Dawkins 1 - Creationists 0

[Doc Savage Fan]

I fully support this move to get creationism outside of science classrooms, including the so called "intelligent design". Dawkins is still a dick, though.

This....especially the last part!

 

[Juddog]

You both are mixing two issues. Micro evolution (aka adaptation) has been observed. Macro evolution has never been observed - it takes too long.

Does not mean macro evolution is not true, but it has not been observed. Same thing with the formation of a star...it just takes too darn long to watch it happen.

You're attempting to confuse the issue yourself. Macroevolution is just microevolution over a broad time and scale. Macro / Micro evolution is just two terms referring to the same thing - very few neo-Darwinian writers use the term, preferring instead to talk of evolution as changes in allele frequencies without mention of the level of the changes (above species level or below).

To act like microevolution and macroevolution are different things is misleading.

 

[Genx87]

I will piss myself in laughter and put it on youtube if within our lifetime aliens come down and explain they created us.

That will make this guy correct

and this guy wrong

 

[sandorski]

I will piss myself in laughter and put it on youtube if within our lifetime aliens come down and explain they created us.

That will make this guy correct

and this guy wrong

If the Alien guy is correct, it does not prove Dawkins incorrect.

 

[Juddog]

I will piss myself in laughter and put it on youtube if within our lifetime aliens come down and explain they created us.

That will make this guy correct
and this guy wrong

Even if aliens did tinker with human genes at some point in the past, it wouldn't stop evolution from occurring. In order to tinker with genes in the first place, a species would have to have knowledge of ... get this... evolution!

So if aliens tinker with genetics, it doesn't suddenly nullify evolution. We as humans have already tinkered with genetics ourselves, and in fact have already got the point where we grow genetically modified foods. That right there is evolutionary biology in effect.

 

[Juddog]

If the Alien guy is correct, it does not prove Dawkins incorrect.

^^ Exactly - people that don't understand the basics of science seem to think that an entire mechanism which has been literally detailed down to the molecular level can all of a sudden be thrown away when there is one thing out there that seems to contradict it in their mind.

For example GMO crops - with the line of thinking of some of the posters above, just because we've made genetically modified crops, that would invalidate evolution. In fact it only strengthens our theories of evolution, because we're already working directly with the genetic code of organisms while in a laboratory - it's the equivalent of working with airplanes and flying them around and then arguing with someone for hours who insists that air travel is impossible.

In general I have found these anti-evolutionists tend to just ignore vast tracts of data for some ideas they just came up with themselves, then insist that their data is correct over data that has been being gathered for over a decade.

 

[randomrogue]

When the Aliens come they'll be very aggressive deploying their anal probes on the ones who believe in intelligent design and creationism.

Prove me wrong! It says so right here.

 

[crashtestdummy]

There you have it. Get back to me when it becomes fact. Nothing has jumped between species. We haven't seen apes become humans or anywhere close and survive. Humans haven't genetically altered to 6 toes and have it survive to a point that generations upon generations of humans have 6 toes each and every time.

Nothing has been proven. Evidence of a so called fossil, which can't even realisitically have a date proven, is not evidence.

You really don't understand how science works, do you? There's a disconnect between the religious and scientific communities in terms of language usage that needs some expansion.

The religious crowd speak in terms of strong absolutes ("God made man in his image", "Jesus loves you and died for your sins", "sin and you will go to hell") because they take statements from tradition on face value. To them, the world is simple, black-and-white, and full of absolutes.

Scientist are intentionally ambiguous in their language ("we think...", "we predict...", "our best explanation is...") because they are bound by directly observable evidence, which is almost never gapless. Theories, despite their colloquial usage as a synonym of hypothesis, are as certain as scientists ever become of anything. They are the best available description of a set of observations, and are able to predict further evidence. Are they always 100% correct? No! new evidence comes in all the time, often supplanting previous theories with new, better fitting ones. Such is the nature of discovery.

I don't object to you believing that God created the universe, or even that He personally gives life to every being on earth. What I do object is that you somehow try to call these ideas scientific in nature. If they are indeed scientific, then propose a set of predictions and experiments that would occur under ID theory that wouldn't happen under Natural Selection.

Now, on the matter at hand: Our nation, as well as pretty much every other nation (even some of the crazy ones) teaches science because it works. It has created many of the things you rely on daily to survive. The principle of Natural Selection has, believe it or not, been absolutely vital to many of those developments. It does work. Now, I can understand you being uncomfortable with the philosophical ramifications of some of the products of scientific research. These ramifications (outside of the ethical conduct of research), however, are not of scientific concern and do not belong in a science class.

 

[Matt1970]

Evolution does not disprove the existence of God and the existence of God does not disprove Evolution. Live with it.

 

[zinfamous]

Yay! Don't like someones theory then crush it by government regulations or changing the rules...

But it's not a theory. They can call it a belief all they want, but classifying it as science simply confuses students.

You can't equate ID/Creationism with Evolutionary theory.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Evolution does not disprove the existence of God and the existence of God does not disprove Evolution. Live with it.

It does disprove the bible though. Some people have issues with the literal interpretation of the bible disproven and they tend to drag less crazy religious people into the argument. That or they use ID as a stepping stone to getting religion back in school (something the founder of ID has admitted to several times).

 

[hal2kilo]

Can't we test certain theories, such as mass, friction and gravity?

We can do certain test to prove friction exist, and how it works.

