Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part of this game! - Page 10

DrFell · April 18, 2002, 07:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
And this underlying issue of 'the watchmaker' creationist defence thus falls apart if this underlying 'lie' does not apply.

The watchmaker stuff is bullshit however you look at it. You can't compare a line of creatures who have evolved over billions of years each with slight changes, to a watch which was designed all at once. It's not as if humans spung full formed from the primeval mud (seems ironic though that this is what the creationists believe to be true, yet it is the only way the watchmaker argument could be considered valid).

Jethro83 · April 18, 2002, 08:02

The whole "Creation vs. Evolution" debate is a load of crap. Both sides have valid arguments, while they also have crap.

Nobody was around to see it happen, and there will be no real benefit to science if we did know.

"Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part of this game!"... a statement that is true. All it accomplished was this huge division you see before you. Imagine how many diseases we could have cured in the time we have been bickering about this. Imagine how far space travel would've gone were it not for this. It is simply a waste of time, diverting attention away from research projects that would make a difference.

So why are we bickering like children over this issue? Why can't we stop this madness and divert more of our attention towards life-saving cancer research, or landing people on Mars. This issue is just something we are not meant to know, and won't be of any benefit if we did.

Zachriel · April 18, 2002, 08:03

There is no dispute about Evolution within the scientific community. Here is the view of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html

Zachriel · April 18, 2002, 08:04

Quote:

Originally posted by fezick31
2) The Helio-centric theory did not disagree with anything in the bible. No where do scriptures say the earth is flat.

But it does have corners and foundations.

JOB
38:4-6
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest ? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened ? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

Or course, this was never meant to be taken literally.

Provost Harrison · April 18, 2002, 08:04

This is true DrFell, but I was more specifically trying to attack Lincoln's line of reasoning, he uses this 'information' thing a lot, quite incorrectly.

Quite Dienstag. I think I speak for most evolutionists here in saying that we have not chosen a line and stuck to it. All this debate and reasoning, we've 'been there, done that, got the T-shirt'. I find all this stuff incredibly repetitive, I should just write out these arguments and save them to my hard drive as they just get used over and over again as the creationists line of reasoning never changes, never gets more intelligent, never improves. They attack at what they consider to be the flaws in the theory. They never win. And they never even attempt to go head on and challenge Neodarwinism because they can't, the evidence is insurmountable, and there is nothing really against it, unless you intend to go up against the entire concepts of modern biology and molecular genetics, which is a lost cause from the start.

Ethelred · April 18, 2002, 08:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN

The only thing i see to Debunk about your part about fossles is Archaeopteryx, Claimed to be transition from a dinosour to a bird. Well if you were more in touch with current scientific fact you would know that it was later to be proved just a bird and not lizzard like.

That is so false its funny. It has teath. It has no keel bone. It has no wishbone. The only thing birdlike about is wings. Its not a lizard either. Its a dinosaur that flies and is a CLEAR transition between dinosaurs and birds.

Quote:

I'm amazed that with geology, biology, physics, astronomy and chemistry fitting together like jigsaws disclaim evolution, some people still believe in it.

I amazed you could tell such a blatant fabrication as that. Well not that amazed since its a standard creationist fairy story. If it was even remotely true your sources would have been published in Nature and Science rather than in Creationist vanity presses with NO peer review.

Zachriel · April 18, 2002, 08:12

The power of a theory is its ability to predict events. Evolution has passed this test many, many times.

For instance, Darwin hypothesized that genetic information was passed from generation to generation and that this information was probably chemical in nature. It was decades after Darwin's death, but this genetic information was found to be contained within DNA. In addition, this DNA can be manipulated and this is passed down from generation to generation also. Indeed, human insulin protein is regularly produced by genetically modified bacteria. Darwin also hypothesized that this genetic material was shared to a large extent between species. This has been proven many times over. The latest experiment showed that chimps and humans share more than 98% of the same genes.
Another Darwinist prediction, one that most people don't know, was a prediction of a new source of physical energy.

In Darwin's time, the best physicists of the day estimated the age of the Earth in Sun was at most millions of years. Chemical burning or gravitation collapse could not power the Sun for much more than millions of years, and the Earth would be geologically cold (no volcanos) using conventional energy sources. Evolution took billions of years, so the hypothesis was that there must be some other form of energy yet to be discovered which powered the Sun and heated the interior of the Earth. This energy, atomic energy, was discovered much later. This is great science -- hypothesis, prediction and confirmation.

