or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Darwin's idea of "Survival of the fittest" debunked...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Darwin's idea of "Survival of the fittest" debunked...

post #1 of 450
Thread Starter 
In this new scientific analysis, they come to the conclusion that new living space is the most important thing triggering evolution and not competition:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11063939

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #2 of 450
Well, your headline is a bit overreaching, but aside from that...

Isn't that the wonderful thing about science? If more information comes along that could potentially alter our understanding of the universe, the new evidence is weighed, considered, and can ultimately force us to revise or even throw out a long standing theory.

Now, completely invalidating what has been a very long standing theory with a mountain of evidence requires extraordinary new evidence to the contrary. Time will tell if this new conclusion lives up to that burden. But again, that's what's so wonderful about science. The conclusions aren't fixed round holes in which we forcibly attempt to shove the ever-changing polygons of our observable universe. We'll leave that to the realm of religion.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #3 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Well, your headline is a bit overreaching, but aside from that...

Isn't that the wonderful thing about science? If more information comes along that could potentially alter our understanding of the universe, the new evidence is weighed, considered, and can ultimately force us to revise or even throw out a long standing theory.

Can ultimately? That doesn't sound very scientific. It is like saying if I have enough guns and ammo, I can "ultimately" convert the nation to my religion of choice.

Quote:
Now, completely invalidating what has been a very long standing theory with a mountain of evidence requires extraordinary new evidence to the contrary. Time will tell if this new conclusion lives up to that burden. But again, that's what's so wonderful about science. The conclusions aren't fixed round holes in which we forcibly attempt to shove the ever-changing polygons of our observable universe. We'll leave that to the realm of religion.

You show the problem right here. This new view could be 100% right but it will spend a few hundred years overcoming dogma to get to that point. In that regard it isn't any different from most human endeavors. If the new information invalidates the old, the effect should be immediate.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #4 of 450
The new information needs to be verified. You're completely missing the point. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Also, your analogies are like three dogs playing guitar under the midnight sun while bouncing on pogo sticks made of gatorade. In other words, completely fucking nonsensical.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #5 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

In this new scientific analysis, they come to the conclusion that new living space is the most important thing triggering evolution and not competition:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11063939

Nightcrawler

A fascinating article - thanks for posting! Stories such as these lend gravitas to the idea that perhaps the time has come for public schools to stop subsiding Darwinism and evolution and a more balanced curricula be established that embraces creationism, intelligent design, and evolution so students receive training in all three ideas, rather than simply the fiction that Darwin advanced.
post #6 of 450
Creationism is not science. Intelligent design is not science. These ideas do not belong in a science classroom.

If it turns out Darwin's theory needs to be further modified, or even thrown out, it will happen. Such is science. Intelligent design is the lazy and unthinking man's god of the gaps explanation. It's the creationist wolf in sheep's clothing. Creationism is just your run of the mill ignorant recounting of ancient oral fairy tales and how that somehow trumps all of our knowledge that science has brought us today.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #7 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The new information needs to be verified. You're completely missing the point. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Shouldn't evolution be a rather mundane process? It's filled every inch of the earth with life and whether punctuated or continual, shouldn't be considered extraordinary in any form or fashion.

Sounds like you keep getting upset that no one will buy in to the randomly moving goalposts that keep your own points "valid" while dismissing other points.

You know why no one argues about gravity? Because it is predictable, repeatable, and doesn't magically disappear for thousands of years.

See if I wanted a theory where a whole bunch of change occurs and then the driving force that caused it disappears and fails to act again for thousands of years, I could just grab religion.

As the counter point in your own article notes the counterpoint. However the deeper issue between competition and open space fails to be addressed by both. That is why does evolution seem to create massive periods of stasis where it doesn't act and then seems act quickly and then go static again.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #8 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Creationism is not science. Intelligent design is not science.

I never said they were!

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

These ideas do not belong in a science classroom.

Perhaps you are right here, specific to the classroom of instruction, however public schools do discriminate by advancing Darwin's evolution instruction, albeit within the cover of science, without any alternative or competing instruction (such as creationism for example) in the subject of life origin. That seems to do a disservice to children who should receive a balanced education not one biased in favor of evolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

If it turns out Darwin's theory needs to be further modified, or even thrown out, it will happen. Such is science.

