Dawkins 1 - Creationists 0

[busydude]

It would appear you are speaking from a position of ignorance.

That is possible, but I still maintain my stand. You cannot simply measure the amount of evolution taking place right now. There is no way to quantify evolution as micro or macro.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That is because there are strict laws that are governing the land where you live. The first world is not equal to the planet earth.

Nevertheless the disagreements are strong, but the will to attack the other side physically is different. I'd opine that it is the culture which is different, which allows for disagreement. Our laws do indeed punish those who exceed our social norms. While disagreement on religion in other areas can end tragically, so do political issues, tribal affiliations, a host of things. It's not that religious killings are justified, I'm saying that there are cultural issues which reinforce attitudes we find unacceptable. I'd cite "honor killings" as an example.

 

[Lonbjerg]

You want your cake and eat it too. Macro evolution isn't firmly proven, there hasn't even been an observed case of it within scientific lifetime. Creationism isn't proven either, nor can be observed. It's easy to see that science taught in class rooms should very well have a disclaimer that this is our best assumption as to what happened, and that we really don't have any proof to say it did and that you're free to go elsewhere to find something that makes more sense to your personal taste. I really don't see what the big deal is with that. Why do you defend lying to students about what we really know. It should firmly be planted in their heads from day one that WE DON't KNOW. Is it insecurity? Will kids go crazy when they don't have a fairytale to believe in as to their origins? Because that's what science is putting in their heads right now. A fairytale. A fairytale that man knows all the answers and will save them from confusion and misunderstanding. Hell we can't even put a man on mars yet, you think we can figure out where we came from to a T?

Also thanks for proving my point. By saying it's on creationism to prove it, you point out that science really doesn't know. Go on and admit it, you'll look like less of a fool than defending it like a zealot.

Bullshit...stop posting about topics you know nothing about.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Are you just being intentionally dense at this point, or are you just a fool who prefers to lie to people out of simplicity. Either way you're a waste of oxygen.

One more time, in simple terms. The origin of the universe is unknown, and unproven. It should be VERY CLEARLY spelled out in any class that talks about it that this is at best an assumption from scientists based on what we've found to be true about the universe in scientific record. We don't know what the universe was like at its inception, we're unsure of how it was created, and we don't know where the matter came from. With that, we'll talk about what we do know and what's left to find out.


Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

We were talking about evolution not the origin of our universe. They're two completely separate issues. At this point, I have to assume you're just being a caricature of a religious fool.

 

[heymrdj]

Bullshit...stop posting about topics you know nothing about.

OMG you're a funny person. It's wrong because...I object! What a silly little man you are. Species to species evolution hasn't been proven. Deal with it.

 

[Elfear]

While they are guesses, they are not guesses in the way a layman would think of as a guess. They are more of a "The catfood bowl is empty. The cat is licking its lips and is not hungry. No one was in the house between the time I filled the catbowl with food and now. I guess the cat ate the food." type of guess.

While you do not have a time machine to go back and watch the cat eat the food, and you cannot be 100% sure the cat actually did eat the food, any rational person would say your guess is a good one and is correct.

Well, let me change the phrase to "educated guesses" in that a lot of very intelligent educated people made some guesses. In order for your analogy to work we'd have to say the cat bowl was filled up and then billions of years later some scientists discovered a cat fossil with a full stomach. It's still a guess even if it is an educated guess.

 

[heymrdj]

We were talking about evolution not the origin of our universe. They're two completely separate issues. At this point, I have to assume you're just being a caricature of a religious fool.

They can be two separate issues, but if you're going to educate students you have to go from point A to B. You can't teach science without a standpoint. It's just not possible. It has to come from a faith, an assumption (since you guys can't take that word faith), a religion, something. Many books use the word theory, but I've never heard a teacher actually stop and explain that these are *assumptions*, that alot of what this theory rides on is an *assumption*. Can we explain the current world? For the most part, yes. Can we explain origins? No. Not yet anyways. But when I talk to these kids coming up these days they talk about it like it's proven fact. Teachers, text, or something in the chain apparently isn't making it clear to students that these are assumptions.

 

[Paul98]

OMG you're a funny person. It's wrong because...I object! What a silly little man you are. Species to species evolution hasn't been proven. Deal with it.

I have looked through what you have said and you don't understand basic science or what what most science actually says. You seem to be trying to make arguments against what you think the science says.

Many of the arguments you are making are similar to saying a photon has no energy since it has zero mass and E=Mc^2 and since M=0 E=0.

 

[heymrdj]

I have looked through what you have said and you don't understand basic science or what what most science actually says. You seem to be trying to make arguments against what you think the science says.

Many of the arguments you are making are similar to saying a photon has no energy since it has zero mass and E=Mc^2 and since M=0 E=0.

Science, in its proven form, from what i've read, agrees that species haven't become new species. Now if you have some text that proves in modern times a snake becoming a bird, an ape becoming a human, a frog becoming a fish, something like that, I'll be glad to read it. But that hasn't been proven as far as I've seen. Have we even seen it in the last 30,000 years?

