Wrong-way evolution of the creationist movement

[alonzomourning23]

By Patrick Chisholm | csmonitor.com

WASHINGTON – Christian fundamentalists often have been accused of wanting to alter the laws and institutions of the United States. Actually it is usually the other way around; most of the time they only try to prevent America's laws and institutions from being radically altered. One example is their battle to stem the banning of Christmas symbols and celebrations.

But there is one area where many Christian fundamentalists do indeed want to impose radical change: the teaching of Biblical creationism vs. evolution in public schools.


After losing favor since the Scopes trial 80 years ago, the creationist movement seems to be making inroads again. In Dover, Pa., school administrators recently ordered biology teachers to declare in class that "Darwin's theory... is a theory, not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence." In an Atlanta suburb in 2002, stickers were placed on textbooks stating that "evolution is a theory, not a fact ..." Then, last month, a judge ruled the stickers unconstitutional.

In 1999, the Kansas state board of education voted to remove most references to evolution from state education standards, a decision that was reversed two years later.

According to a CBS poll conducted last fall, two-thirds of Americans favor teaching creationism in public schools together with evolution, and 37 percent want to totally replace the teaching of evolution with creationism.

But saying evolution is a theory is like saying the earth revolving around the sun is a theory. Or that plate tectonics (continental drift) is a theory. Or that things are made of atoms is a theory. Just because such things are not apparent to the human eye doesn't mean they aren't factual.

Evolution is a fact. Because it involves time periods spanning hundreds or thousands of generations, evolutionary change happens much too slowly for humans to perceive.

And in some cases, natural selection happens plenty quickly enough for us to perceive. Through mutations, new strains of antidote-resistant viruses are always emerging. The same holds true for pesticide-resistant insects. There is also the famous example of the peppered moth near Manchester, England. Starting out with light-colored wings, they were camouflaged as they rested on tree trunks of the same color. But as industrial pollution made the trees dark, birds picked off the light-colored moths. Mutant moths born with black wings survived, reproduced, and multiplied.

Through observing a petri dish of bacteria, evolution can even be observed in a matter of hours. Adding a certain antibiotic kills the vast majority of the bacteria, but some of them are immune and go on to mass-reproduce.

To take a human example, it is revealing that Nepalese Sherpas are generally much better at climbing Mt. Everest than anyone else. It is not just because of skill, but because their bodies seem to have adapted genetically to the extreme environment, according to scientists. How did this adaptation take place? Not because God decided one day to give all Sherpas a better oxygen-processing capability than other populations, but because of natural selection: the people whose bodies could not process oxygen in a high-altitude environment failed to survive to reproduce.

So evolution is happening right before our very eyes. Evolution is as elementary as the earth as round; for someone to try to convince me otherwise is like someone trying to convince me that the earth is flat.

Suppressing the teaching of evolution or presenting it as a controversial "theory" would be a huge step backward in education. Save creationism for Sunday school.

That said, there may be room for a concept called intelligent design - as long as it is not hijacked and distorted by the Biblical creationists. Advancements in science have enabled the observation of tinier things and more complex phenomena. Michael J. Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, points to the example of complex engines that power the motion of certain bacteria. Behe states that if one of the many dozens of parts that comprise the engine is taken away, the whole engine fails completely. He argues that it is difficult to imagine how something could have been constructed gradually through evolution, given that the engine does not work until all the parts have been assembled. One theory is that an intelligent designer played a role. To be sure, it in no way refutes evolution, which easily explains how most other biological phenomena were designed.

If science cannot explain how certain biological components were constructed - a big if - then that point could be made in class. It would be up to students to draw their own conclusions as to how such things came about, just as it is up to them to draw their own conclusions as to what causes gravity. (Science still doesn't have a good answer. Could it be God?) But teaching that everything was created some 6,000 years ago, in six days, would be foolhardy.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0223/p25s01-cogn.html

[bmulligan]

Stupidity revealed are the people who confuse the vulgar vernacular "theory" with the scientific connotation of the word "Theory". I'm suprised they didn't bother to explain the difference in the article somewhere.

[MrBadExample]

Public school should be for evolution theory and Sunday school for creationism. Intelligent Design is just a way to get god in classrooms again. "Well, we don't know exactly what caused this so it might be god." It might also be Zeus, the Boogey Man or Bigfoot. You can't prove that Bigfoot didn't create the universe so why not teach that too.

The fact that we as a society are still arguing about evolution makes me wonder if we're devolving now.

[camoor]

Public school should be for evolution theory and Sunday school for creationism.

I'm all for teaching philosophy in public schools - even if only for the "AP" kids. You can make your deist "clockwork god" theories right along side that of the dogmatist and strict materialist views of the world in a philosophy course. Also - then maybe the christians will realize that their views aren't science.

I know I have high hopes. I guess we should be glad that Bush hasn't attacked Socrates for being a "homo pagan" (hey, his favorite philosopher is Jesus for crying out loud)

[oleander]

I'm not sure I understand the article....he seems to use the fact that evolution occurs to state that evolution is the way that life originated on earth...am I misinterpreting?

[ElwoodCuse]

The fact that we as a society are still arguing about evolution makes me wonder if we're devolving now.

They tell us that
We lost our tails
Evolving up
From little snails
I say it's all
Just wind and sails
Are we not men?
We are DEVO

[alonzomourning23]

I'm not sure I understand the article....he seems to use the fact that evolution occurs to state that evolution is the way that life originated on earth...am I misinterpreting?

Basically, he's saying that evolution is a fact, and most likely works on its own and is the origin of life. But, if science can't explain everything (which he isn't sure about), then it's possible god does play a stabilizing role somewhere, but the driving force is still natural selection/evolution, not god. He doesn't believe creationism is correct in any sense though. He's distinguishing from creationism and intelligent design.

[Quillion]

You can't prove or disprove "Intelligent Design". But at least it allows for science not to be wrong.

Some big dude in the sky sat down for like a week and built everything six thousand years ago? Baloney.

A universal conciousness set into play a series of seemingly random events that resulted in complex thinking beings? Possibly. Neither provable or unprovable.

Why not? It's a "theory" that at least concedes that 2000 years of science isn't wrong.

[eldad9]

I for one am sick of the way schools are trying to pass off the heliocentric viewpoint as fact. It is only a theory, and the church has spoken out against it (and in fact, has executed more than one scientist for supporting it).

[Ikohn4ever]

I find it funny that they are afraid of showing IMAX movies dealing with Evolution in the South. One is about Darwin and another is about Volcanos. Things are getting really out of hand fast. You start giving people an inch and they take a mile.

[eldad9]

I find it funny that they are afraid of showing IMAX movies dealing with Evolution in the South. One is about Darwin and another is about Volcanos. Things are getting really out of hand fast. You start giving people an inch and they take a mile.

Nobody's "afraid". Unfortunately, choosing these movies would just not be a good decision in today's market.

[Ikohn4ever]

Nobody's "afraid". Unfortunately, choosing these movies would just not be a good decision in today's market.

yeah you are right it would be poor economic move, plus I am sure there would be atleast one protestor

[Duo_Maxwell]

yeah you are right it would be poor economic move, plus I am sure there would be atleast one protestor

There's always at least one protestor to most every movie somewhere.

[elprincipe]

"evolution is a fact" - I stopped reading past that point, ridiculous. Even the theory of gravity is not a "fact", and there is a lot less evidence that the theory of evolution is "fact" than that.

[camoor]

"evolution is a fact" - I stopped reading past that point, ridiculous. Even the theory of gravity is not a "fact", and there is a lot less evidence that the theory of evolution is "fact" than that.

Ladies and Gentleman, may I present the lone protestor :D

[zionoverfire]

"evolution is a fact" - I stopped reading past that point, ridiculous. Even the theory of gravity is not a "fact", and there is a lot less evidence that the theory of evolution is "fact" than that.

All the evidence we have for gravity is that it exists not why it exists. With evolution we can see that is occurs and show what leads to its occurance. That is the difference between scientific theory and fact. Keep in mind that while the theory of evolution is scientific fact the Darwinian theory of evolution is a theory.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

It's like creationist are intentionally trying to impede man's progress. Like they can become their own evidence against evolution.

[dcfox]

"evolution is a fact" - I stopped reading past that point, ridiculous. Even the theory of gravity is not a "fact", and there is a lot less evidence that the theory of evolution is "fact" than that.

Gravity is only a theory?? You sir have opened my eyes to the truth. From now on I will no longer be a slave to gravity.

[camoor]

It's like creationist are intentionally trying to impede man's progress. Like they can become their own evidence against evolution.

I'm sure Nietzsche would enjoy this joke :)

[camoor]

Gravity is only a theory?? You sir have opened my eyes to the truth. From now on I will no longer be a slave to gravity.

Havent you played Smugglers Run?

Up down up down ABAB ---> Gravity off!

Take that Newton!!

[sblymnlcrymnl]

It's like creationist are intentionally trying to impede man's progress. Like they can become their own evidence against evolution.
I'm sure Nietzsche would enjoy this joke :)

:D

[Kayden]

Does this mean we need to put stickers on all the copies of the Bible that say, "God is only a theory." :-k

[masta0031]

Does this mean we need to put stickers on all the copies of the Bible that say, "God is only a theory." :-k

or maybe "fairy tail"?

[masta0031]

It's like creationist are intentionally trying to impede man's progress. Like they can become their own evidence against evolution.

very interesting way of looking at it. Im really not on either side of this argument. i really doubt religion has any answers, but since the begining of man there has always been religion, weather it be budda, jehova, or a pet rock.

we've needed these gods to give us a reason to why we're alive. haveing no reason is a scary thought to most people. thinking that no matter what they do in there lives the only thing you amount to in the end is a little bit of carbon left from what used to be your corpse isnt a really nice thought, and due to this there will always be religion.

since evolution offers no real purpose it is much harder to acept, even though logicaly more sound, than that mythical higher being.

the only peace i (personally) have found on this subject is to admit that i really dont know. its always best not to worry to much about it and just go with the flow.

At the same time, I dont think any decision should be based on what some book says...no matter how old it is.

[MrBadExample]

since evolution offers no real purpose it is much harder to acept, even though logicaly more sound, than that mythical higher being.

The purpose of evolution is the propagation of the species.

[Kayden]

The purpose of evolution is the propagation of the species.

Wooooooooo life = SEX!
:bouncy::bouncy::bouncy::bouncy:

[sblymnlcrymnl]

That's the purpose of evolution (and in fact life in general) but some can't accept life without a personal "higher" purpose.

[alonzomourning23]

very interesting way of looking at it. Im really not on either side of this argument. i really doubt religion has any answers, but since the begining of man there has always been religion, weather it be budda, jehova, or a pet rock.

we've needed these gods to give us a reason to why we're alive. haveing no reason is a scary thought to most people. thinking that no matter what they do in there lives the only thing you amount to in the end is a little bit of carbon left from what used to be your corpse isnt a really nice thought, and due to this there will always be religion.

since evolution offers no real purpose it is much harder to acept, even though logicaly more sound, than that mythical higher being.

the only peace i (personally) have found on this subject is to admit that i really dont know. its always best not to worry to much about it and just go with the flow.

At the same time, I dont think any decision should be based on what some book says...no matter how old it is.

Found this quote a few days ago, pretty much sums up my beliefs:

"An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question."
-John McCarthy

and this quote sums up my opinion on creationism, the way most believe in it anyway:
"If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call in question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it—the life of that man is one long sin against mankind."
-William Clifford

[shipwreck]

I am a creationist. I also believe in adaptation, but not to the extent of beings evolving into other creatures. I honestly don't care what schools teach on the subject because usually by the time it is being taught, most individuals have a good idea what their beliefs are. From my experience, evolution has always been taught as a theory, so I don't quite understand the problem there. I know when I was presented with this material, I had no problem distinguishing between what I think is fact and theory that I don't believe in.

[camoor]

we've needed these gods to give us a reason to why we're alive. haveing no reason is a scary thought to most people. thinking that no matter what they do in there lives the only thing you amount to in the end is a little bit of carbon left from what used to be your corpse isnt a really nice thought, and due to this there will always be religion.

since evolution offers no real purpose it is much harder to acept, even though logicaly more sound, than that mythical higher being.

Evolution is pretty easy to accept, it follows logic and can be empirically demonstrated.

It's much harder to trust something other then your base senses. However why not - your base senses were designed so that you could run around in grasslands eating deer, antelope, and buffalo. Is it such a far-out idea that your senses lie to you as a result of being part of a hard-wired survival mechanism? Or that they only give you pieces of the existence puzzle?

Regardless of my second paragraph, if you pick up any 2000 year-old book full of magic, demi-gods, and contradictory rules and accept all of it as the straight-up truth, then you are taking the easy way out.

[zionoverfire]

I am a creationist. I also believe in adaptation, but not to the extent of beings evolving into other creatures.

adaptation is esentially evolution, the only difference is evolution states that after numerious adaptation the adapted animals will reach a point where they are no longer be able to reproduce with the species they came from, thereby creating a new species. Evolution and Darwinian evolution are not the same thing.

[elprincipe]

adaptation is esentially evolution, the only difference is evolution states that after numerious adaptation the adapted animals will reach a point where they are no longer be able to reproduce with the species they came from, thereby creating a new species. Evolution and Darwinian evolution are not the same thing.

"Adaptation," or natural selection, is a far, far cry from the Theory of Evolution. Natural selection merely says that existing characteristics in species will become more prevalent if the carriers of those genes are more successful at reproducing than the carriers of other genes. Not only is this just common mathematical sense, but it's been pretty well demonstrated in many cases, including the moth study in Industrial Revolution-era England that someone mentioned.

The Theory of Evolution, OTOH, claims that random mutations within species lead to new characteristics and these are then thrown into the mix, with some of these mutations ending up having beneficial characteristics to reproduction, thus being selected through natural selection. There are a lot of rather difficult questions with regard to this theory, and if someone wants to get into a more detailed (but hopefully mature) discussion of evolution I'm willing to throw some out that I feel are more than legitimate reasons to not accept the Theory of Evolution as a proven fact.

[zionoverfire]

"Adaptation," or natural selection, is a far, far cry from the Theory of Evolution. Natural selection merely says that existing characteristics in species will become more prevalent if the carriers of those genes are more successful at reproducing than the carriers of other genes. Not only is this just common mathematical sense, but it's been pretty well demonstrated in many cases, including the moth study in Industrial Revolution-era England that someone mentioned.

The Theory of Evolution, OTOH, claims that random mutations within species lead to new characteristics and these are then thrown into the mix, with some of these mutations ending up having beneficial characteristics to reproduction, thus being selected through natural selection. There are a lot of rather difficult questions with regard to this theory, and if someone wants to get into a more detailed (but hopefully mature) discussion of evolution I'm willing to throw some out that I feel are more than legitimate reasons to not accept the Theory of Evolution as a proven fact.

Evolution:
The change in the frequency of alleles between one generation and the next.
http://en.wikpedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Please stop confusing Evolution and the Darwinian Theory of Evolution.

But this topic is near dead and if you would like to throw out your problems with the Darwinian Theory of Evolution or even problems you have with the idea of genetic mutation or natural selection please feel free. Perhaps they will keep this topic alive for another page or 2.

[Kayden]

Evolution:
The change in the frequency of alleles between one generation and the next.
http://en.wikpedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Please stop confusing Evolution and the Darwinian Theory of Evolution.

But this topic is near dead and if you would like to throw out your problems with the Darwinian Theory of Evolution or even problems you have with the idea of genetic mutation or natural selection please feel free. Perhaps they will keep this topic alive for another page or 2.

When I was in school Darwin's theory of evolution and evolution were used interchangably.... I guess thats what I get for going to public school... could someone differentiate?

Zion, that link isn't very helpful.

[zionoverfire]

When I was in school Darwin's theory of evolution and evolution were used interchangably.... I guess thats what I get for going to public school... could someone differentiate?

Zion, that link isn't very helpful.

:oops: Yes the link doesn't seem to work, oh well I cited the source.:lol:

Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are often used interchangably and so people often blur the two together.

Basically evolution is simply the change in genetic makeup (genes, allels) over a period of time. The Darwinian Theory of evolution uses the combination of mutation and natural selection to suggest that all life on the planet came from a common ancestor.

[Kayden]

:oops: Yes the link doesn't seem to work, oh well I cited the source.:lol:

Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are often used interchangably and so people often blur the two together.

Basically evolution is simply the change in genetic makeup (genes, allels) over a period of time. The Darwinian Theory of evolution uses the combination of mutation and natural selection to suggest that all life on the planet came from a common ancestor.

So... evolution is akin to a editing a single line of code where Darwinian Evolution is totally recompiling a database?

More or less the same, but on a larger, prolonged scale.

[alonzomourning23]

:oops: Yes the link doesn't seem to work, oh well I cited the source.:lol:

Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are often used interchangably and so people often blur the two together.

Basically evolution is simply the change in genetic makeup (genes, allels) over a period of time. The Darwinian Theory of evolution uses the combination of mutation and natural selection to suggest that all life on the planet came from a common ancestor.

Considering the similarity of embryo's in the womb, considering that even bacteria have 60% of their dna in common with humans, that is a fairly safe assumption.

[zionoverfire]

So... evolution is akin to a editing a single line of code where Darwinian Evolution is totally recompiling a database?

More or less the same, but on a larger, prolonged scale.

No, evolution in it's basic form doesn't not include mutation it is simply the change in distribution of alleles or genes.

[zionoverfire]

Considering the similarity of embryo's in the womb, considering that even bacteria have 60% of their dna in common with humans, that is a fairly safe assumption.

I'm simply trying to demonstrate that basic evolution is scienctific fact and that it is the same as adaptation. Keep in mind that gravity is a fairly safe assumption but we still talk about the theory of gravity.

[Kayden]

No, evolution in it's basic form doesn't not include mutation it is simply the change in distribution of alleles or genes.

All those changes over time would surely cause mutations...

[zionoverfire]

All those changes over time would surely cause mutations...

That would be part of the theory of evolution.;)

Keep in mind that taking short term evidence and extending it into long term situations is one of the ways in which you get theories.

Oh and also the changes don't cause mutations, the mutations propigated from the individual to the species cause the changes, you've got it backwards.

[alonzomourning23]

There was an experiment done with fruit flies in a lab. They started with one population and split them up, and bred them for certain things. After about 100 generations they ended up with two similar looking flies, but they could not interbreed and were different species. I'll try to find it.

[zionoverfire]

There was an experiment done with fruit flies in a lab. They started with one population and split them up, and bred them for certain things. After about 100 generations they ended up with two similar looking flies, but they could not interbreed and were different species. I'll try to find it.

And there are numerious cases of bacteria and viruses in which minor mutation occured in the genetic code giving rise to new diseases, it's not that we don't have information that proves that mutation occurs it is simply that we cannot prove that all life originated from the same source unless we build a time machine.

[Kayden]

That would be part of the theory of evolution.;)

Keep in mind that taking short term evidence and extending it into long term situations is one of the ways in which you get theories.

Oh and also the changes don't cause mutations, the mutations propigated from the individual to the species cause the changes, you've got it backwards.

What? Uh....
Like one freak occurance and then the rest adapt to it? (Born with 6 fingers and then the rest follow suit?)

[zionoverfire]

What? Uh....
Like one freak occurance and then the rest adapt to it? (Born with 6 fingers and then the rest follow suit?)

If there is a mutation in the genetic code of one individual and it is advantagious, then assuming that individual survives and reproduces by natural selection the gene will be propigated into the genetic pool of the entire species. There are some genes that aren't beneficial but are not harmful, infact most mutations don't do anything and in these cases they go unnoticed. In the case of 6 fingers this trait is considered undesirable by humans and so it decreases your odds of reproduction.

[elprincipe]

Here's a page that has some unanswered questions:

http://www.contenderministries.org/evolution/questions.php

I should note that this was just after a short search because I just don't have the time for more, and that I feel some of the questions on said page are rather dumb. Some, however, are good questions that haven't been adequately answered by evolutionists.

I'd like a good explanation of how human beings came to be at this point in time, an extremely complicated animal, using evolution patterns that have actually been observed. Does anyone actually believe that evolution in humans has been observed throughout human history? If not, do you realize that such a slow pace would make it pretty unlikely that humans could have evolved the complexities that we show in the time life is thought to have existed?

Here are another couple basic evolutionary questions.

1. If evolution occurs via mutation and then nautral selection, how do recessive genes exist? One mutation making a recessive gene would never make this gene manifest itself. Why would it be selected for?

2. If only one organism has a particular mutation, which obviously would pretty much have to be true given the random nature of such mutations, there is only a partial chance that it would be passed on. As per my question above, have you taken this into account as to how long these mutations would theoretically take to change things? That's roughly doubling the time...not to mention how did something like going from asexual to sexual reproduction work?

I've got plenty more.

[zionoverfire]

Well for your first question if not for evolution how did human and all other life come to be on this planet? Did the Dinosaurs exist? and if they did why can't we find fossels of humans from the same time period? If you wish to claim that evolution is false I would be interested to see what you believe instead.

But for your other questions:
1. Selection does not create mutation, mutation occurs on its own. This means that a gene does not have to be beneficial to be propigated, it is simply more likely to become inherent in the majority or entire population if it is beneficial. In fact plenty of harmful genes are present in the population and continue to exist because while harmful the individuals still live long enough to reproduce. Look at alzheimers and hutchunson's disease there are plenty of other diseases that are the result of genetics and some are recessive genes. It is a misnomer that natural selection is responsible for all genetic change. If a mutation does not hinder your ability to reproduce then it does not fall under the scope of natural selection.

2. Doubling? We are talking much more than that, but do keep in mind how long a million years is, let along 1 billion, besides remember each lifeform has the potential for a beneficial mutation, that is a lot of beings over a very long period of time, infact the odds of no mutation having ever occured is quite close to zero. As far as the whole sex thing goes, some species are cabable of both asexual and sexual reproduction, it's not a chasm that seperates all life into 2 catagories, some fairly advance plants like strawberries are capable of both.

[MrBadExample]

For the creationists:

1. Why do humans still have a tail bone?

2. Why do some whales have leg bones?

3. Why do we have an appendix?

[onetrackmind]

I know very little about this topic but all i can say is this is by far one of the most interesting threads i've ever read.

[Kayden]

For the creationists:

1. Why do humans still have a tail bone?

2. Why do some whales have leg bones?

3. Why do we have an appendix?

I read in a science magazine that some people have extra muscles in their arms. They are very small from lack of use, but monkeys have the same ones and they use them when climbing trees. Humans have a lot more extra parts than just tailbones. Although, some people are born with nubby little tales.

[Kayden]

Here's a page that has some unanswered questions:

http://www.contenderministries.org/evolution/questions.php

I should note that this was just after a short search because I just don't have the time for more, and that I feel some of the questions on said page are rather dumb. Some, however, are good questions that haven't been adequately answered by evolutionists.

I'd like a good explanation of how human beings came to be at this point in time, an extremely complicated animal, using evolution patterns that have actually been observed. Does anyone actually believe that evolution in humans has been observed throughout human history? If not, do you realize that such a slow pace would make it pretty unlikely that humans could have evolved the complexities that we show in the time life is thought to have existed?

Here are another couple basic evolutionary questions.

1. If evolution occurs via mutation and then nautral selection, how do recessive genes exist? One mutation making a recessive gene would never make this gene manifest itself. Why would it be selected for?

2. If only one organism has a particular mutation, which obviously would pretty much have to be true given the random nature of such mutations, there is only a partial chance that it would be passed on. As per my question above, have you taken this into account as to how long these mutations would theoretically take to change things? That's roughly doubling the time...not to mention how did something like going from asexual to sexual reproduction work?

I've got plenty more.