I agree but you're missing the main point here; as holes begin to appear in the instruction of Darwinism, it behooves educators to offer balanced instruction in life origin curricula, to embrace all beliefs, evolution, creationism, intelligent design, and others, not simply advance evolution alone (within or without the protection of science classroom).
post #9 of 450
I originally posted this in the Obama policies thread but it needs to be posted here as well.

Quote:

I know it's a bit of a stretch putting this one in here but I thought it most appropriate for this forum.
http://www.newsweek.com/photo/2010/0...html?gt1=43002

Quote:
America the Ignorant


One entry on this list :
Quote:
To mark the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, Gallup thought it might be a good idea to poll Americans on their beliefs of the British naturalist's theory. But the results must have had Darwin spinning in his grave, since only 39 percent of Americans believed in the theory. The good news: only a quarter said they didn't believe it; the remaining portion either didn't have an opinion or didn't answer. (Also, only 55 percent correctly linked Darwin's name with the theory.) However, it appears that views may, um, evolve: younger people believe in evolution at far higher rates than older ones.

So there's hope for the next generation.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #10 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

... why does evolution seem to create massive periods of stasis where it doesn't act and then seems act quickly and then go static again.

One possibility:

When the environment is stable, evolution happens very slowly (something backed up by the study that started this thread)
When the environment undergoes a period of rapid change, evolution will also "speed up"... to fill vacated niches or as one species tries to move to an area it couldn't previously use.

Such environmental change could be caused by massive volcanism, or large asteroid impacts, onset of "ice age" periods, or periods of warming.
There's really nothing new in that study, and as time goes on and we get a better understanding of our universe we seem to find more and more things that fill in the gaps of the "theory" of evolution.
(This same increase in knowledge makes it ever harder to understand how ANYbody can believe in a god, much less in creationism.)

I creationism needs to be taught in school, then we also need to teach that Santa Claus is real, the easter bunny is real, Zeus is real, Hercules really existed, the big dipper really is a giant bear's spirit that flew into the sky, etc, etc. If you're gonna present one fairy tale as fact, then you gotta give equal time to ALL of them.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #11 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

A fascinating article - thanks for posting! Stories such as these lend gravitas to the idea that perhaps the time has come for public schools to stop subsiding Darwinism and evolution and a more balanced curricula be established that embraces creationism, intelligent design, and evolution so students receive training in all three ideas, rather than simply the fiction that Darwin advanced.

Well, OK.

But then we'd have to teach the Hindu creation myths and the West African creation myths too, because they're no more or less likely than the Christian ones. Not to mention the Inuit, Khoe, Bushman, Aztec, Amerindian, Celtic, Islamic.

Because they are all just as likely as the Christian.

Then there wouldnt be much time to give the scientic explanations, which come from provable facts based on observation of the actual world and the physical rules that govern it.

So I guess we might as well just have that stuff in one lesson, and call it science, and have all the other stuff in another lesson, and call that religious education.

That would be a good compromise, wouldnt it?
post #12 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

So I guess we might as well just have that stuff in one lesson, and call it science, and have all the other stuff in another lesson, and call that religious education.

That would be a good compromise, wouldnt it?

No...that wouldn't be a good compromise at all. There is nothing "scientific" about the Theory of Evolution. That is precisely why they call it a THEORY! Maybe you ran into other theories in your education; we shouldn't bias our youth with alleged theories, sold only by enjoining them within the embrace of "science" curricula simply to peddle them with more attention than they deserve.

If you want a compromise, then teach children a liberal arts education that embraces and advances all life origin "theories" with the same degree of emphasis for all and let youth themselves choose which one they believe. I believe that it called educational freedom.

The reprehensible way Social Darwinism is forced upon children is one of the failings of society; we have the capability not to bias our life origin education and by all means let's take advantage of such liberal arts instruction for all.
post #13 of 450
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

No...that wouldn't be a good compromise at all. There is nothing "scientific" about the Theory of Evolution. That is precisely why they call it a THEORY! Maybe you ran into other theories in your education; we shouldn't bias our youth with alleged theories, sold only by enjoining them within the embrace of "science" curricula simply to peddle them with more attention than they deserve.

In the name of God, please stop to embarass yourself, you make us religious people look really bad.

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #14 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

No...that wouldn't be a good compromise at all. There is nothing "scientific" about the Theory of Evolution. That is precisely why they call it a THEORY!

Oh my. Oh dear me. Dear, dear, dear, me.

