Evolution

[Floyd]

Oh i know.. that was sloppy wasn't it? I hope he's not watching, or i'm for it...

[The Sociologist]

On a slightly diverging topic, quite related, though...I would be interested in hearing Sociologists opinion on the following statement. It has fascinated me in the last couple of years, but I've always been too busy playing Cantr and making a living to read much on the subject, but I would think Sociologist might agree. I, frankly, don't know if I agree or not.

"The belief in a planned universe by a Higher Power helped spark the industrial revolution due to the fact that scientists of religious conviction searched for a rational explanation for observed phenomena."

Yes, the idea of "God as clockmaker", the idea that God had left behind a rational and ordered mechanism for us to explore, decode and utilize. I can accept that many scientists of the time adhered to such a view. But of course this is part of the History of Ideas, it does not mean that what they believed is somehow validated thereby.

I would also like to mention (to anyone interested) that it is a falsehood that those with religious conviction are easily fooled and uneducated.

Oh I've never said that. I sometimes hang out with a group of Jesuits myself. Very bright people. One was a favorite lecturer of mine from years back. But then they don't seem to have any problem with the Big Bang or Evolution. I would say that someone who believes that the earth is only some tens of thousands of years old is....not paying attention (to put it politely). In less extreme cases, for example people who accept the overall picture but who argue that some "intelligent design" must necessarily have occurred, then the onus lies on them to provide corroboration for such a hypothesis. Such does not so far exist. Bear in mind that it would have to exclude any competing explanation from the traditional evolutionary perspective.

[west]

Since when is Rupert Murdoch dead?

And pie, regarding your 98% water nonsense, that's all it is, nonsense. A watermelon and a cloud and the ocean are all mostly water, true, but you and a diamond are both carbon-based, just as a tortilla and cornbread are both corn-based. That's material components, not genetics.

Anyway, Pie, you don't seem to have a very clear picture of what DNA is or does. The vast majority of life on earth shares mostly the same genes, with varying degrees of similarity. However, similar genes don't necessarily mean things will look similar, it just reflects nature's (not always streamlined) instructions for how to make an organism from ultimately a single cell. Think of them as a blueprint.

Look at yourself, now, and look at a chimpanzee. You have the same basic structure, same basic shape, same kinds of hair follicles, most of the same muscles, the same organs, the same shaped everything. That has to be coded for, and it's encoded in DNA.

I don't know if anyone's brought it up as a creationist argument yet, but often people say "Man was created in God's image, are you calling God a monkey?" or whatever.

I think that's a bit overly-simplistic. First of all, most people would agree that if there's an omnipotent all-powerful God, it is not some old white dude with a beard, but rather a force or presence that exists outside the limitations of space/time, and not necessarily physical. "Created in the image of God," as far as I can tell, more closely refers to our MENTAL and SPIRITUAL selves. I don't think anyone would argue that humans are more than just animals, in that we have analytical and imaginitive and self-cognitive powers that no other animals possess...

I think the creative and rational and self-reflective thoughts that we (and no other animal, so far as we can tell) contain are the TRUE image of god, and the hairless-monkey look was just one that worked well. If you've got a God that designed and created everything (regardless of method; kickstarting evolution is just as easy as creating the world from scratch), then what's to stop him putting that aspect of himself, that soul if you will, into a vessel that seemed well-suited to it? The opposable thumbs are helpful; dolphins wouldn't have been much good.

[Floyd]

Crap.. is Rupert Murdoch who i mean? Owned the Sun and a host of other newspapers.. disssapeared on his yacht so many years ago... oh dammit!

[The Sociologist]

Crap.. is Rupert Murdoch who i mean? Owned the Sun and a host of other newspapers..

Alas yes.

disssapeared on his yacht so many years ago...

Alas no.

[Pie]

Since when is Rupert Murdoch dead?

And pie, regarding your 98% water nonsense, that's all it is, nonsense. A watermelon and a cloud and the ocean are all mostly water, true, but you and a diamond are both carbon-based, just as a tortilla and cornbread are both corn-based. That's material components, not genetics.

Anyway, Pie, you don't seem to have a very clear picture of what DNA is or does. The vast majority of life on earth shares mostly the same genes, with varying degrees of similarity. However, similar genes don't necessarily mean things will look similar, it just reflects nature's (not always streamlined) instructions for how to make an organism from ultimately a single cell. Think of them as a blueprint.

Look at yourself, now, and look at a chimpanzee. You have the same basic structure, same basic shape, same kinds of hair follicles, most of the same muscles, the same organs, the same shaped everything. That has to be coded for, and it's encoded in DNA.

I don't know if anyone's brought it up as a creationist argument yet, but often people say "Man was created in God's image, are you calling God a monkey?" or whatever.