Ethelred · April 18, 2002, 08:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
Carbon dating?

Explain how a Human Skeliton was found embeded in a rock dated to be over 200 million years old.

Easy. A creationist made it up and lied to you.

Just like the creationist that finally admited that he faked the alleged human and dinosaur tracks in the same strata on a Southern riverbank. Fraud is nothing new to Creationism.

Zachriel · April 18, 2002, 08:17

The real problem with the Creationists is that they are using their "religion" to avoid the truth. And the truth is important. We are entering an age of rapid and artificial evolution. By telling children that evolution is false, they are leaving their children ignorant of the great changes to come which will profoundly affect their lives.

This is unchristian. The truth really does matter. My God, they are ready to start cloning people!

Seneca · April 18, 2002, 08:19

Quote:

Originally posted by LordAzreal
"Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part of this game!"... a statement that is true. All it accomplished was this huge division you see before you

It's not a huge division - it's a tiny minority of American scientists vs the rest of the scientific world.

Quote:

. Imagine how many diseases we could have cured in the time we have been bickering about this. Imagine how far space travel would've gone were it not for this. It is simply a waste of time, diverting attention away from research projects that would make a difference.

I suspect that creationist-bashing is something that most scientists just do in their spare time... I doubt it deflects from their serious work.
And I doubt even more that many creationist scientists would have that much of value to contribute, anyway...

DrFell · April 18, 2002, 08:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
This is true DrFell, but I was more specifically trying to attack Lincoln's line of reasoning, he uses this 'information' thing a lot, quite incorrectly.

Yeah I'm too lazy to read a big thread like this.

DrFell · April 18, 2002, 08:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Seneca It's not a huge division - it's a tiny minority of American scientists vs the rest of the scientific world.

American pseudo-scientists is closer to the mark.

Ethelred · April 18, 2002, 08:28

Quote:

Originally posted by loinburger

I assumed he just didn't care.

Didn't see it. It does look like others are doing an excellent job. I am not needed. However I will butt in anyway. I am taking pot shots at about the rate of one everyother page so far. At anything I can be short on cause I want to get to the last page.

Jethro83 · April 18, 2002, 08:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Seneca
It's not a huge division - it's a tiny minority of American scientists vs the rest of the scientific world.

You're right about that. But where I am, it is exaggerated to the extent that people are abusing each other over this ridiculous argument.

Quote:

I suspect that creationist-bashing is something that most scientists just do in their spare time... I doubt it deflects from their serious work.
And I doubt even more that many creationist scientists would have that much of value to contribute, anyway...

They do it in their spare time? Do they even have lives? The arguments they get into probably stress them out too much, preventing them from working at optimal level on their serious work.

And just because a scientist believes in creation doesn't mean that he/she has little to contribute. That is simply a generalisation.

Besides, the point I'm trying to make is that this argument is hurting some people (believe it or not, it is still true), and it seems senseless to continue it when more energy can be diverted into beneficial projects rather than being wasted in this trivial matter. Even if it is spare time, it is still energy being wasted.

DrFell · April 18, 2002, 08:34

Quote:

Originally posted by LordAzreal
They do it in their spare time? Do they even have lives? The arguments they get into probably stress them out too much, preventing them from working at optimal level on their serious work.

Some scientists, like all people, just hate to see the kind of ignorance and lies some of the creationists display on these kind of threads. Nothing to do with stress.

Jethro83 · April 18, 2002, 08:41

Quote:

Originally posted by DrFell

Some scientists, like all people, just hate to see the kind of ignorance and lies some of the creationists display on these kind of threads. Nothing to do with stress.

I also hate to see ignorance and lies of creationists. As I already said, even though both sides have a valid argument, both sides still tell lies and show themselves to be narrow-minded (although it is mostly creationists who are being narrow-minded. A true scientist needs to be open minded).

Again, my point is that this is a trivial matter that has no importance in the greater scheme of things, and it seems so senseless that people are attacking each other over it.

Provost Harrison · April 18, 2002, 08:51

I guarantee you that this issue has never made me lose a second of sleep, nor interfered with my research.

Tingkai · April 19, 2002, 05:35

Quote:

Originally posted by LordAzreal
"Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part of this game!"... a statement that is true. All it accomplished was this huge division you see before you. Imagine how many diseases we could have cured in the time we have been bickering about this.