There's nothing scientific about genetics, biology, anatomy, archeology and physics. OK.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

No...that wouldn't be a good compromise at all. There is nothing "scientific" about the Theory of Evolution. That is precisely why they call it a THEORY!

Oh, sweet heaven.

Genetics, biology, anatomy, archeology and physics all provide non-contradictory, complimentary evidence that proves the relation and descent of almost every single living thing, and can even be used to date those relations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

No...that wouldn't be a good compromise at all. There is nothing "scientific" about the Theory of Evolution. That is precisely why they call it a THEORY!

'THEORY' is a SCIENTIFIC TERM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

There is nothing "scientific" about the Theory of Evolution.

How Americans were first to the moon and first to split the atom is an absolute mystery to me.
post #15 of 450
Crawler...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

In the name of God...

If you were at all religious I doubt you would invoke His name to condemn someone within the framework of a discussion...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

please stop to embarass yourself...

Beyond your syntax error, you should reread what I advanced; I am asking only equal emphasis in pedagogical instruction within our learning establishments on all life origin theories as opposed to rank bias of one within public classrooms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

you make us religious people...

"us religious people".... Really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

look really bad

Almost as bad as allowing the evolutionists to peddle the "My Dad is a Monkey" screed to first graders unchallenged? Really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

'THEORY' is a SCIENTIFIC TERM.

Okay I'll bite... SO IS CREATIONISM if you're want to go down that road of term lexicon wars...
post #16 of 450
Here is a link to a wikipedia article on the Theory of Relativity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

This theory, though, being only a theory, is not scientific. It is a load of shit, just one among many theories.

And even though Einstein's discoveries here have led us to many practical and material applications and other theories, it is called a THEORY and it is not SCIENTIFICALICOUS. SCIENTIFIC I mean.
post #17 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Okay I'll bite... SO IS CREATIONISM if you're want to go down that road of term lexicon wars...

No it is not. 'CREATIONISM' is a term that deals with beliefs about myth, usually the myths of Christian people.

'THEORY' is what SCIENTISTS MAKE when they have an IDEA about STUFF YOU CAN SEE and MEASURE and TEST and SHIT LIKE THAT, do you GET IT NOW, which is why if you are into SCIENCE you go to UNIVERSITY to become a SCEIENTISTIFC and if you are in to RELIGION you go to RELIGIOUS SCHOOL and BECOME A PRIEST, because THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL AND YOU ARE WRONG.
post #18 of 450
Here is a link to an article on THEORY as understood to the SCIENTIFICALISTIC COMMUNITY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_(science)

Please read it so you don't make the same mistake again.

Here is a link to a Wikipedia article on THEORY as understood to MATHEMATICS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_(mathematical_logic)

Go on, read it, I dare you, it won't ROB YOU OF YOUR IMMORTAL SOUL.

Here is an article on FIRST ORDER LOGIC THEORY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_o...uctive_systems

But be careful: it's a "theory" so it's TOTALLY UNSCIENTIFIC, like the THEORY of SELECTION by FITNESS.
post #19 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

No it is not. 'CREATIONISM' is a term...

From the same source as you referenced above for Einstein's theories, here's the definition for Creationism: "...an explanation accounting for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth..." Sure sounds 'scientific' to me. Oh wait... it challenges evolution, thus no way it could ever be accepted as a competing theory!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

that deals with beliefs about myth

The whole idea of a "theory" is challenging isn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

usually the myths of Christian people.

Just condemning Christians today or is your abandonment of what most on earth believe open to all religions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

'THEORY' is what SCIENTISTS MAKE when they have an IDEA about STUFF YOU CAN SEE and MEASURE and TEST and SHIT LIKE THAT, do you GET IT NOW, which is why if you are into SCIENCE you go to UNIVERSITY to become a SCEIENTISTIFC and if you are in to RELIGION you go to RELIGIOUS SCHOOL and BECOME A PRIEST, because THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL AND YOU ARE WRONG.

IDEA about STUFF sounds very close... no... make that... exactly like... what educated people accept as theories of belief. Separating some out simply because you don't like them is the touchstone of a closed mind. Theories of Life Origin, to include creationism, intelligent design, evolution, et al., should be what we encourage our youth to understand. Separating these theories, add bias to some, prejudices their instruction. Last I heard schools should teach all theories, not add bias to instruction.
post #20 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post


Just condemning Christians today or is your abandonment of what most on earth believe open to all religions?

