and someone else's faith is yours to judge? It's theirs. None of your business what they believe or why. Let em be.
Well, that would be true if biblical literalists were content to carry their faith quietly in their hearts, but they don't, do they?
They programatically pack school boards and begin to clamor for "intelligent design" courses to be taught along side evolution, if they're not calling for a ban on the teaching of evolution altogether.
And of course it doesn't end there; there is the matter of the age of the earth, the mechanisms of it's formation, the age of the universe.... well, once you start to pull out the foundation stones of science, you might as well knock down the building.
At that point "someone's" faith is very much mine to judge, since I'm not real keen on living in a medieval village where natural phenomena are ascribed to gods and devils.
You have yet to prove this---scientifically speaking, evolution and science are at odds.
Edit: I think you are confusing "well, everyone says so" with having accessable reasons for believing evolution is even possible.
The "everyone" who says so are the vast majority of scientists working in the field. There is such a thing as "credible sources", otherwise none of us would be able to claim knowledge about anything outside of our immediate vicinity.
Now, the literature supporting the theory of evolution would fill several libraries, so as far as my "proving it" on an internet chat site... a little unwieldy.
How about you point out some instances of how "evolution and science are at odds" and we take it from there?
Yes you did, but you're kind of on the "swimming against the tide" end of this, so it's customary for the person who intends to refute the already broadly accepted to do the refuting (as in announcing that the universe sprung from the brow of a turtle and then demanding "proof" that it is not so. Given the outlandishness of the assertion , the burden of proof lies with the asserter.)
You have yet to prove this---scientifically speaking, evolution and science are at odds.
Most scientists would disagree with this. Now, of course, science isn't a popularity contest, but would you care to explain where your expertise on what it means to "speak scientifically" comes from, why it's better than majority opinion, where the majority has gone wrong and you've gotten it right, and what exactly you think "scientifically speaking" means?
The typical caricature of what science is supposed to be that creationist often put forward looks something like this...
Misunderstanding #1: A scientific theory must be utterly, completely, 100% provable beyond a shadow of anyone's doubt. Anything less just "isn't scientific". Of course, this stringent criteria should be applied only to what one wishes to reject, not to the things one wishes to promote.
Misunderstanding #2: Scientific theories aren't much more than passing fads anyway. Science is constantly in total upheaval, with today's "truth" quickly becoming yesterday's laughable ignorance.
Misunderstanding #3: Any flaw, real or perceived, brings the whole structure of a theory down. If a theory doesn't meet my standards, reasonable or not, of complete scientific perfection, I am free to substitute whatever alternative I like, and that alternative is at least as scientific as some other silly, imperfect theory. Ideas are either completely perfect and unassailable, or they're simply up-in-the-air matters of opinion and faith, and I don't have to recognize any distinctions in the quality of ideas beyond this binary ranking if I don't want to.
Misunderstanding #4: The more questions a "theory" answers the better it is. Some so-called scientists have all these piecemeal things like biological evolution, chemical evolution, cosmology, geology, etc. But a simple "God made it that way" solves it all in one fell swoop, so that's obviously more scientific.
Misunderstanding #5: The Second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible.
The above is certainly not a thorough list of misunderstandings, but it's a start. I'll continue with this in another post.
Quote:
Edit: I think you are confusing "well, everyone says so" with having accessable reasons for believing evolution is even possible.
Are you confusing "accessible" with "I don't have to study anything to understand you", or "so bulletproof I can't possibly simply gainsay what you've said if it suits me to"?
[B]and someone else's faith is yours to judge? It's theirs. None of your business what they believe or why. Let em be.
Considering that this (re. the age of the Earth) has everything to do with an essay based on erroneous ideas and guesswork (now soundly refuted) renders this piece of their faith redundant. Nowhere in the Bible is there an estimation of the age of the Earth anyway. If they consider themselves Christian, then they should stick to Jesus' teachings, rather than latching onto halfbaked loonytunes ideas like this. These people have no more credibility than the Flat Earth Society.
Man's best friend is proof of evolution. I know you wont want to accept this but I'll spill the beans anyway.
