My attempt at an Evolution thread! OhgodwhatamIdoing.
- Thread starter Kinitari
- Start date
- Status
Satan.Nocebo said:
On a less facetious note, I found this interview with Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve interesting. It's short, so go to the link, but I found this bit an interesting view of things:
AdventureRacing
Member
I'm not even going to attempt to respond to all that. You just go missing for days and than just copy paste as much info as you can to try and deter anyone from responding.
However this one particular comment really annoyed me.
So you insult the scientists who support evolution for having no hard evidence and then throw out an argument which consists of 'well it looks like it was designed by something intelligent'.
To even try and say that there is no hard scientific basis for evolution and then turn around and act like there is for intelligent design is laughable.
My biggest issue on this whole debate is that intelligent design isn't a theory at all. Its just an attempt to paint holes in the theory of evolution (which it hasn't managed to do yet). Then when its supporters think they find a hole in the theory they use god to fill the gap, even though there is no evidence of it.
I feel really sorry for you if these are the conclusions you have reached after 10 years of studying the subject. You have clearly only looked at one side whilst completly ignoring the other. This is a trait that is common amongst supporters of ID and its why most of them have no credibility amongst the scientific community.
However this one particular comment really annoyed me.
Vizion28 said:
So you insult the scientists who support evolution for having no hard evidence and then throw out an argument which consists of 'well it looks like it was designed by something intelligent'.
To even try and say that there is no hard scientific basis for evolution and then turn around and act like there is for intelligent design is laughable.
My biggest issue on this whole debate is that intelligent design isn't a theory at all. Its just an attempt to paint holes in the theory of evolution (which it hasn't managed to do yet). Then when its supporters think they find a hole in the theory they use god to fill the gap, even though there is no evidence of it.
I feel really sorry for you if these are the conclusions you have reached after 10 years of studying the subject. You have clearly only looked at one side whilst completly ignoring the other. This is a trait that is common amongst supporters of ID and its why most of them have no credibility amongst the scientific community.
I wonder why he got banned this time... sigh.
Regardless, that was freaking exhausting. One point I want to bring up, which is very important - I think - is the idea that the theory of evolution can explain everything out there.
It can't.
Not because it is inaccurate, but because there is -so- much out there to explain - and we are still learning more and more about our past. We might never be able to 100% verify exactly how the flagellum came to be, or whatever, so all we can do is give our absolute best guess.
You know what is not our absolutely best guess? ID or Creationism. Those are lazy guesses, guesses where we have an answer in mind, and we try to jam it into the holes where Evolution hasn't clearly and simply explained a process or our past.
I sincerely have no problem if you want to debate Evolution, if you want to argue that ID -is- legitimate science, that Creation is legitimate science. Just when you do, bring some actual arguments, don't do hit and runs, don't post walls and walls of text that no one is ever going to actually answer, and for the love of god, explain exactly what you mean if you decide to throw around any sound-bites. What is new information to you, what would have to happen? What is speciation to you? What would have to happen? What do you mean micro/macro evolution? Irreducible complexity? If you use these fancy words, you need to explain what these fancy words mean.
Regardless, that was freaking exhausting. One point I want to bring up, which is very important - I think - is the idea that the theory of evolution can explain everything out there.
It can't.
Not because it is inaccurate, but because there is -so- much out there to explain - and we are still learning more and more about our past. We might never be able to 100% verify exactly how the flagellum came to be, or whatever, so all we can do is give our absolute best guess.
You know what is not our absolutely best guess? ID or Creationism. Those are lazy guesses, guesses where we have an answer in mind, and we try to jam it into the holes where Evolution hasn't clearly and simply explained a process or our past.
I sincerely have no problem if you want to debate Evolution, if you want to argue that ID -is- legitimate science, that Creation is legitimate science. Just when you do, bring some actual arguments, don't do hit and runs, don't post walls and walls of text that no one is ever going to actually answer, and for the love of god, explain exactly what you mean if you decide to throw around any sound-bites. What is new information to you, what would have to happen? What is speciation to you? What would have to happen? What do you mean micro/macro evolution? Irreducible complexity? If you use these fancy words, you need to explain what these fancy words mean.
Wow, putting parts of Vizion28's posts (which are not marked as quotes and don't have a source) into google is fun. Creationist websites are weird. It feels like stepping into a world where everything is completely reversed. Also they're very fond of straw men.
I find it ironic that they want to paint Evolution as a religion to somehow weaken the position. I mean wut?
I find it ironic that they want to paint Evolution as a religion to somehow weaken the position. I mean wut?
Nocebo said:
They want to put evolution and ID on an equal footing.
Some people do take an almost religious approach to science. That doesn't invalidate the fact that it is science, that its conclusions are reached and tested scientifically, and that ID doesn't come close to matching that.