Firstly, "most on earth" do not believe what Christians believe. You're in a minority.

Secondly, do you know why biology and archeology and physics and anatomy are in one part of the univerisity and religious studies are in the other part?

Because one part deals with stuff we can see and measure and so on, and the other half deals with myths. Look!
  • Sciencificism = Stuff we can see and meaure
  • Reliousnessisnous = Stuff written in down in books, stories, myths, etc. and so on.

THIS part of the university offers explanations that are based on measurable data.

THIS part of the university deals with MYTHS.

Creationism is the belief that the Christian myths explain how the world was made. And there is no evidence, FUCK ALL, that it is correct. NO-THING.

Archeology, physics, biology, genetics and anatomy offer A LOT. Like A RIDICULOUSLY LARGE AMOUNT.

That is why when we teach at school, we should teach students This is almost certainly how the world and life began! in a SCIENCE CLASS and we should teach students This is how Christians / Muslims / African animists / Amerindians believe the world and life began! in a RELIGIOUS STUDIES CLASS, because they are NOT THE SAME THING.
post #21 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Firstly, "most on earth" do not believe what Christians believe. You're in a minority.

If you scroll back to reread exactly what I suggested, you'll see I was speaking toward the division of those that believe in the concept of creationism, which is embraced by several faiths. Moreover, the current percentages of those that believe in creationism, as opposed to evolution, are in fact majority percentages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Secondly, do you know why biology and archeology and physics and anatomy are in one part of the univerisity and religious studies are in the other part?

Alex... I'll take "because our universities are run by liberal morons" for 30!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Creationism is the belief that the Christian myths explain how the world was made. And there is no evidence...

The fact that Jesus Christ, a carpenter's son, changed our world so dynamically that even time in years itself is measured from his presence; that Christianity defines the largest single defined faith; that revealed religions even apart from Christianity credit the man as a prophet; give and provide fact, means that you're denial is manifest. The evidence is there; you just refuse to accept in the shadow of regressive belief in social darwinism.
post #22 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Alex... I'll take "because our universities are run by liberal morons" for 30!

You think... that the world's universities have distinct departments for the sciences and humanities because they are run by "liberal morons"?

Did you understand what I actually wrote? Did you read what I asked you? Do you understand what you're saying?

Fuck it, forget it: are you sixteen years old?
post #23 of 450
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Crawler...

Nightcrawler please..



Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

If you were at all religious I doubt you would invoke His name to condemn someone within the framework of a discussion...

I didn't condemn you, I used it to call you to your senses, and I'm religious, though not within the same religion as you... I'm a muslim.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Beyond your syntax error, you should reread what I advanced; I am asking only equal emphasis in pedagogical instruction within our learning establishments on all life origin theories as opposed to rank bias of one within public classrooms.

Syntax error? I'm not a native english speaker, but I'm always willing to hone my skills in it, so please correct me.

The problem here is not that you simply don't understand what science is, the problem is that you act totally ignorant of that lacking understanding and on top of that being very outspoken, which makes it embarrassing for yourself and your co-religionists.

I try my best to illustrate what science is about:

It's a human endeavour to make sense of the world without resorting to revelations by God, instead human thinking is used on the basis of rationality to observe, then to make assumptions, then to test them experimentally then to let it be peer-reviewed... until a theory, a model (not that sort), comes up that explains all phenomena within the aspect of the world that the theory sets out to explain... with as little assumptions as possible.

Even if that scientific theory stands the test of experiment, peer-review for decades and centuries, it doesn't automatically mean that that scientific theory is the truth or the reality, but it's currently the best rational explanation until a better theory is developed that explains every phenomena and additionally predicts new phenomenas that the older theory couldn't explain... so it's a process to reach the truth though it may never reach it.

The theory of evolution is definitely scientific, although it started as a non-science-theory because it lacked the experiment-part, but in the mean-time it became scientific after later generation of scientists made experiments using viruses, bacterias and such that have much faster lifecycles than we mammals.

This new idea of evolution might though change it considerably if it is validated.

Religion is not scientific, religion is based on revelation, God tells us humans directly or indirectly what the meaning of the world is and its purpose, the only process of understanding is in interpretating the divine message, which can be scientific in itself, the process that is, not the message itself.

Therefore it's best to keep science and religion separate.

