"US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists" - Page 2 - Political Forum

LessGovMrPrez · 01-08-2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Life definitely evolved

Then prove it. Who on this planet has seen 1 species evolve into another?

Quote:

Don't get scientific theory confused with the definition used in the everyday world. Theories in the scientific community are thoroughly researched and many are actually facts, not theories in the sense of the definition you are using. There are a list of theories that like evolution that are readily excepted as fact including the theory of casualty, relativity and here's the real killer, gravity. Evolution itself isn't really a theory at all, although there are theories as to how it works that are tentative at best, just like gravity isn't a theory although there are theories as to how it works.

I have heard this time and time again. Somehow the idea of a theory has become more Law then Law itself.

Troianii · 01-08-2008, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

That's due to the limits in finding fossils of any given age, but even then there are transistional fossils that clearly show connections between entire kingdoms including an animal that is a literal cross between a bird and a reptile, I kid you not, feathers and all.

Macroevolution has never been witnessed, and is only possible through speculation based on findings in fossils. If we leave such room for entire origin theories to hinge themselves on speculations and not observations, then why can't we speculate that a higher being had a role in this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

Life definitely evolved, there is no debate to be had about that. What you are asking for are fossils to be found to link every single species of animal to the one it supposedly evolved from, an extensive family tree that goes back millions if not billions of years. That is impossible.

No, that's not it. Microevolution is true, we've witnessed it, we've even induced it. We've bred dogs for certain traits. However, macroevolution (if I can call it that) has never been witnessed and is speculation. For all of the microevolution in dogs, have we ever seen a dog become something other than a dog? Evolution depends on such an occurance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

Says who?

Public schools. We are talking about the teaching of theories, no?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

The idea that the universe didn't create itself is not so much irrefutable as it is impossible to know since it is impossible to measure what took place before the universe's creation. Although evidence shows that entire planets, stars and even galaxies aren't created by some invisible hand largely form in concordance to the laws of physics.

That (bold) is the basis of the creationist point you are missing. The universe was created, which by itself is stronger evidence for a creator then fossil evidence is for macroevolution, if I can call it that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

Don't get scientific theory confused with the definition used in the everyday world. Theories in the scientific community are thoroughly researched and many are actually facts, not theories in the sense of the definition you are using. There are a list of theories that like evolution that are readily excepted as fact including the theory of casualty, relativity and here's the real killer, gravity. Evolution itself isn't really a theory at all, although there are theories as to how it works that are tentative at best, just like gravity isn't a theory although there are theories as to how it works.

Gravity and evolution are not comparable. If I hold out an apple and drop it you and I will both clearly understand that it falls to the ground. Clearly demonstrate to me a subject of one species becoming part of another species - this has never been observed, it has been speculated. Microevolution will not help you here.

Troianii · 01-08-2008, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

Another idiotic statement. That would be like asking if a dead body was murdered when there was nobody around to witness it. The end result and trail of evidence is proof enough.

Well, the same defense you've given to evolution holds just as much for creationism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

I have given you a page long definition of scientific theory, if you still can't comprehend it then there is nothing left I can do for you.

... OK, you've brought up the point that gravity is like evolution. Now let's take this into consideration.

Suppose that I were to stand in front of a nonbeleiver of gravity. I'd say, "observe this apple. When I let go of it, will it fall to the ground?" When I let go of the apple it falls to the ground."

Then I give the nonbeleiver two earplugs and instruct him to put them in his ears, close his eyes and turn around. I insturct him to remove the earplugs, open his eyes and turn around when I tap him on the shoulder. I tap him on the shoulder, and he sees another apple on the ground. I ask him, "did the apple fall to the ground, or did I put it there?"

You see, it's one thing to observe an actual event, it is completely different to observe the end results and tell me what happened. This is why macroevolution and gravity are not comparable theories.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 01-08-2008, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessGovMrPrez

So the creationists should have to bend to your belief system instead? You do realize that is like 75% of the planet you are talking about?