I don't think you really understand the full reproductive process. I'll keep it simple and as correct as possible. The genetic patern of any living being is stored in its DNA or chromosomes. When two life forms reproduce, they pool together their chromosomes. The new life form doesn't take these as-is, however. The human genome has, I believe, 13 pairs of chromosomes, 13 from each parent. Parts are swapped between to pairs of chomosomes and changes are made. These changes occur for several reasons. The most important of them, is varience. If you know the effects of inbreeding, then you know why this is important. If the chromosomes where passes on without change, the chances of spreading very harmful recessive traits increases. Recessive traits are exactly what they sound like. Blue eyes are a recessive trait, its possible for two people with brown eyes to have children with blue eyes. Say B is brown and b is blue. Bb would say your parrents had the genes for both brown and blue eyes. They have two sets because this information is encoded on two separate chromosomes (13 pairs= two code sets).
...B..|.b.
B|BB|Bb|
b|Bb|bb|

Don't know what that means? Its simply a vissual representation of a childs chances to get blue eyes. The top Bb would be the choromosomes from one parent and the Bb on the side would be from the other. Since people have 26 chromosomes, 13 pairs, when reproducing, parents only give their children 13, or one of each chromosome from their pairs. Theres a 50/50 chance the parents could give either B or b. If each parent gave B, then the child would be BB, or have brown eyes. If only one gave B, the child would still have brown eyes. This is because blue is a recessive trait, meaning, if there is a chromosome for brown, blue will be overridden. Only if both parents give the b gene will the child have blue eyes. Where did the Bb for the parents come from? Well, maybe the grand parents had blue eyes, that for sure would give the parents at least one b gene. As long as the b gene was passed on, the blue eye trait could remain dormant for generations. You could have 6 generations of brown eyes and then blue.

So... the short answer to your question would be... recessive genes exist because there are also dominant genes. People don't get one gene for everything, they get 2. One from each parent. In actuallity, there are 4 different combinations for every set of chromosomes... (Interesting fact, there are 67,108,864 [4^ 13] possible chromosome pairings for every 'normal' child. There are more if you count single X/Y or XXY, but these occurances are rare and seldom live long.)

As for how to propogate these changes, you're right. The odds of these changes being put forward are slim, unless they are a domoant trait. Then the odds are 50/50 or better. It could be 100% if the carrier was double dominant. Meaning, both chromosome responsible for the given trait are dominant. Given enough time, the trait would spread. If you're thinking along the lines of humans, its very easy to see how evolution would be foolish. A single human lives for about 70 years and can have, on average, 5-10 offspring. Any differences would either be weeded out with medicine, abortion, or other things, like noone desires to procreate with the mutant. Mutations in humans are hard to see because even though we live a long time, we don't have as many offspring. However, if you want proof, how can you tell someone is from Japan or China? Both regions were known for their desire to remain detached. Hell, Japan has only been open to the world for 150 years or so.
If you look at things like insects, or bateria, you can see the course of adatation and evolution occur much quicker.

I think a lot of creationist find evolution so hard to believe because they tend to be rather narrow minded to begin with and fail to look at things beyond a human vantage point.

Humans as we know them have been around for anywhere between 40-10 millions years, depending or your source. Most higher mammals have been how they are now for many millions of years and have changed little. This is because higher mammals live longer and reproduce less. Think about a MMORPG. When do you level faster, as a level 1 or a level 60? Humans are about level 60. We're pretty damn specialized and its going to take a lot of work to upgrade us any more.... However, to get to this point, IE bacteria, fish, lizards, simple mammals, etc, took considerably less time because lower forms live for less time and reproduce several hundred times more than humans. One fish in one year can make thousands of eggs. The chances for change are much greater, and the benefits/costs of changes are readily apparant. The first fish to grow legs could run out of the water, pretty handy deveopment in a time were 99% of all live was aquatic. He'd run to shore, survive and breed His 1000 kids would all run to shore, survive and breed. Their 1,000,000 would survive, run to shore and breed.

The ability of a mutation to perpetuate is all relative to how great an advantage it presents.


If you want a more modern example, a lot of people in Africa have a form of sycle cell anemia. So? Well, anemia is a disease where you have very thin blood and bleed easily. This comes from your bloodcells being weak and rupturing. This sounds like a bad thing until you think about how many blood born illnesses there are in Africa. Ebola and malaria for example. When these diseases infect their already weak bloodcells, they self destruct and prevent the virus from spreading.


Uh... I didn't mean to type that much.

[alonzomourning23]

I don't think you really understand the full reproductive process. I'll keep it simple and as correct as possible. The genetic patern of any living being is stored in its DNA or chromosomes. When two life forms reproduce, they pool together their chromosomes. The new life form doesn't take these as-is, however. The human genome has, I believe, 13 pairs of chromosomes, 13 from each parent. Parts are swapped between to pairs of chomosomes and changes are made. These changes occur for several reasons. The most important of them, is varience. If you know the effects of inbreeding, then you know why this is important. If the chromosomes where passes on without change, the chances of spreading very harmful recessive traits increases. Recessive traits are exactly what they sound like. Blue eyes are a recessive trait, its possible for two people with brown eyes to have children with blue eyes. Say B is brown and b is blue. Bb would say your parrents had the genes for both brown and blue eyes. They have two sets because this information is encoded on two separate chromosomes (13 pairs= two code sets).
...B..|.b.
B|BB|Bb|
b|Bb|bb|

Don't know what that means? Its simply a vissual representation of a childs chances to get blue eyes. The top Bb would be the choromosomes from one parent and the Bb on the side would be from the other. Since people have 26 chromosomes, 13 pairs, when reproducing, parents only give their children 13, or one of each chromosome from their pairs. Theres a 50/50 chance the parents could give either B or b. If each parent gave B, then the child would be BB, or have brown eyes. If only one gave B, the child would still have brown eyes. This is because blue is a recessive trait, meaning, if there is a chromosome for brown, blue will be overridden. Only if both parents give the b gene will the child have blue eyes. Where did the Bb for the parents come from? Well, maybe the grand parents had blue eyes, that for sure would give the parents at least one b gene. As long as the b gene was passed on, the blue eye trait could remain dormant for generations. You could have 6 generations of brown eyes and then blue.

So... the short answer to your question would be... recessive genes exist because there are also dominant genes. People don't get one gene for everything, they get 2. One from each parent. In actuallity, there are 4 different combinations for every set of chromosomes... (Interesting fact, there are 67,108,864 [4^ 13] possible chromosome pairings for every 'normal' child. There are more if you count single X/Y or XXY, but these occurances are rare and seldom live long.)

As for how to propogate these changes, you're right. The odds of these changes being put forward are slim, unless they are a domoant trait. Then the odds are 50/50 or better. It could be 100% if the carrier was double dominant. Meaning, both chromosome responsible for the given trait are dominant. Given enough time, the trait would spread. If you're thinking along the lines of humans, its very easy to see how evolution would be foolish. A single human lives for about 70 years and can have, on average, 5-10 offspring. Any differences would either be weeded out with medicine, abortion, or other things, like noone desires to procreate with the mutant. Mutations in humans are hard to see because even though we live a long time, we don't have as many offspring. However, if you want proof, how can you tell someone is from Japan or China? Both regions were known for their desire to remain detached. Hell, Japan has only been open to the world for 150 years or so.
If you look at things like insects, or bateria, you can see the course of adatation and evolution occur much quicker.

I think a lot of creationist find evolution so hard to believe because they tend to be rather narrow minded to begin with and fail to look at things beyond a human vantage point.

Humans as we know them have been around for anywhere between 40-10 millions years, depending or your source. Most higher mammals have been how they are now for many millions of years and have changed little. This is because higher mammals live longer and reproduce less. Think about a MMORPG. When do you level faster, as a level 1 or a level 60? Humans are about level 60. We're pretty damn specialized and its going to take a lot of work to upgrade us any more.... However, to get to this point, IE bacteria, fish, lizards, simple mammals, etc, took considerably less time because lower forms live for less time and reproduce several hundred times more than humans. One fish in one year can make thousands of eggs. The chances for change are much greater, and the benefits/costs of changes are readily apparant. The first fish to grow legs could run out of the water, pretty handy deveopment in a time were 99% of all live was aquatic. He'd run to shore, survive and breed His 1000 kids would all run to shore, survive and breed. Their 1,000,000 would survive, run to shore and breed.

The ability of a mutation to perpetuate is all relative to how great an advantage it presents.


If you want a more modern example, a lot of people in Africa have a form of sycle cell anemia. So? Well, anemia is a disease where you have very thin blood and bleed easily. This comes from your bloodcells being weak and rupturing. This sounds like a bad thing until you think about how many blood born illnesses there are in Africa. Ebola and malaria for example. When these diseases infect their already weak bloodcells, they self destruct and prevent the virus from spreading.


Uh... I didn't mean to type that much.

You sure you don't live in toronto? My science and technologies professor gave a very similar lecture a few hours ago, down to the blue eye and sickle cell anemria examples (except he used the connection between sickle cell anemia and malaria). Though when you started talking about human evolution you went a bit off. Modern humans haven't been around 10-40 million years, the use of higher/lower animals is questionable (lizards, turtles, birds etc often live very long lives, but their intelligence is dwarfed by a rat, which lives about 1 year in the wild, 2.5-5 in captivity, I assume you are saying the more intelligent ones are higher). Also, humans have evolved very rapidly in comparison to many fish, reptiles etc, but not when compared to bacteria and the like.

[Kayden]

You sure you don't live in toronto? My science and technologies professor gave a very similar lecture a few hours ago, down to the blue eye and sickle cell anemria examples (except he used the connection between sickle cell anemia and malaria). Though when you started talking about human evolution you went a bit off. Modern humans haven't been around 10-40 million years, the use of higher/lower animals is questionable (lizards, turtles, birds etc often live very long lives, but their intelligence is dwarfed by a rat, which lives about 1 year in the wild, 2.5-5 in captivity, I assume you are saying the more intelligent ones are smarter). Also, humans have evolved very rapidly in comparison to many fish, reptiles etc, but not when compared to bacteria and the like.

Thats why I said 10-40 million years... theres a lot of speculation and theory. It seems every month, someone finds a skeleton that totally alters the model for human ancestery. As for Toronto... never been... maybe he's a CAG and ripped me off...

As for what I meant by 'higher' lifeforms... I was refering more along the lines of evolution-wise. Sharks and allogators are two of the most evolved, yet ancient, creatures on the planet. I was speaking more of newts and gekos, simple types like them.

Reguarding the evolution rate of fish and other lizards... perhapse the reason they don't evolve very fast now is because they have hit a plateau. The basic design of a fish is very simple. Maybe they quickly branched out in the first few million years and have just been refining ever since. Almost like martial arts. They've been around for ages, formed off common priciples and have changed little over the years.

[alonzomourning23]

Thats why I said 10-40 million years... theres a lot of speculation and theory. It seems every month, someone finds a skeleton that totally alters the model for human ancestery. As for Toronto... never been... maybe he's a CAG and ripped me off...

As for what I meant by 'higher' lifeforms... I was refering more along the lines of evolution-wise. Sharks and allogators are two of the most evolved, yet ancient, creatures on the planet. I was speaking more of newts and gekos, simple types like them.

Reguarding the evolution rate of fish and other lizards... perhapse the reason they don't evolve very fast now is because they have hit a plateau. The basic design of a fish is very simple. Maybe they quickly branched out in the first few million years and have just been refining ever since. Almost like martial arts. They've been around for ages, formed off common priciples and have changed little over the years.

umm..... I'd be shocked if you could find one scientist who thinks its 10-40 million years. The timeline for the earliest human is usually 2.5-6 million years ago (depending on where you draw the line, on a side not an increasing amount of scientists believe chimps are human, which may push the timeline back a bit more though I don't really know), with modern humans (homosapiens) appearing 100-200k years ago.

You seem to agree with the idea of "the great chain of being", an idea put forth by the catholic church, and adhered to by pre darwin evolutionary theorists. Evolution is more of a tree, with branches going off in random directions.

[Kayden]

umm..... I'd be shocked if you could find one scientist who thinks its 10-40 million years. The timeline for the earliest human is usually 2.5-6 million years ago (depending on where you draw the line, on a side not an increasing amount of scientists believe chimps are human, which may push the timeline back a bit more though I don't really know), with modern humans (homosapiens) appearing 100-200k years ago.

You seem to agree with the idea of "the great chain of being", an idea put forth by the catholic church, and adhered to by pre darwin evolutionary theorists. Evolution is more of a tree, with branches going off in random directions.

Thats what I meant! I couldnt figure out why I wanted to say 100 million.... I was thinking 100-40 thousand xD

I was trying to say more like a tree... but when they first branched off is when they did the most changing, after that point they stayed the same for the most part.

[camoor]

I think some people here are arguing against the theory of evolution for the sole reason they can't stand the thought that their sacred book contains stories that are not meant to be read literally (despite the numerous contradictions therein). The same types impeded scientific advance in the Muslim world of the late tenth century and were persecuting Galileo in the 17th century.

Although Kayden and Alonzo, y'all sure know your biology :lol:

[dmpolska]

Democrats are the only "Wrong-way evolution." ;)

[elprincipe]

Well for your first question if not for evolution how did human and all other life come to be on this planet? Did the Dinosaurs exist? and if they did why can't we find fossels of humans from the same time period? If you wish to claim that evolution is false I would be interested to see what you believe instead.

It's not so much that I don't believe evolution couldn't be true, just more of I'm not nearly convinced that it has been proven beyond any doubt, enough that people call it "fact". Given the myriad of questions surrounding evolution and that some of these questions, I feel, have very weak to nonexistent responses from people claiming the Theory of Evolution to be fact, I don't see why, barring further evidence, I should believe in evolution any more than I believe in the Loch Ness Monster. Come back when there is some more convincing evidence. I doubt we'll be close to the answer for some time to come, however.

[zionoverfire]

It's not so much that I don't believe evolution couldn't be true, just more of I'm not nearly convinced that it has been proven beyond any doubt, enough that people call it "fact". Given the myriad of questions surrounding evolution and that some of these questions, I feel, have very weak to nonexistent responses from people claiming the Theory of Evolution to be fact, I don't see why, barring further evidence, I should believe in evolution any more than I believe in the Loch Ness Monster. Come back when there is some more convincing evidence. I doubt we'll be close to the answer for some time to come, however.

I see, well like you said the Theory of Evolution is a theory, the problem becomes that most of the really important and neat stuff in science is theory: gravity, quantum mechanics, black holes, evolution, and quite a lot of it would be rather difficult to prove under todays scientific standards. But I must say there is far more evidence that supports the theory of evolution than there is in support of the Loch Ness Monster, but if you don't want to belive in it no one is forcing you to, except the US school system :rofl:.

[camoor]

It's not so much that I don't believe evolution couldn't be true, just more of I'm not nearly convinced that it has been proven beyond any doubt, enough that people call it "fact". Given the myriad of questions surrounding evolution and that some of these questions, I feel, have very weak to nonexistent responses from people claiming the Theory of Evolution to be fact, I don't see why, barring further evidence, I should believe in evolution any more than I believe in the Loch Ness Monster. Come back when there is some more convincing evidence. I doubt we'll be close to the answer for some time to come, however.

So you're saying that the theory of evolution has as much validity as the dubious "proofs" of the Loch Ness monster?

No wonder it's so easy for you to believe in magical carpenters, talking snakes, and super apples that can boost your intelligence.

[alonzomourning23]

So you're saying that the theory of evolution has as much validity as the dubious "proofs" of the Loch Ness monster?

No wonder it's so easy for you to believe in magical carpenters, talking snakes, and super apples that can boost your intelligence.

Most of the questions asked by creationists, often due to their lack of education in evolution, are questions that have already been answered. Basically every question that elprincipe's page linked to has been answered, though unless you've study evolution in depth, which probably none of us have, you likely don't know it off the top of your head. Another thing is the argument that "well we find it to be lacking in evidence", so instead they cling to a theory that has no physical evidence, just scriptural evidence. One of the main questions (not so much evolution but origin of the universe) is where everything came from. The problem here is they simply take one step back, while the big bang theory does not explain the absolute beginning of everything, neither does god. Either god or an explosion started everything (or something that hasn't been suggested or accepted as possible yet), but nothing explains what was there to create the environment that an explosion or god occured in.

Though I don't think elprincipe is religious, which makes his opinions odd when compared with the general views of nonreligious people.

[chunk]

Most of the questions asked by creationists, often due to their lack of education in evolution, are questions that have already been answered. Basically every question that elprincipe's page linked to has been answered, though unless you've study evolution in depth, which probably none of us have, you likely don't know it off the top of your head. Another thing is the argument that "well we find it to be lacking in evidence", so instead they cling to a theory that has no physical evidence, just scriptural evidence. One of the main questions (not so much evolution but origin of the universe) is where everything came from. The problem here is they simply take one step back, while the big bang theory does not explain the absolute beginning of everything, neither does god. Either god or an explosion started everything (or something that hasn't been suggested or accepted as possible yet), but nothing explains what was there to create the environment that an explosion or god occured in.

Though I don't think elprincipe is religious, which makes his opinions odd when compared with the general views of nonreligious people.

Just because an answer is given, that doesn't make it satisfactory or scientific. The biological sciences are at least 150 years behind the physical sciences and I would say that evolution is probably the weakest link in the biological sciences.

Controlled experiments are a essential part of science and they are practically nonexistent when it comes to evolution. Seriously, how many of those "answers" are backed by controlled experiments instead of spinning an explanation to fit uncontrolled data. Having a plausible explanation doesn't make it a correct explanation.

I think that part of the problem is that evolution is viewed as some kind of alternative to religious thought, which it is not. Fanatical atheists feel a need a trumpet that evolution has somehow put to rest religious thought, when it is really very lacking in scientific terms.

It is like evolution avoids scientific scrutiny, simply because of its potential as an alternative to religious thought. Opponents rightfully point out that it is lacking in evidence. The same doesn't apply to some alternative theories because they aren't purely scientific and, therefore, don't depend solely on physical evidence. In other words, evolution is a scientific theory, so it must be supported with physical experimental evidence. On the other hand, theories which are not strictly scientific can be supplemented with nonphysical reasoning and evidence.

Now, whether a weak scientific theory is better than a nonscientific theory is debateable, but the criticism of evolution is certainly not unwarranted. There is a reason why good scientific theories are universally accepted and if evolution wants the same respect then it has to meet the same standard.

I will admit that I am religious, but before you write me off as some kind of religious zealot you should know that I wasn't always religious. At one time I was an atheist and I didn't find evolution to be a sound theory then either. In fact, I know biologists who are atheists who don't buy into the theory of evolution. So don't believe everything your teacher says when they claim that evolution is a theory accepted by all biologists.

[alonzomourning23]

Just because an answer is given, that doesn't make it satisfactory or scientific. The biological sciences are at least 150 years behind the physical sciences and I would say that evolution is probably the weakest link in the biological sciences.

Controlled experiments are a essential part of science and they are practically nonexistent when it comes to evolution. Seriously, how many of those "answers" are backed by controlled experiments instead of spinning an explanation to fit uncontrolled data. Having a plausible explanation doesn't make it a correct explanation.

I think that part of the problem is that evolution is viewed as some kind of alternative to religious thought, which it is not. Fanatical atheists feel a need a trumpet that evolution has somehow put to rest religious thought, when it is really very lacking in scientific terms.

It is like evolution avoids scientific scrutiny, simply because of its potential as an alternative to religious thought. Opponents rightfully point out that it is lacking in evidence. The same doesn't apply to some alternative theories because they aren't purely scientific and, therefore, don't depend solely on physical evidence. In other words, evolution is a scientific theory, so it must be supported with physical experimental evidence. On the other hand, theories which are not strictly scientific can be supplemented with nonphysical reasoning and evidence.

Now, whether a weak scientific theory is better than a nonscientific theory is debateable, but the criticism of evolution is certainly not unwarranted. There is a reason why good scientific theories are universally accepted and if evolution wants the same respect then it has to meet the same standard.

I will admit that I am religious, but before you write me off as some kind of religious zealot you should know that I wasn't always religious. At one time I was an atheist and I didn't find evolution to be a sound theory then either. In fact, I know biologists who are atheists who don't buy into the theory of evolution. So don't believe everything your teacher says when they claim that evolution is a theory accepted by all biologists.

Examples of controlled evidence, off the top of my head, would include bacteria, fruit flies (taking 1 species, splitting them into 2 populations, ending up with 2 different species that cannot interbreed). Also while not experiments, dogs, cats (even look at a siamese cat in the 50's vs today), rats (domestic ones vs wild ones are relatively obvious, particularly in the varity of domestic colors), ferrets etc. Other examples would be viruses, bacteria, how some european populations developed resistance to bubonic plague (A receptor on cells that plague used to attach to is not there), and as mentioned earlier, african populations (mainly sub saharan) with partial defense against malaria due to mild sickle cell anemia. That defense against malaria is becoming less and less prevalent in african americans whose ancestors had it. Those are all evolution, some completely man controlled (dogs, cats, rats and ferrets), some which are witnessed in labs and throughout the world (bacteria, virus), some leading to major differences (cats, fruit flies, bacteria etc.), some major differences but still the same species (dogs, wolves etc).

My school never really touched on evolution heavily, didn't even mention creationism, but evolution was just mentioned in passing (it was a catholic school though), basically when it was required in biology but that was it. Creationism wasn't even suggested in religion classes. Essentially, creationism doesn't garner much support in MA. Though I would like someone to find me a respectable, non religious (basically so their religious views don't create a conflict of interests, don't really care if they believe in god or are christian or not) biologist who does not believe in evolution.

Evolution, in some rapidly producing animals (I've seen articles showing observed evolution of plants but I don't know anything about them), bacteria and viruses, is proven, in laboratories and the wild it can be proven. Evidence is strong genetically (mitchondrial eve, worst possible name to give her as she wasn't even the first (only the last) who could hold that title), being a good genetic example, where one womens mitochondrial DNA exists in the entire population that exists today, despite being the fact she was one of many female humans in existence at that time), it is strong in fossils as well, as you can see gradual changes in many animals over periods of time, features being closer to the animal that exists currently being newer fossils (compare an australopithicus with a homo sapien, and compare a homo erectus with a homo sapien).

But you missed my point, my point was not the strength of evolution. My point was that people run from one theory (evolution), claiming it lacks evidence, but then run to the hypothesis of creationism (if we're going to be technical that is all it is, since it needs to be well substantiated and have actual evidence to be a theory), which has no evidence whatsoever.


I think that part of the problem is that evolution is viewed as some kind of alternative to religious thought, which it is not. Fanatical atheists feel a need a trumpet that evolution has somehow put to rest religious thought, when it is really very lacking in scientific terms.

That may be true, if only fanatical atheists held it. As it stands, this is a ridiculous statement. Most evolutionists, pre and post darwin (darwin himself being religious when he originally professed evolution, only becoming an atheist later when his daughter died so young)

It is like evolution avoids scientific scrutiny, simply because of its potential as an alternative to religious thought. Opponents rightfully point out that it is lacking in evidence. The same doesn't apply to some alternative theories because they aren't purely scientific and, therefore, don't depend solely on physical evidence. In other words, evolution is a scientific theory, so it must be supported with physical experimental evidence. On the other hand, theories which are not strictly scientific can be supplemented with nonphysical reasoning and evidence.

Only things that can be tested in labs have valid evidence? Ok, guess heliocentrism isn't proven, out goes the earth being round, gravity, knowledge of galaxies etc. None of these can be tested in labs, but there is plenty of evidence.


Now, whether a weak scientific theory is better than a nonscientific theory is debateable, but the criticism of evolution is certainly not unwarranted. There is a reason why good scientific theories are universally accepted and if evolution wants the same respect then it has to meet the same standard.

It is accepted throughout much of the educated world (in terms of nations as a whole, not just certain sections), america being one of the few holdouts. Even the catholic church has little opposition to it now, with Pope John Paul II comparing the argument over evolution to the one facing Galileo, that evolution is not incompatable with religion. He leaned towards support of evolution, but never (at least publicly) stated agreement or support with either side.

“[N]ew findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypthesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.” Pope John Paul II

[chunk]

Examples of controlled evidence, off the top of my head, would include bacteria, fruit flies (taking 1 species, splitting them into 2 populations, ending up with 2 different species that cannot interbreed). Also while not experiments, dogs, cats (even look at a siamese cat in the 50's vs today), rats (domestic ones vs wild ones are relatively obvious, particularly in the varity of domestic colors), ferrets etc. Other examples would be viruses, bacteria, how some european populations developed resistance to bubonic plague (A receptor on cells that plague used to attach to is not there), and as mentioned earlier, african populations (mainly sub saharan) with partial defense against malaria due to mild sickle cell anemia. That defense against malaria is becoming less and less prevalent in african americans whose ancestors had it. Those are all evolution, some completely man controlled (dogs, cats, rats and ferrets), some which are witnessed in labs and throughout the world (bacteria, virus), some leading to major differences (cats, fruit flies, bacteria etc.), some major differences but still the same species (dogs, wolves etc).

