Cthulhu
I belive Bush is the missing link.

We have our selves a breakthrough!

I strongly believe in evolution, because the argument basically is an incredible amount of scientific evidence versus a book: WRITTEN BY MAN.

Insanity
I strongly believe in evolution, because the argument basically is an incredible amount of scientific evidence versus a book: WRITTEN BY MAN.

I rest my case for why discussion of creation vs. evolution in this thread would prove unproductive. Too much bitterness on one side. I don't need the headache. Okay, this should be my last interruption. I'll go bug some other threads. :)

dueeast
I rest my case for why discussion of creation vs. evolution in this thread would prove unproductive. Too much bitterness on one side. I don't need the headache. Okay, this should be my last interruption. I'll go bug some other threads. :)

I agree with you that it's unproductive. It's a argument that can never be proven and it probably should have been let go along time ago.

I think that "too much bitterness on one side" is unfair and untrue - and frankly, it sounds really bitter. The truth is, when we put our deeply felt and strongly held notions into the public square - they are subject to real debate, and that can be messy.

Of course, not everything should be in the public square, or open to that kind of debate. If you wear a lucky pair of socks on a certain day, there's no point in telling everyone about it. People might just make fun of you. It's not the kind of idea that needs to be shared. But once you decide that magic lucky socks have to be in all the textbooks, and that it's a good criteria for who is president, well, then it seems to me that it's OK for the rest of us to point out that you're not making good sense. That's OK - you get the same chance to defend your ideas.

But maybe some ideas are better off as private ones. I believe all kinds of things. Some of them make good public policy, and i advocate for them. Some of them don't make good public policy, and I tend to keep them to myself.

But if you're going to say that the Earth is flat, and it should be taught in the schools, people are going to make fun of you. Or if you say that the Earth is only 6000 year old, or that Velociraptors were vegetarians in the garden of Eden, or that DNA has the quality of "irreducible complexity." (Creationists and ID folks have claimed all of those things over the years). These are testable claims - so don't get mad if we test them.

The whole "this argument should be over" thing doesn't mean a lot to me. In my opinion, the Creationist/ID folks have done a lot of harm, and it's the responsibility of people who know better to stand up to them and speak the truth. And obviously, lots of them feel exactly the same way. I applaud them. It's only through a healthy debate that we work these things out.

StaceyMontgomery
The whole "this argument should be over" thing doesn't mean a lot to me.

Indeed. First, there hasn't been an argument here. Second, "should be over"? It should be over when people are tired of talking about it.

On point... people tend to confuse the scientific definition of "theory" with the layman's definition. They are quite different.


In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and General relativity...

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory...



By the scientific definition of "theory", Intelligent Design doesn't come anywhere close to qualifying as a theory.

StaceyMontgomery
I think that "too much bitterness on one side" is unfair and untrue - and frankly, it sounds really bitter. The truth is, when we put our deeply felt and strongly held notions into the public square - they are subject to real debate, and that can be messy.

I'm sorry to cause you personal offense but let me present the idea this way:

I do not claim to speak for all people who believe in creation, as opposed to evolution. I do not believe in intelligent design any more than I believe in the evolution of man.

Strictly speaking concerning this thread alone, I have made the following observations:

1. Those who believe in some form of creationism or ID have been respectful of those they were talking to and did not insult the idea of evolution
2. Quite a few (not all) of those who support evolution have been deliberately disrespectful and/or mocking of creationism, ID and/or a specific faith/religion or God or both

You compared making fun of creation with making fun of flat earth, etc. I would suggest that if one were trying to have an actual productive debate between the round earth and flat earth perspectives, that the round earth person might want to abstain from making fun of the flat earth person during the debate itself.

Our personal feelings are ours and we have every right to have them and use them however we see fit. But to be intellectually true to the idea of debate, one must be as impartial as possible.

StaceyMontgomery
In my opinion, the Creationist/ID folks have done a lot of harm, and it's the responsibility of people who know better to stand up to them and speak the truth.

That's a pretty serious charge and a bit conspiratorial ("us" vs. "them" speak). I know this is how you feel and I have some idea why, based upon your posts. Such strong feelings can make discussion very challenging.

Speaking for myself, if I came across as bitter, that's not my intention. I have already expressed my personal respect for you as a debater and why I feel that way. I know this is a very near and dear subject to you. It is important to me as well, that's why I've been generally interested in this thread. I just did not feel it would be productive to try and pursue an intellectual discussion of the evolution vs. creation debate with so many people (yourself and several others excluded) who are themselves bitter about the subject.