This statement is rather ironic because the theory of evolution has played a part in curing diseases. The medical community recognizes that an antibiotic can kill off many viruses, but that some survive and evolve into viruses that are immuned to the antibiotic. The recognition that this evolution is occurring leads to the development of better antibiotics. So the Theory of Evolution has actually helped people, unlike creationist theory.

Jethro83 · April 19, 2002, 05:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Tingkai

This statement is rather ironic because the theory of evolution has played a part in curing diseases. The medical community recognizes that an antibiotic can kill off many viruses, but that some survive and evolve into viruses that are immuned to the antibiotic. The recognition that this evolution is occurring leads to the development of better antibiotics. So the Theory of Evolution has actually helped people, unlike creationist theory.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. So I grant that antibiotics are one fruit of Darwin's labour. But other fields of science really don't relate to Evolution theory. Apart from the development of antibiotics, there's been absolutely no application of this theory.

And I agree that creationist theory does nothing for us either. I'm not arguing against it here. I'm just saying in my posts on this thread that some people really need to chill out. This debate isn't as important as many people make it out to be. Some people in this thread are saying that it isn't a huge division in the community and that scientists are arguing in their spare time. I'm not arguing against that. Its just that there are still people out there who are hurting each other over this debate. Or otherwise, people are taking too much offense to the opposite side of the argument to where they stand.

And my stance in this debate... I really don't care. Nobody was around in the beginning, and the world won't stop if we don't know what really happened, so there's no point in arguing about it.

Ethelred · April 19, 2002, 06:20

Quote:

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. So I grant that antibiotics are one fruit of Darwin's labour. But other fields of science really don't relate to Evolution theory. Apart from the development of antibiotics, there's been absolutely no application of this theory.

You RIGHT, nothing except:

ALL of modern biology

ALL of modern agriculture

NEW techniques for creating products based on making random variations in ANYTHING testing the new versions, keeping the best and doing it again.

gee I guess that last one covered anything else I could write.

Quote:

I'm just saying in my posts on this thread that some people really need to chill out.

If thats all you said you wouldn't have had people disagreeing with you. Well except to see if you would fly off the handle that is.

Quote:

Nobody was around in the beginning, and the world won't stop if we don't know what really happened, so there's no point in arguing about it.

There is ALWAYS a point in arguing against ignorance. No one was there for a LOT of things that we can fully understand by looking at the available evidence. We CAN know how man evolved. We CAN know the Earth has changed over billions of years. We CAN know that the Earth was not covered by a world wide flood a mere 4400 years ago.

MrWhereItsAt · April 19, 2002, 06:29

Who gives a flying f***? Just because Darwinism may not be perfectly correct, or even near the mark, this doesn't change the sheer amount of thought this idea has provoked. This is what the Wonder means - something that inspires great change or achievements. Mike's Chapel and Bach's Cathedral may well be tributes to a God that doesn't exist, yet the beauty of these two Wonders has inspired generations regardless.

As for Creationism vs Darwinism in the real world.. I'm not touching that one with a ten foot pole. As for the thread title, I laugh at anyone who seriously thinks that Darwinism has meant nothing to thought or scientific achievement, much as I laugh at those who doubt the power of any deity to inspire His followers - be He real or imaginary.

Th0mas · April 19, 2002, 06:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
Lorizael your example is a part of Microevelution, that does not prove evelution. Microevelolution can be proved indeed.

Im stating that Macroevolution is false, the evolution of one creature into another. .....

....just thought I'd give you a proven example of your so called 'macro evolution'.

The Hawaiian Rock Wallaby vs the Australian Wallaby

Firstly what do we mean by a species? Simple definition: individuals can interbreed and produce viable offspring.

So wallabys transported to Hawaii, 75 years later the Hawaiian Wallabys are now classified as a separate species distinct from the original Australian population.

The two populations (Hawaiian and Australian) of Wallabys now cannot interbreed - not even by artificial insemination. They cannot even produce young that are sterile (a la. Mules from Horses and donkeys).

ref: Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991, Chromosome evolution, phylogeny, and speciation of rock wallabies, Australian Journal of Zoology, Volume 37(2-4), pages 351-363

Quote:

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
I have read a lot of books on evolution if you wish to get technical so be it.

...bring it on

you prat

Provost Harrison · April 19, 2002, 06:54

Don't get wound up, Draco has said he's 'read all these books' but we know perfectly well he hasn't, he just falls flat on his face whenever he tries to argue.