Unfortunately both sides make that mistake of mixing: Those so proud of science mistake the currently best theories for truth and try to mock religions while religionists convinced of their interpretation of the truth found in revelations try to stop that human rational process of modelling the world by saying: "Hey we know the truth already, why bother...?"

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #24 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

I didn't condemn you, I used it to call you to your senses, and I'm religious, though not within the same religion as you... I'm a muslim.

Good; then you're with me that the biased instruction of evolution, by itself in schools, devoid of other companion and competing life origin theories, is wrong! btw Nightcrawer... is the theory of evolution advanced within the World of Islam? Let us know at your soonest opportunity...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

The problem here is not that you simply don't understand what science is

I am not a novice in the revealed and natural sciences; matter of fact I welcome pure science as it, coupled with God's graces, has historically led to important technological breakthroughs to advance mankind's existence. What I am against, however, is the exclusion of some theories in the domain of science simply because of the inherent bias of some within the educational profession.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

...being very outspoken...

Advocacy for what I believe does that. As does true concern for the next generation of classroom guinea pigs in progressive bastions of academic propaganda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

The theory of evolution is definitely scientific, although it started as a non-science-theory because it lacked the experiment-part...

So even by own definition you equate the theory with less measurable evidence and the same non-science footing as... say... the theory of creationism! Good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

This new idea of evolution might though change it considerably if it is validated.

And when you finally accept God as your Savior the Theory of Creationism is validated. Good again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

Religion is not scientific, religion is based on revelation

Ever read The Origin of Species? What was "revealed" to Darwin? How is that somehow superior to what was "revealed" to man through the Son of God?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

Therefore it's best to keep science and religion separate.

Why? Because you say so? God's creation led to man. That means they are forever linked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

Unfortunately both sides make that mistake of mixing: Those so proud of science mistake the currently best theories for truth and try to mock religions...

I am comfortable in science and faith; I have no trouble finding a home for science and worship of God. Only those who seek justification for their failings - such as belief in evolution - need to separate such fiction and avoid mixing... You sound suspiciously uncertain in your beliefs in my opinion...
post #25 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

The reprehensible way Social Darwinism is forced upon children is one of the failings of society; we have the capability not to bias our life origin education and by all means let's take advantage of such liberal arts instruction for all.

Then why do YOU want to teach CREATIONISM ???? That is just one of hundreds of "life-origin" myths out there. How do you determine which to teach and which to leave out???

Teaching evolution is based on OBSERVATION, TESTING, and VERIFICATION... no one says "believe this just because I said so". (The ability of organisms to change their genetic structure over generations is a proven, demonstrable fact!)

Also keep in mind that Darwin's writings were not about the origins of life... They were about how the myriad species we know today may have come to exist. How they could have developed from fewer forms and differentiated into many. No-one has EVER suggested that men came from monkeys.
Get yourself some education... ignorance may be bliss, but so is an opium high.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #26 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

(The ability of organisms to change their genetic structure over generations is a proven, demonstrable fact!)

This true enough however, and this is the big leap, the ability for this process to create whole new species and the wide diversity of species that now exist and have existed throughout history and prehistory is not.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #27 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Then why do YOU want to teach CREATIONISM ???? That is just one of hundreds of "life-origin" myths out there. How do you determine which to teach and which to leave out???

We do not pick and choose in other subjects and add bias to exclude all but one idea to advance, as is currently done in public schools with evolution. Instead we should advance the major life origin theories (no need to advance variants just the basic thought among the major ideas here) and let the children choose which life origin theory they accept. Moreover, I am not seeking the advancement of creationism over any other life origin theory; simply the inclusion of it in equal emphasis to others, in a means of equality in the classroom. The question here really is...is evolution, as a theory, and its advocates, scared of competition? Can't evolution stand competition? Is evolution such a weak theory it needs exclusion from competing theories of life origin?
post #28 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

No...that wouldn't be a good compromise at all. There is nothing "scientific" about the Theory of Evolution. That is precisely why they call it a THEORY! Maybe you ran into other theories in your education; we shouldn't bias our youth with alleged theories, sold only by enjoining them within the embrace of "science" curricula simply to peddle them with more attention than they deserve.

Maybe his will help you understand scientific theory.

http://www.fsteiger.com/cartoon2.gif

http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html

HYPOTHESIS:
"A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true."

THEORY:
"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis."

LAW:
"A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'."