It does irritate me sometimes but I do apologize that I didn't elaborate more about what I meant.

Dueeast

i would like to think that I could talk to a flat-earther about the shape of the earth without mocking them. It does seem to me though that I could not do it without saying "wow, your ideas seem kind of obviously silly to me." I'd like to think I could say that respectfully, but perhaps I'm wrong - perhaps there is no polite way to express that thought. I will have to think about it.

Still, there is never an excuse for a mocking tone or for making fun of anyone, either with deliberation or through careless words. While I stand by the individual things that I said, I must totally apologize for my tone.


- stacey

StaceyMontgomery
Dueeast

i would like to think that I could talk to a flat-earther about the shape of the earth without mocking them. It does seem to me though that I could not do it without saying "wow, your ideas seem kind of obviously silly to me." I'd like to think I could say that respectfully, but perhaps I'm wrong - perhaps there is no polite way to express that thought. I will have to think about it.

Actually, let me say it to you. Wow, evolution as YOU believe it seems OBVIOUSLY silly.

Now, does that make you more inclined to listen to my point of view, or less inclined?

Vindibudd

Your point of view - so far - is merely uninteresting. If you'd like to make any specific claims or comments or observations about what I've said (on the topic of evolution, for instance) then I'd be happy to respond to them.

If you think my ideas are silly, that doesn't bother me in the slightest. Why should it? Lots of people think all kinds of crazy things. Some of my own ideas are kind of crazy, come to think of it.

If i believed that the Earth was flat, I would smile while people told me I was silly. After all, If I thought the Earth was flat, i'd have a really good argument to make, and I'd be confident in my ability to make that argument. If I thought the Earth was flat and had a thin skin about it, I probably wouldnt join in public debates - like on message boards.

Then again, I know I'm having a bad day when I get called on for something *after* I have apologized for it. I've already apologized for my tone earlier. If this was a verbal conversation, I would repeat myself. But since this is a message board, you can just scroll up.

Of course, your claim - that my views are silly - is still uninteresting. But it does seem like you're using the tone that I just apologized for. Does that mean you are also going to apologize?

Oh how we dance around the feelings and offenses.

Believing in creationism IS silly. I don't care if you're offended by that or not. Believing in something that has zero evidence over something that has ample evidence IS silly. Its not like there isn't heaps of evidence to support evolution, folks.

StaceyMontgomery
Vindibudd

Your point of view - so far - is merely uninteresting. If you'd like to make any specific claims or comments or observations about what I've said (on the topic of evolution, for instance) then I'd be happy to respond to them.

I am not saying your point of view is silly, I am just repeating back to you what you said to me. Judging from your response, you did not take too kindly to it. So consequently it answers your question about whether it is rude without you having to think about it.

The minute you start debating and throwing things in that have no evidence or they start repeating themselves over and over is the time in which a debate should end. Like for instance, saying "EVOLUTION is SILLY" is the end of a debate... unless you say "EVOLUTION is an ignorant theory that is not backed up by proper evidence, this is true because..." then the debate may continue...

I don't beleive in evolution.
If it was true, I want to know where it all came from.

TnTComic
For example, the Laws dealing with motion, or thermodynamics, or conservation of matter and energy... They are very simple laws, and they are never incorrect. As I keep having to repeat, THAT'S WHY THEY'RE LAWS.

Actually your definition of laws is incorrect, and you have an example in your own list. Newton's Laws of Motion are not 100% correct. They are 99.99% correct in our standpoint of time and space, but Newton's laws completely break down when you approach speeds close to the speed of light. That's what Einstein proved with his laws of relativity that led to the field of quantum mechanics. Even scientific laws are falsifiable and occasionally prove to be inadequate or incomplete.

For the record, I think evolution is true.

evolution is simply genetic change over time. if it was untrue we would all look identical.

... That explains things. The biggest one: Kansas is weird.
:P

Bimbo_Zombie
I don't beleive in evolution.
If it was true, I want to know where it all came from.

Okay, let me respond to you with this: Where did God come from?

Insanity

Bimbo_Zombie
I don't beleive in evolution.
If it was true, I want to know where it all came from.

Okay, let me respond to you with this: Where did God come from?

Bingo.

No. Evolution is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard of.

Do you believe in evolution?

Yes.

lemon_king
No. Evolution is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard of.

You sound sure, what's your proof? I bet you don't have any.

Aww man... What's this thread doing back?

Thanks, lemon_king.