 

[mattpegher]

Not exactly. If God knows every possible choice everyone could ever make and knows the outcome of every choice from the beginning of time to the end, then God certainly knows the future.

Free will being an illusion is a great debate topic of its own, though.

And without omnipotence, god isnt really god. He becomes some extracorporeal alien being. The idea that god created the universe and the laws of physics sort of makes omnipotence necessary.

During highschool (catholic) and undergraduate (secular), I took several courses in philosophy of religion and metaphysical thought. The initial premise that was debated was always the nature of God. We tried several definitions that did not include omnipotence, omniscience or omnipresence. None of these definitions resulted in a being that could be considered the "supreme being", they all became essentially the same as the ancient mythic gods. The prescence of weaknesses are inconsistant with the idea of "supreme".

The kicker is the omnibenevolent(christian) or omnijust(islamic), (it is a debate amongst jewish scholars which they follow).

 

[fskimospy]

Science, in its proven form, from what i've read, agrees that species haven't become new species. Now if you have some text that proves in modern times a snake becoming a bird, an ape becoming a human, a frog becoming a fish, something like that, I'll be glad to read it. But that hasn't been proven as far as I've seen. Have we even seen it in the last 30,000 years?

Ok, now we know you're just trolling.

 

[Paul98]

They can be two separate issues, but if you're going to educate students you have to go from point A to B. You can't teach science without a standpoint. It's just not possible. It has to come from a faith, an assumption (since you guys can't take that word faith), a religion, something. Many books use the word theory, but I've never heard a teacher actually stop and explain that these are *assumptions*, that alot of what this theory rides on is an *assumption*. Can we explain the current world? For the most part, yes. Can we explain origins? No. Not yet anyways. But when I talk to these kids coming up these days they talk about it like it's proven fact. Teachers, text, or something in the chain apparently isn't making it clear to students that these are assumptions.

A scientific theory is NOT an assumption. Yes evolution is a proven fact, we see it happening all the time all around us. The theory of evolution explains how it works. Their are assumptions made obviously and these aren't hidden.

I mean heck lets say I put a ball in a box with nothing special about it. I close the box, I can assume that the ball is still in the box. If I were to open it back up I could see the ball again. I can assume the ball was always in the box. If I got different results then I would have to try and figure out what happened.

 

[Paul98]

Science, in its proven form, from what i've read, agrees that species haven't become new species. Now if you have some text that proves in modern times a snake becoming a bird, an ape becoming a human, a frog becoming a fish, something like that, I'll be glad to read it. But that hasn't been proven as far as I've seen. Have we even seen it in the last 30,000 years?

The problem with this question is that any time it's shown that one has evolved into another you will just claim that it hasn't evolved enough.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Evolution is an established truth of science., That it occurs, and that the theory is an accurate explanation of the diversity of life is beyond dispute. It is as indisputable as the theory of gravity. More importantly it is a theory that is arrived at by the scientific method, the most powerful tool we have for understanding the natural world. Attempts to undermine evolution by those with a religious agenda are thus attacks not only on evolution but on the scientific method as a whole. If we allow this then we undermine science as a whole, something that has dangerous implications for us as a society

 

[heymrdj]

Ok, now we know you're just trolling.

How was that a trollish question?

A scientific theory is NOT an assumption. Yes evolution is a proven fact, we see it happening all the time all around us. The theory of evolution explains how it works. Their are assumptions made obviously and these aren't hidden.

I mean heck lets say I put a ball in a box with nothing special about it. I close the box, I can assume that the ball is still in the box. If I were to open it back up I could see the ball again. I can assume the ball was always in the box. If I got different results then I would have to try and figure out what happened.

I wasn't calling scientific theory an assumption, I said some of it was based on an assumption, as you just said.

The problem with this question is that any time it's shown that one has evolved into another you will just claim that it hasn't evolved enough.

We have laid out quite scientific means of identifying the species of different animals. Shouldn't be too difficult to see when that's happened should it? I mean it's pretty clear when a fish evolved enough to walk on land it would have most of the organs of a water breath and most of the organs of an air breather and that they would somehow switch without much issue and the animal would be completely capable of self defense and survival and that it's offspring too would be sea and land capable until eventually it spawned the land creatures. Judging by how long that would take with normaly evolutionary speed we observe today we should be swimming in so many missing links you wouldn't even have to stick a shovel in the ground to find a bone (gross exaggeration, just making a point). Now it could be said that the speed of evolution was different at the first spark of the universe than it is now. But then if that speed varies that calls to question other theoretical laws we hold dear today.

 

[heymrdj]

Evolution is an established truth of science., That it occurs, and that the theory is an accurate explanation of the diversity of life is beyond dispute. It is as indisputable as the theory of gravity. More importantly it is a theory that is arrived at by the scientific method, the most powerful tool we have for understanding the natural world. Attempts to undermine evolution by those with a religious agenda are thus attacks not only on evolution but on the scientific method as a whole. If we allow this then we undermine science as a whole, something that has dangerous implications for us as a society

That sounds like quite the zealot response there.