@ http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemis.../lawtheory.htm
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #29 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

We do not pick and choose in other subjects and add bias to exclude all but one idea to advance, as is currently done in public schools with evolution.

That's probably not true. In the social sciences, including history, economics, psychology, etc. I suspect they do this also.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #30 of 450
Camp David...how old is the Earth? How old is the universe?

Perhaps these responses will illuminate things a bit more.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #31 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

...how old is the Earth? How old is the universe?

The reference you point to - "old" - is a human construct; we measure age in units (years) that we designed and that we defined the measure. Therefore asking the age "how old" is simply asking what is our best guess using measures that mankind defined. More important to this question is the undefined quantity of both subjects you reference; 75% of the earth and certainly more than 99% of the universe are undefined by mankind. Therefore a measurement of either, using units that mankind designed, is also a best guess. Those that, like me, are safe in their belief in God are not troubled by such undefined relative issues; certainly God knows the precise age since it was His action as the prime mover that advanced both and precipitated their existence.
post #32 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

The reference you point to - "old" - is a human construct; we measure age in units (years) that we designed and that we defined the measure. Therefore asking the age "how old" is simply asking what is our best guess using measures that mankind defined. More important to this question is the undefined quantity of both subjects you reference; 75% of the earth and certainly more than 99% of the universe are undefined by mankind. Therefore a measurement of either, using units that mankind designed, is also a best guess. Those that, like me, are safe in their belief in God are not troubled by such undefined relative issues; certainly God knows the precise age since it was His action as the prime mover that advanced both and precipitated their existence.

OK, let's re-phrase...
Using Man's definition of a "year" as our unit of measure, how many "years" would you say the earth has existed? ... how many "years" has the physical universe existed?

Pretend we're not in a philosophy class here, we're in a science class.

(By the way... humans didn't "design" the year as a unit of measure... it was defined by physics when the earth formed and stabilized in its particular orbit around the sun... long before humans existed.)



Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

We do not pick and choose in other subjects and add bias to exclude all but one idea to advance, as is currently done in public schools with evolution. Instead we should advance the major life origin theories (no need to advance variants just the basic thought among the major ideas here) and let the children choose which life origin theory they accept. Moreover, I am not seeking the advancement of creationism over any other life origin theory; simply the inclusion of it in equal emphasis to others, in a means of equality in the classroom. The question here really is...is evolution, as a theory, and its advocates, scared of competition? Can't evolution stand competition? Is evolution such a weak theory it needs exclusion from competing theories of life origin?

We're talking school SCIENCE classes! we go with evolution because it is based on observation and facts... demonstrable, experimental, repeatable... (and there are, so far, no other scientific theories that come close to explaining stuff.) Creation is not based on science, it is based on faith... believing something because someone said it was so, with no supporting evidence.
I'm not saying we shouldn't "teach" creationism in school... but it needs to be taught in a philosophy class... not in a science class.
A science class that teaches evolution is open to doing experiments that would DISPROVE the theory... in fact, that is how science is often done!


Yes, experiments have not shown complete speciation... perhaps because it can't happen... or perhaps simply because we have not had time to show it... such major changes are expected to take many thousands of years. Just because we don't have the ability to watch speciation happen in our lifetimes does NOT prove that it doesn't happen. As we learn more an more about the genetic make-up of life, though... we are discovering that there are way more similarities between species than differences (at the genetic level)... circumstantial, yes... but still evidence, and still science.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #33 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Using Man's definition of a "year" as our unit of measure, how many "years" would you say the earth has existed?

Unknown to any precise degree. I mean, I have no basis to judge, as "science" has provided conflicting theories and our comprehensive handle on the creation that I believe does not render a precise value that I could state unequivocally within our "year" units. Indeed, if the earth could be somehow split open and an empirical assessment of its "age" rendered, much as one might split a tree and count its rings (though I know planets do not lend themselves to growth rings but I am just using that simply as an comparative example) we might have more precision available here to make a best guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

... how many "years" has the physical universe existed?

Unknown to any precise degree since you can't quantify "the universe," physical or in any other way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

I'm not saying we shouldn't "teach" creationism in school... but it needs to be taught in a philosophy class... not in a science class...