I didn't say that there weren't any examples of controlled experiments. But there is hardly any compared to the scope which the theory proports to explain.

You're examples that aren't controlled experiments don't mean anything. All they show is that life changes over time, a process that was recognized long before the theory of evolution. The fact that they are consistent with evolutionary theory is meaningless. It could simply mean that evolutionary theory is nebulous enough to be consistent with almost anything.

You say that they are all due to evolution, but in most cases you have no evidence of that. They could be due to entirely different mechanisms. You don't know because they aren't part of a controlled experiment. That is very basic science, but evolutionary proponents don't seem to care. I have a few guesses as to why they don't care, but I won't bring it up because it will take the focus away from the topic at hand.

My school never really touched on evolution, didn't even mention creationism, but evolution was just mentioned in passing (it was a catholic school though). Creationism doesn't garner much support in MA. Though I would like someone to find me a respectable, non religious (basically so their religious views don't create a conflict of interests, don't really care if they believe in god or are christian or not) biologist who does not believe in evolution.

Whoa. How do religious views create a conflict of interest any more than atheistic views do? No matter how you slice it, ANY preconceived notions create a conflict of interest when it comes to discovery.

In any case, my former boss is the man you are looking for (an atheist biologist who does not believe in evolution).

Evolution, in some rapidly producing animals (I've seen articles showing observed evolution of plants but I don't know anything about them), bacteria and viruses, is proven, in laboratories and the wild it can be proven. Evidence is strong genetically (mitchondrial eve, worst possible name to give her as she wasn't even the first (only the last) who could hold that title), being a good genetic example, where one womens mitochondrial DNA exists in the entire population that exists today, despite being the fact she was one of many female humans in existence at that time), it is strong in fossils as well, as you can see gradual changes in many animals over periods of time, features being closer to the animal that exists currently being newer fossils (compare an australopithicus with a homo sapien, and compare a homo erectus with a homo sapien).

But you missed my point, my point was not the strength of evolution. My point was that people run from one theory (evolution), claiming it lacks evidence, but then run to the hypothesis of creationism (if we're going to be technical that is all it is, since it needs to be well substantiated and have actual evidence to be a theory), which has no evidence whatsoever.

No you're missing the point that creationism is not a scientific theory. So it isn't that people are running from a weak scientific theory to an even weaker one. It is that people are running from a weak scientific theory to a nonscientific theory.

As you said earlier, it's not that there is no evidence for creationism. It is just that the evidence is primarily scriptural and not scientific.

Now if you don't accept scriptural evidence as authoritative then that is fine, but certainly you would agree that, in the extreme, a large body of scriptural evidence (even if interpreted from a purely anthropological viewpoint) is more authoritative than an infinitesimal amount of physical evidence. For example, there isn't really much physical evidence that the Jews were slaves in Egypt, but there is tons of anthropological evidence (most of it coming from religious writings) and, despite the lack of a good scientific theory, it is generally accepted that they were in fact slaves in Egypt.

So then the question is at what point does adding physical evidence become enough to trump scriptural evidence? Well that depends on how strict you are about your science and whether or not you give scriptural evidence more weight than its pure anthropological value. If you are a very strict scientist then you will require a great deal of physical evidence to trump the scriptural evidence. On the other hand, if you are a very loose scientist then you might be convinced by almost anything.

However, the beauty of science is not that a weak scientific theory is better than a nonscientific one, but that a strong scientific theory can be agreed upon by everyone, regardless of religious or political or personal point of view.

So the way I see it, there is no need for evolutionary proponents to try to push the theory. The only reason they need to is because the theory isn't strong enough to stand on its own two legs. If evolution were as sure as they make it out to be, then it would be irrefutable and everyone would inevitably agree.

Look at heliocentrism. No one came along to save that one from religious boogiemen. Nevertheless, it became an accepted fact. If evolution is a valid scientific theory then it will transcend social biases on its own.

That may be true, if only fanatical atheists held it. As it stands, this is a ridiculous statement.

It doesn't seem so ridiculous to me. Most of the fanatical atheists that I know are more hellbent on destroying religion than anything else. I'm not saying that all atheists are like that, but in my experience the fanatical ones are. Perhaps I just know weird people. How would you describe the fanatical atheists that you know?

Only things that can be tested in labs have valid evidence? Ok, guess heliocentrism isn't proven, out goes the earth being round, gravity, knowledge of galaxies etc. None of these can be tested in labs, but there is plenty of evidence.

It doesn't need to be in a lab to be a controlled experiment. You can walk (or at least sail) around the globe to prove that it is round. You can also look at satellite pictures among other things. Most importantly, you can compare these to a nonround object.

Similarly for heliocentrism and gravity.

However, as of yet no one can evolve a gorilla into a man to prove the origin of homosapiens. Where is the control? Tell me, what does it look like when a homosapien doesn't evolve from a gorilla compared to when it does? Sure you can say what you might imagine it would look like, but you can't test whether your intuition is correct. That isn't science. Science is about controlled experiments.

(I won't touch galaxies except to say that astronomy has its own problems.)

It is accepted throughout much of the educated world (in terms of nations as a whole, not just certain sections), america being one of the few holdouts. Even the catholic church has little opposition to it now, with Pope John Paul II comparing the argument over evolution to the one facing Galileo, that evolution is not incompatable with religion. He leaned towards support of evolution, but never (at least publicly) stated agreement or support with either side.


I wasn't talking about being accepted by the world at large. I was talking about being accepted by me and other likeminded individuals. I don't give a damn what the Pope says or anybody else. The theory is scientifically lacking.

[alonzomourning23]

I didn't say that there weren't any examples of controlled experiments. But there is hardly any compared to the scope which the theory proports to explain.

You're examples that aren't controlled experiments don't mean anything. All they show is that life changes over time, a process that was recognized long before the theory of evolution. The fact that they are consistent with evolutionary theory is meaningless. It could simply mean that evolutionary theory is nebulous enough to be consistent with almost anything.


The fact that life changes over time is not accepted by many creationists (outside of some man made ones such as dogs), and was not accepted before evolution to many on religious grounds. Every species that exists has always existed is what some, and most before evolution became prominent, believed. Fossils called it into question, but all the did was change it from "all that ever existed exists" to "all that exists today has always existed". And if you believe that things change over time, then that is evolution. The idea of evolution is not darwins, and had existed long before, but he made it acceptable.

You say that they are all due to evolution, but in most cases you have no evidence of that. They could be due to entirely different mechanisms. You don't know because they aren't part of a controlled experiment. That is very basic science, but evolutionary proponents don't seem to care. I have a few guesses as to why they don't care, but I won't bring it up because it will take the focus away from the topic at hand.

Again, what evidence do we have of heliocentrism? Of plate tectonics?


Whoa. How do religious views create a conflict of interest any more than atheistic views do? No matter how you slice it, ANY preconceived notions create a conflict of interest when it comes to discovery.

Atheism is not a worldview outside of a lack of god, and I said nonreligious, meaning not devout, likely not atheist. Someone who believes in a literal interpretation of the bible is clearly at a conflict of interest, someone who doesn't care about the bible one way or another has much less of a conflict.


No you're missing the point that creationism is not a scientific theory. So it isn't that people are running from a weak scientific theory to an even weaker one. It is that people are running from a weak scientific theory to a nonscientific theory.

As you said earlier, it's not that there is no evidence for creationism. It is just that the evidence is primarily scriptural and not scientific.

Now if you don't accept scriptural evidence as authoritative then that is fine, but certainly you would agree that, in the extreme, a large body of scriptural evidence (even if interpreted from a purely anthropological viewpoint) is more authoritative than an infinitesimal amount of physical evidence. For example, there isn't really much physical evidence that the Jews were slaves in Egypt, but there is tons of anthropological evidence (most of it coming from religious writings) and, despite the lack of a good scientific theory, it is generally accepted that they were in fact slaves in Egypt.

So then the question is at what point does adding physical evidence become enough to trump scriptural evidence? Well that depends on how strict you are about your science and whether or not you give scriptural evidence more weight than its pure anthropological value. If you are a very strict scientist then you will require a great deal of physical evidence to trump the scriptural evidence. On the other hand, if you are a very loose scientist then you might be convinced by almost anything.

Evidence always trumps scripture, no matter how small. Scientifically, scriptural evidence is worth zilch. A true scientist, when faced with no scientific evidence but a pile of scriptural evidence, will say there is no basis to the hypothesis. Scripture may provide historians where to look, to see if there is a basis (ie. noah's flood texts originated from a summarian text, but in a less religious, and more realistic, way). Scriptural evidence will never get beyond "well, this place might exists, we really don't know, there isn't evidence to the contrary but there isn't evidence for it" without historical evidence to back it up. Now, what you call scriptural may differ. Biblical texts are rarely taken in their current state, due to the amounts of translations that have occured. Now ancient scriptural texts from the time of the event have much value. Basically, scripture is valuable when referring to history, worthless when referring to biological science.

The israelites as slaves in egypt is accepted among the common population, but very much debated among scholars and archeologists. Though there is much debate over whether the exodus happened, and it almost certainly didn't happen in the way the bible suggests (even if you remove the divine aspects of it), this view is strongly favored by archeologists. Even some liberal rabbi's and jewish scholars have expressed their doubt, stating that there has been almost no evidence found to suggest that it happened in the way the tora states, if at all. Now part of the problem is the way egyptians kept records, they never recorded defeats, only victories, so finding egyptian hyroglyphics is highly unlikely even if they did exist. But still, there isn't really any evidence to suggest the exodus occured. Here's a link about a prominent rabbi who expressed this view http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=8301

However, the beauty of science is not that a weak scientific theory is better than a nonscientific one, but that a strong scientific theory can be agreed upon by everyone, regardless of religious or political or personal point of view.

That's not true, science does not require agreement from the uneducated.

So the way I see it, there is no need for evolutionary proponents to try to push the theory. The only reason they need to is because the theory isn't strong enough to stand on its own two legs. If evolution were as sure as they make it out to be, then it would be irrefutable and everyone would inevitably agree.

Look at heliocentrism. No one came along to save that one from religious boogiemen. Nevertheless, it became an accepted fact. If evolution is a valid scientific theory then it will transcend social biases on its own.

Shhhhhh....... don't tell that to copernicus, kepler, galileo, giordano bruno etc. Also, I also probably shouldn't mention the 25% of americans who think that the sun revolves around the earth (I can post the study if you want, I made a topic in the off topic forum making fun of them)



It doesn't seem so ridiculous to me. Most of the fanatical atheists that I know are more hellbent on destroying religion than anything else. I'm not saying that all atheists are like that, but in my experience the fanatical ones are. Perhaps I just know weird people. How would you describe the fanatical atheists that you know?

I see many more religious people hellbent on destroying atheism. Though I don't like most atheists, they often tend to be rebellious young idiots whose beliefs have little duration. Most older atheists are not like that. I have just as little respect for religious fanatics. They shut their eye to anything that could possibly disagree with them, and lash out just as violently at any supposedly "dangerous" knowledge. That being said, I was friends with, and very much respected, a very devout evangelical. But, he also believed in a sharp distinction between science/religion, and church/state. His ideas of how the secular should be run were as liberal as mine (pro gay marriage, evolution, no church interference in government, no bible texts in courts etc.), but his views on religion was very conservative. That being said, atheists make up a very small portion of evolution supporters, and this has no basis in this argument.


It doesn't need to be in a lab to be a controlled experiment. You can walk (or at least sail) around the globe to prove that it is round. You can also look at satellite pictures among other things. Most importantly, you can compare these to a nonround object.

Similarly for heliocentrism and gravity.

However, as of yet no one can evolve a gorilla into a man to prove the origin of homosapiens. Where is the control? Tell me, what does it look like when a homosapien doesn't evolve from a gorilla compared to when it does? Sure you can say what you might imagine it would look like, but you can't test whether your intuition is correct. That isn't science. Science is about controlled experiments.

Homosapiens and gorillas are two separate beings, that branched apart about 5-7 million years ago. The species that they branched off into have long gone extinct, they are descendents of them.

I wasn't talking about being accepted by the world at large. I was talking about being accepted by me and other likeminded individuals. I don't give a damn what the Pope says or anybody else. The theory is scientifically lacking.

There aren't many theories with more evidence than evolution, which is why in biology the agreement is nearly universal. There may be arguments as in how or why, but there is little in whether evolution occurs. My opinion? Most of creationist supporters are reading a book, they're going to keep quoting that book no matter what evidence is presented. As long as they stay locked up in their own world, and realize in a secular state religion cannot be taught in school (which is what creationism is, especially in its current state) I don't care. Elprincipes link to the creationist website earlier is a perfect example, the questions asked in it are due to ignorance, science had provided answer to the vast majority. He didn't even attack the evidence, the guy had no idea it existed, or simply didn't understand what it was (ie. he thought genes were blended, he didn't understand dominant and recessive). You want to provide scientific evidence fine, I'll listen to you. These people don't. Not to make assumptions about you, but you don't see to even fully understand how evolution is supposed to work, but I can't be certain. Just going on a few odd comments. You do seem to really a lot of what the general population things, and common wisdom, a very poor way to approach knowledge.

Here's an idea. I've said why there is plenty of evidence to back it up, you keep insisting it is lacking. State how it is lacking, poke as many hole into it as you can. As it is, all you are saying is unless we can actually witness it (and we can in fast reproducing species) there isn't evidence to support it. You keep saying theories and evidence aren't enough, theories I'd agree with but evidence not being enough I find to be grasping at straws. With your logic anything we can't physically witness (plate tectonics we can't witness) does not have valid scientific support. But again, evolution in quickly reproducing species is witnessed.

[chunk]

The fact that life changes over time is not accepted by many creationists (outside of some man made ones such as dogs), and was not accepted before evolution to many on religious grounds. Every species that exists has always existed is what some, and most before evolution became prominent, believed. Fossils called it into question, but all the did was change it from "all that ever existed exists" to "all that exists today has always existed". And if you believe that things change over time, then that is evolution. The idea of evolution is not darwins, and had existed long before, but he made it acceptable.

I think we are getting into the problem that the word "evolution" means too many different things. Yes of course evolution in the simplest sense means change, but the theory of the origin of species put initially put forth by darwin is what is commonly referred to with the term "evolution".

I think you would be surprised to find that life changing over time is accepted by many of them. However, life can change over time without new species originating. Many of them believe that life changed, but new species did not originate. Now of course, things get slippery because how do you define a species.

In any case, there is very little in the way of controlled experiments that proves anything about how the current species of earth originated.

What has been shown is small changes that satisfy a few technical definitions for species. However, there is very little evidence (in terms of controlled experiments) to show that the same mechanisms could account for the variety of life on earth.

There is a huge difference between showing that two fruitflies are incapable of breeding and showing that amebas could produce men. One has scientific support, the other is pure speculation.


Again, what evidence do we have of heliocentrism?


Well it depends what you mean by heliocentrism. Certainly we understand the way our solar system works. We sent a probe to mars and brought back rocks. We sent another probe into space. We can observe the difference. It is a controlled experiment.

Now if you mean how do we know that the sun is the center of the solarsystem and not the earth then I would say it is all in the definition of center. We have demonstrated with controlled experiments that considering the sun at the center is a noninertial frame of reference. So if by center you mean noninertial frame of reference, then yes we have have controlled experiments to prove it (see space travel above).

Atheism is not a worldview outside of a lack of god, and I said nonreligious, meaning not devout, likely not atheist. Someone who believes in a literal interpretation of the bible is clearly at a conflict of interest, someone who doesn't care about the bible one way or another has much less of a conflict.

Agreed, but everybody cares about something. I would believe someone who admits bias and promises to try to be impartial over someone who claims to be completely disinterested in everything.

Evidence always trumps scripture, no matter how small. Scientifically, scriptural evidence is worth zilch. A true scientist, when faced with no scientific evidence but a pile of scriptural evidence, will say there is no basis to the hypothesis. Scripture may provide historians where to look, to see if there is a basis (ie. noah's flood texts originated from a summarian text, but in a less religious, and more realistic, way). Now, what you call scriptural may differ. Biblical texts are rarely taken in their current state, due to the amounts of translations that have occured. Now ancient scriptural texts from the time of the event have much value. Basically, scripture is valuable when referring to history, worthless when referring to biological science.

Well in the context of science of course all nonscientific evidence is meaningless. But in the search for truth science is not the whole picture.

In other words, it may be worthless in the context of biological science, but biological science cannot explain everything. So at times you must abandon biological science for something else. In these situations, something that was worthless in the context of biological science may now be useful.

I am basically saying that biological science is doing a very poor job of explaining how species originated. So it is reasonable to turn to something else.


That's not true, science does not require agreement from the uneducated.


I'm not saying that science requires agreement from anyone. What I am saying is that science is useful because it boils down to empirical experience which is irrefutable. If it were not for this property then science would not be as respected as it is (and in my opinion rightfully so).

So although science doesn't require agreement from the uneducated, its primary importance is because it commands agreement from the uneducated (among others).


Shhhhhh....... don't tell that to copernicus, kepler, galileo, Giordano Bruno etc.

That is my point entirely. Regardless of wordwide opposition and persecution (sometimes ending in execution) from the most powerful institution on earth the theories still became accepted.

If the church, at the apex of its power, along with popular opposition couldn't stop those scientific theories then it certainly can't stop a good scientific theory today. The only thing that evolutionary proponents have to fear is that evolutionary theory isn't up to snuff. Ironically it is survival of the fittest for scientific theories. :)

I don't like most atheists, they often tend to be rebellious young idiots whose beliefs have little duration. Most older atheists are not like that. I have just as little respect for religious fanatics. They shut their eye to anything that could possibly disagree with them, and lash out just as violently at any supposedly "dangerous" knowledge. That being said, I was friends with, and very much respected, a very devout evangelical. But, he also believed in a sharp distinction between science/religion, and church/state. His ideas of how the secular should be run were as liberal as mine (pro gay marriage, evolution, no church interference in government, no bible texts in courts etc.), but his views on religion was very conservative. That being said, atheists make up a very small portion of evolution supporters, and this has no basis in this argument.

I agree entirely and I think I probably believe similarly to your friend. However, regarding atheists, I feel that they may be partially responsible for the unwarranted promotion of evolutionary theory. I could be wrong, but I think it is at least worth discussing which is why I brought it up.

Homosapiens and gorillas are two separate beings, that branched apart about 5-7 million years ago. The species that they branched off into have long gone extinct, they are descendents of them.

Your missing the point. Look you are illustrating my point. You can't conduct a controlled experiment to determine whether or not you said is even true.

Convincing scientific evidence would be this:
1.a. Start with the common ancestor between men and gorillas.
2.a. Evolve gorillas.
1.b. Start with the common ancestor between men and gorillas.
2.b. Evolve men.

This is a controlled experiment that proves that men and gorillas can evolve from the same species. This is how they do it in physics, this is how they do it in chemistry, and this is how they do it in other branches of biology. This is how science is done. Anything else is not science.

If you can't do a controlled experiment like this then you can't state scientifically that gorillas and men evolved from the same species. You can conjecture that it might be true, but scientifically you don't have any evidence. And I'm not even considering the fact that just because something can happen that doesn't mean that it does happen.

There aren't many theories with more evidence than evolution, which is why in biology the agreement is nearly universal. There may be arguments as in how or why, but there is little in whether evolution occurs. My opinion? Most of creationist supporters are reading a book, they're going to keep quoting that book no matter what evidence is presented. As long as they stay locked up in their own world I don't care. Elprincipes link to the creationist website earlier is a perfect example, the questions asked in it are due to ignorance, science had provided answer to the vast majority. He didn't even attack the evidence, the guy had no idea it existed, or simply didn't understand what it was (ie. he thought genes were blended, he didn't understand dominant and recessive). You want to provide scientific evidence fine, I'll listen to you. These people don't. Not to make assumptions about you, but you don't see to even fully understand how evolution is supposed to work, but I can't be certain. Just going on a few odd comments.

Here's an idea. I've said why there is plenty of evidence to back it up, you keep insisting it is lacking. State how it is lacking, poke as many hole into it as you can. As it is, all you are saying is unless we can actually witness it (and we can in fast reproducing species) there isn't evidence to support it. You keep saying theories and evidence aren't enough, theories I'd agree with but evidence not being enough I find to be grasping at straws. With your logic anything we can't physically witness (plate tectonics we can't witness) does not have valid scientific support. But again, evolution in quickly reproducing species is witnessed.

Maybe there aren't many biological theories with more evidence than evolution, but it certainly isn't the case with science at large.

I'm not saying that I have any evidence, but I don't feel that you have presented any scientific evidence at all regarding the origin of species.

Simple organisms can evolve into new species. So what? How do we know that this can occur in large organisms?

We know that large organisms have mechanisms for stopping cancer. How do we know that they don't have similar mechanisms for stopping the mutations which supposedly lead to evolution?

Just a few weeks ago I was reading about a plant that is able to revert back to the genes of its grandparents, even though the genes of the parents (both DNA and RNA) had completely mutated. How do we know that large organisms don't have similar mechanisms?

It should be obvious that anything we can't physically witness doesn't have scientific support. That is what science is. Here is the scientific method:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Evolutionary theory definitely does #1 and #2. To a very limited extent it does #3. However, the predictions of other phenomena in the case of evolution are primarily qualitative and not quantitative. Forget about #4, to the best of my knowledge this has only been performed in a handful of cases in very limited circumstances.

Prediction is the primary test for a scientific theory and evolution doesn't make any predictions when it comes to large organisms. Everything is chalked up to environmental pressures so that no matter what the results are it is always assumed that the environmental pressures are whatever would have lead to those results.

The evidence that you present isn't really evidence. It is terribly easy to fit a wrong hypothesis to data that you already have. Especially when you can pick and choose which fossils are "meaningful", effectively throwing out all the data points that don't agree with your theory.

I concede that evolutionary scientists have a tougher job than scientists in other fields because if evolution does occur as they claim then it occurs very slowly. However, that doesn't give them a free pass.

What if gravity pulled at 9.8*10^-6 meters/second. Would Newton be off the hook when it came to experiments? Should we just take his word for it? Well we could just take his word, but then it wouldn't be science. Also, more than likely he probably wouldn't have paid attention long enough to develop a good theory and probably would have came up with something much more simplistic and erroneous.

Such is the case when it comes to evolution. They don't do experiments because experiments are too difficult, but that doesn't get them off the hook. On the contrary the fact that the experiments are hard to do makes the theory much more suspicious.

Don't get me wrong. I accept the evidence that there is. However, the evidence is meager and the claims are grandiose.

[alonzomourning23]

Before I respond, just want to point out that I added a bit to my post about the exodus (you responded while I was typing):

The israelites as slaves in egypt is accepted among the common population, but very much debated among scholars and archeologists. Though there is much debate over whether the exodus happened, and it almost certainly didn't happen in the way the bible suggests (even if you remove the divine aspects of it), this view is strongly favored by archeologists. Even some liberal rabbi's and jewish scholars have expressed their doubt, stating that there has been almost no evidence found to suggest that it happened in the way the tora states, if at all. Now part of the problem is the way egyptians kept records, they never recorded defeats, only victories, so finding egyptian hyroglyphics is highly unlikely even if they did exist. But still, there isn't really any evidence to suggest the exodus occured. Here's a link about a prominent rabbi who expressed this view http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=8301

Also, 25% of the american population believes the sun circles the earth.

[chunk]

Before I respond, just want to point out that I added a bit to my post about the exodus (you responded while I was typing):

The israelites as slaves in egypt is accepted among the common population, but very much debated among scholars and archeologists. Though there is much debate over whether the exodus happened, and it almost certainly didn't happen in the way the bible suggests (even if you remove the divine aspects of it), this view is strongly favored by archeologists. Even some liberal rabbi's and jewish scholars have expressed their doubt, stating that there has been almost no evidence found to suggest that it happened in the way the tora states, if at all. Now part of the problem is the way egyptians kept records, they never recorded defeats, only victories, so finding egyptian hyroglyphics is highly unlikely even if they did exist. But still, there isn't really any evidence to suggest the exodus occured. Here's a link about a prominent rabbi who expressed this view http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=8301

Also, 25% of the american population believes the sun circles the earth.

According to the article the only thing disputed is how many Israelites there were. This is no surprise to me as ancient number keeping was very approximate at times (especially when dealing with large numbers).