Any THEORY is something is something to be doubted.

Humans have tried to explain the beginning of things and such. The how the why the when blablabla.

In the past they came up with stories that can be called 'myths' today.

Now with more science and all that, it doesnt mean that humans can explain it properly.

What I believe though is a combination of evolution and the stuff in the bible. God made the world in "7 days" but that doesnt mean 7 days = 24 hours per day. Do not take the bible literally.

If were ment to evolve we wouldnt go to school we would already know

The Church of Evolution throws the best parties.

By the way, is this thread title a Huey Lewis and the News song that wasn't?

man man man menly man men

bloodking153
If were ment to evolve we wouldnt go to school we would already know

Sorry, but that's the lamest answer I've ever heard. Evolving has to do with LEARNING how to adapt to certain things. Also so that over time your body adjusts to the changes too.

Evolution isn't all about magical knowledge and going: "Uh-oh, my species are in trouble. time to transform into a different breed. TA-DA, no more danger of exicition!"

It just doesn't work like that.

I just don't get the fact that the anti-evolution people can't accept that all life came out of the ocean billions of years ago... but accept the fact that we all start life inside a sac full of liquid (aka the womb). Hell, fetuses that develops in there has FREAKING' FLIPPERS before they start developing hands.

In fact, evolution is a lot like the stages of human life... we all start by developing in a very watery-like place (the womb)... and then we make the transition from living in water to being ground mammals.
Then we crawl around on all fours for a while... then changing to walking around on two legs. Then we learn how to use new abilities that we discover, such as communication, tools, etc..... even on the outside it might seem our evolution stopped, but we're still developing in other ways, such as developing our minds.

And such a process didn't happen magically... it TOOK TIME.

And so much evidence like that is out there, so I don't just know how people can just blindly turn away and claim it doesn't exist.

Good sir Hawk, this is one thread that will probably never die. The debate itself will never end, so there will always be some member or other willing to interject a new comment. Like me :P That being said, I can't say lemons comment was the most thought out.

As a slight change of topic, what are peoples thoughts about evolution as it continues today (if you believe in it...) I mean bacteria are the most noticeable example, but I mean particularly in humans. Personally I think it continues, but in a messed up fashion, as modern medicine and human compassion have removed the survival of the fittest to a certain extent.
Oh, and Bloodking, to a certain extent that is correct. In the form of instinct, we do already 'know' some of the things we need to survive (though hardly in the modern society).

Man, I should so be drawing instead of here. Well since this was threadomancied back, here's my question for all of those claiming that they know all about this:

See, I went to school in Missouri, the teacher that showed us the physics behind making your own pipe bombs and was the teacher that watched over our primitive weapons club refused to answer any questions during the genetics chapter, cause he was afraid of getting fired. They'll let us throw Bowie knives but not answer questions. huh!?
Anyway my problem is the base pair barrier. If all the living things on the world have the same number of base pairs, then yes, adaptation could be used as an explanation. Oh yeah, want to define a few words here: Adaptation: The process by which an organism alters itself to better fit it's environment. Evolution: The process by which an organism alters itself into a new organism. Those are part of the definitions I'm going to be using here.

Okay, everybody knows and accepts adaptation. That's easily observed and tested. That's not the question. The question is how does a DNA strand suddenly have a new base pair and how does the theory of evolution take into account the theory of genetics at that point. Because in order for an organism to go from having 10 base pairs to 11 base pairs is one Hell of a mutation. The problem roots itself in the three principles in genetics of:
1) When two members of the same species reproduce, they create a third member of the species. (This is why dogs don't have kittens)
2) When two members of different species reproduce they create nothing. (This is why there are no centaurs in TJ or West Virginia)
3) When you change the number of base pairs you change the species.

How does evolution over come this? It seems it would have to violate the first and third rule in order to have a "mutation" come about that have an extra base pair. It would either then have to violate the second rule or would have to have a staggering number of births within a concentrated area for them to be able to reproduce in. So basically, all the people in, say, NYC would have to suddenly be born with 24 base pairs. The statistical odds of this happening would make the likelyhood of Mary being born an XY female with a crude uterus releasing a self fertilized egg actually probable.

An this statistical odd and violation of genetics has had to have happened at least what, 15 times? (tobbacco has at least 25 IIRC) How is that possible? I just don't understand how that's possible.

Metaphorical musings using fragments of science and applicaton of layman logic systems, will not explain evolution to you. A comprehensive course on biological sciences is necessary for that.

Dogma are the new facts.