 

[busydude]

That sounds like quite the zealot response there.

No, it is not. You are just being defensive.

 

[Paul98]

How was that a trollish question?



I wasn't calling scientific theory an assumption, I said some of it was based on an assumption, as you just said.



We have laid out quite scientific means of identifying the species of different animals. Shouldn't be too difficult to see when that's happened should it? I mean it's pretty clear when a fish evolved enough to walk on land it would have most of the organs of a water breath and most of the organs of an air breather and that they would somehow switch without much issue and the animal would be completely capable of self defense and survival and that it's offspring too would be sea and land capable until eventually it spawned the land creatures. Judging by how long that would take with normaly evolutionary speed we observe today we should be swimming in so many missing links you wouldn't even have to stick a shovel in the ground to find a bone (gross exaggeration, just making a point). Now it could be said that the speed of evolution was different at the first spark of the universe than it is now. But then if that speed varies that calls to question other theoretical laws we hold dear today.

If you are looking for experimental evolution showing how it works here is a great link.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

 

[spittledip]

That's another problem that omniscience creates though, if someone created the entire universe and everything in it and knows exactly how all parts of that universe will act at all times, then free will is an illusion.

This is untrue. The act of creating an entity when the creator has all knowledge of the entity's life is predestining them to a certain course by the act of creating. However, the choices the entity makes are ultimately their own. Just b/c the choices are known ahead of time does not change the fact that the created entity makes real choices. Foreknowing an outcome does not equal controlling the outcome.

 

[heymrdj]

No, it is not. You are just being defensive.

You need some glasses. Going off that whatever challenges science is a danger to society? If it's one thing any self respecting adult should have learned growing up it's that not all adults can be trusted. Being educated doesn't make it any better. Just look at the global warming loonies on both sides of the fence. Scientific findings can't and shouldn't be trusted blindly. Whether it be a scientific and or religious hypothesis I don't care, but something should always challenge science to find more proof.

The theory of evolution is certainly disputable. If it wasn't it would no longer be a simple theory.

The theory of gravity is debatable as well. Again it only makes sense in the way we know it now. There's nothing to say that won't change. Depending how far you pick it apart you could say in the future, should we discover those changes, that the theory of gravity exists and has only changed from what we thought it meant, or that the theory of gravity was completely wrong, a false premise of older age humans, and is now known as the theory gravitatamus. If it changes in the future, either way, we were wrong now, and the theory of gravity became disputable.

 

[Paul98]

The theory of evolution is certainly disputable. If it wasn't it would no longer be a simple theory.

I think this shows your lack on understanding. I don't think I will continue to reply as I have no desire to try and teach you basics that are needed to understand what scientists are talking about.

 

[heymrdj]

If you are looking for experimental evolution showing how it works here is a great link.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

I covered that one already, where has the bacteria failed to be a bacteria? Where did it change species and create a completely new species. Has it gained sentience?

 

[LumbergTech]

You need some glasses. Going off that whatever challenges science is a danger to society? If it's one thing any self respecting adult should have learned growing up it's that not all adults can be trusted. Being educated doesn't make it any better. Just look at the global warming loonies on both sides of the fence. Scientific findings can't and shouldn't be trusted blindly. Whether it be a scientific and or religious hypothesis I don't care, but something should always challenge science to find more proof.

The theory of evolution is certainly disputable. If it wasn't it would no longer be a simple theory.

The theory of gravity is debatable as well. Again it only makes sense in the way we know it now. There's nothing to say that won't change. Depending how far you pick it apart you could say in the future, should we discover those changes, that the theory of gravity exists and has only changed from what we thought it meant, or that the theory of gravity was completely wrong, a false premise of older age humans, and is now known as the theory gravitatamus. If it changes in the future, either way, we were wrong now, and the theory of gravity became disputable.

Anything is disputable, but that doesn't mean that all disputes are valid. If people who "disputed" evolution had an actual point besides just random google arugments, it would be a little easier to take them seriously. 99.9% of the disputes against evolution I have seen are based around the same few idiotic approaches by people who are made uncomfortable that "their" people don't get to define how the world works and so they rage against it in an attempt to feel more in control over themselves and the world. I don't think I've seen truly sincere criticism by someone who didn't have an agenda.

 

[busydude]

The theory of evolution is certainly disputable. If it wasn't it would no longer be a simple theory.

I am done here. It is pretty clear that you have no inclination to accept facts.

 

[heymrdj]

I think this shows your lack on understanding. I don't think I will continue to reply as I have no desire to try and teach you basics that are needed to understand what scientists are talking about.

No I think what it's showing is your desire to use a different vernacular. To me, when a theory is proven without a doubt it becomes a law. Is that not how you see it, or do you believe with some other scientists that a theory is a well proven set of hypothesis that stands well enough on it's own?