I would have to look into it, but if I had to guess I would say that the reason it is debated is probably because there is a lack of physical evidence, rather than there being evidence to the contrary. As I said, being that there isn't much physical evidence, most reasonable people would believe the written account.

In any case, it was just an example and I think you are veering off topic by nitpicking it. If you don't like it we can use another one. There isn't much physical evidence regarding the existence of jesus, but there are a lot of written accounts in the form of religious writings. So science is basically pretty silent regarding jesus. However, that doesn't mean there isn't any evidence.

Regarding the 25% of the american population. First of all, a poll like that really tells you more about the way it was worded than what the people actually believe. I'm sure if they worded the same thing differently they could have pushed that statistic anywhere from 0% to 100%.

Second of all. The sun does circle the earth. If you fix the center of your coordinate system at the earth then you will find that the position of the sun traces a circular shape. Of course this is not an inertia frame of reference, but that is a physical technicality which is probably beyond most people. Which celestial body circles which is really a matter of semantics.

[alonzomourning23]

What has been shown is small changes that satisfy a few technical definitions for species. However, there is very little evidence (in terms of controlled experiments) to show that the same mechanisms could account for the variety of life on earth.

There is a huge difference between showing that two fruitflies are incapable of breeding and showing that amebas could produce men. One has scientific support, the other is pure speculation.

Well, the similarity in embryos (not from amoebas of course, but other animals) to humans, and the fact that 60% of our DNA is shared by bacteria is evidence. Fossils also provide evidence of evolution. I think you have unrealistic expectations, if we only accepted what could be 100% absolutely observed, pretty much everything we know about ours, and the earths, past wouldn't be accepted.



Agreed, but everybody cares about something. I would believe someone who admits bias and promises to try to be impartial over someone who claims to be completely disinterested in everything.

No on is ever truly impartial. But a devoutly religious person is much more likely to look to scripture and their beliefs about god when doing scientific research, which is not something you want. Their religious views directly conflict, which is the problem.



Well in the context of science of course all nonscientific evidence is meaningless. But in the search for truth science is not the whole picture.

In other words, it may be worthless in the context of biological science, but biological science cannot explain everything. So at times you must abandon biological science for something else. In these situations, something that was worthless in the context of biological science may now be useful.

I am basically saying that biological science is doing a very poor job of explaining how species originated. So it is reasonable to turn to something else.

See, from my research there is massive amounts of evidence supporting evolution, and unless you start showing me the holes then I'm not going to think the suggestion otherwise is even reasonable.

But if science cannot explain it at the moment, then I simply say there is no valid explanation. Everything there is to know exists under science, obviously human science will never come even close to knowing that much, but everything is of the natural world, and can therefore be classified as science. The only truths in the bible, as far as I'm concerned, reflect human societies, beliefs etc. there is nothing that goes beyond human literature and societies that speak to truth in the bible. Since humans are themselves of the natural world (using only natural vs supernatural to describe things), even the bible is of the natural world.



I'm not saying that science requires agreement from anyone. What I am saying is that science is useful because it boils down to empirical experience which is irrefutable. If it were not for this property then science would not be as respected as it is (and in my opinion rightfully so).

So although science doesn't require agreement from the uneducated, its primary importance is because it commands agreement from the uneducated (among others).

The beliefs of the undeducated are important in how society is run, but utterly worthless when the validity of their beliefs is being debated. It should not even enter into discussion, unless it is a debate on sociology, psychology or related fields. But most of science is not irrefutable, but in this case most of the opposition is coming from outside the biological sciences and archeological community. If it were not for evolutions religious dilemmas, the debate on evolution would like be on how it occured, and not if it occured.


That is my point entirely. Regardless of wordwide opposition and persecution (sometimes ending in execution) from the most powerful institution on earth the theories still became accepted.

If the church, at the apex of its power, along with popular opposition couldn't stop those scientific theories then it certainly can't stop a good scientific theory today. The only thing that evolutionary proponents have to fear is that evolutionary theory isn't up to snuff. Ironically it is survival of the fittest for scientific theories. :)

Ok, lets look at the timeline though. Give the same timeline for evolution that heliocentrism had (once suggested by copernicus, as it had been suggested before), we are only at galileo, and we know how well his thinking fared, especially since it went against human perception and common sense. The earth being round was well accepted among the educated community in the 16th century and long before, go back to aristotle, and probably farther back (guessing here, I know it goes at least back to aristotle), and even aristotle knew the earth was round. But some of the religious community and much of the uneducated did not believe that, even during the time of columbus, about 2000 years later. Historically, ideas of religious importance have not been accepted among the public in the amount of time evolution has been around as an accepted theory among scholars. Again, evolution, moreso than heliocentrism/geocentrism, goes directly towards the nature and value of humans, nothing else has done that so clearly.

I agree entirely and I think I probably believe similarly to your friend. However, regarding atheists, I feel that they may be partially responsible for the unwarranted promotion of evolutionary theory. I could be wrong, but I think it is at least worth discussing which is why I brought it up.

The influence of atheists on anything is overstated. They represent such a small percentage of the population that their influence is negligable. Again, Darwin is claimed as an atheist, but he strongly believed in god when his Ideas of natural selection (he was the first evolutionist to really put forth a method of evolution that was accepted to any extent) were published. Afterwards, he actually became less of a darwinists in the sense he started having doubts over natural selection, that was when he was an atheist, and that is not the darwin that has influence today.


Your missing the point. Look you are illustrating my point. You can't conduct a controlled experiment to determine whether or not you said is even true.

Convincing scientific evidence would be this:
1.a. Start with the common ancestor between men and gorillas.
2.a. Evolve gorillas.
1.b. Start with the common ancestor between men and gorillas.
2.b. Evolve men.

This is a controlled experiment that proves that men and gorillas can evolve from the same species. This is how they do it in physics, this is how they do it in chemistry, and this is how they do it in other branches of biology. This is how science is done. Anything else is not science.

If you can't do a controlled experiment like this then you can't state scientifically that gorillas and men evolved from the same species. You can conjecture that it might be true, but scientifically you don't have any evidence. And I'm not even considering the fact that just because something can happen that doesn't mean that it does happen.

DNA is 98% similar to chimpanzees is a major one, archeological evidence another. But the level of evidence you want is available for nothing that has occured in the past. A lot can be said for wanting strong evidence, but you are holding up a standard that very little in science meets. We know nothing about our and the earths past if we hold to your standard, and we know nothing about anything that isn't directly observable.



Simple organisms can evolve into new species. So what? How do we know that this can occur in large organisms?

We know that large organisms have mechanisms for stopping cancer. How do we know that they don't have similar mechanisms for stopping the mutations which supposedly lead to evolution?

I think you're confused, besides the complexity there is no line between humans and flies. Obviously intelligence and the like, but they're both animals and subject to the same evolutionary forces, except it simply takes longer in humans. Those mutations are one of the reasons why when a disease enters a population that population will slowly develop resistance (think native americans), europeans did that with bubonic plague (a mutation only found in europeans), sub saharan africans have done that with sickle cell anemia and malaria. To develop a mechanism to stop genetic mutations (impossible) would require a genetic mutation in the first place. Genetic mutations occur, and are observable, in humans to this day, and are passed down from generation to generation. That's also why some people are more susceptable to certain genetic diseases

Genetic mutation causes rare form of parkinsons (http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/2004/10/28/parkinsons.php)
How genetic mutations cause color blindness (http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/2004/05/28/optics.php)
Genetic mutations cause lung cancer drug to work in some, not others (http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/2004/04/29/lung_cancer_drug.php)

You probably should look through other parts of the site too, those are all taken from the genomenewsnetwork.com. Unfortunately I'm not a geneticist, I may know the results of some important studies and the basics (such as dominant/ recessive), but any real argument as to how things occur results in me spending half my time on google.

Just a few weeks ago I was reading about a plant that is able to revert back to the genes of its grandparents, even though the genes of the parents (both DNA and RNA) had completely mutated. How do we know that large organisms don't have similar mechanisms?

Both my parents could have blue eyes, but the genes for brown eyes can still be carried from a few generations back, resulting in me recieving brown eyes (assuming the dominant/recessive genes match up)

It should be obvious that anything we can't physically witness doesn't have scientific support. That is what science is. Here is the scientific method:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Evolution has been proven in less complex species, there is plenty that is accepted as fact that lacks the fourth due to time constraints, distance, and ethical concerns. Again, if it was any other theory with this amount of evidence the debate wouldn't be here, and when the debate comes primarily from outside the scientific community that is problematic for your side.


The evidence that you present isn't really evidence. It is terribly easy to fit a wrong hypothesis to data that you already have. Especially when you can pick and choose which fossils are "meaningful", effectively throwing out all the data points that don't agree with your theory.

Well, evolution is not a hypothesis in any sense of the word, it is a theory. Creationism is the hypothesis. Evolution has no goal, no purpose besides to change to improve the chance of reproduction. Some lines lead nowhere, other continue to evolve, therefore some fossils are not meaningful in the sense they are not ancestors of what exists today (though that doesn't mean they aren't meaningful for other reasons, they still exert influence on the evolution of other species whose lines continue on).

I concede that evolutionary scientists have a tougher job than scientists in other fields because if evolution does occur as they claim then it occurs very slowly. However, that doesn't give them a free pass.

What if gravity pulled at 9.8*10^-6 meters/second. Would Newton be off the hook when it came to experiments? Should we just take his word for it? Well we could just take his word, but then it wouldn't be science. Also, more than likely he probably wouldn't have paid attention long enough to develop a good theory and probably would have came up with something much more simplistic and erroneous.

Such is the case when it comes to evolution. They don't do experiments because experiments are too difficult, but that doesn't get them off the hook. On the contrary the fact that the experiments are hard to do makes the theory much more suspicious.

Don't get me wrong. I accept the evidence that there is. However, the evidence is meager and the claims are grandiose.
There is no biological evidence that refutes evolution, that is problematic for creationism. Also, experiments in evolution that can be carried out on species have supported evolution, what you are asking is impossible. No other field with the evidence that evolution has, and the timespan more complex animals take to evolve, would be held to your standards. There is much widely accepted knowledge that has far less evidence, but does not carry the religious weight.

I get the feeling that you have not been (or barely, maybe a few classes in high school) exposed to evolutionary theory, or if so, were exposed to it from a creationist viewpoint. Some of the questions, and you started down that path when talking about genetic mutations, appear to be the type of questions creationists, who don't understand genetics, ask (ie developing a mechanism to stop mutations would require a mutation, though laboratory evidence shows we do not have a mutation to stop mutations).

[alonzomourning23]

According to the article the only thing disputed is how many Israelites there were. This is no surprise to me as ancient number keeping was very approximate at times (especially when dealing with large numbers).

I would have to look into it, but if I had to guess I would say that the reason it is debated is probably because there is a lack of physical evidence, rather than there being evidence to the contrary. As I said, being that there isn't much physical evidence, most reasonable people would believe the written account.

In any case, it was just an example and I think you are veering off topic by nitpicking it. If you don't like it we can use another one. There isn't much physical evidence regarding the existence of jesus, but there are a lot of written accounts in the form of religious writings. So science is basically pretty silent regarding jesus. However, that doesn't mean there isn't any evidence.

Regarding the 25% of the american population. First of all, a poll like that really tells you more about the way it was worded than what the people actually believe. I'm sure if they worded the same thing differently they could have pushed that statistic anywhere from 0% to 100%.

Second of all. The sun does circle the earth. If you fix the center of your coordinate system at the earth then you will find that the position of the sun traces a circular shape. Of course this is not an inertia frame of reference, but that is a physical technicality which is probably beyond most people. Which celestial body circles which is really a matter of semantics.

Not really nitpicking, it was evidence against accepting scripture as, well, evidence. Most reasonable people may accept scripture as evidence, but not archeologists or scientists. It may be a guide for a line of research, but that's all. Though the article was just to show dissent within the religious community (though the rabbi said, based on archeological evidence, it probably didn't take place the way scripture says, if at all), it was not provided as evidence to dispute it.

Though, jesus has better evidence. There are a couple, although short, accounts of jesus written by roman historians and the like. The bulk of the scriptures though were written much closer to the time of his life than anything written about the exodus. If the earliest scriptural evidence for jesus was 600 a.d. and there was no contemporary texts at all, then the existence of jesus would be debated much more than it is today.

Though, as someone who knows almost nothing about astronomy, I'd like to know how it could be said that the sun revolves around the earth in any sense. You have a link?

[chunk]

Not really nitpicking, it was evidence against accepting scripture as, well, evidence. Most reasonable people may accept scripture as evidence, but not archeologists or scientists. It may be a guide for a line of research, but that's all. Though the article was just to show dissent within the religious community (though the rabbi said, based on archeological evidence, it probably didn't take place the way scripture says, if at all), it was not provided as evidence to dispute it.

Though, jesus has better evidence. There are a couple, although short, accounts of jesus written by roman historians and the like. The bulk of the scriptures though were written much closer to the time of his life than anything written about the exodus. If the earliest scriptural evidence for jesus was 600 a.d. and there was no contemporary texts at all, then the existence of jesus would be debated much more than it is today.

Though, as someone who knows almost nothing about astronomy, I'd like to know how it could be said that the sun revolves around the earth in any sense. You have a link?

Archeologists and scientists don't accept the TVGuide either, but that doesn't mean it doesn't tell the truth about what time Seinfeld will come on.

Scientific evidence is not the be all and end all of everything. It is a particular subset of the truth that is useful to separate from the rest for several reasons. One being that it can be used to make things (like tvs and computers) and another being that it serves as a lowest common denominator for people that can't seem to agree on anything.

My point is that when you lack scientific evidence that doesn't mean that you have nothing. It just means that science doesn't tell you anything. I don't have any scientific evidence regarding what is on the television right now, but that doesn't mean I don't have any evidence, nor does it mean that the evidence I have is less convincing (I am very confident that the TVGuide is correct).

And no I don't have a link about the sun circling the earth. Do you believe everything you read on the internet? Do you think for yourself?

Think about it. Your computer is sitting still right? However, it is not sitting still. The earth is rotating. So what is the difference between sitting still and not sitting still? There is none. Still is whatever you define as still. So then what is moving? Moving is whatever is changing position compared to those things that are still. So if I am riding in the care I can consider that the ground is still and the car is moving, or that the car is moving and the ground is still. You might not like this idea, but to motivate you, imagine you are driving in the opposite direction that the earth is rotating at exactly the same speed. Then you can imagine that the car is really still and the ground is the one that is moving, right? Well hopefully thinking about that will let you stretch your concept of still so that you can accept that still is whatever you define it to be.

So in the case of the earth and the sun. You can simply define that the earth is still. The everything else that isn't moving in lock step with the earth is moving. So then the sun is moving around the earth. Imagine a videocamera that follows the earth as it goes around the sun. Can you imagine what it looks like? It looks like the earth is still and the sun is moving. That is exactly what I am talking about.

Now maybe you are wondering why your school teacher said that the earth moves around the sun. Well, it turns out that for objects that are moving in a circular path things get more complicated. Normally you would expect a still object to stay put and not move. Well, this is true for objects moving at a constant speed, but not if they are moving in a circular path. Objects moving in a circular path will experience a force. So if you define one of those objects to be still, then that still object will experience a force (which causes it to move). That is unless there is another force to cancel it.

So you can consider that the sun is moving around the earth. You just have to add some extra forces to keep the still things still.

[chunk]

Well, the similarity in embryos (not from amoebas of course, but other animals) to humans, and the fact that 60% of our DNA is shared by bacteria is evidence. Fossils also provide evidence of evolution. I think you have unrealistic expectations, if we only accepted what could be 100% absolutely observed, pretty much everything we know about ours, and the earths, past wouldn't be accepted.

That isn't true. The rest of science gets by just fine with those high expectations.

That is why science is useful. If everyone did science like the evolutionists did then science would be pretty worthless.

No on is ever truly impartial. But a devoutly religious person is much more likely to look to scripture and their beliefs about god when doing scientific research, which is not something you want. Their religious views directly conflict, which is the problem.

You say a religious person is more likely, but more likely than what? I don't think that religious views conflict with science any more than anything else does. In fact I think it probably conflicts less, since religion deals with the spiritual while science deals with the physical.



See, from my research there is massive amounts of evidence supporting evolution, and unless you start showing me the holes then I'm not going to think the suggestion otherwise is even reasonable.

You haven't shown any evidence. You claim it is evidence, but there isn't any. You just spout various observations without providing any justification as to why they support evolution.

But if science cannot explain it at the moment, then I simply say there is no valid explanation. Everything there is to know exists under science, obviously human science will never come even close to knowing that much, but everything is of the natural world, and can therefore be classified as science. The only truths in the bible, as far as I'm concerned, reflect human societies, beliefs etc. there is nothing that goes beyond human literature and societies that speak to truth in the bible. Since humans are themselves of the natural world (using only natural vs supernatural to describe things), even the bible is of the natural world.

Well I disagree with you, but the last guy you tried to tell me that everything is of the natural world ended up thinking he won the argument because I couldn't prove that logic is true (obviously he was wrong). I don't want to get into it again, though. It takes too much time.

Look up the thread that I posted in with "JESUS" in the title. The last post of by camoor.

I will simply say that it can be proven that as long as science is true everything there is to know does not exist under science.

Ok, lets look at the timeline though. Give the same timeline for evolution that heliocentrism had (once suggested by copernicus, as it had been suggested before), we are only at galileo, and we know how well his thinking fared, especially since it went against human perception and common sense. The earth being round was well accepted among the educated community in the 16th century and long before, go back to aristotle, and probably farther back (guessing here, I know it goes at least back to aristotle), and even aristotle knew the earth was round. But some of the religious community and much of the uneducated did not believe that, even during the time of columbus, about 2000 years later. Historically, ideas of religious importance have not been accepted among the public in the amount of time evolution has been around as an accepted theory among scholars. Again, evolution, moreso than heliocentrism/geocentrism, goes directly towards the nature and value of humans, nothing else has done that so clearly.

You can't just appeal to the future. For every heliocentrism there is some crackpot theory that doesn't pan out.

I think that the way that evolution tries to go towards the nature and value of humans is its biggest weakness. It does so at the expense of rigorous science. Evolutionary theorists should really step back a little and stop boasting about the origin of species when the only thing they really know is that fruitflies can change so as to stop breeding.

DNA is 98% similar to chimpanzees is a major one, archeological evidence another. But the level of evidence you want is available for nothing that has occured in the past. A lot can be said for wanting strong evidence, but you are holding up a standard that very little in science meets. We know nothing about our and the earths past if we hold to your standard, and we know nothing about anything that isn't directly observable.

You are working backwards. DNA and archeological evidence aren't controlled experiments at all. In order for DNA to count you need three things:
1. You need human DNA
2. You need chimp DNA
3. You need to prove that humans and chims have a common ancestor

1, 2 and 3 together proves evolution. 1 and 2 together does not prove 3. I don't understand why you don't see this. You cannot use 1 and 2 plus the assumption that humans and chimps evolved to prove 3. No, if you knew that humans and chimps did evolve, then you can use 1 and 2 to prove 3. But you haven't proved that the origins of each species is from evolution. Don't you see how your argument is circular?

You don't know what your talking about. Quantum mechanics isn't directly observable but it is still possible to perform controlled experiments.

You have to show what is possible in the present before you can show what happened in the past.

I know it is hard, but this IS what they do in the rest of science. If evolutionary theory can't provide that kind of proof then it is simply a weaker theory than real science.

I think you're confused, besides the complexity there is no line between humans and flies. Obviously intelligence and the like, but they're both animals and subject to the same evolutionary forces, except it simply takes longer in humans. Those mutations are one of the reasons why when a disease enters a population that population will slowly develop resistance (think native americans), europeans did that with bubonic plague (a mutation only found in europeans), sub saharan africans have done that with sickle cell anemia and malaria. To develop a mechanism to stop genetic mutations (impossible) would require a genetic mutation in the first place. Genetic mutations occur, and are observable, in humans to this day, and are passed down from generation to generation. That's also why some people are more susceptable to certain genetic diseases

You are confused. Just because you say that both humans and flies are subject to the same evolutionary forces that doesn't make it true. You have to prove it by experiment. You have to take humans and flies and apply the same evolutionary forces and observe what happens. You have to control those forces and make sure that everything else is equal, otherwise you can't say for sure that what you are observing is the result of evolutionary forces.

Both my parents could have blue eyes, but the genes for brown eyes can still be carried from a few generations back, resulting in me recieving brown eyes (assuming the dominant/recessive genes match up)

That isn't the same thing. That isn't what I am talking about. I wasn't talking about recessive genes. I was talking about a plant that can undo mutations.

Evolution has been proven in less complex species, there is plenty that is accepted as fact that lacks the fourth due to time constraints, distance, and ethical concerns. Again, if it was any other theory with this amount of evidence the debate wouldn't be here, and when the debate comes primarily from outside the scientific community that is problematic for your side.

It doesn't matter why it lacks the fourth. It lacks it. This is science, the bar doesn't get lowered just because it is too difficult to tackle. That is the difference between science and nonscience. Nonscience can't do all four. If evolution can't do it then it isn't science. Simple as that. You can still accept it as fact, just not scientific fact.

In the physics community a theory like evolution would be laughed out the door.


Well, evolution is not a hypothesis in any sense of the word, it is a theory. Creationism is the hypothesis. Evolution has no goal, no purpose besides to change to improve the chance of reproduction. Some lines lead nowhere, other continue to evolve, therefore some fossils are not meaningful in the sense they are not ancestors of what exists today (though that doesn't mean they aren't meaningful for other reasons, they still exert influence on the evolution of other species whose lines continue on).

Yes I understand, but you have to prove it. Maybe all lines continue to evolve. How would you know if they did or didn't? You wouldn't know because you don't have an experiment to show that some lines lead nowhere. You just guess that some lines lead nowhere because you have no other way to explain it.

This is always what I get from people that believe evolutionary theory. They talk and talk and talk. They keep explaining things over and over, but they prove nothing.

It would be like me explaining the bible to you. I can explain it all I want, but that doesn't make it scientific fact. Without an experiment to verify it doesn't hold much water as a scientific theory.

There is no biological evidence that refutes evolution, that is problematic for creationism. Also, experiments in evolution that can be carried out on species have supported evolution, what you are asking is impossible. No other field with the evidence that evolution has, and the timespan more complex animals take to evolve, would be held to your standards. There is much widely accepted knowledge that has far less evidence, but does not carry the religious weight.

So what? There is no biological evidence that refutes the idea that there are tiny gnomes in my brain that are too small to be detected and control everything I do. Does that mean that TGT (tiny gnome theory) can be a scientific theory also?

What are you kidding me? In biological medicine there is a hell of a lot more evidence supporting the effects of drugs on the body. Trust me, they test Viagra. They gave it to some people in all kinds of various doses and over many different time frames and they contrasted the effects with other patients. It was well tested.

Evolution is not unique because of the strength of its evidence. It is unique because it lacks real experiments.

I get the feeling that you have not been (or barely, maybe a few classes in high school) exposed to evolutionary theory, or if so, were exposed to it from a creationist viewpoint. Some of the questions, and you started down that path when talking about genetic mutations, appear to be the type of questions creationists, who don't understand genetics, ask (ie developing a mechanism to stop mutations would require a mutation, though laboratory evidence shows we do not have a mutation to stop mutations).

No. You don't know what you are talking about. Here is the article about the plant that corrects its own mutated genes without having a backup gene (as it is already known that some cells correct their genes by comparing to a backup):
http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/science/23gene.html&OP=76afdab3/Q2BEl/Q2B!zf~Q5Bzz6KQ2BKbbSQ2BbMQ2BKMQ2B~fXlcflQ2BKMQ2Al clq86d.

[alonzomourning23]

[quote]You haven't shown any evidence. You claim it is evidence, but there isn't any. You just spout various observations without providing any justification as to why they support evolution.

Well I disagree with you, but the last guy you tried to tell me that everything is of the natural world ended up thinking he won the argument because I couldn't prove that logic is true (obviously he was wrong). I don't want to get into it again, though. It takes too much time.

Look up the thread that I posted in with "JESUS" in the title. The last post of by camoor.

I will simply say that it can be proven that as long as science is true everything there is to know does not exist under science.