CountScary
Banned
iapetus said:
Up until the point that we know something existed, ID and evolution are on equal footing - after that point in time, to deny evolution exists is just lunacy.
mclaren777
Member
I never suggested that they did. I was merely debunking Raist's assertion that Dr. Ewert "has no idea of what he's talking about".BronzeWolf said:
speculawyer
Member
Adaptation is the term for evolution for people who are unable to comprehend long periods of time due to their human brains that are only familiar with human time scales.mclaren777 said:
Boozeroony
Member
speculawyer said:
Do you comprehend?
mclaren777 said:
Ewert's peers and colleagues think he's wrong. Almost all of them. The vast teeming mass of them. And all the evidence they understand and support (better than you or I do, naturally) and yet you're picking this dissenter and asking us to take him seriously.
The scientific community thinks he's a joke, but you, a layman, take his opinions about science seriously. Why? Because he thinks the same way you do. That is to say, erroneously. He's wrong.
It's like finding a black guy at a Tea Party rally and saying, "This is a typical Tea Partier."
Your "scientist" which is in quotes since he himself is ignoring science and the scientific method, is the exception that proves the rule.
There is no debate. You're tilting at windmills.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Why is evolution something you have to "believe" in?
That's as retarded as saying:
Do you believe in gravity?
Do you believe in the cell?
Do you believe in Photosynthesis?
UGH. Fuck. Why does science attract so many morons, when it's supposed to do the exact opposite.
That's as retarded as saying:
Do you believe in gravity?
Do you believe in the cell?
Do you believe in Photosynthesis?
UGH. Fuck. Why does science attract so many morons, when it's supposed to do the exact opposite.
BronzeWolf
Banned
iapetus said:
Layman people might approach science as a religion. Scientists don't approach science, scientists MAKE science.
And no book in science is holy. That's why you've got new editions every 5 years of any one book about any scientific topic. New shit gets discovered, altered and rewritten all the time.
How many times since their inception have holy books been re-edited to accommodate new discoveries?
Comparing holy texts to scientific literature is a false fallacy
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
TacticalFox88 said:
Yes, I believe in Gravity, Cell theory and Photosynthesis.
A belief is a statement that one would agree with the truthfulness of. All statements that you agree with are your "Beliefs". Being a belief has no bearing on whether or not it is likely, proven etc.
BronzeWolf said:
Well, yes. Mostly people who take a quasi-religious view of science are laymen. Hence my comments about how this doesn't change the way that science is done and doesn't impact on its value.
BronzeWolf said:
There are plenty of scientific texts that don't get rewritten and that people (who don't know better) hold as gospel truth.
BronzeWolf said:
More often than you think, apparently.
BronzeWolf said:
It's a good job I didn't do that, then.
I'm talking about the attitude of people to the books, not the content. Unlike some people (on both sides of the debate) I understand what science is, why it works, why you can't put ID and the theory of evolution on an equal footing, and why 'just a theory' isn't an insult.jaxword said:
You've got to be careful with your terminology in cases like this. If you want to talk about the fact that things change over time, 'evolution' is a bad word to use for it, because it carries so much baggage. From a randomly selected online dictionary:
Wikipedia's entry on evolution begins:
When we're talking about evolution in a biological context, there's a lot of baggage that comes along with it. I'm sure there are evolution deniers out there who would accept change over time, but deny the mechanisms that the theory of evolution posits for its cause.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
This is a very important realization, also.iapetus said:
For instance, good ol' Satan was a pretty cool dude at first. Simply a servant of God whose job description could be boiled down to his title at the time the accuser. The downfall was added then, eventually, so he was re-invented for political reasons; along came the witchhunts and shit and so forth, you know what happened.
Nowadays, the unspeakable evil (and good, for that matter) as it is naively understood by the Hollywood-infected masses trotting out of a re-run of The Exorcist doesn't actually exist as a concept anymore (except for making politics as a US president post 9/11, I suppose), but it was very real as a world-mirroring concept once, was created for very well-thought-out purposes at some point, didn't exist before that.
Science has similar stories. Pretty much every field has similar stories, really.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
Incorrect; for instance, the Pearl of Great Price's reference edition is from 1979, as far as I'm aware. That would be the English version.Raist said:
Bibles have been rewritten over and over again for adjustments concerning outdated language; this gradually introduces different meanings. Not sure about the current status there.
According to Wikipedia, at this point in time, there are 1,600 languages the Bible is being translated into, which introduces further meaning from the interaction between language and culture in each individual language's social context.
All this stuff is in constant flux!
Edit: I didn't even mention the passive change of meaning, which is the different view on things as humans evolve socially, and the ramifications in terms of language and validity (or at least interpretation) of Bible passages.
jaxword said:
It's not that it's a bad word per se. Just that when you use 'evolution' in this context, then it's reasonable to take it as including the widely accepted mechanisms of biological evolution. If you're just talking about change over time, then you need to specify that.
iapetus said:
I prefer to approach problems (and arguments) step by step. In the case of evolution, you start with the idea of something changing over time. If people DON'T accept that, they're not accepting reality and any discussion is pointless. If they DO, then already the discussion is moving forward.
Chaplain
Member
Streaming right now on Netflix:
Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution: Vol. 1
2000NR 46 minutes
This documentary explores evidence claiming to prove that certain animals could only have come from a divine creator, and not evolution. Challenge your thought processes and beliefs as intricate designs throughout the animal kingdom are dissected, conjuring up many questions about the true origins of several creatures. Dr. Jobe Martin lets viewers in on startling data that surprised even him at first.
Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution: Vol. 2
2000NR 45 minutes
This intriguing documentary conjures up many questions about the true origins of several creatures as it explores evidence claiming to prove that certain animals could only have come from a divine creator, and not evolution. Challenge your own thought processes and beliefs as complicated and intricate designs throughout the animal kingdom are dissected. Dr. Jobe Martin lets viewers in on startling data that surprised even him at first.
Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution: Vol. 3
2000NR 78 minutes
This documentary explores evidence claiming to prove that certain animals could only have come from a divine creator, and not evolution. Dr. Jobe Martin lets viewers in on startling data that surprised even him at first. Challenge your own thought processes and beliefs as complicated and intricate designs throughout the animal kingdom are dissected, conjuring up many questions about the true origins of several creatures.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
2008PG 97 minutes
Hosted by Ben Stein, this controversial documentary examines how pro-intelligent design scholars and scientists are often chastised, fired or denied tenured positions by those who believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. Nathan Frankowski's film explores how scientists who believe in God are oppressed and how the acceptance of Darwinism might have played a role in the formation of the Nazi regime.
Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution: Vol. 1
2000NR 46 minutes
This documentary explores evidence claiming to prove that certain animals could only have come from a divine creator, and not evolution. Challenge your thought processes and beliefs as intricate designs throughout the animal kingdom are dissected, conjuring up many questions about the true origins of several creatures. Dr. Jobe Martin lets viewers in on startling data that surprised even him at first.
Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution: Vol. 2
2000NR 45 minutes
This intriguing documentary conjures up many questions about the true origins of several creatures as it explores evidence claiming to prove that certain animals could only have come from a divine creator, and not evolution. Challenge your own thought processes and beliefs as complicated and intricate designs throughout the animal kingdom are dissected. Dr. Jobe Martin lets viewers in on startling data that surprised even him at first.
Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution: Vol. 3
2000NR 78 minutes
This documentary explores evidence claiming to prove that certain animals could only have come from a divine creator, and not evolution. Dr. Jobe Martin lets viewers in on startling data that surprised even him at first. Challenge your own thought processes and beliefs as complicated and intricate designs throughout the animal kingdom are dissected, conjuring up many questions about the true origins of several creatures.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
2008PG 97 minutes
Hosted by Ben Stein, this controversial documentary examines how pro-intelligent design scholars and scientists are often chastised, fired or denied tenured positions by those who believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. Nathan Frankowski's film explores how scientists who believe in God are oppressed and how the acceptance of Darwinism might have played a role in the formation of the Nazi regime.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
Can we have a meta-discussion here? Who does Game Analyst think he's trying to convince by posting creationist videos without any context or argument? He must know that making such a post in a thread of people who largely think creationism is discredited is an antagonistic act. There is also an implicit condescension there in posting something, seen as discredited, like it is convincing and others have no answer to it. For example, the hubris of Vizion asking me if I ever thought about "his" argument, when I had read the paper and he hadn't, is astounding.
Between Vizion's massive quote fest, mclaren777's podcasts, and Game Analyst's Netflix videos, there is no real effort put into any of these posts. It can take hours to go through the information, do some research, and compose an answer. People don't have that time. If you're a creationist or IDer in an evolution thread, then your first principle should be presentation. You should try to make a concise, powerful argument, perhaps using quotes but letting others know that you understand the concepts presented. And for the love of god post as if you have an awareness of the situation. It should not be this difficult.
Between Vizion's massive quote fest, mclaren777's podcasts, and Game Analyst's Netflix videos, there is no real effort put into any of these posts. It can take hours to go through the information, do some research, and compose an answer. People don't have that time. If you're a creationist or IDer in an evolution thread, then your first principle should be presentation. You should try to make a concise, powerful argument, perhaps using quotes but letting others know that you understand the concepts presented. And for the love of god post as if you have an awareness of the situation. It should not be this difficult.
Chaplain
Member
Mgoblue201 said:
I am presenting another point of view through people that are more familiar with the subject of creationism and evolution than I am. I am never going to convince anyone of what to believe. All I can do is present information for people to look over and let them critically analyze what is being said.
Chaplain
Member
Raist said:
Countless facts contradict this.
Hitler being a catholic does not mean anything. Jesus said by a persons works would people know if we are his disciples. Jesus said that there are countless people who claim to know God but are really Satan's children disguised in sheep's clothing.
It's amazing that people put so much effort into denying the obvious, spending millions. The reality isn't really that bad is it?
It makes sense that it happens though if, through the evolution of the human brain, we're predisposed to creationist thinking when pondering origins. Innate teleological reasoning, theory of mind and whatnot.
It makes sense that it happens though if, through the evolution of the human brain, we're predisposed to creationist thinking when pondering origins. Innate teleological reasoning, theory of mind and whatnot.
Hmm...a series of Christian-oriented documentaries produced by a person with no background in science and pretty much only in Christian films, and a nearly Breitbartian-style documentary (though perhaps Breitbart got his editing style from Stein). How convincing.
- Status