Dogs were bread from wolves some 30,000 years ago. The evolution of the dog from wolf was a forced and accelerated evolution where man chose pooches with specific traits and continued to breed for those desired traits. Wolves evolved into the common dog to adapt to a changed environment i.e. closer proximity to man. When we let these lovable pack animals into our caves we changed their everyday survival needs. Humans are better at storing food and wolves are better at taking down bears and the like. Combine the two traits and you have yourself a win-win combination. Wolves didn't have to work as hard or go as long between dinner bells and humans picked up good hunting partners. Once that happened, wolves could evolve into dogs. As further proof (because you're probably thinking God gave us dogs) is how many new breeds of dog do we create? You can easily trace the lineage of breeds if you like and find that we, humans, have caused dogs to evolve into different breeds. The American Bull Terrier is only a couple of hundred years old while the Beagle dates back to about 400B.C.. The Rotweiler, German Shepherd, and Russian Wolf Hound are breeds which have been around for thousands of years.
We have seen the evolution of the dog occur. We have introduced environmental changes into the lives of these pooches and caused change. Granted, the environmental changes we have introduce occurred at much accelerated rate but that doesn't lessen the evolution of the common dog as proof of evolution. Environmental changes happen on a much slower pace than the changes forced by man thus natural (i.e. non-human induced) changes occur at a slower pace.
A lot of creationists think a theory can't be reasoned as fact; however, the earth going around the sun is nothing more than a theory. In science there are no hard facts just theories. As new evidence arises we scientist alter our theories to match the new evidence. Darwin's idea of evolution has been found to be false. The survival of the fittest isn't always the case. In fact what usually happens is survival by coexistence where two weaker species exploit each other or a common resource to survive. There was a study about some species of grasses found in the midwest prairies where weaker species of plants could coexist because each plant used a specific nutrient and when grouped together formed a hardy community.
Back to the earth going around the sun. DMZ do you believe the earth goes around the sun? Or, as the bible puts it, is the earth the center of the known universe. We have a lot of strong evidence that the earth and sun rotate around each other (rotation of the planets only causes a small wobble in the sun due to the relative masses) but scientifically the idea is still a theory but since most churches think the theory is based in fact few religious people question the premise.
I should warn you at this point of the word "microevolution".
Creationists get around such examples by making a distinction between trait evolution within a species, and the development of entirely new species. I don't think the distinction is valid or compelling, but at least you should know that the macro/micro-evolution concept is something you have to deal with when arguing for evolution vs. creationism.
Also, I don't know if dogs are such a good example, as one could say that their evolution was "intelligently directed" by man's mind.
I should warn you at this point of the word "micro-evolution".
Creationists get around such examples by making a distinction between trait evolution within a species, and the development of entirely new species. I don't think the distinction is valid or compelling, but at least you should know that the macro/micro-evolution concept is something you have to deal with when arguing for evolution vs. creationism.
Also, I don't know if dogs are such a good example, as one could say that their evolution was "intelligently directed" by man's mind.
I know they choose to define the word in such a manner to suit their own designs; however, evolution isn't necessarily the complete transformation. Evolution by definition is the process by which something passes by degrees to a different stage. That is what we have done with the Canine. We have caused it to pass by degrees to another stage. The black/grey wolf is now the little red and white spaniel sleeping on the floor in my living room.
I realize I'm arguing with the wind when I try to show creationists that there is strong evidence to refute their standpoint. That's why I throw the Sun/Earth question in as well. I try to show that changes in environment can cause significant amounts of change and then I ask why they subscribe to one part of the bible as absolute truth and not another. We have a substantial amount of proof about the Earth not being the center of the universe.
Plus, there's always the Peppered Moth. This moth has developed two distinct breeds--one dark and one light--where the pollution levels dictate which type of moth is prevalent. The light and dark variants can interbreed but the resulting offspring will become targets for predators. Mmmm evolution of a species based on environmental change at work.....
Wrong Robot, evolution doesn't require two
separate species as the end result. Orchids, squirrels, mice, rats, etc have all evolved to meet the needs of different locations/environments.
and someone else's faith is yours to judge? It's theirs. None of your business what they believe or why. Let em be.