You can't just appeal to the future. For every heliocentrism there is some crackpot theory that doesn't pan out.

I think that the way that evolution tries to go towards the nature and value of humans is its biggest weakness. It does so at the expense of rigorous science. Evolutionary theorists should really step back a little and stop boasting about the origin of species when the only thing they really know is that fruitflies can change so as to stop breeding.

You are working backwards. DNA and archeological evidence aren't controlled experiments at all. In order for DNA to count you need three things:
1. You need human DNA
2. You need chimp DNA
3. You need to prove that humans and chims have a common ancestor

1, 2 and 3 together proves evolution. 1 and 2 together does not prove 3. I don't understand why you don't see this. You cannot use 1 and 2 plus the assumption that humans and chimps evolved to prove 3. No, if you knew that humans and chimps did evolve, then you can use 1 and 2 to prove 3. But you haven't proved that the origins of each species is from evolution. Don't you see how your argument is circular?

You don't know what your talking about. Quantum mechanics isn't directly observable but it is still possible to perform controlled experiments.

You have to show what is possible in the present before you can show what happened in the past.

I know it is hard, but this IS what they do in the rest of science. If evolutionary theory can't provide that kind of proof then it is simply a weaker theory than real science.

You are confused. Just because you say that both humans and flies are subject to the same evolutionary forces that doesn't make it true. You have to prove it by experiment. You have to take humans and flies and apply the same evolutionary forces and observe what happens. You have to control those forces and make sure that everything else is equal, otherwise you can't say for sure that what you are observing is the result of evolutionary forces.

That isn't the same thing. That isn't what I am talking about. I wasn't talking about recessive genes. I was talking about a plant that can undo mutations.

It doesn't matter why it lacks the fourth. It lacks it. This is science, the bar doesn't get lowered just because it is too difficult to tackle. That is the difference between science and nonscience. Nonscience can't do all four. If evolution can't do it then it isn't science. Simple as that. You can still accept it as fact, just not scientific fact.

In the physics community a theory like evolution would be laughed out the door.

Yes I understand, but you have to prove it. Maybe all lines continue to evolve. How would you know if they did or didn't? You wouldn't know because you don't have an experiment to show that some lines lead nowhere. You just guess that some lines lead nowhere because you have no other way to explain it.

This is always what I get from people that believe evolutionary theory. They talk and talk and talk. They keep explaining things over and over, but they prove nothing.

It would be like me explaining the bible to you. I can explain it all I want, but that doesn't make it scientific fact. Without an experiment to verify it doesn't hold much water as a scientific theory.

So what? There is no biological evidence that refutes the idea that there are tiny gnomes in my brain that are too small to be detected and control everything I do. Does that mean that TGT (tiny gnome theory) can be a scientific theory also?

What are you kidding me? In biological medicine there is a hell of a lot more evidence supporting the effects of drugs on the body. Trust me, they test Viagra. They gave it to some people in all kinds of various doses and over many different time frames and they contrasted the effects with other patients. It was well tested.

Evolution is not unique because of the strength of its evidence. It is unique because it lacks real experiments.


No. You don't know what you are talking about. Here is the article about the plant that corrects its own mutated genes without having a backup gene (as it is already known that some cells correct their genes by comparing to a backup):
http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/science/23gene.html&OP=76afdab3/Q2BEl/Q2B!zf~Q5Bzz6KQ2BKbbSQ2BbMQ2BKMQ2B~fXlcflQ2BKMQ2Al clq86d.

You can't prove anything! I have no evidence whatsoever to back up my claims, but all your evidence is either worthless or goes against what I think is true, so therefore it is worthless.

That's your argument.

You argue that science, when the evidence is solid, trumps religion. You point out that heliocentrim, the circular orbit of the earth etc. all showed religious doctrine to be false. When I point out that scientific discoveries of religious importance take longer to be accepted than the time evolutionary theory has been a viable scientific field (as I said, in the same timespan, heliocentrism wasn't accepted, the earth being round wasn't universally accepted), you're response isn't much more than "ummmmmm, uuuuuhhhhhh, shutup!".

And I saw your Jesus thread (I think it was you anyway), you're the one who claimed he could prove god, right? Well, you know something, I'd work on publishing that, there are 6 billion people waiting for that answer. And, even if by some miraculous way you managed to being the existence of a supernatural being, you haven't stepped one inch closer to proving religion, or any of the forms that exist on earth, or that god has anything to do with earth.

Also, you were making an idiotic joke, but I don't think you understand that genome means an organisms total genetic material. Making up a baseless idea in your head "tiny genome theory" shows your disconnect with reality, suggesting that there is no evidence for evolution and that it equates with some bullshit idea you just thought of. "I have multiple, tiny particles, each one of which is my entire genetic coding, but that when multiple combine they control every little thing I do" blah.

Also, your idea of geocentrism is laughable "well, it feels like we're not moving, so it really doesn't matter, and ya take a camera, the sun moves around, bunch of blahs blahs later, wallah, the sun circles the earth!"

I'm done arguing with you, there isn't even anything resembling an intelligent debate. Normally it's point, counter point, point counterpoint etc. You're presenting no evidence, and you refuting of my evidence doesn't go beyond "it doesn't make sense to me". With your logic, everything we know about history that isn't written down goes out the window, and much of what we know about today goes out the window as well.

[chunk]

You can't prove anything! I have no evidence whatsoever to back up my claims, but all your evidence is either worthless or goes against what I think is true, so therefore it is worthless.

That's your argument.

I don't have any claims other than that science has a specific and strict standard.

Evolution does not meet the standard. There is nothing for me to prove. I gave you the scientific method and you agreed that evolution, by and large, does not meet the last requirement (and I would also say that it hardly meets the 3rd requirement either).

End of story. It isn't science.

Did Michael Jackson rape that little boy? Did Bill Clinton have sex with Monica Lewinsky? These are all valid questions with valid answers. I'm sure there is a lot of evidence to be found regarding these things. Additionally, there is a lot of truth you can learn from investigating these situations. However, most importantly, these things are NOT science.

What is so hard to understand about that?

You argue that science, when the evidence is solid, trumps religion. You point out that heliocentrim, the circular orbit of the earth etc. all showed religious doctrine to be false. When I point out that scientific discoveries of religious importance take longer to be accepted than the time evolutionary theory has been a viable scientific field (as I said, in the same timespan, heliocentrism wasn't accepted, the earth being round wasn't universally accepted), you're response isn't much more than "ummmmmm, uuuuuhhhhhh, shutup!".

What are you talking about? I didn't say that science trumps religion. Science does not trump religion. It is however, a lowest common denominator that all thinking and perceiving beings can agree upon.

You keep putting forth one irrelevant argument after another. While the time it took heliocentrism to become accepted may provide personal encouragement for your faith in evolution, it is completely irrelevant regarding the scientific rigor of the theory. You know, typically one doesn't become pope until one is at least 50 years old. I am not yet 50 years old. Is that evidence that I am on my way to becoming pope? That is the same logic that you are using regarding heliocentrism and evolution.

You keep giving one fallicious argument after another and I keep pointing out the absurdity of each one. Hardly going "uhhhh, ummm, shutup!"

And I saw your Jesus thread (I think it was you anyway), you're the one who claimed he could prove god, right? Well, you know something, I'd work on publishing that, there are 6 billion people waiting for that answer. And, even if by some miraculous way you managed to being the existence of a supernatural being, you haven't stepped one inch closer to proving religion, or any of the forms that exist on earth, or that god has anything to do with earth.

Who's going "uhhhh, ummmm, shutup!" now? Why don't you read the argument and think about it. If it has a flaw then why don't you state it plainly?

Also, you were making an idiotic joke, but I don't think you understand that genome means an organisms total genetic material. Making up a baseless idea in your head "tiny genome theory" shows your disconnect with reality, suggesting that there is no evidence for evolution and that it equates with some bullshit idea you just thought of. "I have multiple, tiny particles, each one of which is my entire genetic coding, but that when multiple combine they control every little thing I do" blah.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I never presented an alternative theory to evolution. I didn't present an alternative theory to the idea that invisible gnomes run on treadmills in my head in order to make my hair grow either. The existence of an alternative theory is irrelevant to the validity of evolution.

Since I doubt you will see the parallel between these two ridiculous theories I will mention a more serious one. There isn't an alternative scientific theory regarding how the physical world came to exist (big bang is physical event, it does not say anything about how the physical world came to exist). However, there is the theory that a nonphysical superpower created the physical universe. Does this theory qualify as scientific because there is no other scientific alternative? NO! In this case it means that the question is not a scientific question. In a similar way, the question about the origin of species is a difficult question. As of yet, science has not been able to come up with a rigorous answer. Does that mean that the best it could come up with is a rigorous answer? NO! All it means is that there currently isn't a good scientific answer.

Also, your idea of geocentrism is laughable "well, it feels like we're not moving, so it really doesn't matter, and ya take a camera, the sun moves around, bunch of blahs blahs later, wallah, the sun circles the earth!"

The idea is so obvious, I don't understand why you think it is laughable. I started talking about cameras and such because I was trying to make the explanation more approachable for you. Why don't you learn a little physics before you start laughing.

If you want a more technical explanation then tell me your understanding of the theory of relativity and we will start from there.

I'm done arguing with you, there isn't even anything resembling an intelligent debate. Normally it's point, counter point, point counterpoint etc. You're presenting no evidence, and you refuting of my evidence doesn't go beyond "it doesn't make sense to me". With your logic, everything we know about history that isn't written down goes out the window, and much of what we know about today goes out the window as well.

I can't believe you. You have a complete lack of understanding about what constitutes a scientific proof.

I started off by saying that evolution isn't reasonable by scientific standards. You come back with possible explanations for biological phenomena that COULD involve evolution. Yet you provide no evidence that any of these phenomena actually DO involve evolution.

I go on to say that your arguments are circular and don't involve any controlled experiments. You continue to cite uncontrolled experiments as if, somehow, more uncontrolled experiments make up for a lack of controlled experiments.

I say again that you haven't presented any controlled experiments, which are the only kind of evidence that hold any weight in science. You go off on a tangent about other theories and how you don't know any that meet scientific standards. I am puzzled as to why this is even remotely relevant. I don't personally know anyone that owns a red jaguar, but this fact obviously doesn't make my beatup old buick a red jaguar. The fact that my old buick is not a red jaguar has nothing to do with how many people I know that actually own red jaguars. Likewise, your ignorance of verifiable scientific theories does not make weak scientific theories any stronger.

Finally I bring it down to the elementary school level because it seems that you have no concept of what science is. I state the scientific method and you agree that evolutionary theory does not follow it. Yet somehow you are still convinced that evolution is good science, regardless of the fact that it does not follow the scientific method.

Then you go back to talking about uncontrolled experiments.

Is it me or am I talking to a brick wall?

[elprincipe]

So you're saying that the theory of evolution has as much validity as the dubious "proofs" of the Loch Ness monster?

No wonder it's so easy for you to believe in magical carpenters, talking snakes, and super apples that can boost your intelligence.

I'm saying that at this point neither has anywhere near enough evidence supporting them for me to reasonably believe that they are true. And I don't believe in any of the things you mentioned, don't know where you got those other than assuming a hell of a lot about my religious beliefs, which I have avoided discussing here due to the general hostility of a lot of people on this board on the subject.

[camoor]

I'm saying that at this point neither has anywhere near enough evidence supporting them for me to reasonably believe that they are true.

However there is no reasoning in your beliefs. You are simply attempting to negate evolution because there is the extremely unlikely possibility that it is untrue. The evolution theory passes all the tests of reason, creationism (or any other explanation) does not.

Your position is analogous to the jurors who acquitted OJ because there was a doubt that he was innocent. Their doubts were not reasonable. And neither are yours.

[chunk]

However there is no reasoning in your beliefs. You are simply attempting to negate evolution because there is the extremely unlikely possibility that it is untrue. The evolution theory passes all the tests of reason, creationism (or any other explanation) does not.

Your position is analogous to the jurors who acquitted OJ because there was a doubt that he was innocent. Their doubts were not reasonable. And neither are yours.

Now we are getting somewhere. While I could see why someone might reasonably believe that evolution is true in the same way that people believe OJ is guilty, both are certainly a far cry from scientific theories such as gravity, relativity, or DNA. Personally, I choose not to believe anything about OJ nor about evolution because neither commands my attention by either presenting an irrefutable proof (like one would find with an established scientific theory) or by addressing a significant problem that is relevant to my life (as religious teachings often do).

I have no problem with you believing that OJ is guilty and that evolutionary theory is true. However, don't try to claim that either is science. In science, we don't have to worry about slippery concepts like reasonable doubt and I think it is very important to keep it that way. Otherwise you will end up with nuclear reactors exploding because the scientists which design them can't agree on which theories have reasonable doubt.

[camoor]

Now we are getting somewhere. While I could see why someone might reasonably believe that evolution is true in the same way that people believe OJ is guilty, both are certainly a far cry from scientific theories such as gravity, relativity, or DNA. Personally, I choose not to believe anything about OJ nor about evolution because neither commands my attention by either presenting an irrefutable proof (like one would find with an established scientific theory) or by addressing a significant problem that is relevant to my life (as religious teachings often do).

I have no problem with you believing that OJ is guilty and that evolutionary theory is true. However, don't try to claim that either is science. In science, we don't have to worry about slippery concepts like reasonable doubt and I think it is very important to keep it that way. Otherwise you will end up with nuclear reactors exploding because the scientists which design them can't agree on which theories have reasonable doubt.

Criminology is a science.

Furthermore:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Evidence.html

Chunk, I'm so glad you weren't on the Peterson trial jury and I can only hope that you aren't a biology teacher.

[alonzomourning23]

Chunk, I think two things need to be clarified. One relates to the other thread, where you suggested that your own perceptions (or anyones) is sufficient to counter actual evidence, and suggested this is what is done in peer review. You would have to go back to the middle ages to find scientists who believed perception and common sense trumped actual evidence. Evidence, gathered either from other sources or studies you have undertaken yourself, is what is needed to counter evidence, not just perception gathered from everyday living.

And here, a theory is not indesputable fact, a theory cannot be proven.


An especially fruitful theory that has withstood the test of time and has an overwhelming quantity of evidence supporting it is considered to be "proven" in the scientific sense. Some universally accepted models such as heliocentric theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentric_theory) and atomic theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory) are so well-established that it is impossible to imagine them ever being falsified. Others, such as relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity), electromagnetism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism) and biological evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) have survived rigorous empirical testing without being contradicted, but it is nevertheless conceivable that they will some day be supplanted. Younger theories such as string theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory) may provide promising ideas, but have yet to receive the same level of scrutiny.

Scientists never claim absolute knowledge. Unlike a mathematical proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof), a "proven" scientific theory is always open to falsification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them.

Newton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton)'s law of gravitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_mechanics) is a famous example of a law which was found not to hold in experiments involving motion at speeds close to the speed of light or in close proximity to strong gravitational fields. Outside those conditions, Newton's Laws remain an excellent model of motion and gravity. Because general relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity) accounts for all of the phenomena that Newton's Laws do, and more, general relativity is now regarded as a better theory.

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


I get the feeling that many of your arguments are taken from creationist lectures you have attended, particularly ones without any background in science.

[elprincipe]

However there is no reasoning in your beliefs. You are simply attempting to negate evolution because there is the extremely unlikely possibility that it is untrue. The evolution theory passes all the tests of reason, creationism (or any other explanation) does not.

Your position is analogous to the jurors who acquitted OJ because there was a doubt that he was innocent. Their doubts were not reasonable. And neither are yours.

Believe what you wish. My beliefs are perfectly reasonable given the facts. I'm open to being persuaded through facts that evolution or anything else is true. When I believe the facts warrant evolution most likely being true, I'll believe it. Right now the facts just aren't nearly as convincing as you would lead people to believe.

[chunk]

Criminology is a science.

Furthermore:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Evidence.html

Chunk, I'm so glad you weren't on the Peterson trial jury and I can only hope that you aren't a biology teacher.

Criminology is a science? Oh, I guess we don't need any of those pesky juries anymore, do we?

You can't possibly be serious.

Chunk, I think two things need to be clarified. One relates to the other thread, where you suggested that your own perceptions (or anyones) is sufficient to counter actual evidence, and suggested this is what is done in peer review. You would have to go back to the middle ages to find scientists who believed perception and common sense trumped actual evidence. Evidence, gathered either from other sources or studies you have undertaken yourself, is what is needed to counter evidence, not just perception gathered from everyday living.

And how in the world do you propose we gather "actual evidence" without the empirical perceptions of living beings?

No matter how much you want to believe it, putting on your scientist hat does not change the way your eyes or your brain works. Whether you like it or not, empirical perception is the foundation of science. If you think otherwise then you are just fooling yourself.

And here, a theory is not indesputable fact, a theory cannot be proven.

I know it isn't indisputable in an absolute sense. Science doesn't have that distinction. So even the ideal scientific theory would not be absolutely indisputable. However, there is a distinction between a "proven" theory and an "unproven" theory and although this distinction is gradated, some things are clearly on the "proven" side while other things are clearly on the "unproven" side.

A theory which satisfies every possible test that a scientific theory could satisfy is clearly "proven" in the scientific sense (although not absolutely indisputable), while a theory which doesn't even attempt to address portions of the scientific method is clearly "unproven". Portions of evolution are phrased in such a way that they could never satisfy the scientific method. For example, barring the possibility of time travel, it is absolutely impossible to design a controlled experiment to determine whether men and apes have a common ancestry.

Granted, there are other parts of evolution that are more scientifically rigorous. However, for some reason some people want to package the poor parts together with the good parts (like a trojan horse). This doesn't happen anywhere else in science and I don't understand why they do that, other than personal bias.

I get the feeling that many of your arguments are taken from creationist lectures you have attended, particularly ones without any background in science.

This is absolutely ridiculous. When have I ever put forth creationism as a scientific theory?

You are suspicious of people with religious beliefs because you think that they have a tendency to be biased. But I think it is clear that you are the biased one in this conversation because of your antireligious beliefs.

I have argued nothing but science, yet you can't manage to see past your own antireligious sentiment to view things from a clear scientific perspective. I get the feeling that the only reason you cling to evolution so zealously is because you desperately want an alternative to rub in the face of creationists. Did you ever consider that neither is scientificly rigorous?

[alonzomourning23]

One again you show your total lack of knowledge, be it self taught, university or even high school. You don't even realize that criminology is a science.

Criminology is a sub-field of sociology dealing with matters related to crime and criminal behavior. It includes fields such as crime statistics, criminal psychology, forensic science, law enforcement, and detective methods.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminology (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=3&oi=define&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminology)

the scientific study of crime and criminal behavior and law enforcement
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=2&oi=define&q=http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=criminology)

Do we need to have a discussion over whether sociology, archeology, geology, paleontology, psychology, neurology etc. are sciences as well?

Your arguments are very close to creationists I have seen, one without a background in science (even the ones who had an introductory university biology course seem to put forth better argument).

Looking back on your experience in school is not documented, scientific evidence. In a respectable study, every attempt is made to cut down on personal perception and biases. For example, when studying the results of medicine a double blind procedure is often used, where neither the person taking the medicine, or giving it, know who is really being treated and who has a placebo. This is done to distinguish between who actually benefits from medicine, and who simply believes they are but actually just took a placebo.

But, as arguing with you is even far more pointless than arguing with PAD (as you don't even seem to understand what you're arguing against), I'm simply going to request conclusive evidence of my anti-religious sentiment. Remember, just as being christian doesn't mean anti-muslim, lacking belief does not mean anti-religious or any anti- any particular form of religion.

[elprincipe]

paletontology

I think you mean paleontology.

[Pylis]

One again you show your total lack of knowledge, be it self taught, university or even high school.

Personally, I believe that evolution is far more plausible than creationism. But, despite his "total lack of knowledge," I'd say Chunk's arguments are far more sound than yours.

[alonzomourning23]

Personally, I believe that evolution is far more plausible than creationism. But, despite his "total lack of knowledge," I'd say Chunk's arguments are far more sound than yours.

Be that as it may, he doesn't seem to understand what constitues a science or how science works. He has shown little understanding of sciences history, or the evidence that he's arguing against, he thinks strong science is relatively quickly accepted and seen as undeniably true, that memories of past events are valid counters to a documented scientific study (and this past perception is what peer review is based on), he doesn't seem to know what a genome or the human genome project are, he doesn't seem to understand how genes work and how adaptations (he suggested developing an adaptation that prevented genetic mutations), he thinks that scientists place value in scripture when there is little, weak or no scientific evidence, he doesn't know what a science is (ie. his laughter at the suggestion that criminology is a science), and he thinks all science must be based on indesputable evidence to be considered scientific, and that all science is subject to controlled experiments testing the exact things being studied (and not the evidence used to support them). I also stopped actually arguing with his premise a while ago, and that quote was not directed at his opinion on evolution itself, but his understanding of the supposed evidence that he argues against. I've had intelligent arguments with creatonists who actually know science, this wasn't one of them.

[chunk]

Personally, I believe that evolution is far more plausible than creationism. But, despite his "total lack of knowledge," I'd say Chunk's arguments are far more sound than yours.

Thank you.

Be that as it may, he doesn't seem to understand what constitues a science or how science works. He has shown little understanding of sciences history, or the evidence that he's arguing against, he thinks strong science is relatively quickly accepted and seen as undeniably true, that memories of past events are valid counters to a documented scientific study (and this past perception is what peer review is based on), he doesn't seem to know what a genome or the human genome project are, he doesn't seem to understand how genes work and how adaptations (he suggested developing an adaptation that prevented genetic mutations), he thinks that scientists place value in scripture when there is little, weak or no scientific evidence, he doesn't know what a science is (ie. his laughter at the suggestion that criminology is a science), and he thinks all science must be based on indesputable evidence to be considered scientific, and that all science is subject to controlled experiments testing the exact things being studied (and not the evidence used to support them). I also stopped actually arguing with his premise a while ago, and that quote was not directed at his opinion on evolution itself, but his understanding of the supposed evidence that he argues against. I've had intelligent arguments with creatonists who actually know science, this wasn't one of them.

You are the one that doesn't seem to understand what constitutes science of how science works. I have argued from the foundations of scientific thinking (including the scientific method). You have simply cited articles which use the word "science". If you want, I can even go on to explain why your notion of science is useless and of little meaning in contrast to the accepted notion of science which I have argued for.

Even though I believe you are at least somewhat aware of sciences history. I don't think that you understand what it means. Yes, it is true that all accepted scientific theories have started out with weak experimental support before achieving rigorous experimental support and acceptance. However, for every proven scientific theory there is 10 others which also started with weak experimental support, only to be refuted.

Strong science is not relatively quickly accepted, but that doesn't mean we should jump the gun on evolution. To preemptively assume that a theory will prove itself at some point in the future is foolish. No, we must withhold approval until a theory proves itself.

Experiments are based on perception. Therefore, peer review is based on perception. Since we usually talk about results after we perform the experiments (rather than during), these perceptions are naturally past perceptions. Although there are many things to consider in trying to interpret the results of such perceptions, at the most fundamental level this is what scientific experiments are. Any additional patterns that you happen to observe in typical scientific experiments that contrast with everyday perception is for convenience in interpretation and not because everyday perceptions are invalid experiments. If this were not the case then science would be useless and would not receive the kind of confidence and support that it does.

I am not familiar with the human genome project. However, that is irrelevant to this conversation. I imagine that you aren't familiar with the person Melchizedek, but that doesn't diminish your ability to determine that the bible is not a scientific document. I think that this illustrates one of your fundamental misunderstandings regarding science. Science is not about knowing the right facts and citing the right authorities. It is a method for finding a certain kind of fact and you do NOT gain a better understanding of science by simply memorizing what you have heard or read somewhere.

You seem to think that your understanding of how genes work is a fact, simply because you have an understanding of it. However, you refuse to consider the experimental evidence which suggests that organisms may be able to adapt to prevented genetic mutations because it might mean that your understanding is flawed. Your neglect of the experimental evidence in this instance demonstrates quite clearly your fundamental confusion. You seem to think that what constitutes good science is whatever your science teacher tells you. However, good science comes from experimental evidence gathered according to the scientific method, regardless of what your science teacher tells you.

I won't argue further about ancient religious writings because it isn't relevant to this discussion.