I think people who believe that we came from a monkey are ridiculous. We ought to start showing Planet of the Apes at schools in order to back up the claim.

I believe in God. So am I ridiculous?

No, we either have rational "belief systems" or not. Either we do things rationally or everyone is allowed to make shit up. That's all I'm saying. Either nobody gets to make shit up, or we all do.

Some people would say that the Greeks were black, let them teach that too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessGovMrPrez

I believe in God. So am I ridiculous?

Only for attaching science to intolerance for religion in its proper place.

Wheeldog · 01-08-2008, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessGovMrPrez

So the creationists should have to bend to your belief system instead? You do realize that is like 75% of the planet you are talking about?

I think people who believe that we came from a monkey are ridiculous. We ought to start showing Planet of the Apes at schools in order to back up the claim.

I believe in God. So am I ridiculous?

We did not come "from" monkeys or apes, but we do share a common ancestor. Why does that fact threaten religion? If God wanted us to believe that we are somehow physically unique from other forms of life He would have made us in a way that does not mimic other animals, particularly primates. Denying our connection to other forms of life reminds me of the racial purity arguments used to suppress other ethnic groups. In Nazi Germany the mere suggestion that you might have some Jewish blood in you was enough to send you to the death camps. There was a time in the U.S. when the suggestion that a person had any African heritage would cause them to be shunned by white society. Those who insist that humans cannot have any direct ties to other primates seem to be practicing a religious version of racial purity.

Troianii · 01-08-2008, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

Macroevolution itself has never been witnessed, but it's effects have been clearly observed. I'll use the crime analogy again. Nobody saw the victim get murdered but we clearly see that the victim is dead and has been stabbed, shot or whatever. One can't say for certain who shot him and what they were doing when they did it because nobody was around to witness it, but there is plenty of evidence that it took place.

There is no observation that an intelligent entity (other then man) ever created anything. That said, again evolution does not discredit that God created everything in the universe it just discredits most theories as to how God supposedly created life in the universe, particularly that he did it in a few days.

Again, the crime analogy doesn't work. Like gravity and microevolution, it's going on something that we have witnessed. However, macroevolution is dependend on something that we have never witnessed. Let me make this absolutely clear: we have never witnessed God creating the universe, and neither have we ever witnessed macroevolution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

Of course it cannot be witnessed, that is where fossils come in, however it is difficult to find a fossil for every given evolutionary stage. Lets assume that macroevolution is false, then why is it that different species of animals have a near identical DNA structure? If all primates don't have the same origin why do they have the same number of chromosomes (humans have two fused together though) and why do they all share at least 90% identical DNA?

We have dozens and dozens of complete fossilized bodies of different species, but you're telling me that I'm supposed to beleive that one became the other gradually when we can't find any in betweens?

Am I to beleive that a neanderthal...

Google Image Result for http://universe-review.ca/I10-36-Humanevo.jpg

Gave birth to a homo sapien?

Google Image Result for http://universe-review.ca/I10-36-Humanevo.jpg

How can you expect me to beleive this if there is NO record of one species giving birth to a new species, and no record of small evolutionary stages between neanderthal to homo sapien? Regardless of which you are trying to assert, you are relying on specualtion and not material evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

I'm talking about how you claimed that most animals couldn't survive in the so-called middle stages.

To get the record straight, I said (quoting just that which you placed in bold), "If animals slowly changed over time, as traditional evolution theory suggests, most couldn't have survived through the middle stages." Your question to which was, "Says who?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

I'm not missing anything. First off what you claim to be evidence is not considered scientific evidence for anything. Furthermore if everything must be created by something else then you are left with a creator who must be created. So how do you stop the circular argument? By saying that the creator is beyond comprehension and so you are still left with a dead in only this time it is an artificially constructed dead end.

... Look, this isn't worth anything more than a complete breakdown response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

I'm not missing anything.