Oh, the spinoffs of the theory of evolution. Well a good proportion of our present day knowledge of biology, genetics and biochemistry, and all that brings with it, pharmacology, modern medicine, biotechnology, genetic engineering, crop breeding (in refined form),...need I go on? It was a base, a base that was refined and formed the initial basis in other related disciplines. Generally we don't bother harking back to it now, it's just taken for granted. There is no great debate over evolution any more, that battle was won decades ago...

Jethro83 · April 19, 2002, 07:00

Quote:

If thats all you said you wouldn't have had people disagreeing with you. Well except to see if you would fly off the handle that is.

I wouldn't fly off the handle anyway. As much as I see futility in this debate, I can also be see an amusing side to it.

"Evolution!", "No, CREATION.", "Evolution" "no, CREATION DAMN IT!!!", "uhm... Evolution", "YOU MAKE ME SICK!!! YOU GO TO HELL!!! YOU GO TO HELL AND YOU DIE!!!"

Quote:

There is ALWAYS a point in arguing against ignorance. No one was there for a LOT of things that we can fully understand by looking at the available evidence. We CAN know how man evolved. We CAN know the Earth has changed over billions of years. We CAN know that the Earth was not covered by a world wide flood a mere 4400 years ago.

Even though we CAN know it all somehow, there's the question: what next? There has and will be valid, thought-provoking debate but there will still be ignorant people. And the fact that these people are ignorant is all their problem. Leave them to live in their dream world back in the dark age. Let them have blind faith. Its their problem, not anyone else's. They won't change to your way of thinking because they are unmovable. And when they give you crap about what you believe, just turn and walk away, pay no attention, and get a restraining order of them if necessary.

Provost Harrison · April 19, 2002, 07:10

It's when those ignorant people are so abundant that they hold sway, they can change political decisions, influence policy. That is the problem with widespread ignorance. The rest of us just have to put our head in our hands and sigh. This is what Europe sees within the US.

Jethro83 · April 19, 2002, 07:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
It's when those ignorant people are so abundant that they hold sway, they can change political decisions, influence policy. That is the problem with widespread ignorance. The rest of us just have to put our head in our hands and sigh. This is what Europe sees within the US.

They're not always that abundant. They just seem that way because nobody could be bothered to challenge their pathetic amendments in the political scene.

Why these minorities hold sway, I just don't know. I guess that as much as this matter of "creation vs. evolution" is trivial, it is a front in the battle against their vision of a second dark age. But to say that all creationists are ignorant is merely a generalisation. I know people whose belief in this matter combines the more believable aspects of creation with the more believable aspects of evolution, and this hybrid belief seems logical enough sometimes.

Provost Harrison · April 19, 2002, 07:28

Yeah, but bringing 'believable' aspects of creation always seems weak if you ask me. Some of the manipulations of the creationist story I have heard, blaming mistranslation and the like, so the bible still looks right in the face of unsurmountable knowledge.

Jethro83 · April 19, 2002, 07:37

Creation doesn't always have to be associated with the bible. The 'creator' doesn't even have to be known as God.

Deists (to my knowledge anyway) are creationists, but they denounce the bible as a load of drivel (historical evidence speculates that bits and pieces of the bible were VOTED into existence by Constantine I and a confederation of Christian priests).

The belief in creation is quite simply the belief that a sentient supreme being(s) created the world as we see it. This 'supreme being' could be a member of an extra-terrestrial race for all we know. We could've been the results of another race's grand experiment. Its just something we'll never know for sure.

Being a creationist doesn't mean believing what is said in the bible word-for-word.

The ignorant creationists are however the ones who blindly follow the so-called Lord's scriptures unquestioningly.

Zachriel · April 19, 2002, 07:46

The number one evidence and the number one rule of evolution is the extinction of species. This is an ongoing process. Biological sciences are crucial. We are entering an era of rapid, and possibly artificial, evolution. If we teach our children falsehoods, then they will be ill-prepared to meet this future.

Of all people, fellow Christians should be the ones most willing to uphold the truth. Remember Galileo, a devout Christian who confronted the Inquisition because of his love of the truth.

Zachriel
Angel who Rules over (Historical) Memory

Provost Harrison · April 19, 2002, 07:48

Well if it is acknowledged that most of the bible is bullshit (I have no qualms with this being an atheist myself), then surely that undermines the whole of Christianity anyway. Why do they bother? Messing with a loophole in the human psyche, that is all religion really is.