Regardless of your personal faith and lack of skepticism in unproven scientific theories, all science must be based on indisputable evidence to hold any weight. By indisputable I mean that the only possible dispute is to argue that humans do not experience reality. Science which is not based on indisputable evidence can only be valid if it serves as a stepping stone to obtaining such evidence and theories which cannot be tested cannot ever be science. All science is most certainly subject to controlled experiments testing the exact things being studied. I think that the idea of testing something other than the exact thing which you are studying is quite obviously beyond ridiculous.

Furthermore, you have demonstrated your fundamentally biased perspective by insisting again and again that I am a creationist or that I am somehow trying to argue for creationism. I have not mentioned creationism. Yet you seem to be obsessed with the idea that I am a creationist that is trying to replace your beloved evolution with my creationist propaganda. You should really snap out of it and realize that I have argued nothing but science in this thread and that if you perceive any threat to the theory of evolution it is because of science and not because of creationism.

One again you show your total lack of knowledge, be it self taught, university or even high school. You don't even realize that criminology is a science.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminology (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=3&oi=define&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminology)


www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=2&oi=define&q=http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=criminology)

Do we need to have a discussion over whether sociology, archeology, geology, paleontology, psychology, neurology etc. are sciences as well?

Yes, yes we do have to have a discussion over whether or not those fields (or any fields) are sciences. Just because something claims to be science that doesn't mean that it actually is.

One can attempt to study something in a scientific manor without yielding any scientifically conclusive results. In fact, you could attempt to study anything in a scientific manor and call it science. However, without scientifically conclusive results such a study would be essentially meaningless. Although a science without scientific results could still, in theory, be considered a science, practically speaking it is a nonexistent science. The important thing is that such "scientific" fields are irrelevant to scientific discourse because without scientifically conclusive results they cannot be cited.

That isn't to say that criminologists aren't making their best effort to study crime in a scientific manor, nor does it mean that criminology is a sham, nor does it mean that crimonology hasn't produced any scientifically conclusive results at all. However, I doubt that criminology is producing scientifically conclusive results regarding real world trials such as the OJ Simpson case. If it were, then there would be no place for reasonable doubt and no place for trial by jury.

Now maybe I'm wrong. If you think that trial by jury is obsolete then make your case, but I am extremely skeptical.

However, just because criminology can prove some things scientifically that does not mean that it scientifically proves that OJ is guilty. Likewise, evolution, while it may prove some things about fruit flies, does not prove anything about the origin of the variety of species which are currently on earth.

Looking back on your experience in school is not documented, scientific evidence. In a respectable study, every attempt is made to cut down on personal perception and biases. For example, when studying the results of medicine a double blind procedure is often used, where neither the person taking the medicine, or giving it, know who is really being treated and who has a placebo. This is done to distinguish between who actually benefits from medicine, and who simply believes they are but actually just took a placebo.

Anyway, if you want to talk about my school experiences then I think it would be better to discuss it in the other thread where I mentioned them. In your defense, there is always the possibility of statistical anomaly and for this reason I don't want to argue too zealously for my school experiences as counterdata. However, although my main gripe was with your interpretation of the studies rather than the data itself, that doesn't mean that my school experiences are meaningless.

My school experience is documented scientific evidence. Just because it is lacking in precision that doesn't mean that it isn't accurate. It just means that it can't be used for as much as precise data can. I will agree that what I have presented about my school experiences is not enough to build a scientific theory on. This should be clear because I have not conducted controlled experiments. However, it is enough to refute a scientific theory because a good scientific theory should be able to explain both precise and imprecise data, both inside and outside of controlled experiments.

If you observed that your couch is pulled towards the ceiling instead of towards the ground then that would be sufficient evidence to refute gravity. In this case precise measurements would not be required because it is easy to observe with the naked eye that if an object moves up when released from rest then it certainly isn't moving down at 9.8 m/s^2. It doesn't matter how well gravity works in the lab. If your couch is pulled towards the ceiling then gravity has to explain it. Not only that, but it also has to recreate it in the lab. Failure to recreate unexplained phenomenon in the lab does not reaffirm a theory, it demonstrates that the theory is lacking.

In any case, I don't want to say anymore because don't remember what exactly you were arguing for when I brought up my school experiences. So lets continue this part in the other thread.

But, as arguing with you is even far more pointless than arguing with PAD (as you don't even seem to understand what you're arguing against), I'm simply going to request conclusive evidence of my anti-religious sentiment. Remember, just as being christian doesn't mean anti-muslim, lacking belief does not mean anti-religious or any anti- any particular form of religion.

I don't have conclusive evidence of your anti-religious sentiment. I just said that I get the feeling that you have an anti-religious sentiment. I get this feeling because you said that you are biased against religious people in science and because you keep accusing me of being a creationist simply because I don't consider evolution to be a sound scientific theory.

[camoor]

Personally, I believe that evolution is far more plausible than creationism. But, despite his "total lack of knowledge," I'd say Chunk's arguments are far more sound than yours.

I have no idea where you got this.

Alonzo goes out of his way to research and post scientific evidence. All Chunk does is regurgitate the same old whiny BS about "evolution is only a theory". Chunk likes throwing out fallacious arguements that Alonzo systematically debunks, and Chunk has demonstrated that he doesn't even know the definition of the word "science".

[alonzomourning23]

I have no idea where you got this.

Alonzo goes out of his way to research and post scientific evidence. All Chunk does is regurgitate the same old whiny BS about "evolution is only a theory". Chunk likes throwing out fallacious arguements that Alonzo systematically debunks, and Chunk has demonstrated that he doesn't even know the definition of the word "science".

thanks

[Pylis]

I have no idea where you got this.

Alonzo goes out of his way to research and post scientific evidence. All Chunk does is regurgitate the same old whiny BS about "evolution is only a theory". Chunk likes throwing out fallacious arguements that Alonzo systematically debunks, and Chunk has demonstrated that he doesn't even know the definition of the word "science".

I just ran through the thread again--I did it quickly, so maybe I missed something--but not counting the original article, Alonzo only posted a couple links to Wikipedia. That's it. How is this going out of his way? Don't get me wrong, Alonzo's a smart guy and his arguments make sense (and he typically can back up everything he says), but if this issue was as black-and-white as "Alonzo is right and Chunk is wrong," it wouldn't be an issue. All I'm saying is that I personally found myself siding with Chunk's logic.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

I just ran through the thread again--I did it quickly, so maybe I missed something--but not counting the original article, Alonzo only posted a couple links to Wikipedia. That's it. How is this going out of his way? Don't get me wrong, Alonzo's a smart guy and his arguments make sense (and he typically can back up everything he says), but if this issue was as black-and-white as "Alonzo is right and Chunk is wrong," it wouldn't be an issue. All I'm saying is that I personally found myself siding with Chunk's logic.

But Chunk showed a total lack of logic ...

[zionoverfire]

But Chunk showed a total lack of logic ...

Oh he does show logic, the problem is that for some reason science should be weighted down by the heavy burden of near mathematical proof file the priests have free reign to sodomize the quire boys.

[alonzomourning23]

Here's an example of evolution in action http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4073359.stm

Poisonous cane toads were introduced to australia 70 years ago to stop can beetles from destroying crops, but it backfired. There are now 100m of them and they advance 30 miles a year (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4431645.stm). Many predators (including alligators and kangeroos) have died after eating them, and it has devestated some populations. It seems the red bellied black snake and the green tree snake were particularly susceptible to them. Over a period of just 70 years they have developed smaller heads (relative to their body) and longer bodies, meaning it is no longer possible for them to eat can toads. This is due to the pressures of natural selection, as the snakes with smaller heads are more likely to survive and reproduce.

Also, chunk, your argued that large amounts of scriptural evidence is superior to a tiny amount of scientific evidence. You argued that creationism does not need scientific evidence, just scriptural evidence, since it isn't science. You argued that creationism has large amounts of scriptural evidence while evolution has an infinitesimal amount of evidence. You also stated that when you were an atheist you didn't believe evolution, and now you're religious and you still don't believe in it. Also add your defense of people who believe in creationism. While not explicitly stated, most people who make the (probably valid) assumption that you believe in creationism.

[chunk]

I have no idea where you got this.

Alonzo goes out of his way to research and post scientific evidence. All Chunk does is regurgitate the same old whiny BS about "evolution is only a theory". Chunk likes throwing out fallacious arguements that Alonzo systematically debunks, and Chunk has demonstrated that he doesn't even know the definition of the word "science".

Alonzo goes out of his way to research and post things which don't support his argument, while pretending that they somehow prove that he is right.

What has Alonzo debunked? He has demonstrated, I think, two controlled experiments and pages upon pages of meaningless crap.

If you think that I don't know the definition of the word science then why don't you tell me what you think the definition is and compare it with what you think I think the definition is? However, before we get into a game of semantics, I should mention that regardless of what you think it is, my definition gets to the core of why science exists, why it is well respected, and why it deserves respect. So you can define science however you want, but I ensure you that the kind that I define is the only kind that has any advantages over things like religion or philosophy.

But Chunk showed a total lack of logic ...

Honestly. I'm sorry for being so harsh, but some of you guys really need to get your heads out of your asses. I normally hate to push the burden on you to prove me wrong, but I have given the most logical and convincing argument that I can muster and if you ask me it seems very convincing. If you have a problem with my logic then go ahead and use your own logic to prove me wrong from the beginning. Starting with the scientific method...

Oh he does show logic, the problem is that for some reason science should be weighted down by the heavy burden of near mathematical proof file the priests have free reign to sodomize the quire boys.

For some reason? I think that the reason science is weighted down by such a burden is quite obvious. There is great value in separating rigorous scientific thought from the rest. Without that burden you would not have a computer to type this on. Without that burden you wouldn't have a car to drive. Without that burden you wouldn't have electricity or a television. Without that burden doctors wouldn't be able to perform the kind of intricate surgery that they do. Without that burden science wouldn't be respected by you or anyone else because without that burden all science would be is people like Alonzo running around saying "look there is evolution" and "there it is again" without proving anything and without obtaining any real scientific results.

I think the problem is that you just want to call anything which appeals to your intellect "science" without having any real standard. If all scientists thought like you then the theory of spontaneous generation would still be accepted. Controlled experiments are the foundations of scientific thought. If you can't accept it, then no one is forcing you to limit yourself to a purely scientific understanding of things, but don't go around insinuating that science is whatever your fickle mind happens to find reasonable or appealing.

Regarding religion. I could go on to explain why it has different burdens and different value if you care to discuss it, but I'd rather do it somewhere else since it seems offtopic in this thread.

Here's an example of evolution in action http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4073359.stm

Poisonous cane toads were introduced to australia 70 years ago to stop can beetles from destroying crops, but it backfired. There are now 100m of them and they advance 30 miles a year (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4431645.stm). Many predators (including alligators and kangeroos) have died after eating them, and it has devestated some populations. It seems the red bellied black snake and the green tree snake were particularly susceptible to them. Over a period of just 70 years they have developed smaller heads (relative to their body) and longer bodies, meaning it is no longer possible for them to eat can toads. This is due to the pressures of natural selection, as the snakes with smaller heads are more likely to survive and reproduce.

Also, chunk, your argued that large amounts of scriptural evidence is superior to a tiny amount of scientific evidence. You argued that creationism does not need scientific evidence, just scriptural evidence, since it isn't science. You argued that creationism has large amounts of scriptural evidence while evolution has an infinitesimal amount of evidence. You also stated that when you were an atheist you didn't believe evolution, and now you're religious and you still don't believe in it. Also add your defense of people who believe in creationism. While not explicitly stated, most people who make the (probably valid) assumption that you believe in creationism.

There you go again. More uncontrolled experiments. You saying the changes are the result of evolutionary pressures doesn't make it so. How can you tell that the head sizes wouldn't have changed anyway? How do you know it is proof of evolution instead of proof that, lets say, aliens are manipulating the ecosystem? Even if it were evolution, how can you tell they aren't changing due to other pressures? Where is the control?

You like to mention things like placebo affect when attacking me, but you completely ignore it here. The article doesn't mention any exact measurements of head size for comparison.

Nonscientifically speaking, I honestly think that the snakes with smaller heads are probably the result of evolutionary development. However, the extent to which such evolutionary development could continue is extremely questionable. If a head can shrink one inch does that mean it could shrink another? That is one of the biggest unproven assumptions in evolutionary theory. Change is obvious in all facets of existence, so a theory which proposes small changes is basically redundant to anyone with a little bit of wisdom. However, my baby boy's ability to walk 2 steps does not even begin to suggest that he can walk to California. Furthermore, his ability to walk 2 steps most certainly does not do anything to overcome the impossible task of walking to Antarctica (even if given "billions of years" as evolutionists often plead). How do we know there aren't analogous oceans which limit the scope of biological evolution? The answer is we don't know and if evolution were, as a whole, a good scientific theory then it would recognize that instead of proclaiming that species can "walk to Antarctica" simply because we have observed them taking a few genetic babysteps.

And when I started arguing that large amounts of nonscientific evidence is superior to small amounts of scientific evidence I was attempting to mount an argument regarding the correct understanding of scientific discovery in the context of "the truth". I gave scriptural evidence as an example and quit arguing about it when I realized that I had bigger fish to fry. Namely, that you don't even agree with the scientific method. I figured that since you can't even appreciate science (which is the lowest common denominator) then you certainly wouldn't be able to appreciate how science fits into the bigger picture.

Yes I argued that creationism doesn't need scientific evidence because it is not a scientific theory. So what? I never argued for creationism as a scientific theory, because it is not a scientific theory. Most people that are as thick headed and ignorant as yourself might assume that I am a creationist. I assure you that I do not believe in creationism as a scientific theory.

You are absolutely incredible. Your whole argument basically amounts to flooding the thread with as much irrelevant information as possible and now you are resorting to basically saying, "scientific evidence? uhhhh.......look over there! he's a witch!"

Quit with the politics and trying to attack my personal beliefs and stick to the facts. Enough is enough already. Does evolutionary theory follow the scientific method or doesn't it? If it does then explain how step by step. If it doesn't then just admit it.

I don't have time to bicker about this anymore. So stop with the uncontrolled experiments and either explain how evolutionary theory follows the scientific method, explain why the scientific method doesn't define science, or back down.

[camoor]

If you think that I don't know the definition of the word science then why don't you tell me what you think the definition is and compare it with what you think I think the definition is? However, before we get into a game of semantics, I should mention that regardless of what you think it is, my definition gets to the core of why science exists, why it is well respected, and why it deserves respect. So you can define science however you want, but I ensure you that the kind that I define is the only kind that has any advantages over things like religion or philosophy.

Why does science have to "have an advantage" over your closely held religious dogma to be valid? What do your religious beliefs have to do with science at all?

Comments like these lead me to believe that you don't know what you're talking about.

[chunk]

Why does science have to "have an advantage" over your closely held religious dogma to be valid? What do your religious beliefs have to do with science at all?

Comments like these lead me to believe that you don't know what you're talking about.

It should be painfully clear that if it doesn't offer any advantages then it is useless in every possible way. I'm not sure what you mean by validity, but if it is useless then it is absolutely irrelevant and, therefore, its validity is also irrelevant. So it doesn't "have to have an advantage", but it is a waste of time if it doesn't have anything else to offer.

My religious beliefs don't have anything to do with science. That is exactly the point. By separating the various modes of thought into distinct categories we can more efficiently take advantage of what they have to offer. Just like how any sane person keeps the waffles in the freezer and the gas in the tank of your car. The fact that waffles have nothing to do with gas is the very reason why it is worthwhile to separate them.

The way I see it, it seems that some of you (those of you that think that science explains everything) try to put your waffles in the gas tank and call it gas, simply to avoid facing the reality that you want some waffles. Even if you don't need the waffles, by putting them in the gas tank you contaminate the gas.

[zionoverfire]

For some reason? I think that the reason science is weighted down by such a burden is quite obvious. There is great value in separating rigorous scientific thought from the rest. Without that burden you would not have a computer to type this on. Without that burden you wouldn't have a car to drive. Without that burden you wouldn't have electricity or a television. Without that burden doctors wouldn't be able to perform the kind of intricate surgery that they do. Without that burden science wouldn't be respected by you or anyone else because without that burden all science would be is people like Alonzo running around saying "look there is evolution" and "there it is again" without proving anything and without obtaining any real scientific results.


Actually if we accepted your "rigorous" scientific proof we would have any of those because when devised most of them were thought of as impossible. Much of science is explaining engineering feats, we could create X-rays before we understood how they worked, coal engines were designed long before we understood exactly what coal was. Apperently there is also this force called gravity but we still don't understand how it works, perhaps we ought to toss it out the window as well? You seem to think that mathematical and logical proof should be the foundation of scientific inquiry yet you fail to realize that most of the important scientific discoveres are due in part to chance.

[chunk]

Actually if we accepted your "rigorous" scientific proof we would have any of those because when devised most of them were thought of as impossible. Much of science is explaining engineering feats, we could create X-rays before we understood how they worked, coal engines were designed long before we understood exactly what coal was. Apperently there is also this force called gravity but we still don't understand how it works, perhaps we ought to toss it out the window as well? You seem to think that mathematical and logical proof should be the foundation of scientific inquiry yet you fail to realize that most of the important scientific discoveres are due in part to chance.

No. You are misunderstanding my concept of rigorous scientific proof. I never said that we should throw evolution out the window. I said we should call it what it is, that is weak and unproven compared to well established scientific theories. That doesn't mean we should throw it out the window. On the contrary, it means that we have work to do.

I am well aware that most of the important scientific discoveries are due in part to chance. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep a distinction between what we "know" (by the standard of scientific proof) and what we still need to prove. Otherwise we can't efficiently direct our efforts where they are most needed. More importantly, we should always be aware of the goal of scientific proof when developing theories. Proposing untestable theories does nothing but serve as a distraction and detracts from scientific progress. Chance has been around for all of human history, but scientific advancement comes when we act on that chance in a clear and organized manor.

Mathematical and logical proof should not be the foundation of scientific inquiry. Empirical evidence and controlled experiments should.

[zionoverfire]

Mathematical and logical proof should not be the foundation of scientific inquiry. Empirical evidence and controlled experiments should.

Well good so now we only need to toss out anything that can't be directly demonstrated in an experiment, I guess that means we should toss quantum mechanics right out the window, who cares if it works if we can't test it. Most of science is theory and many theories cannot be proven.

[chunk]

Well good so now we only need to toss out anything that can't be directly demonstrated in an experiment, I guess that means we should toss quantum mechanics right out the window, who cares if it works if we can't test it. Most of science is theory and many theories cannot be proven.

The statement "who cares if it works if we can't test it" is a paradox. You don't know it works unless you can test it. Unless by "it works" you mean, "I dream of it producing measurable results".

Any theories that cannot be proven come under very heavy criticism in science. For example, string theory has come under a lot of criticism for being untestable. In the mean time, it manages to scrape by on the hope that we will eventually develop methods to perform the proposed experiments. Which is ok as long as no one tries to insinuate that it is anything more than question (and therefore has no more scientific authority than any other question).

In any case, untestable theories have no practical value. If they did then they would have a testable effects. I think mankind would generally agree that theories which are ultimately untestable are useless to everyone except scientific romantics.

[zionoverfire]

Any theories that cannot be proven come under very heavy criticism in science.

And after they stand up to that critism we use them and if after a time we find a flaw we either modify the theory or replace it. Look at classical physics, it doesn't work in all situations yet without belief that is was right and correct we never would have produced the experiments and calculations to refute it. For all we know the theory of gravity is unprovable but I have seen very few people who wish to challenge it's teaching, why? Because it doesn't interfer with their religious beliefs. The scientific evidence backing the theory of evolution is far greater than that backing gravity. We can demonstrate that gravity occurs and how it occurs but we cannot explain why it occurs. With the theory of evolution we can show that evolution occurs we can show how it occurs and we can explain why it occurs, what we cannot do is create a time machine and go back into the past and detail every little step of it's occurance in detail for you, if that's not good enough for you then perhaps you shouldn't rely on the field of biology for any answers at all since most of it is based on far more shaky ground.

[chunk]

And after they stand up to that critism we use them and if after a time we find a flaw we either modify the theory or replace it. Look at classical physics, it doesn't work in all situations yet without belief that is was right and correct we never would have produced the experiments and calculations to refute it. For all we know the theory of gravity is unproven but I have seen very few people who wish to challenge it's teaching, why? Because it doesn't interfer with their personal beliefs.

No. After they are proven they are used. Fending off criticisms is not enough. Furthermore, you assume that all theories automatically pass from unproven to proven after a time. This certainly isn't the case. Most theories end up being proven wrong when they are tested. Otherwise, we wouldn't need to test them now would we? And regardless of what you think, we DO need to test them.

Also, you are wrong about classical physics. Classical physics did not coast by on belief that it was correct. It passed controlled experiments proving that it was correct.

The theory of gravity is proven. At least to a much much greater extent than biological evolution. That is why no one is challenging its teaching, because it is proven. Every high school graduate in America has performed experiments proving the theory of gravity, but no one has performed an experiment demonstrating the evolution of amebas into parrots.

There is nothing about evolution that interferes with beliefs more than gravity. Gravity interferes with personal beliefs as much as anything else does, but as long as you provide scientific proof people will, begrudgingly, adjust their beliefs accordingly. That is why evolution faces so much opposition while gravity does not, because gravity provides irrefutable scientific evidence while evolution provides next to nothing by comparison.

You are so quick to jump to conclusions. Where is the spirit of scientific skepticism? Science has no place for gullibility.

[zionoverfire]

The theory of gravity is proven. At least to a much much greater extent than biological evolution. That is why no one is challenging its teaching, because it is proven.

And that right there is why you shouldn't even be in this conversation.

Come back when you understand what the word theory means.

[chunk]

And that right there is why you shouldn't even be in this conversation.

Come back when you understand what the word theory means.

Oh please. You have no idea what you are talking about. I know that in your elementary school class they probably made a big deal about the difference between a theory, a hypothesis, and a law, but if you grow up and become a real scientist then you will find that the terms are used pretty loosely, especially theory and law. Obviously, you don't know this because if you did then you would be aware that usually the choice of the word "theory" or "law" has more to do with whichever was more popular when the theory caught on. For example, the "theory of relativity" (at least special relativity) is really more of a law than a theory. Its used extensively in commercial applications for godsakes.

You are the one who shouldn't be in this conversation. I can't believe that we keep having to talk about elementary school bullshit instead of the real issues. Also, I am I sick of bringing up what you should have learned in elementary school, the scientific method:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

This is the goal of all scientific theories. Lets look at gravity. #1 check. #2 check. #3 check. #4 check. Ok, all checks. In science, that means the theory has been "proven".

You have no respect for experimental evidence and controlled experiments in science, yet you think that I shouldn't be in this conversation because of my use of the word theory. If I weren't so tired of the nonsense that you and the others keep spouting then I would find it laughable.

Please, please, please just stop talking. I can't stand it. I have no self control and I can't help myself from replying, but this conversation is intolerable.

[zionoverfire]

Actually your complete and total lack of understanding of science continues to astound me, you continue to use simplified concepts for first year students when trying to play with the big boys.

It's called the Theory of gravity because we do NOT KNOWN WHY IT exists. You CANNOT prove the existance of something simply based on its effects, when we understand how the force of gravity is created then we can prove it's existance.

And for god's sake please stop confusing Newton's law of universal gravitation with the theory of gravity it not only makes you look stupid but it makes it look like you haven't even taken a basic physics class to go along with the biology classes you apperently slept through.

[alonzomourning23]

If you think that I don't know the definition of the word science then why don't you tell me what you think the definition is and compare it with what you think I think the definition is? However, before we get into a game of semantics, I should mention that regardless of what you think it is, my definition gets to the core of why science exists, why it is well respected, and why it deserves respect. So you can define science however you want, but I ensure you that the kind that I define is the only kind that has any advantages over things like religion or philosophy.


Honestly. I'm sorry for being so harsh, but some of you guys really need to get your heads out of your asses. I normally hate to push the burden on you to prove me wrong, but I have given the most logical and convincing argument that I can muster and if you ask me it seems very convincing. If you have a problem with my logic then go ahead and use your own logic to prove me wrong from the beginning. Starting with the scientific method...

Reading this the first thing that came to mind was "this guys full of himself". You seem to think, but don't turn that thinking back onto yourself, and the assumptions you have arrived at. Usually the person making the argument isn't the one who decides if it is convincing or not. And praising your own argument, stating how great it is, also isn't exactly a sign of humility.