If they just believed it, that'd be one thing. But creationists are actively trying to do great harm to America's school system by forcing their religious claptrap down all student's throats. American kids are already stupid enough when it comes to math and sciences. We don't need to compound this by teaching them fairy tales as "science" as well.
But not all wales eat plankton. in fact some eat just fish, and some eat both so your answer is in there somewhere.
Some also eat seals (orca).
I was on a long road trip with some Creationist friends recently (not a creationist). Eventually, the conversation arrived at evolution and the ignorance of science (equating biogenesis with evolution, abuse of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, distaste for simian ancestry, etc).
Despite claims like "science doesn't know what binds a positively charged nucleus", I kept my trap largely shut until the topic changed for a peaceful journey (WEAK NUCLEAR FORCE! IT IS NUCLEAR POWER!!!!). I regret not wading in on the side of science when someone mentioned that they had called their biology teacher "deluded" because he was a Christian who accepted evolution as plausible. Now I've remembered I like debate, I'll be prepared for next time.
Anyway, if you beleive in an omnipotent, omniscient creator god, outside of time, etc, couldn't this god use evolution? It's not as if It's going to be surprised.
We had a kid in our biology class in High School who devoted his evolution paper to why fossils and dinosaurs weren't real. I thought he was doing it as a joke for the longest time. He wasn't.
Comments
Originally posted by Jubelum
and someone else's faith is yours to judge? It's theirs. None of your business what they believe or why. Let em be.
Well, that would be true if biblical literalists were content to carry their faith quietly in their hearts, but they don't, do they?
They programatically pack school boards and begin to clamor for "intelligent design" courses to be taught along side evolution, if they're not calling for a ban on the teaching of evolution altogether.
And of course it doesn't end there; there is the matter of the age of the earth, the mechanisms of it's formation, the age of the universe.... well, once you start to pull out the foundation stones of science, you might as well knock down the building.
At that point "someone's" faith is very much mine to judge, since I'm not real keen on living in a medieval village where natural phenomena are ascribed to gods and devils.
Originally posted by addabox
My point is that to reject evolution, you are obliged to reject science
You have yet to prove this---scientifically speaking, evolution and science are at odds.
Edit: I think you are confusing "well, everyone says so" with having accessable reasons for believing evolution is even possible.
Originally posted by dmz
You have yet to prove this---scientifically speaking, evolution and science are at odds.
Edit: I think you are confusing "well, everyone says so" with having accessable reasons for believing evolution is even possible.
The "everyone" who says so are the vast majority of scientists working in the field. There is such a thing as "credible sources", otherwise none of us would be able to claim knowledge about anything outside of our immediate vicinity.
Now, the literature supporting the theory of evolution would fill several libraries, so as far as my "proving it" on an internet chat site... a little unwieldy.
How about you point out some instances of how "evolution and science are at odds" and we take it from there?
Originally posted by dmz
-actually I asked first, sooooo........
Yes you did, but you're kind of on the "swimming against the tide" end of this, so it's customary for the person who intends to refute the already broadly accepted to do the refuting (as in announcing that the universe sprung from the brow of a turtle and then demanding "proof" that it is not so. Given the outlandishness of the assertion , the burden of proof lies with the asserter.)
Originally posted by addabox
I agree that we don't need another evolution thread,
Originally posted by dmz
You have yet to prove this---scientifically speaking, evolution and science are at odds.
Most scientists would disagree with this. Now, of course, science isn't a popularity contest, but would you care to explain where your expertise on what it means to "speak scientifically" comes from, why it's better than majority opinion, where the majority has gone wrong and you've gotten it right, and what exactly you think "scientifically speaking" means?
The typical caricature of what science is supposed to be that creationist often put forward looks something like this...
Misunderstanding #1: A scientific theory must be utterly, completely, 100% provable beyond a shadow of anyone's doubt. Anything less just "isn't scientific". Of course, this stringent criteria should be applied only to what one wishes to reject, not to the things one wishes to promote.
Misunderstanding #2: Scientific theories aren't much more than passing fads anyway. Science is constantly in total upheaval, with today's "truth" quickly becoming yesterday's laughable ignorance.
