Dawkins 1 - Creationists 0

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

randomrogue

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2011
5,449
0
0
Victory in crushing opposing opinions.

Don't like someones opinion, just regulate it out of existence.

I think equal time should be given to different opinions on how the universe and life began. Science has proven itself to be wrong from time to time.

Why should we take something that is always changing as fact? If it changes, then its clearly not fact. Since science changes its opinion on the history of the universe and how life began, then it should not be blindly accepted as fact.

2+2 = 4 is fact. We can prove that all day long.

Wait a few months or a few years, and science will change its opinion on the universe. But yet we are supposed to accept it as fact?

I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny or you're actually serious with this drivel. I mean, it's 2012, and I'm gonna assume you're educated at least through high school. How is it possible that someone could still not understand what science actually is and the difference between a theory and a law?

So, I think I learned this when I was about 8 years old but I'll go ahead and explain it to you anyways. Hopefully you're around 8 years old so that I'm not insulting your intelligence.

A scientific theory is generally based on a hypothesis although sometimes people make observations first. After a hypothesis is made (if you don't know what a hypothesis is please visit dictionary.com or wikipedia.org) a scientist will go ahead and start testing it through experiments and observation. If the experiments and observations are reproducible and can be verified the hypothesis becomes a theory.

A law is not a theory that graduated. It's something different. A law doesn't try to explain nature like a theory does. It basically looks at a set of conditions and explains repeated results.

So, with all that said, how does creationism fit into any of that? It doesn't. There is absolutely no basis for it. There is no experiment and no observation that can verify it. It's a story not a theory and definitely not a law.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
I hate when people who don't understand what a scientific theory is try to discount something because it's "just a theory". A scientific theory is made up of many, many FACTS. In order for something to become a scientific theory it takes mountains of evidence. Evolution is true, it's just not completely known yet. ID is ... nothing. You wanna teach ID in school, fine, just not in a public school science class. I'm all for young children taking philosophy or religion classes (provided the class doesn't focus on just one religion and gives equal time). But science classes should be reserved for things that are actually scientific.
 

tydas

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2000
1,284
0
76
The silence of the standard GOP commenter’s is deafening...all of these ID’s are your allies you know…
 

heymrdj

Diamond Member
May 28, 2007
3,999
63
91
There is an enormous amount of evidence behind the theory of evolution.

Your point? It's not proven, therefore it has no business being taught. The blind lead the blind on the faith that our scientists are correct. Our scientists only know part of the story, the part they can test. Again where is matter being created out of nothing? When we get that point taken care of we'll go on into that matter evolving (which I agree with, I just see limited genetic mutations being the evolution, I don't believe, regardless of how many years you give it, even trillions of trillions of years, that they will hop species).
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Now that a form of saltation and punctuated equilibrium has been accepted into the mainstream form of evolution, it is a viable theory. Prior to that, it failed miserably due to a horrific lack of supporting evidence. With these added, far less evidence is required, and the theory aligns with the existing data much better.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
It's sad that in this day and age we need this regulation to keep creationism out of the science room. Creationism, intelligent design, and any other of this BS is not science there is nothing scientific about it. Just because you believe or don't believe something doesn't make it science, or doesn't make the science wrong.

Evolution is a fact, we know it happens we not only use it, but see it happen all the time. The Theory of evolution explains how and the incorporates the data about evolution. Theories can and will change as new data and knowledge emerges, but this won't change evolution from happening, it will just better explain it, or give us a better understanding of evolution.

Creationism is "I don't understand how this could have happened their for it's wrong." So instead I will come up with an explanation that has nothing to back it, goes against reality, but I can understand so it must be right...
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
It's sad that in this day and age we need this regulation to keep creationism out of the science room. Creationism, intelligent design, and any other of this BS is not science there is nothing scientific about it. Just because you believe or don't believe something doesn't make it science, or doesn't make the science wrong.

Evolution is a fact, we know it happens we not only use it, but see it happen all the time. The Theory of evolution explains how and the incorporates the data about evolution. Theories can and will change as new data and knowledge emerges, but this won't change evolution from happening, it will just better explain it, or give us a better understanding of evolution.

Creationism is "I don't understand how this could have happened their for it's wrong." So instead I will come up with an explanation that has nothing to back it, goes against reality, but I can understand so it must be right...

No, evolution is not a "fact"... it's a theory that has a lot of supporting evidence.
 

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
How do you test that carbon dating is accurate back 4 billion years? We'd have to create a test which would prove the tests are accurate. We can't, and will never be able to. We assume the scale is linear, when we have no way to know for sure.

Here is what wiki says:

Carbon-14 has a relatively short half-life of 5730 years.

How do we know it is 5730 years? How did they determine this?

How do we know the gravitational constant is the same through the last 4 billion years, how do we know the energy in a photon is constant, how do we know the strong nuclear force is constant, how do we know the weak nuclear force is constant. How do we know the sun will really rise tomorrow.

First of all Carbon-14 is in no way accurate to 4 billion years, they use calibration tests based on the amount in the atmosphere and it is accurate to within the last 30,000 years or so. Dating of older fossils is based on dating the sediment/rocks in which the fossil is found. Uranium-Lead dating is accurate to a few billion years because the half life is ~700 million years.

Measuring of a half-life is extremely easy and does not require waiting the entire time of a half-life. You just need a big enough sample to achieve measurable decay and then fit it to an exponential fit. Radioactive decay is an inherently random event (in a sample of 2 atoms, 1 atom will not decay at the exact half-life), however if you spread it across a large enough sample you can statistically match experimental data to an exponential fit.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
The silence of the standard GOP commenter’s is deafening...all of these ID’s are your allies you know…

I usually post as a Republican, I haven't in this thread since i'm a firm believer in evolution and the science behind it. It's also about the U.K. which isn't of much political importance to me. It's just another government solution to a nonexistent problem.
 