Though if religion proved true, then it would be scientific. As it is, exactly what advantage (besides psychological) does religion have over anything?





There you go again. More uncontrolled experiments. You saying the changes are the result of evolutionary pressures doesn't make it so. How can you tell that the head sizes wouldn't have changed anyway? How do you know it is proof of evolution instead of proof that, lets say, aliens are manipulating the ecosystem? Even if it were evolution, how can you tell they aren't changing due to other pressures? Where is the control?

If it's change over time, either gradual or in rapid spurts, it is evolution. Evolution has a long history, natural selection is what darwin introduced. If you need to learn the distinction between evolution and evolution through natural selection I'd be more than happy to show you.

Also, there has been no biological evidence of a distinction between humans and other animals, other than more advanced intelligence. There is conclusive evidence, and you yourself have agreed, that evolution occurs in other, fast reproducing, species. And there is an enormous amount of DNA, and paleontological evidence of humans, and other animals, evolving over time (DNA and paleontological) and from a common ancestor (DNA). The controlled experiment is the ideal, and some supporting evidence has been shown through controlled experiments. But other forms of experiments, such as natural experiments and field experiments, are also acceptable in science and more common. The natural evidence observed fits the definition of natural experiments. Again, I'd suggest learning what you're arguing against before doing so. I swear the less you're contradicted, the more you rant and the more you stumble. Everytime you try to discuss a new area of science, a new misconception emerges.


Obviously, you don't know this because if you did then you would be aware that usually the choice of the word "theory" or "law" has more to do with whichever was more popular when the theory caught on.

Law refers to general principals, and is a general description. Theories are hypothesis with strong evidene and are usually more complex. It's funny though, you trying to tell people what terms scientists use in their day to day work.


Though, looking at your posts, you seem to be becoming aggravated. I've actually been hoping for this for a few posts now, and it appears I've finally seen it.

I am not familiar with the human genome project. However, that is irrelevant to this conversation. I imagine that you aren't familiar with the person Melchizedek, but that doesn't diminish your ability to determine that the bible is not a scientific document. I think that this illustrates one of your fundamental misunderstandings regarding science. Science is not about knowing the right facts and citing the right authorities. It is a method for finding a certain kind of fact and you do NOT gain a better understanding of science by simply memorizing what you have heard or read somewhere.

Also, Melchizedek is a particular person, knowing the name of a person provides no benefit to any argument other than history. The human genome project is a massive, and quite famous, genetic research project mapping the human genome, or in simple terms, mapping out every single gene in human DNA, with the hope of using it to tell what individual genes do and how they work. In discussing genetics, your comparison is the equivalent suggesting that not understanding natural selection, and not knowing who darwin is, are equal of a liability in discussing evolution.

Also, for the most part, science has moved beyond the time where you can be self educated and a loner and make great scientific discoveries. Again, there are exceptions, but to improve on science you need to know the previous research that has been done. Now, you can go back and challenge that research, but you need to understand other research done in that field.

How do you know it is proof of evolution instead of proof that, lets say, aliens are manipulating the ecosystem?

How do I know I'm really talking to you? Maybe this entire would is all made up for me, and I'm on TV and people watch me everyday, like "the truman show". Seriously, my suggestion isn't much more ridiculous.

[chunk]

Actually your complete and total lack of understanding of science continues to astound me, you continue to use simplified concepts for first year students when trying to play with the big boys.

It's called the Theory of gravity because we do NOT KNOWN WHY IT exists. You CANNOT prove the existance of something simply based on its effects, when we understand how the force of gravity is created then we can prove it's existance.

The problem is that you are dead wrong. I mean it is is nice that you think that, but in fact it is generally not called the "theory of gravity" unless you are referring to one of einsteins theories. Newton's theory of gravity is usually called the "law of gravity". Ironically enough, einsteins theory of gravity does attempt to explain how gravity works and, relatively speaking, it has a lot of scientific proof backing it up. On the other hand, newton's law of gravity does not attempt to explain gravity by more fundamental principles. Predictably, this is the exact opposite of what you claim.

As many evolutionists correctly point out. "Theory" as used in science does not mean unproven. Proof of a theory does not change it from a theory into something else. It will always be a theory, no matter how much proof is garnered. Normally I don't like to make a big deal out of conventions and terminology (nor do I like to cite web pages), but since you are making such an issue out of this then I have to ask you to just stop making a fool out of yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Furthermore, the details of how gravity works are not relevant to its existence. In science, existence is defined by measureable effects. This should be so painfully obvious. It requires no further explanation. If you can measure it then it exists. If you can't understand this then I can't help you.

Stop dragging the thread off topic. I will not argue about the world "theory" anymore. I won't reply to anymore of your posts unless they deal with evolution and its relative strength as a scientific theory. I don't care if you call it a hypothesis, a theory, a fact, a wild fantasy, or anything else. Vocabulary is not the issue here. The issue is how well evolution meets scientific standards.

[chunk]

Reading this the first thing that came to mind was "this guys full of himself". You seem to think and think, but don't turn that thinking back onto yourself, and the assumptions you have arrived at. Usually the person making the argument isn't the one who decides if it is convincing or not. And praising your own argument, stating how great it is, also isn't exactly a sign of humility.

You're right, but you guys are really stretching my nerves thin. No matter how wrong you think I am, I don't think even you would say that I have "no logic".

Though, exactly what advantage (besides psychological) does religion have over anything?

Where did this come from? I was talking about the advantages of science over religion. Man, it's like anytime you see the word religion in the same sentence with a positive word like "advantages" you flip out and get totally distracted.

If it's change over time, either gradual or in rapid spurts, it is evolution.

Well in that case my face evolves hair every morning. ::rolleyes::
By that definition, I doubt anyone thinks that evolution doesn't happen.

Evolution has a long history, natural selection is what darwin introduced. If you need to learn the distinction between evolution and evolution through natural selection I'd be more than happy to show you.

I think I know, but I'd be glad to hear what you have to say (although I doubt it is relevant to this discussion).

Also, there has been no biological evidence of a distinction between humans and other animals, other than more advanced intelligence. There is conclusive evidence, and you yourself have agreed, that evolution occurs in other, fast reproducing, species. And there is an enormous amount of DNA, and paleontological evidence of humans, and other animals, evolving over time (DNA and paleontological) and from a common ancestor (DNA). The controlled experiment is the ideal, but other forms of experiments, such as natural experiments and field experiments, are also acceptable in science and more common. The natural evidence observed fits the definition of natural experiments. Again, I'd suggest learning what you're arguing against before doing so. I swear the less you're contradicted, the more you rant and the more you stumble.

No. That is the point. Noncontrolled experiments are not acceptable. You can observe almost anything you want if you are free to select your data, especially with a nebulous and statistical theory like evolution. Doubly so if given very long periods of time.

Do you have any idea what kind of patterns I could find if I only looked at ancient celestial records when developing a theory of planetary motion? And since those are recorded by humans they are more difficult to misinterpret compared to fossils.

Furthermore, similar DNA patterns do not necessarily imply anything about evolution. As our ability to understand DNA increases, our ability to genetically engineer increases in parallel. In the next 20 years we could very well find that much of the genetic similarity arises from some other overarching order apart from common ancestry.

The point is that the DNA evidence doesn't really support evolution, it is just shoehorned in there. For example, suppose that they had access to DNA evidence around 100CE. If they had used your logic then they would have stated that such evidence proves the existence of one god as opposed to many.

You see, if the "evidence" is weak enough then what you "prove" has more to do with what you assume than anything else. How many times do I have to illustrate the faults of uncontrolled experiments? There is a reason why they aren't used as scientific proof.

I am stumbling because you keep going on and on with your uncontrolled experiments and I don't know what else to say. Why do you keep doing this?

How many times do I have to say that uncontrolled experiments do not satisfy the scientific method? So any theory which doesn't have uncontrolled experiments is of a much lesser status than one which does.

Anyway. This is it. I don't have any more time for this bickering. I'm not responding to anymore posts that don't address the scientific method, either from you or anyone else.

Law refers to general principals, and is a general description. Theories are hypothesis with strong evidene and are usually more complex. It's funny though, you trying to tell people what terms scientists use in their day to day work.

General descriptions usually aren't referred to as laws without strong evidence. So the technical distinction between a theory and law is pretty subjective. Furthermore, the technical definitions of the terms "theory" and "law" are not generally applied. There are few "laws" nowadays, simply because the term has fallen out of popularity. For example, the "law of gravity" was very complex for its time (Newton created new mathematics in developing it). It certainly started out as a hypothesis and has probably garnered more evidence then any other theory in existence. By the technical definition it is certainly as much of a "theory" as the "theory of relativity" yet it is called a "law" because at the time the term law was more popular. I dare you to find a clear distinction between the "law of gravity" and the "theory of relativity" that justifies the differing terminology.

Why do you find it funny that I am telling people what terms scientists use in their day to day work?

Though, looking at your posts, you seem to be becoming aggravated. I've actually been hoping for this for a few posts now, and it appears I've finally seen it.

Why do you want to make me aggravated? Don't tell me. You guys are pulling my leg. I knew you couldn't possibility be serious with all this nonsense.

Also, Melchizedek is a particular person, knowing the name of a person provides no benefit to any argument other than history. The human genome project is a massive, and quite famous, genetic research project mapping the human genome, or in simple terms, mapping out every single gene in human DNA, with the hope of using it to tell what individual genes do and how they work. In discussing genetics, your comparison is the equivalent suggesting that not understanding natural selection, and not knowing who darwin is, are equal of a liability in discussing evolution.

I know what the human genome project is (that they are mapping the human genome). I'm just not familiar with the techniques being employed and what results they have, if any.

In any case, I don't agree with what you say my comparison is equivalent to. The bible is more of a historical document than a scientific theory such as evolution. So the historical people are more relevant to that discussion than darwin would be to evolution. So I think the comparison still holds. You do not need to necessarily know all the details of something to make a determination about it. In fact, many times the reason we don't know about things is because we were smart enough to know they weren't worth pursuing.

Now that isn't to say that evolution isn't worth pursing as a field of research, but as a nonresearch topic it is riddled with problems and in my opinion not worth learning about in great detail.

Would you stick a knife through your hand? Why not, have you ever tried it? You don't need always need to be fully informed to know enough.

Also, for the most part, science has moved beyond the time where you can be self educated and a loner and make great scientific discoveries. Again, there are exceptions, but to improve on science you need to know the previous research that has been done. Now, you can go back and challenge that research, but you need to understand other research done in that field.

Yes this is true. However, There is a difference between finding a fault and fixing it and I don't think it is beyond criticism by the layperson. If it ever were then it would lose all meaning as a search for "truth" (although it would still be useful for engineering).

Anyone can think and observe for themselves whether or not the claims of science are true. That is the significance of science.

How do I know I'm really talking to you? Maybe this entire would is all made up for me, and I'm on TV and people watch me everyday, like "the truman show". Seriously, my suggestion isn't much more ridiculous.

That is exactly my point. That is how ridiculous ALL uncontrolled experiments are.

[camoor]

It should be painfully clear that if it doesn't offer any advantages then it is useless in every possible way. I'm not sure what you mean by validity, but if it is useless then it is absolutely irrelevant and, therefore, its validity is also irrelevant. So it doesn't "have to have an advantage", but it is a waste of time if it doesn't have anything else to offer.

My religious beliefs don't have anything to do with science. That is exactly the point. By separating the various modes of thought into distinct categories we can more efficiently take advantage of what they have to offer. Just like how any sane person keeps the waffles in the freezer and the gas in the tank of your car. The fact that waffles have nothing to do with gas is the very reason why it is worthwhile to separate them.

The way I see it, it seems that some of you (those of you that think that science explains everything) try to put your waffles in the gas tank and call it gas, simply to avoid facing the reality that you want some waffles. Even if you don't need the waffles, by putting them in the gas tank you contaminate the gas.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Science does not have to "offer advantages" to be valid, after all there are plenty of scientific discoveries that have been disadvantageous; for example, scientific discoveries can create destabilizing social conditions (IE Medieval people discovering that the Earth doesn't revolve around the sun) or adverse enviornmental conditions (IE the discovery of poisons like Agent Orange which turned out to kill military personnel and unborn Vietnemese babies)

You also seem to think that religion is analagous to a consumable necessity, likening it to gasoline (your analogy - not mine). Religion is not necessary to have a consistent world view, and in fact a strict materialist has a much more logically consistent worldview then a christian or muslim fundamentalist.

[chunk]

Now we're getting somewhere.

Science does not have to "offer advantages" to be valid, after all there are plenty of scientific discoveries that have been disadvantageous; for example, scientific discoveries can create destabilizing social conditions (IE Medieval people discovering that the Earth doesn't revolve around the sun) or adverse enviornmental conditions (IE the discovery of poisons like Agent Orange which turned out to kill military personnel and unborn Vietnemese babies)

You also seem to think that religion is analagous to a consumable necessity, likening it to gasoline (your analogy - not mine). Religion is not necessary to have a consistent world view, and in fact a strict materialist has a much more logically consistent worldview then a christian or muslim fundamentalist.

Once again, you show an inability to grasp the most basic of reasoning. The presence of disadvantages does not preclude the presence of advantages. The two are not mutually exclusive. Most things, if not all things, offer both advantages and disadvantages. I never said that science cannot have any disadvantages to be useful or valid. I said that it needed to have advantages. I challenge you to name one thing which you consider "valid" which doesn't offer any advantages. It is impossible because the very reasons why you consider it "valid" are advantages.

This is really very plain and simple. I don't know why you are giving me a hard time about it. Everything has pros and cons. If there are no pros then there can only be cons and that thing is worthless. However, just because there are cons that doesn't mean there aren't pros. What is so hard to understand about that?

Also, I wasn't likening religion to gasoline, I was likening science to gasoline and faith to waffles :) . I disagree that a strictly materialist world view is consistent, but I won't go into the reasons why it is inconsistent because that will take us off topic. In any case, I only brought it up as a possible motivation for why you guys want to shoehorn everything which you consider reasonable under the name of "science". Your motivations could be entirely different, in which case the consistency of strict materialism is moot, but that doesn't change the fact that you want to designate unscientific thoughts as science.

Why don't you get to the point already? Do you have an alternative definition for science or not? Even if you could successfully argue against my definition, without an alternative definition that would only call into question the significance of science itself. I don't think that either of us is trying to argue that science is insignificant, so show your cards already. What is your definition?

Don't worry; I know that what you really think (which is "science is whatever I want to believe") doesn't do much for your side of the argument, but I'm sure you can keep pulling the conversation off topic long enough to think up something else.

(I broke my promise about not replying to posts that don't mention the scientific method, but since we are discussing the definition of science, or at least what determines a good definition for science, I figure it is close enough.)

[alonzomourning23]

You're right, but you guys are really stretching my nerves thin. No matter how wrong you think I am, I don't think even you would say that I have "no logic".

Logic and good logic are two different things.



Where did this come from? I was talking about the advantages of science over religion. Man, it's like anytime you see the word religion in the same sentence with a positive word like "advantages" you flip out and get totally distracted.

I think even you can understand how a question about what advantage religion holds over science is related to this discussion.




Well in that case my face evolves hair every morning. ::rolleyes::
By that definition, I doubt anyone thinks that evolution doesn't happen.

](*,) I'm referring to change of living things over generations, not growth of normal things during ones life. Any change from one generation to another that alters the characteristics of the species is evolution. Anyone with an IQ of 10 could have understood that.



I think I know, but I'd be glad to hear what you have to say (although I doubt it is relevant to this discussion).

"I think I know", that's the whole problem with your argument. You barely understand even the basic principles of evolution, and the proposed means of evolution. Evolution is change over generations, that's all. Natural selection is the means darwin proposed by which evolution occurs. Natural selection means the organisms that are best adapted to their environment are the ones with the best chance of survival and reproduction, therefore their traits becoming more and more prominent over generations.



No. That is the point. Noncontrolled experiments are not acceptable. You can observe almost anything you want if you are free to select your data, especially with a nebulous and statistical theory like evolution. Doubly so if given very long periods of time.

Well, scientists routinely engage in many different kinds of experiments, two that I mentioned were field experiments and natural experiments. Those are accepted, and more common than, controlled experiments. You are arguing against practices that are accepted as rigorous, and viable. You have to do a better job of explaining why the whole of science should conform to your ideas. Right now, no matter how you argue, that is impossible. You don't understand the different ways science functions, you only understand the extreme basics of genetics, evolution and the scientific method. To present a truly good argument it is usually best to at least be able to discuss these things on the same level and same depth as the people you are arguing against, you don't even come close. You present no evidence to suggest why your view is better than the one currently held on experiments and the scientific method, and you present no counter argument to the suggestions that your view would stifle science due to the fact that much of what is known in science would not be acceptable under you definition.

Do you have any idea what kind of patterns I could find if I only looked at ancient celestial records when developing a theory of planetary motion? And since those are recorded by humans they are more difficult to misinterpret compared to fossils.

One created by humans, one created by time and earth. One is filled with biases, innacuracies and the like before modern scientists even first glance at it, the other is accurate. Studying fossils is like studying the planetary motion directly, studying a 19th century book on fossils is like studying ancient celestial records and the theories of ancient people.

You need better examples, your examples are ridiculous and don't do anything to support your arguments.


The point is that the DNA evidence doesn't really support evolution, it is just shoehorned in there. For example, suppose that they had access to DNA evidence around 100CE. If they had used your logic then they would have stated that such evidence proves the existence of one god as opposed to many.

What does what the ancients would do with it have to do with anything? Though nice touch with the CE. You're arguing what may have been if something, which never happened, had happened. And your arguing as if their findings would mean anything today. You saying DNA doesn't support evolution doesn't make it so.


I am stumbling because you keep going on and on with your uncontrolled experiments and I don't know what else to say. Why do you keep doing this?

How many times do I have to say that uncontrolled experiments do not satisfy the scientific method? So any theory which doesn't have uncontrolled experiments is of a much lesser status than one which does.

A controlled experiment is ideal, but vast, overwhelming majority of scientists disagree with the idea that the only kind of valid experiment is a controlled one. In some fields, particularly psychology, many argue that they aren't even the best kind of experiment.


General descriptions usually aren't referred to as laws without strong evidence. So the technical distinction between a theory and law is pretty subjective.

Yes, but theories do not become laws. If you were to read a scientific journal the terms are applied to specific meanings, especially the term law.

It certainly started out as a hypothesis and has probably garnered more evidence then any other theory in existence.

So you fight evolution tooth and nail, but just assume gravity "probably" has more evidence than any theory?

By the technical definition it is certainly as much of a "theory" as the "theory of relativity" yet it is called a "law" because at the time the term law was more popular.

Where's your evidence for this if you're so certain?

I dare you to find a clear distinction between the "law of gravity" and the "theory of relativity" that justifies the differing terminology.

Can't, unlike you I realize when something is beyond my experience and understanding, such as physics. I know there are considerable differences, but really can't discuss these things too well. I know there are substantial differences between the way newton described gravity, more as an actual force, and the way einstein described gravity, something to do with curved space and gravity not being an actual force on its own. I don't care about physics, and have never taking anything resembling a physics course or read a book dealing with anything in this field.

Why do you find it funny that I am telling people what terms scientists use in their day to day work?

Not a scientists, not around any people engaged in scientific work in a situation where they would use scientific terms (and not dumbed down ones so everyone else, such as you or I, can understand).



In any case, I don't agree with what you say my comparison is equivalent to. The bible is more of a historical document than a scientific theory such as evolution. So the historical people are more relevant to that discussion than darwin would be to evolution. So I think the comparison still holds. You do not need to necessarily know all the details of something to make a determination about it. In fact, many times the reason we don't know about things is because we were smart enough to know they weren't worth pursuing.

We were? Like the ancient greek Heron who invented the steem engine? Or the supposed finding of an ancient egyptian battery, believed to have been used in medicine. Or all the times that states cut off scientific funding because they believed it went nowhere, or stifled it because it contradicted religious doctrine. Science has just as much to do with dumb luck than anything else.

But, you need to understand something in depth to make a strong argument and defense of your opinion and judgement, especially in your case since you aren't providing any evidence for your side. Knowing who thought of an idea or theory is not important (except to know their background, useful in debunking some types of theories), knowing the theory itself, and the evidence to back it up, is essential when arguing against it. You don't need to know anything to have an opinion, but you damn well better know it if you hope to get anywhere when you decide to argue against it.


Would you stick a knife through your hand? Why not, have you ever tried it? You don't need always need to be fully informed to know enough.

Evidence of why it would be bad: Hard impace on your body hurts, thumbtack in hand hurts. Bullet through hand hurts. Being stabbed hurts. Holes in the body can lead to massive loss of blood and infections. I am fully informed about many of the dangers that risk it. Now, if I had never been cut, never seen a cut, never heard of anyone getting a wound or hurt, then I would not know that it would be painful or dangerous.



Yes this is true. However, There is a difference between finding a fault and fixing it and I don't think it is beyond criticism by the layperson. If it ever were then it would lose all meaning as a search for "truth" (although it would still be useful for engineering).

Anyone can think and observe for themselves whether or not the claims of science are true. That is the significance of science.

If the lay person wants to educate themself in the scientific theory they want to tackle then they can argue it effectively. If they have no form of education, self taught being a form of education, in that field, then there opinion has no importantce (except, obviously, peoples influence on government funding for science and research). Basically, if you want to tackle a scientific theory, you have to know what support that theory has in the first place.

If they want to set up some sort of experiment where they can record actual verifiable data, then they can. For example, if I believe that tv commercials are getting longer, that isn't a valid scientific statement. If I find data of the average length of old commercials, and record the time (and then average them out) of all the current commercials, then I'd have a way of showing whether my belief was valid.



That is exactly my point. That is how ridiculous ALL uncontrolled experiments are.

Again, you're arguing against hte scientific community on that one.

[camoor]

Once again, you show an inability to grasp the most basic of reasoning. The presence of disadvantages does not preclude the presence of advantages. The two are not mutually exclusive. Most things, if not all things, offer both advantages and disadvantages. I never said that science cannot have any disadvantages to be useful or valid. I said that it needed to have advantages. I challenge you to name one thing which you consider "valid" which doesn't offer any advantages. It is impossible because the very reasons why you consider it "valid" are advantages.

This is really very plain and simple. I don't know why you are giving me a hard time about it. Everything has pros and cons. If there are no pros then there can only be cons and that thing is worthless. However, just because there are cons that doesn't mean there aren't pros. What is so hard to understand about that?

Also, I wasn't likening religion to gasoline, I was likening science to gasoline and faith to waffles :) . I disagree that a strictly materialist world view is consistent, but I won't go into the reasons why it is inconsistent because that will take us off topic. In any case, I only brought it up as a possible motivation for why you guys want to shoehorn everything which you consider reasonable under the name of "science". Your motivations could be entirely different, in which case the consistency of strict materialism is moot, but that doesn't change the fact that you want to designate unscientific thoughts as science.

Why don't you get to the point already? Do you have an alternative definition for science or not? Even if you could successfully argue against my definition, without an alternative definition that would only call into question the significance of science itself. I don't think that either of us is trying to argue that science is insignificant, so show your cards already. What is your definition?

Don't worry; I know that what you really think (which is "science is whatever I want to believe") doesn't do much for your side of the argument, but I'm sure you can keep pulling the conversation off topic long enough to think up something else.

(I broke my promise about not replying to posts that don't mention the scientific method, but since we are discussing the definition of science, or at least what determines a good definition for science, I figure it is close enough.)

I picked up a definition that I felt fit the bill from google :

Science - The systemized knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study. Also, the methodology used to acquire this knowledge.

Tighten up your writing style. I'm starting to think that you're trying to win the arguement by burying us with your meandering, rambling paragraphs.

[zionoverfire]

Ah fuck it Kayden it right for once this thread really should die.

[Kayden]

Can we just let this thread die? Honestly, not even *I* am whipping this dead horse anymore.

[zionoverfire]

Can we just let this thread die? Honestly, not even *I* am whipping this dead horse anymore.

But you don't whip dead horses, you just post sick links.;)

[Kayden]

But you don't whip dead horses, you just post sick links.;)

I'm not doing that either!

[zionoverfire]

I'm not doing that either!

Not anymore.:lol:

My eyes still hurt over that last one, god damn!