I think that's a bit overly-simplistic. First of all, most people would agree that if there's an omnipotent all-powerful God, it is not some old white dude with a beard, but rather a force or presence that exists outside the limitations of space/time, and not necessarily physical. "Created in the image of God," as far as I can tell, more closely refers to our MENTAL and SPIRITUAL selves. I don't think anyone would argue that humans are more than just animals, in that we have analytical and imaginitive and self-cognitive powers that no other animals possess...

I think the creative and rational and self-reflective thoughts that we (and no other animal, so far as we can tell) contain are the TRUE image of god, and the hairless-monkey look was just one that worked well. If you've got a God that designed and created everything (regardless of method; kickstarting evolution is just as easy as creating the world from scratch), then what's to stop him putting that aspect of himself, that soul if you will, into a vessel that seemed well-suited to it? The opposable thumbs are helpful; dolphins wouldn't have been much good.

ok, I COMPLEATLY UNDERSTAND WHAT D.N.A IS! i was making a point. i will tell you what D.N.A is if you don't beleive that i understood it.

what i am also saying, is that it is compleatly stupid to believ Evolution. so far, Evolution is a thery with no proof. no proof at all. shure, with a thery you can never stop looking for truthe, but seriously, nothing. absolutly nothing.

sicolagist, same thing as the D.N.A thing. i understand everything you said, i was just trying to make a point.

[ephiroll]

Oh c'mon, Creationsim? That theory was put to rest back in the 20's wasnt it? Johnny Scopes, the monkey trial, etc etc, this debate has been had so many times and been won over and over by evolotionists, there's simply no proof to support creationism, whereas theres plenty to back up Evoloutionism.

Unfortunatly, no, it hasn't been put to rest, but instead is still around helping to cripple the scientific thought in this country at the worse possible time for that to happen.

The new flag for creationism, which I haven't anyone meantion in this topic yet (excuse me if I missed it), is Intelligent Design. The "theory" simply says that the universe is too complicated to have come about naturally and had to have been created by someone or something and that the current scientific theories aren't right. That isn't the way they say it, but that's what it boils down to.

The fact that no one has an answer as to who created whatever it is that sopposidly created the universe doesn't seem to matter, after all, they can't let logic stand in there way, that would simply make too much sense. It is already being taught in at least a few states and drawing heavy critisim, as it should, there is absolutely zero evidence for the "theory". Also, since one simple question can stump the whole thing, the "theory" is fundamentally flawed. Therefore, it is not a viable conclusion to draw and can't be correct no matter how much anyone wants it to be.

I also just want to point out that the scientic world is constantly changing, nothing is ever proven, existing theories are constantly modified to reflect recent discoveries. The idea that science isn't static, but dynamic, is another of Darwin's great contributions to science. Right now, if anyone else keeps close eyes on new developments like I do, is a great time in science, new discoveries are being made at a breakneck pace in every field. Off course, not all of them are good news...

[ephiroll]

what i am also saying, is that it is compleatly stupid to believ Evolution. so far, Evolution is a thery with no proof. no proof at all. shure, with a thery you can never stop looking for truthe, but seriously, nothing. absolutly nothing.

Actually, the theory of evolution is the only "creation" idea that does have any proof. That proof is 500 million years of fossil records. If that isn't enough I suggest you start reading up on all the supergerms now spreading around the world. Such things as VRSC, MRSC, resistant TB, malaria, and yellow fever, ask the people who are walking around with 5 different varients of AIDS if evolution exists, maybe even read a little on the flu (ever wonder why there's a new flu shot every year?), especially the new strain that is slowly gaining strength is Korea that has a %70+ fatality rate and is matched for deadliness only by Ebola and Marburg virus.

Virus's mutate almost 100,000 times faster then higher lifeforms, watching a virus is like watching evolution is action.

[Darth_Tater]

ok...I didnt read every little word everyone posted cuz you people sometimes write to darn much...but Darwin is the Man!! I have 2 different colored eyes...mutation....the flu virus growing stronger to fight new vaccines?...I dont think the flu virus eats alotta fruit, drinks milk, or takes his flintstones vitamins...scientist have view viruses and crap evolving for alittle while now....and my girlfriends family is catholic..her grandma Uber catholic...and we asked them where dinosaurs came from and why there not in the bible...they didnt know....idunno...I think evolution is real cuz I have the hopes one day that evolution sky rockets and I get super powers or something

[kinvoya]

I'm more convinced than ever that Pie is homeschooled.

Creationism = Completely based on belief. Seeking proof negates belief. If you have proof it is no longer belief.

Evolution = Has tons and tons and tons of evidence to back it up but the people who have brainwashed Pie just keep screaming, "There isn't one bit of evidence!" *shrugs* What are you going to do? Willful ignorance is it's own reward.