I'll reluctantly go along with that; as long as companion theories are advanced equally that's fine. If you want to establish artificial barriers in which to compartmentalize instruction and it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling to do so within separate classes than that's fine... as long as children receive equal unbiased instruction in all life origin theories and you're not advancing one with any bias over the other we're cool...
post #34 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Unknown to any precise degree. I mean, I have no basis to judge, as "science" has provided conflicting theories and our comprehensive handle on the creation that I believe does not render a precise value that I could state unequivocally within our "year" units. Indeed, if the earth could be somehow split open and an empirical assessment of its "age" rendered, much as one might split a tree and count its rings (though I know planets do not lend themselves to growth rings but I am just using that simply as an comparative example) we might have more precision available here to make a best guess.



Unknown to any precise degree since you can't quantify "the universe," physical or in any other way.


OK... would you say that our planet is closer to 5,000 years old, or closer to 5,000,000 years old?

The universe... would you agree with me if I said it is at LEAST 13,000,000 years old??


Yes, there are not "growth rings" within a planet (at least not planets like the one's in our solar system) ... but there ARE ways of measuring their age... even with a 10% margin of error, we can come up with numbers that are quite useful.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #35 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

OK... would you say that our planet is closer to 5,000 years old, or closer to 5,000,000 years old?

You're evidently trying to pigeonhole an estimate when I already admitted lack of evidence, apart of religion and secular, to precisely state. Nevertheless, if I look toward a biblical chronology I see a relatively recent creation of approximately 6000 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

The universe... would you agree with me if I said it is at LEAST 13,000,000 years old??

Here no such approximation is possible. Why? You can't even define the known universe with any validity to an earth-bound viewer, therefore estimations of age for something we can't precisely define are admittedly nothing more than speculation. Nevertheless, if I look toward a biblical chronology I see a relatively recent creation here too of approximately 6000 years.
post #36 of 450
A couple of points:

In the account of the creation in Genesis, the word "day" is not necessarily referring to the period of 24 hours that we call a day. Rather, it is simply referring to a distinct period of time. Each day could just as well represent 24 million or 24 billion of what we call years.

Another point I would like to make is that there is nothing in the Bible that specifies how long Adam and Eve were living in the Garden of Eden before they were cast out. That period of time also could have been millions of our years.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #37 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

The reference you point to - "old" - is a human construct; we measure age in units (years) that we designed and that we defined the measure. Therefore asking the age "how old" is simply asking what is our best guess using measures that mankind defined. More important to this question is the undefined quantity of both subjects you reference; 75% of the earth and certainly more than 99% of the universe are undefined by mankind. Therefore a measurement of either, using units that mankind designed, is also a best guess. Those that, like me, are safe in their belief in God are not troubled by such undefined relative issues; certainly God knows the precise age since it was His action as the prime mover that advanced both and precipitated their existence.

God "knows" and has a male sex organ?
What does he do with the latter if there is no other god or goddess?
The bible says his sex organ is compatible with humans but not large enough to harm the hymen.

You say God has a need to retain information as in "knowing", this means he is able to learn. However this would render "all knowing" and "all powerful" false.

If there is no other god besides the one you believe in, HE MUST BE AN ATHEIST. Humans were created by an atheist.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #38 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

A couple of points:

In the account of the creation in Genesis, the word "day" is not necessarily referring to the period of 24 hours that we call a day. Rather, it is simply referring to a distinct period of time. Each day could just as well represent 24 million or 24 billion of what we call years.

Another point I would like to make is that there is nothing in the Bible that specifies how long Adam and Eve were living in the Garden of Eden before they were cast out. That period of time also could have been millions of our years.

Excellent points here jazzguru; as I said previously, the idea of measuring time led to the human construct of units of years. It is quite remarkable, however, that we measure them beginning from the Lord. Nonetheless, you are absolutely correct that "day" may not lend itself to 34 hour increments based on scripture.
post #39 of 450
Jazzy and Campy,
How did god come into existence?
Evolution?
Creation?
Poooof?
He just is, that's it?
He was and he will always be?
For beings who relate to the eternal as a life span, the life span of our galaxy is infinitesimally short. how do we know the senses of such a being are capable of registering this short of a time period?
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #40 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

You're evidently trying to pigeonhole an estimate when I already admitted lack of evidence, apart of religion and secular, to precisely state. Nevertheless, if I look toward a biblical chronology I see a relatively recent creation of approximately 6000 years.

13.72 billion years is the age of the universe. We know this to 4 decimal points. The evidence is quite solid.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Darwin's idea of "Survival of the fittest" debunked...