Misunderstanding #3: Any flaw, real or perceived, brings the whole structure of a theory down. If a theory doesn't meet my standards, reasonable or not, of complete scientific perfection, I am free to substitute whatever alternative I like, and that alternative is at least as scientific as some other silly, imperfect theory. Ideas are either completely perfect and unassailable, or they're simply up-in-the-air matters of opinion and faith, and I don't have to recognize any distinctions in the quality of ideas beyond this binary ranking if I don't want to.
Misunderstanding #4: The more questions a "theory" answers the better it is. Some so-called scientists have all these piecemeal things like biological evolution, chemical evolution, cosmology, geology, etc. But a simple "God made it that way" solves it all in one fell swoop, so that's obviously more scientific.
Misunderstanding #5: The Second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible.
The above is certainly not a thorough list of misunderstandings, but it's a start. I'll continue with this in another post.
Edit: I think you are confusing "well, everyone says so" with having accessable reasons for believing evolution is even possible.
Are you confusing "accessible" with "I don't have to study anything to understand you", or "so bulletproof I can't possibly simply gainsay what you've said if it suits me to"?
Originally posted by Fellowship
It's not my fault! God designed me for this!
Originally posted by Jubelum
[B]and someone else's faith is yours to judge? It's theirs. None of your business what they believe or why. Let em be.
Considering that this (re. the age of the Earth) has everything to do with an essay based on erroneous ideas and guesswork (now soundly refuted) renders this piece of their faith redundant. Nowhere in the Bible is there an estimation of the age of the Earth anyway. If they consider themselves Christian, then they should stick to Jesus' teachings, rather than latching onto halfbaked loonytunes ideas like this. These people have no more credibility than the Flat Earth Society.
I'd say let God sort it out...oh wait, God did.
Creationists = Afraid of Science (truth)
/confusedandhumoredatthesametime
Originally posted by dmz
-actually I asked first, sooooo........
Man's best friend is proof of evolution. I know you wont want to accept this but I'll spill the beans anyway.
Dogs were bread from wolves some 30,000 years ago. The evolution of the dog from wolf was a forced and accelerated evolution where man chose pooches with specific traits and continued to breed for those desired traits. Wolves evolved into the common dog to adapt to a changed environment i.e. closer proximity to man. When we let these lovable pack animals into our caves we changed their everyday survival needs. Humans are better at storing food and wolves are better at taking down bears and the like. Combine the two traits and you have yourself a win-win combination. Wolves didn't have to work as hard or go as long between dinner bells and humans picked up good hunting partners. Once that happened, wolves could evolve into dogs. As further proof (because you're probably thinking God gave us dogs) is how many new breeds of dog do we create? You can easily trace the lineage of breeds if you like and find that we, humans, have caused dogs to evolve into different breeds. The American Bull Terrier is only a couple of hundred years old while the Beagle dates back to about 400B.C.. The Rotweiler, German Shepherd, and Russian Wolf Hound are breeds which have been around for thousands of years.
We have seen the evolution of the dog occur. We have introduced environmental changes into the lives of these pooches and caused change. Granted, the environmental changes we have introduce occurred at much accelerated rate but that doesn't lessen the evolution of the common dog as proof of evolution. Environmental changes happen on a much slower pace than the changes forced by man thus natural (i.e. non-human induced) changes occur at a slower pace.
A lot of creationists think a theory can't be reasoned as fact; however, the earth going around the sun is nothing more than a theory. In science there are no hard facts just theories. As new evidence arises we scientist alter our theories to match the new evidence. Darwin's idea of evolution has been found to be false. The survival of the fittest isn't always the case. In fact what usually happens is survival by coexistence where two weaker species exploit each other or a common resource to survive. There was a study about some species of grasses found in the midwest prairies where weaker species of plants could coexist because each plant used a specific nutrient and when grouped together formed a hardy community.
Back to the earth going around the sun. DMZ do you believe the earth goes around the sun? Or, as the bible puts it, is the earth the center of the known universe. We have a lot of strong evidence that the earth and sun rotate around each other (rotation of the planets only causes a small wobble in the sun due to the relative masses) but scientifically the idea is still a theory but since most churches think the theory is based in fact few religious people question the premise.