This debate is pointless as neither side will ever be open to the other side's point of view.

[west]

what i am also saying, is that it is compleatly stupid to believ Evolution. so far, Evolution is a thery with no proof. no proof at all. shure, with a thery you can never stop looking for truthe, but seriously, nothing. absolutly nothing.

Are you honestly so stupid you don't know that a word can have two different meanings?

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory" -Princeton Wordnet

There's no concrete PROOF for anything; I can't prove you exist, but my theory (different use of the word) is that you do, because I don't like to think that I'm capable of imagining someone as wilfully ignorant as you are.

What the theory (see above definition) of evolution has on its side is EVIDENCE. Masses of evidence, from the fossil record, carbon-dating, anatomical similarities, genetics, direct observation, lab work, etc. Thus far, there is not a sufficient amount of evidence to suggest an alternate hypothesis: Evolution is the best possible explanation for how life has developed on this planet, and there is not any real evidence that contradicts it.

In any case, the point of science is not to figure out how things DIDN'T happen, but how they did. If you believe that evolution was not responsible for the development of life on this earth, you need to present evidence to the contrary. Saying, "YOU HAVE NO PROOF" and ignoring the evidence or proof is foolish.

"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Honestly, I'm all in favor of rational, intelligent debate. I've been proven wrong, had my mind changed on any number of things. But not by mindless drivel.

This debate is pointless as neither side will ever be open to the other side's point of view.

Well, maybe this iteration of the debate. But as I said, I was a creationist until I took the time to research the issue.

It is the mark of an intelligent mind (and me, when I try to act like them) that it is always open.

Anyone who refuses to be challenged in their beliefs is a coward, because secretly they fear they might be wrong.

The righteous man welcomes challenge.

[kinvoya]

You are right, west. I retract my last statement.

I got my degree in Religious Studies partly because I'm very interested in people's religious experience and story - the ways they view the world and the cosmos and explain reality to themselves, the tribal level of community (which is usually so closely guided by religion) and the beauty of creation myths from around the world.

I get very excited when these myths somehow mysteriously corroborate or are corroborated by science. I believe there are mysterious forces at work that we can only perceive dimmly, if at all and I have no interest in fitting them into any particular formal (or informal) religion. I also get excited when various areas of cosmology and physics encounter little bits of these mysteries.

I keep hoping creationists will say something compelling about their creation story but so far I haven't heard anything even remotely interesting. I thought I might get something on this thread so I read the whole damn thing. *sigh* The evolution parts were good.

[BadMonkey]

I never realised the dating of the Universe was quite that exact. Last I had it they were debating where in the 12-20 billion years group it was, though most had settles for about 14...

And that doesn't take into account changes in the laws of the universe (Other than the obvious ones, such as electromagnetism not being around for a good while). Quantum physics is a bugger like that. Just wants to make everyone wrong (So far as a science can........But then, that's what science is).

With intelligent design..........I don't think it should be taught in schools. Not because of flaws in the argument (Though there are so many) but because it hasn't been tested in any way whatsoever. Take a look at ANYTHING else you learn in a science class. It has undergone decades of scientific scrutiny before it was allowed anywhere near a classroom. ID hasn't. Come back in a few decades after hundreds of scientists have done everything they possibly can to disprove it, then it might be worth teaching.

Edit: I didn't notice the extra two pages of the topic.

[Antichrist_Online]

One other thing is the creation story in the bible shows a limited understanding of evolutionary prinipals.

This is a translation from my old latin bible I keep for reference:
The third day:
"and God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yeilding seed, and the fruit tree yeilding fruit"
The fourth day:
"and God ceated great whales and evey living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth"
The fifth day
"and God made the beast of the earth after its kind, cattle and creeping thing"
The sixth day
"So God created man in his own image"

Plants-->Fish-->Land animals-->modern creatures.

This is a simplistic form of evolution. I find it harder to believe than an omnipotent being would have to work up from simple creatures to humans than a human writing a story to explain their understanding of how things came about.

Another fault with relgion is it won't let itself be tested and change like science. The greatest original sin was to take KNOWLEDGE. What sort of organisation wants their followers to persuse ignorance? And more importantly how can they allow testing of their beliefs if questioning is a sin?

Science is the converse of this (except the occasional few who refuse to change, but that's because our minds simply evolved for hunting not for contemplating and understanding the universe), it seeks self critisim. Each hypothesis gains strength everytime someone fails to prove it wrong, eventually becoming a theory in full.

[Floyd]

Crap.. is Rupert Murdoch who i mean? Owned the Sun and a host of other newspapers..

Alas yes.

disssapeared on his yacht so many years ago...

Alas no.

Maxwell! It was Maxwell! Aha! oh, i was close to killing myself trying to work out his name.. lord, i'm so relieved!