Mr. Pedantic

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2010
5,027
0
76
It's England. Don't care. :)

That said, I don't see a problem with a teacher teaching anything, be it creationism, intelligent design, or evolution. Since none of those are proven, and as long as the teacher states that everything being taught is in fact theory or fairy tale, I don't see a problem.

I remember my teachers doing that all the time: "I'm going to go through this for an alternate viewpoint, even though personally I don't believe it to be true." The more information given to anybody is fine.

Look at it this way. If Creationism was taught, and Evolution as well, which one holds more scientific "weight"? Which ones makes the other one look silly? If both were taught to school kids, don't you think Creationism would fall flat on its face, and kids would be more apt to follow evolution as the one closer to the truth?
That would be fine if everyone entering the class held an unbiased, completely uneducated view on the subject. However, they don't. Kids go to church, they get taught religious ideologies by their parents, they read books, watch videos, and of course, the parents themselves may be biased heavily in one way or the other and influence their child's education through homework or random questions. And as we all should know, in cases where people have prior knowledge about a subject, they purposefully reject information or evidence that contradicts their belief while only accepting evidence that confirms their belief.

Victory in crushing opposing opinions.

Don't like someones opinion, just regulate it out of existence.

I think equal time should be given to different opinions on how the universe and life began. Science has proven itself to be wrong from time to time.

Why should we take something that is always changing as fact? If it changes, then its clearly not fact.

Since science changes its opinion on the history of the universe and how life began, then it should not be blindly accepted as fact.

2+2 = 4 is fact. We can prove that all day long.

Wait a few months or a few years, and science will change its opinion on the universe. But yet we are supposed to accept it as fact?
I don't know if anyone has told you this yet, but here goes. You are about as wrong as it's possible to be.
 

randomrogue

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2011
5,449
0
0
Your point? It's not proven, therefore it has no business being taught. The blind lead the blind on the faith that our scientists are correct. Our scientists only know part of the story, the part they can test. Again where is matter being created out of nothing? When we get that point taken care of we'll go on into that matter evolving (which I agree with, I just see limited genetic mutations being the evolution, I don't believe, regardless of how many years you give it, even trillions of trillions of years, that they will hop species).

This is incredibly ignorant as well.

I took a cosmology course in College and on the last day the professor basically turned to the class and said "Anything beyond this is left to faith and religion".

You see scientists don't claim to know about what happened before the big bang. The problem is that religion tries to dictate what happened after it.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
That isn't what they found in Dover vs. Kitzmiller.

That is because they are all being stupid on purpose. If we assume the Intelligent Designer are aliens, does that mean aliens are suddenly all gods?

No, they are not. That is why ID is NOT religion. Only those who are being purposefully stupid demand that ID is religion. Sadly, it also detracts from the real reason not to teach it.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
This is incredibly ignorant as well.

I took a cosmology course in College and on the last day the professor basically turned to the class and said "Anything beyond this is left to faith and religion".

You see scientists don't claim to know about what happened before the big bang. The problem is that religion tries to dictate what happened after it.

Interestingly enough, science cannot tell us what happened "before" the big bang. Time started with the big bang, so technically there is not a "before" then since before requires time to already exist.

Also, science was designed to help us understand the natural universe...anything outside of that is outside the scope of science. Science is outstanding at doing what it was designed to do. :)
 

randomrogue

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2011
5,449
0
0
That is because they are all being stupid on purpose. If we assume the Intelligent Designer are aliens, does that mean aliens are suddenly all gods?

No, they are not. That is why ID is NOT religion. Only those who are being purposefully stupid demand that ID is religion. Sadly, it also detracts from the real reason not to teach it.

Open Letter To Kansas School Board

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence.

What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

PiratesVsTemp.png


In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (Pastafarianism), and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

fsmdrawing.jpg


http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
 
Last edited:

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
No, evolution is not a "fact"... it's a theory that has a lot of supporting evidence.

Sure it is, it's both, next time read the entire post. Just like gravity is both a fact and a theory. We know gravity exists that's a fact, the theory of gravity explains it.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
I don't see what the fuss is about. Creationism isn't science. It doesn't belong in scientific discussion, just as mathematics doesn't belong in religious discussion.

The nature of God is an issue of philosophy and religion, not science. I'll never understand why my fellow Christians are so riled by evolution.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
Your point? It's not proven, therefore it has no business being taught. The blind lead the blind on the faith that our scientists are correct. Our scientists only know part of the story, the part they can test. Again where is matter being created out of nothing? When we get that point taken care of we'll go on into that matter evolving (which I agree with, I just see limited genetic mutations being the evolution, I don't believe, regardless of how many years you give it, even trillions of trillions of years, that they will hop species).

I will say it again Evolution is a fact, we use it and see it all the time.

I have a hard time believing anyone is really this stupid. I am going to assume you are just a troll and going to ignore the rest of your posts.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
If you want to talk about a theory that doesn't make any sense look at quantum mechanics. Yet it works, it has insanely crazy predictions yet ever prediction has so far come out as correct.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
I don't see what the fuss is about. Creationism isn't science. It doesn't belong in scientific discussion, just as mathematics doesn't belong in religious discussion.

The nature of God is an issue of philosophy and religion, not science. I'll never understand why my fellow Christians are so riled by evolution.

This
 

DirkGently1

Senior member
Mar 31, 2011
904
0
0
Finally a win for common sense! (I refer of course to the story in the OP, not the predictable drivel and diatribe that was posted thereafter.)