OK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

First off what you claim to be evidence is not considered scientific evidence for anything.

I didn't claim evidence or scientific evidence. I claimed a point, and that you are missing it. To be more accurate, you're avoiding it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

Furthermore if everything must be created by something else then you are left with a creator who must be created.

I never made that claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

So how do you stop the circular argument?

I wouldn't worry about it, it isn't something that I claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

By saying that the creator is beyond comprehension and so you are still left with a dead in only this time it is an artificially constructed dead end.

OK, I didn't say that. You see, you're attributing alot of statements to me. If you want to have a discussion with someone else than have it with someone else, but I'm not going to defend the comments not my own that you just decide to attribute to me. I'm not pushing forth creationism, so don't try fighting it. I'm saying that none of the origins theories are strong enough to be taught as fact or to exclusion of all others - and you disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

My point isn't to comparing evolution to gravity, my point is to point out that your definition of scientific theory is incorrect.

I never defined it. In fact, neither did you.

Troianii · 01-08-2008, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wheeldog

We did not come "from" monkeys or apes, but we do share a common ancestor. Why does that fact threaten religion? If God wanted us to believe that we are somehow physically unique from other forms of life He would have made us in a way that does not mimic other animals, particularly primates. Denying our connection to other forms of life reminds me of the racial purity arguments used to suppress other ethnic groups. In Nazi Germany the mere suggestion that you might have some Jewish blood in you was enough to send you to the death camps. There was a time in the U.S. when the suggestion that a person had any African heritage would cause them to be shunned by white society. Those who insist that humans cannot have any direct ties to other primates seem to be practicing a religious version of racial purity.

While I respect and share your views against such oppression, I can't share in the reasoning and logic behind your views. The way that I see it this drive to connect us to other forms of life seems to lower the standards for mankind more than raise it. If a Nazi beleived that we were so closely connected to animals then I can't see why he wouldn't just reason that the Holocaust was simply a method of his pack staying on top.

Jaffas85 · 01-09-2008, 12:37 AM

For idiotic Creationists they should read the new book by christian reverand Michael Dowd called, "Thank God For Evolution" which both explains the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution but also explains how it is not only compatible with religion but will bring "religion into its great age ever".

Simply put, Creationism trivialises and disrespects both God and science.

Anyone can download and read the book for free from the author's website here:

Thank God For Evolution! - Home

I think its an embarrassment to America that they are basically the only developed country that is still heavily religious and basically the only developed country that has any sort of problem with science and evolution. Thats why it is very important that the next President be someone who understands and respects science.

P.S. A "scientific theory" is actually more powerful than a single fact as a scientific theory is built upon and supported by a series of facts. So in science the fact is like the 'brick' and the theory is like the 'building'.

LessGovMrPrez · 01-09-2008, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wheeldog

We did not come "from" monkeys or apes, but we do share a common ancestor.

Well we are all made up of the same elements so.....

Quote:

Why does that fact threaten religion?

What ancestor did we come from to say this is fact?

It doesnt threaten religion to me. But that is how the Evolutionist bends and fights the argument for Evolution. Just look at some of the statements here on this thread. If you are a creationist or religious person then.......

Like I said before, as a guy who got a BS in Biology I never learned anything in those classes that disproved a God existed. In actuality it reinforced the fact for me, due to the complex nature of life and the perfection within it.

LessGovMrPrez · 01-09-2008, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaffas85

I think its an embarrassment to America that they are basically the only developed country that is still heavily religious and basically the only developed country that has any sort of problem with science and evolution. Thats why it is very important that the next President be someone who understands and respects science.

WHEELDOG, do you see my point in my previous post? The Evolutionist tries to discredit religion entirely through the Evolutionist topic. Case closed.

Quote:

P.S. A "scientific theory" is actually more powerful than a single fact as a scientific theory is built upon and supported by a series of facts. So in science the fact is like the 'brick' and the theory is like the 'building'.

Like I said before, theory is more Law then Law.