Originally posted by faust9
We have seen the evolution of the dog occur.
I should warn you at this point of the word "microevolution".
Creationists get around such examples by making a distinction between trait evolution within a species, and the development of entirely new species. I don't think the distinction is valid or compelling, but at least you should know that the macro/micro-evolution concept is something you have to deal with when arguing for evolution vs. creationism.
Also, I don't know if dogs are such a good example, as one could say that their evolution was "intelligently directed" by man's mind.
Originally posted by shetline
I should warn you at this point of the word "micro-evolution".
Creationists get around such examples by making a distinction between trait evolution within a species, and the development of entirely new species. I don't think the distinction is valid or compelling, but at least you should know that the macro/micro-evolution concept is something you have to deal with when arguing for evolution vs. creationism.
Also, I don't know if dogs are such a good example, as one could say that their evolution was "intelligently directed" by man's mind.
I know they choose to define the word in such a manner to suit their own designs; however, evolution isn't necessarily the complete transformation. Evolution by definition is the process by which something passes by degrees to a different stage. That is what we have done with the Canine. We have caused it to pass by degrees to another stage. The black/grey wolf is now the little red and white spaniel sleeping on the floor in my living room.
I realize I'm arguing with the wind when I try to show creationists that there is strong evidence to refute their standpoint. That's why I throw the Sun/Earth question in as well. I try to show that changes in environment can cause significant amounts of change and then I ask why they subscribe to one part of the bible as absolute truth and not another. We have a substantial amount of proof about the Earth not being the center of the universe.
Plus, there's always the Peppered Moth. This moth has developed two distinct breeds--one dark and one light--where the pollution levels dictate which type of moth is prevalent. The light and dark variants can interbreed but the resulting offspring will become targets for predators. Mmmm evolution of a species based on environmental change at work.....
Wrong Robot, evolution doesn't require two
separate species as the end result. Orchids, squirrels, mice, rats, etc have all evolved to meet the needs of different locations/environments.
Originally posted by faust9
Wrong Robot, evolution doesn't require two
separate species as the end result. Orchids, squirrels, mice, rats, etc have all evolved to meet the needs of different locations/environments.
Yeah I know, I merely threw that out there because I had a feeling some might be curious as to what defines one species becoming two(wolfs->dogs)
Originally posted by dmz
I always wondered what the whales were eating for millions of years waiting for their baleen to develop.
I always wondered what the humans were eating for tens of thousands of years waiting for George Foreman to develop his grill.
Originally posted by Jubelum
and someone else's faith is yours to judge? It's theirs. None of your business what they believe or why. Let em be.
If they just believed it, that'd be one thing. But creationists are actively trying to do great harm to America's school system by forcing their religious claptrap down all student's throats. American kids are already stupid enough when it comes to math and sciences. We don't need to compound this by teaching them fairy tales as "science" as well.
Originally posted by Kirkland
I always wondered what the humans were eating for tens of thousands of years waiting for George Foreman to develop his grill.
I just bought one last week, and I wonder the same thing.
But not all wales eat plankton. in fact some eat just fish, and some eat both so your answer is in there somewhere.
Some also eat seals (orca).
I was on a long road trip with some Creationist friends recently (not a creationist). Eventually, the conversation arrived at evolution and the ignorance of science (equating biogenesis with evolution, abuse of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, distaste for simian ancestry, etc).
Despite claims like "science doesn't know what binds a positively charged nucleus", I kept my trap largely shut until the topic changed for a peaceful journey (WEAK NUCLEAR FORCE! IT IS NUCLEAR POWER!!!!). I regret not wading in on the side of science when someone mentioned that they had called their biology teacher "deluded" because he was a Christian who accepted evolution as plausible. Now I've remembered I like debate, I'll be prepared for next time.
Anyway, if you beleive in an omnipotent, omniscient creator god, outside of time, etc, couldn't this god use evolution? It's not as if It's going to be surprised.
We had a kid in our biology class in High School who devoted his evolution paper to why fossils and dinosaurs weren't real. I thought he was doing it as a joke for the longest time. He wasn't.
I can be a Christian and believe in dinosaurs.
Everybody's crazy in some way~