how to live moral lives.

It may be painful and maybe many people would have to either die or never be born but so what? Evolution is based on death and destruction of entire populations to make room for growth. Death and destruction is the engine of growth even. Why stop now? What gives us the right to stop our own evolution?

This question is so incredibly odd to me. Evolution is a natural process. Your question is akin to asking "what gives us the right to stop the forces of gravity from acting upon us by building airplanes?" Do you see how silly that sounds? We are moral agents, with moral concerns and feelings, evolution is a natural process like gravity, it has no "rights".

What gives one group of people the right to stop forward progress for the entire species?

"Forward" is a purely human concept - evolution has no such concept although you might apply such a concept to evolution.

What gives you that right to tell me that my descendents are not going to have all those wonderful "advancements" because of some silly idea such as "ethics" or morality? Since when in evolution was there any room for "ethics" or morality? Please logically explain this to me.

There is no room in evolution for ethics or morality, just like there is no room in the theory of gravity for ethics or morality, or the theory of thermodynamics, or solar flares, or anything like that. Science can not tell us what ought to be, or how we ought to act. Science tells us what "is", not what "ought to be".
 
2005-02-17 10:54:15 AM
barjockey

It is possible to disprove specific claims made by some creationists. For example, some creationists claim that Genesis should be taken literally. However, Gen. 1:11-21 states quite clearly that land plants existed before stars, before the sun and moon, and before animals. In each detail, that claim is mistaken.

You are correct that it is not possible to falsify the claim "God created everything using unknown mechanisms" because that claim has no empirical implications. That is why such a claim can not reasonably be considered "science."
 
2005-02-17 10:54:19 AM
Kaymon:

Except that he's posting on the internet. Looks like another case of someone ignoring evidence.

Do they really let people like you access the internet? Let me give you a few words to look up: Hyperbole, Sarcasm, Irony, Faceteous, Exaggeration, Using the other person's argument against them to prove a point.

And if you point out that my last "word" wasn't a word that is usually found in a dictionary, call 1-800-get this guy's boot out of my ass and slap me upside the head.
 
2005-02-17 10:54:39 AM
Its interesting that ID doesnt actually explain anything, it simply says 'things were designed to be the way they are' and thats it. You may find that emotionally satisfying but it advances our understanding of the universe not a whit.

You may as well use the 'Its a Kinda Magic' theory :-

Q. How did life begin?
A. Magic

Q. How have lifeforms become the way they are?
A. Magic

Q. Will life change over time?
A. Thats up to the Magic

ID provides no information on the processes of creation and design, no illumination on the motivation of the designer, it doesnt actually provide anything at all.

Intelligent Design is not an explantion its a denial that explanation is required.
 
2005-02-17 10:56:11 AM
Umm...I'm pretty sure that there are alot more than 4 gospels

There is The Infancy Gospel of Thomas where Jesus kills a couple of people for pissing him off. I think he also performs miracles to show off.

And of course there is The Gospel According to Thomas where the following quotes come from:

"Simon Peter said to them, 'Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.' Jesus said, 'I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.'"
 
2005-02-17 10:56:21 AM
"Do you have any idea how valuable pain is to the health of any organism? Have you ever studied animal behavior. Or even human behavior? There are rarely people and animals born without the ability to feel pain. Neither the animals nor the humans live very long. They simply have no way of knowing what is bad for them and what is good and they end of killing themselves doing things we would not do because it hurts. Pain is a good thing. It can be a bad thing with chronic pain and other problems but overall we all need it. So that argument is false."

Right, that's what I thought from the beginning. But then right up above you came out and said that the Ark story was no problem because God was guiding the animals directly and making it possible for Noah and his immediate family to care for them.

So if animals have no free will (as you said) and can be controlled and directed then why do they need the pain stimulus ? The only reason would be that the force controlling their behavior might maliciously push them to self destruction and pain stimulus would be the safety catch.
 
2005-02-17 10:58:05 AM
As for abiogenesis, it most certainly does hold water, and is currently the most accepted and best explaination as to how life appeared on earth. RNA can self-replicate, and phospholipid bilayers form naturally. Amino acids can form on their own in certain situations. Over a billion of year, yes, this can produce life.

Self-replication is no argument for abiogenesis. The original item had to be there in the first place. Amino acids had to originate. Even the cosmic dust that is the foundation for abiogenesis had to be formed at some point. The void of space or wherever these events took place had to come into existence in some way. Where are the scientific explanations for this?

Life, in its simplest, single-celled form, is just the right chemicals mixing together, the product of any petri dish.

You make it sound so simple, yet this has never been accomplished in any laboratory. Non-living chemicals and substances cannot create the original spark of life.
 
