Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.
Note: forcing pagination mode for this thread because of the high number of comments. (why?)

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

8145 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Feb 2005 at 9:30 PM (12 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



953 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest

 
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  
[image from library.thinkquest.org too old to be available]

/ 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  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
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  
[image from warwick.ac.uk too old to be available]

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  
[image from home.kc.rr.com too old to be available]
 
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.

[image from prometheus-imports.com too old to be available]
 
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/N​Ytimes-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.

[image from nmnh.si.edu too old to be available]

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.

[image from stephenjaygould.org too old to be available]
 
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.

[image from nmnh.si.edu too old to be available]
 
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.
[image from dropdeadugly.com too old to be available]
 
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.

[image from nmnh.si.edu too old to be available]

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  
[image from images.amazon.com too old to be available]
 
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  
[image from schockwellenreiter.de too old to be available]
 
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  
[image from mnftiu.cc too old to be available]
 
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 10:49:19 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?

[image from zoouz.free.fr too old to be available]

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 10:53:53 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 10:56:58 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  
[image from intelligentdesignnetwork.org too old to be available]

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  
[image from deviousstudios.com too old to be available]

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 11:19:35 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.

[image from darwinawards.com too old to be available]
 
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 11:25:39 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 11:30:43 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  
[image from i.cnn.net too old to be available]
 
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 11:35:29 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 11:39:34 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 11:45:57 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 11:49:27 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 11:53:57 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