Do we have a way to recreate the universe? Do we have a way to create mass from nothing? I have yet to see a scientist create a miniature universe from nothing. Lets see a scientist recreate the "big bang" from nothing.

That's not evolution, that's cosmology. See my thumb, jeez you're dumb.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Wait...you are saying I am moving the goalposts when the topic is about the government of the UK not allowing ID in science class?

No, the subject at hand was Dover vs. Kitzmiller, you disingenuous prick.

It is moving the goalposts to say the religion has to be accepted by the government under discussion in order for it to be a religion in the area controlled by that government?

You asked me to show you an alien-based religion and I did. You didn't ask for one acknowledged as a religion by the UK. That came later. That's textbook goalpost shifting, fuck face.

I was already there and could not find anywhere that it said the government of the UK granted official religion status to them.

Who cares if the UK grants it an "official" status? Why is that suddenly the metric by which "real" religions are judged?

But since you show it as your support, you obviously already read it and know where it says it. Please post the snippet along with the url to that snippet, please.

Show me a list of ANY "official" UK religions. As far as I know, the Anglican church is the only "official" UK religion. Does that mean Islam is not a religion, now, shit-for-brains? What does it mean to be an "official" religion in the UK and what difference does it make in this context, dickhead?

You would not just blindly toss out a URL without actually reading the site you linked too, only idiots (to use your favorite adjective) would do that...so I know you read it on that site. Right?

My referenced link demonstrated that Raelianism is officially a religion in the UK.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It is if you continue the thought forward.

Still wrong, dumbshit.

I am sorry, I should have remembered that is something hard for you to do...I will do it for you:

I have a theory about who messed up the cake, it was the cat.

You said a theory is an explanation. "It was the cat" doesn't explain anything, assface.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You both are mixing two issues. Micro evolution (aka adaptation) has been observed. Macro evolution has never been observed - it takes too long.

What do you think macro-evolution is?

Does not mean macro evolution is not true, but it has not been observed. Same thing with the formation of a star...it just takes too darn long to watch it happen.

And you have never observed your computer monitor, by that same standard.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Personally, I have no idea why anyone is against evolution.

The ideas you do not have could fill the fucking Grand Canyon.

The Hebrew words use in Genesis clearly imply that when God finished His work he finished the START of things, not the end of things.

Which Hebrew words?

It is implied that the world and life would keep changing over time.

Actually, it quite directly states that animals would reproduce "according to their own kinds" -- which plenty of ignorant theologians take to mean that speciation is impossible.

 

[soulcougher73]

What do you think macro-evolution is?


And you have never observed your computer monitor, by that same standard.

You'd be better of beating your head on your desk Cerpin Their is no getting through to these people.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I have an exercise for cybersage:

Imagine I'm in room with a man named Fred, and this room has no windows, only one door, and in the center rests a ball, and a sealed, hollow and transparent glass cube on a plain table.

You close the door to the room and re-enter in in 5 mins to find that Fred and I are still standing there, and the ball is now inside the sealed glass cube on the table.

You ask me how the ball got inside the cube.

I replied "Fred did it."

Now, I want you to "continue that thought forward" and tell us how "Fred did it" explains the location of the ball inside the sealed glass cube.

I eagerly await your thoughtful response.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

I can't explain why they believe that way nor why Dawkins is such a dick. Some things just are.

 

[monovillage]

I can't explain why they believe that way nor why Dawkins is such a dick. Some things just are.

This.

 

[glenn1]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education...-creationism-intelligent-design?newsfeed=true

The Department for Education has revised its model funding agreement, allowing the education secretary to withdraw cash from schools that fail to meet strict criteria relating to what they teach. Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are "evidence-based views or theories" that run "contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations".

While I have no problems with not teaching creationism in schools, this seems like a poorly designed solution. As I'm reading this, if you teach a lesson about a historical scientific theory that's now considered obsolete (e.g. ptolemaic astonomy, etc) you could lose your funding. I could also very easily see this used a club against anyone who dares question the "scientific consensus" around man-made global warming as well.

 

[sandorski]

While I have no problems with not teaching creationism in schools, this seems like a poorly designed solution. As I'm reading this, if you teach a lesson about a historical scientific theory that's now considered obsolete (e.g. ptolemaic astonomy, etc) you could lose your funding. I could also very easily see this used a club against anyone who dares question the "scientific consensus" around man-made global warming as well.

It's about Science.

 

[micrometers]

While I have no problems with not teaching creationism in schools, this seems like a poorly designed solution. As I'm reading this, if you teach a lesson about a historical scientific theory that's now considered obsolete (e.g. ptolemaic astonomy, etc) you could lose your funding. I could also very easily see this used a club against anyone who dares question the "scientific consensus" around man-made global warming as well.

Except no one would seriously pass along ptolemaic astronomy as fact, while ID/creationists would pass along it as fact.

I'm sure that you could teach biblical creationism in literature classes right alongside Zeus and Hera.

 

[randomrogue]

What about general Chem? It's not based on any kind of reality. It's a place holder until students take O and P Chem. Does that count?

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Except no one would seriously pass along ptolemaic astronomy as fact, while ID/creationists would pass along it as fact.

I'm sure that you could teach biblical creationism in literature classes right alongside Zeus and Hera.

This. You get taught things about outdated science (especially the ones that didn't actually use science to come to their conclusions (Aristotle I'm looking at you)) in classes like Civ. Not in Physics 1001.