2005-02-17 10:58:33 AM
walkingtall:

Remember the Bible only says ground based animals. Water based and insects and bacteria etc were on their own.

Uh, where does it say that? Verse, passage please? Once again, as whoflungpoop said earlier,

Christian's Bible Defense Rule #1:

When someone calls bullshiat on the hilariously impossible claims in the Bible, tell them that it's not meant to be taken literally.

Social conservative's addendum to this rule:

Still feel free to interpret it literally when it suits your purposes, like justifying your disgust of gay people, your sense of superiority over darker-skinned people, or your fear of non-subjugated women.

 
2005-02-17 11:00:56 AM
When one person reaches to find fault in anothers explanation, yet provides no backing for his or hers, that is a sign of a loosing argument. I think it's funny how creationists try and keep the ball out of their court. It would be nice to see an explanation of creationism as a science without mention of faults in evolution. Creationist seem to think we have ALL the information, and now it's time to come to the conclusion. The fact is we still have a long way to go in uncovering a complete fissile record. The fact that evolution has earned a scientific theory status this early in the game means that with further advancement the theory will only become stronger. We have uncovered many transitionals, and Im sure plenty more will be found. Discoveries in biology will lead to a better understanding of genetics, backing up the evolutionary theory more and more as it already has in the past. Creationism is a loosing argument, and if you want to save face then you should consider altering your views on our creation. Right now the creationist arguments sound harmlessly silly, but as the evolutionary theory grows, your arguments will be looked back on as deceptive, uneducated, and may harm Christian religions that associate themselves with creationism. I would not want to call myself a Christian if the term were associated with deception and stupidity. So I hope creationist rethink their views or religious groups break from their ties with the creationist community.

-ps. as amusing as it is, the animation was just to get your attention :-D
 
2005-02-17 11:01:21 AM
Believe_It_Or_Not_I'm_Not_Home

You are confusing evolution with Social Darwinism. The former is an explanation for the development of life on this planet. It has nothing to do with ethics; it simply explains how traits and mutations are passed down to descendants to result in new and changed species. Social Darwinism is an ideology, not a scientific theory. It is premised on the fallacy that evolutionary theory justifies the oppression or extermination of those perceived as "inferior." It is, in other words, a misuse and abuse of evolution.

There is nothing whatsoever about evolution per se that endorses immorality.


You still miss my point. Where in evolution is there any room for "morality". Over billions of years, life and death happened with no concept of "morality" or "justice" or even "love". It has worked great according to you. Please explain how Social Darwinism is inconsistent with evolution. I do not see the logical disconnect. You are only disconnecting because you are abhored at the results of the logical conclusion. Just because you do not like the result does not falsify the logic. You are putting an intelligent limit on evolution and what right do you have to do so? What right do we have to stop evolution now? Why are we condemning our descendents to being the less evolved species we are now? I do not understand the logical reason for your position.
 
2005-02-17 11:04:50 AM
"God created man in his own image."

Proof of this:



/probably going to hell for that one! ;-)
 
2005-02-17 11:06:05 AM
barjockey

You make it sound so simple, yet this has never been accomplished in any laboratory. Non-living chemicals and substances cannot create the original spark of life.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00159.htm

Urey and Miller. Proteins, carbohydrates, and nucleic acids, the building blocks of organic life created from inorganic materials.
 
2005-02-17 11:07:20 AM
GOD IS DEAD...and evolution killed him.
Man, evolution is such a prick. I mean really, everything was going so well until evolution showed up. Me and god were chillin out at Denny's, hacking darts when all a sudden evolution walks up and is like "hey, god. Don't bring your second hand smoke in here."
God was like, "The odor of burning tobacco is pleasing to the lord."
And then evolution was like, "If you don't put out that smoke I'm going to make believing in you obsolete, and I'll make all the people who still believe in you really, really big jerks"
So god put out his cigarette on evolutions face, and was like "wazzup now, biatch"
So evolution straight up kick god's ass. It's really depressing seeing god get the Sh*t kicked out of him in a Denny's.

/seriously don't f*ck with evolution, he'll kick your ass.
 
2005-02-17 11:08:08 AM
barjockey

Self-replication is no argument for abiogenesis. The original item had to be there in the first place...Amino acids ...cosmic dust ...void of space ... had to come into existence

So it's not "evolution" you object to, so much as "everything scientists have discovered in the past 100 years", is that right? Glad to have that cleared up.

You make it sound so simple, yet this has never been accomplished in any laboratory. Non-living chemicals and substances cannot create the original spark of life.

We actually did so, in mid Nov. 2003. It took the team about two weeks to assemble a virus from its component parts. Google for "artificial virus". In other words, your "it's never happened" argument is out of date by one year and three months.
 
2005-02-17 11:08:10 AM