[Kayden]

That was some sick shit... Aparantly all the mods BUT Stealthy thought it was ok since I disclaimered and put it in the OT area...

[zionoverfire]

That was some sick shit... Aparantly all the mods BUT Stealthy thought it was ok since I disclaimered and put it in the OT area...

Disclaimers don't count, it's still nudity and we don't post nudity links.

[Kayden]

Disclaimers don't count, it's still nudity and we don't post nudity links.
:shock:

Quick! Warn Sub! :rofl:

[zionoverfire]

:shock:

Quick! Warn Sub! :rofl:

Bah I say!

But look at it this way you only got banned for 2 days and it hardly slowed you down.

[Kayden]

Bah I say!

But look at it this way you only got banned for 2 days and it hardly slowed you down.

Not only was I banned, I was drunk! :lol:

[zionoverfire]

Not only was I banned, I was drunk! :lol:

Yes you drunk is quite disturbing at least I'm still an ass.

[Kayden]

Yes you drunk is quite disturbing at least I'm still an ass.

Disturbing? Unitelligible, yes, but disturbing?

[zionoverfire]

Disturbing? Unitelligible, yes, but disturbing?

yep that to, you go through mood swings like Paris Hilton through men.

[Kayden]

yep that to, you go through mood swings like Paris Hilton through men.

What the fuck do you mean you stupid ass monkey fucking horse raping donkey humper?

Err.... want a cookie?

:-s

Touché

[zionoverfire]

What the fuck do you mean you stupid ass monkey fucking horse raping donkey humper?

Err.... want a cookie?

:-s

Touché

zion loves cookies! But only if your girlfriend makes it, although I suppose that would be logical anyhow.

[Kayden]

zion loves cookies! But only if your girlfriend makes it, although I suppose that would be logical anyhow.

Logic? BURN IT!!!! :hot:

[zionoverfire]

Logic? BURN IT!!!! :hot:
:lol: Well I guess this thread will excape the flames.

[Kayden]

:lol: Well I guess this thread will excape the flames.

This, our combined posts, and most the threads they infect.

[zionoverfire]

This, our combined posts, and most the threads they infect.

True, I think I'll hide out here and the OT during cleansing.

[Kayden]

Dont let this be you...
http://smartlabs.lewiston.k12.id.us/Jenifer/MrazJacob/images/beavis6.jpg

[sblymnlcrymnl]

...

So I'm guessing you two are trying to kill this thread off, correct? :lol:

[Kayden]

My attempts to kill its with intelligent discusion only backfired...

[zionoverfire]

...

So I'm guessing you two are trying to kill this thread off, correct? :lol:

Would you like to join up?

So evolution to me feels like a big basket of freashly picked red roses.......

[Kayden]

Would you like to join up?

So evolution to me feels like a big basket of freashly picked red roses.......

I'm partial to crythansinums myself.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

I'm partial to crythansinums myself.

What about the noble orchid?

[Kayden]

What about the noble orchid?

Specifically? I think its the way it makes me feel inside when I look at it. Its gentle petals ever so fragil... It gives me a power trip when I crush them!!! :twisted:

[zionoverfire]

What about the noble orchid?

I actually like tulips a lot, they grow them here in huge fields and it's amazing to all the rows.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

Specifically? I think its the way it makes me feel inside when I look at it. Its gentle petals ever so fragil... It gives me a power trip when I crush them!!! :twisted:

Hey, whatever flicks your clit. ;)

[dcfox]

What about the noble orchid?
Noble Orchid was actually my nickname in highschool.




What are we talking about?

[sblymnlcrymnl]

I actually like tulips a lot, they grow them here in huge fields and it's amazing to all the rows.

We've got some tulips in front of the house, but I really like the tulip trees.

[zionoverfire]

We've got some tulips in front of the house, but I really like the tulip trees.

I like dogwood trees and dogs.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

I like dogwood trees and dogs.

Dogs are nice, but I haven't had one since I was little. It was a german shepherd. My sister had a pug for a while too.

[zionoverfire]

Dogs are nice, but I haven't had one since I was little. It was a german shepherd. My sister had a pug for a while too.

Dogs are awesome and also incredibly stupid.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

Dogs are awesome and also incredibly stupid.

They aren't all stupid. However pugs are just about the dumbest dogs out there. Ugly too.

[Kayden]

I saw a movie were a girl was enjoying a dog's wood...

[zionoverfire]

They aren't all stupid. However pugs are just about the dumbest dogs out there. Ugly too.

Oh they aren't well then why can they only speak spanish.;)

[sblymnlcrymnl]

I saw a movie were a girl was enjoying a dog's wood...

Of course you would be the one to go there.

Link? :twisted: :lol:

[dcfox]

I saw a movie were a girl was enjoying a dog's wood...
I saw a movie where a dog was enjoying a girl's wood. Beat that.

[Kayden]

I saw a movie where a dog was enjoying a girl's wood. Beat that.
I saw a conga line of a woman<--man<--hermaphodite

Scary thing is... the hemi had bigger respective organs than the other two...

[Pylis]

I saw a conga line of a woman<--man<--hermaphodite

Scary thing is... the hemi had bigger respective organs than the other two...

...Bad mental images.

...BAD mental images.

[chunk]

I picked up a definition that I felt fit the bill from google :

Science - The systemized knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study. Also, the methodology used to acquire this knowledge.

Tighten up your writing style. I'm starting to think that you're trying to win the arguement by burying us with your meandering, rambling paragraphs.

Your definition is so broad it could be anything. Observation is implicit to living. Anything that can be described can be referred to as an observation. Study describes almost any form of knowledge. I can study shakespear and observe his writing style. So if you remove the fluff then your definition becomes "knowledge derived through experimentation" or more succinctly, "experimental knowledge". However, what is an experiment? If I read shakespear for the first time then it could be said that I am experimenting with shakespear, but certainly experimenting with shakespear, studying it, and observing his writing style is not science. You have to define what qualifies as an experiment.

My paragraphs are becoming meandering because you guys keep expanding the scope of this argument by nitpicking details which aren't relevant. I think my initial argument was very clear, but then you guys kept flooding the thread with things which don't address my argument. Since then I've been waiting for you to address the glaring flaws which I pointed out and in the mean time I've just been commenting on the ridiculousness of the statements that you guys keep making. It is as if I presented a paper on trends in global climate and you respond with a list of 20 words you think I spelled wrong.

I haven't mounted an argument for several pages. I'm still waiting for you to say anything at all about how evolution can be a scientific theory on the same level of those which have been verified with controlled experiments when it has not been verified by controlled experiments.

[zionoverfire]

I saw a conga line of a woman<--man<--hermaphodite

Scary thing is... the hemi had bigger respective organs than the other two...

Wow you really must have been drunk kayden.:D

[Kayden]

Wow you really must have been drunk kayden.:D


Actually, it was another one of those damned google image searches...

[zionoverfire]

Actually, it was another one of those damned google image searches...

Sure it was.;)

[Kayden]

Sure it was.;)

Who are you to judge me!? :lol:

[chunk]

Logic and good logic are two different things.

And what exactly would you say the difference is? I bet you will say, "good logic supports what I want to believe while logic in general refutes it."

I think even you can understand how a question about what advantage religion holds over science is related to this discussion.

No. That is your problem. Your are so concerned with refuting religion that you can't consider science from a clear and unbiased perspective.

](*,) I'm referring to change of living things over generations, not growth of normal things during ones life. Any change from one generation to another that alters the characteristics of the species is evolution. Anyone with an IQ of 10 could have understood that.

I do understand that, but you don't seem to understand the implications of what your saying. I am trying to get you to specify your ideas precisely because if you could then you would realize that some of what you think contradicts itself.

I know what evolution is in the strict sense, but there is a big difference between saying that species change and saying that such change accounts for the origins of species. Specifying this distinction is cumbersome because the term is commonly used to describe the latter and not the former.

I am arguing against "evolution" as the nebulous and unscientific theory of the origins of species. That is the theory which is lacking scientific evidence. Not the idea that species change over generations.

If what you are trying to argue is that species change over generations, but that this does not account for the origins of species then I have no disagreement with you. However, I doubt that this is what you mean when you say "evolution".

I know that the two aren't the same. That is the very thing I am trying to prove and the thing which so many "evolutionary" proponents don't seem to understand. I am trying to demonstrate to you the inconsistency of thinking that both theories are part of a whole by presenting the problems with the whole.

This is exactly why controlled experiments are necessary because otherwise you can draw a number of very different conclusions from the same data. The two different ideas of species changing over time and such change accounting for the origin of all species is a perfect example.

"I think I know", that's the whole problem with your argument. You barely understand even the basic principles of evolution, and the proposed means of evolution. Evolution is change over generations, that's all. Natural selection is the means darwin proposed by which evolution occurs. Natural selection means the organisms that are best adapted to their environment are the ones with the best chance of survival and reproduction, therefore their traits becoming more and more prominent over generations.

No, I just give you the benefit of the doubt. I keep waiting for you to make me look stupid with some amazing wisdom that shatters the scientific method, but instead I am baffled by your complete neglect of logic and the scientific method. You haven't told me anything in this thread that I wasn't already aware of.

In other words, I say "I think I know" in the hope that you will tell me something I don't know, but you haven't.

Well, scientists routinely engage in many different kinds of experiments, two that I mentioned were field experiments and natural experiments. Those are accepted, and more common than, controlled experiments. You are arguing against practices that are accepted as rigorous, and viable. You have to do a better job of explaining why the whole of science should conform to your ideas. Right now, no matter how you argue, that is impossible. You don't understand the different ways science functions, you only understand the extreme basics of genetics, evolution and the scientific method. To present a truly good argument it is usually best to at least be able to discuss these things on the same level and same depth as the people you are arguing against, you don't even come close. You present no evidence to suggest why your view is better than the one currently held on experiments and the scientific method, and you present no counter argument to the suggestions that your view would stifle science due to the fact that much of what is known in science would not be acceptable under you definition.

Scientists routinely engage in a lot of things which aren't science. Science is not whatever the scientific community happens to practice. I understand very well the way the scientific community functions. You don't understand that the scientific community doesn't function like the catholic church. In the catholic church, whatever the pope says defines what is catholic. In the scientific community, the scientists could say anything, but that won't make it science.

These aren't my ideas. These are the ideas that follow from the goals of science and the scientific method. I will argue why the whole of science needs to conform to the scientific method if necessary, but first you have to admit that you don't agree with the scientific method. If you say "you have to prove why science should conform to the scientific method" or if you say "I do not agree with the scientific method you presented" then I will prove it to you. Until then I think it is obvious why the burden is on you to do a better job of explaining why the popular opinion of the scientific community does not have to conform to the scientific method or why the scientific method cannot be understood plainly (whichever it is you believe).

And if you ask me you are the one who hasn't even come close to discussing things on the same level as me. You haven't even gotten past the scientific method yet. I'm waiting for you to get there and then we can move on to more advanced discussion if necessary.

Now all of the sudden you are claiming that my view differs from the one currently held by the scientific method, but I was under the impression that my view IS the scientific method! You claim I haven't presented any evidence, but you haven't even expressed a viewpoint. You have not given any alternative to the scientific method which I presented.

Also, I haven't presented any counter argument to your suggestions that the scientific method would stifle science because it is blatantly false to say that much of what is known in science would not be acceptable under my definition. Everything that is known in science is accepted under my definition including everything you cited earlier. If you had provided an argument or some examples then there would be something to counter argue, but as it stands you haven't presented an argument to accompany your suggestion, so how could I counter it?

One created by humans, one created by time and earth. One is filled with biases, innacuracies and the like before modern scientists even first glance at it, the other is accurate. Studying fossils is like studying the planetary motion directly, studying a 19th century book on fossils is like studying ancient celestial records and the theories of ancient people.

How could you be so gullible as to believe that fossils are easier to interpret than the writing of another human being? How do you define accurate? Also, if what you believe regarding evolution is true then aren't humans a part of the earth? Your whole argument is inconsistent. It has so many contradictions that it can't even "leave the gate" so to speak.

I once read a comic where a turtle went into a small pond. On the other side emerged an alegator. A nearby man exclaimed "evolution!" Then the alegator spit out a turtle shell. That is what I am talking about.

You need better examples, your examples are ridiculous and don't do anything to support your arguments.

That is the thing you don't understand! My examples aren't here to support my argument, they are to try to help you grasp the logic and the fact that my argument is simply an extension of the definition of science. It doesn't matter if my examples are ridiculous. I don't need any examples because my argument follows from the definition of science. That is why you don't even understand my argument, because you don't understand what science is. You think that more examples constitutes a better argument, but if it follows from the definition then examples don't matter.

What does what the ancients would do with it have to do with anything? Though nice touch with the CE. You're arguing what may have been if something, which never happened, had happened. And your arguing as if their findings would mean anything today. You saying DNA doesn't support evolution doesn't make it so.

I will spell it out more clearly. If applied your same logic in a different cultural context then you would come to different conclusions. That demonstrates that your argument is not scientific because scientific knowledge is objective and independent of culture. That is how you KNOW that DNA does not support evolution. Not because I say so, but because you can reason for yourself that the same knowledge of DNA in a different cultural context would not lead to the theory of evolution, but something quite different.

Your notion that scientific facts from a culture of the past have no meaning on scientific facts today demonstrates quite clearly your confusion about science. The whole idea with science is to understand something that doesn't depend on culture and time. So any scientific facts from the past would most certainly having meaning today.

More importantly, we can actually use this timeless property of scientific facts to test how good they are. If our interpretation of the data changes when we put ourselves in the shoes of someone else, then we know our interpretation isn't an objective one (and objective knowledge is the whole goal of science).

A controlled experiment is ideal, but vast, overwhelming majority of scientists disagree with the idea that the only kind of valid experiment is a controlled one. In some fields, particularly psychology, many argue that they aren't even the best kind of experiment.

That means those fields are less scientific, not that it constitutes good science. Furthermore, there are many theories which ARE supported by controlled experiments. So even if still you want to consider theories which aren't supported by controlled experiments "good science" there is clearly a big difference between those which are supported by controlled experiments and those which aren't. In any case, you have to admit that theories like evolution which aren't supported by controlled experiments are in a lower class than theories such as electromagnetism which are supported by controlled experiments.

Like you said, controlled experiments are the ideal. So theories which meet the ideal have greater stature than those which don't.

Yes, but theories do not become laws. If you were to read a scientific journal the terms are applied to specific meanings, especially the term law.

Maybe in biological journals, but this most certainly isn't the case for scientific journals in general. I've never seen such a distinction in any of the top physics, electrical engineering, or chemistry journals. If you ask me I'd guess that those fields which are lacking in substance try to compensate with more flowery language.

So you fight evolution tooth and nail, but just assume gravity "probably" has more evidence than any theory?

It doesn't really matter whether it is the best or the second best supported theory. In any case, it is definitely one of the best supported theories while evolution is far far behind.

Not a scientists, not around any people engaged in scientific work in a situation where they would use scientific terms (and not dumbed down ones so everyone else, such as you or I, can understand).

Who, me or you?

We were? Like the ancient greek Heron who invented the steem engine? Or the supposed finding of an ancient egyptian battery, believed to have been used in medicine. Or all the times that states cut off scientific funding because they believed it went nowhere, or stifled it because it contradicted religious doctrine. Science has just as much to do with dumb luck than anything else.

No. Not like those things. Like things you looked into and found weren't worth pursuing any further. Like that knife in your hand.

But, you need to understand something in depth to make a strong argument and defense of your opinion and judgement, especially in your case since you aren't providing any evidence for your side. Knowing who thought of an idea or theory is not important (except to know their background, useful in debunking some types of theories), knowing the theory itself, and the evidence to back it up, is essential when arguing against it. You don't need to know anything to have an opinion, but you damn well better know it if you hope to get anywhere when you decide to argue against it.

But I'm not arguing against evolution. I'm arguing against the idea that evolution is good science. Do you need to know exactly how many feet deep the ocean is to know you will drown? No.

You really have no idea what my side is if you think I need evidence. I don't need evidence if it is part of the definition.

If you tell me you have a red car then I don't need to know anything else to tell you it isn't blue. It doesn't matter what model or make. Two door or four door. It doesn't even matter if it is really a car. It could be a boat or a oil truck. I don't really need to know a damn thing to give an extremely strong argument that it isn't blue because I know the parts that are important. Namely, that it is red and NOT blue.


Evidence of why it would be bad: Hard impace on your body hurts, thumbtack in hand hurts. Bullet through hand hurts. Being stabbed hurts. Holes in the body can lead to massive loss of blood and infections. I am fully informed about many of the dangers that risk it. Now, if I had never been cut, never seen a cut, never heard of anyone getting a wound or hurt, then I would not know that it would be painful or dangerous.

But how do you know that what you know is enough? Certainly if you put a knife through your hand than you would know more than if you didn't. Or even apart from actually stabbing yourself, if you were a doctor then you would know more than you know now. How do you know that what you know is enough and that you don't need to be a doctor? The answer is that you don't need to know anymore because you know the important things. Likewise, I know all the important information to know in determining whether or not evolution is a good scientific theory.

If the lay person wants to educate themself in the scientific theory they want to tackle then they can argue it effectively. If they have no form of education, self taught being a form of education, in that field, then there opinion has no importantce (except, obviously, peoples influence on government funding for science and research). Basically, if you want to tackle a scientific theory, you have to know what support that theory has in the first place.

If they want to set up some sort of experiment where they can record actual verifiable data, then they can. For example, if I believe that tv commercials are getting longer, that isn't a valid scientific statement. If I find data of the average length of old commercials, and record the time (and then average them out) of all the current commercials, then I'd have a way of showing whether my belief was valid.

The second paragraph is true, but the first one isn't. Do you need to know what everyone else thinks about tv commercials to conduct your experiment? No. You don't need to know anybody else's experiments, because if their experiments aren't bogus then you will find the same thing. Furthermore, you don't need any special education or anything to conduct such an experiment. It could be a god damn monkey conducting that experiment. As long as the data gets recorded accurately it doesn't matter.


Again, you're arguing against hte scientific community on that one.

It doesn't matter who I'm arguing against. Its a fact. Its part of the definition. I don't care if every scientist on the planet says otherwise, I don't care if the president of the united states says otherwise, I don't care if the pope says otherwise, I don't care if albert einstein says otherwise, and I don't care if you say otherwise.

Its a fact that follows from the definition and not you or anyone else can change that regardless of whether your nametag says "lawyer", "janitor", "scientist", or anything else.

[zionoverfire]

Who are you to judge me!? :lol:

I have absolutely no room to judge you, that's why I do.:D

[Kayden]

I have absolutely no room to judge you, that's why I do.:D

:lol: ---- This arguement is still going on? Fuck...
http://www.contains2.com/comics/wade/ketpot.gif

[zionoverfire]

:lol: ---- This arguement is still going on? Fuck...
http://www.contains2.com/comics/wade/ketpot.gif

Well you know sometimes it takes a bit of time, some times it takes an even longer amount of time, but in the end.....

[camoor]

Your definition is so broad it could be anything. Observation is implicit to living. Anything that can be described can be referred to as an observation. Study describes almost any form of knowledge. I can study shakespear and observe his writing style. So if you remove the fluff then your definition becomes "knowledge derived through experimentation" or more succinctly, "experimental knowledge". However, what is an experiment? If I read shakespear for the first time then it could be said that I am experimenting with shakespear, but certainly experimenting with shakespear, studying it, and observing his writing style is not science. You have to define what qualifies as an experiment.

My paragraphs are becoming meandering because you guys keep expanding the scope of this argument by nitpicking details which aren't relevant. I think my initial argument was very clear, but then you guys kept flooding the thread with things which don't address my argument. Since then I've been waiting for you to address the glaring flaws which I pointed out and in the mean time I've just been commenting on the ridiculousness of the statements that you guys keep making. It is as if I presented a paper on trends in global climate and you respond with a list of 20 words you think I spelled wrong.

I haven't mounted an argument for several pages. I'm still waiting for you to say anything at all about how evolution can be a scientific theory on the same level of those which have been verified with controlled experiments when it has not been verified by controlled experiments.

Keep on dancing around the issue, hoping noone will notice that you are really opposed to the theory of evolution not on scientific merits, but rather on the fact that you think the bible is a good read.

That "experimenting with Shakespeare" paragraph makes no sense. Frankly, it's amazing that you don't know that the word "experiment" has a different meaning when used in a scientific sense, and I don't have time to give you an entire lesson about science right here. If you are sincere in your desire to learn more about how scientific terms are defined then I suggest you sign up for a science course at the local Community College (or just goto wikipedia, the pages there have a pretty painless learning curve).

By the way, you mispelled Shakespeare ;)

[RedvsBlue]

Rather than read 8 pages of posts, I'm gonna just throw my 2 cents in blindly. After watching the Penn & Teller's BS episode on the "creationist" movement, I firmly believe that anyone who sees creationism as a science is either lying or has no idea what it means for a study to be a science.

[chunk]

Keep on dancing around the issue, hoping noone will notice that you are really opposed to the theory of evolution not on scientific merits, but rather on the fact that you think the bible is a good read.

That "experimenting with Shakespeare" paragraph makes no sense. Frankly, it's amazing that you don't know that the word "experiment" has a different meaning when used in a scientific sense, and I don't have time to give you an entire lesson about science right here. If you are sincere in your desire to learn more about how scientific terms are defined then I suggest you sign up for a science course at the local Community College (or just goto wikipedia, the pages there have a pretty painless learning curve).

By the way, you mispelled Shakespeare ;)

You should really follow your own advice about taking a science course because you certainly are having a difficult time defining what science is. I know exactly what the word experiment means when used in a scientific sense because I gave an exact definition. It is YOUR definition that includes "experimenting with shakespeare". The reason it doesn't make sense is because YOUR definition doesn't make sense.

That was exactly what I was pointing out. My definition excludes scenarios like "experimenting with shakespeare", yours does not. Therefore, your definition is inadequate.

Futhermore, I think it is clear in the context of this conversation that "science" is a kind of pursuit of knowledge. That is not being disputed. That being said, the important part of the definition is what is a scientific experiment? I know what it is and if you did too then you would realize that most of what supports evolutionary theory doesn't qualify.

I can't even believe that you are accusing me of dancing. You are the one avoiding the core issue here by dancing around the definition of scientific experiment. I gave an exact definition for what qualifies as science and what doesn't. You gave a bunch of mush which includes nonsense like shakespeare.

I challenge you to give a solid definition for science that excludes everything which you would object to as science, but includes evolution. I don't think you can, but if you do then I will point out exactly why my definition is more meaningful (that is, why it gets to the core of what makes science important) and why yours is contrived.

You know, the ironic thing here is that those of us who aren't scientists are appealing to "the scientific community" in an attempt to refute those of us who are actually practicing scientists and part of "the scientific community".

Anyway, I went to a seminar with this guy last week and I was quite impressed. Several times during the seminar he called attention to intuitive arguments given by biologists. He then proceeded to either scientifically prove that intuition, or simply present the available evidence. In any case, he made a clear distinction between what "we know" and what is just a guess. He is doing real biological science. He is not jumping to ridiculous conclusions. Perhaps if more evolutionary "scientists" followed this kind of example then we would have made some actual progress in the field by now instead of just hand waiving and theory. You might be interested in some of his work:
http://www.princeton.edu/~wbialek/wbialek.html

I firmly believe that anyone who sees creationism as a science is either lying or has no idea what it means for a study to be a science.

Good thing no one here is arguing that creationism is science. It seems that in this thread only the evolutionists are ignorant enough to see a nonscientific theory as a scientific one.

[zionoverfire]

:lol: ---- This arguement is still going on? Fuck...
http://www.contains2.com/comics/wade/ketpot.gif

Clearly you aren't doing your job.:lol:

[Kayden]

God-damn... I'm bout ready to go around cock slapping people. Let it go.

[zionoverfire]

God-damn... I'm bout ready to go around cock slapping people. Let it go.

Well the last one just got locked at 700, should we just move on in here?:D

[Sulik2]

Shoot I just replied to a dead topic. Curse you search function when you bring up interesting threads by accident. Please ignore my post and move along, didn't realize that lost post was back in April. Sorry everyone. Message erased just move along.

[Kayden]

What? no! put it back!

[sblymnlcrymnl]

Son of a whore! :bomb: :lol: