Have any of the Evolution threads here changed your views?

[Descartes]

I don't feel anyone has said anything, regarding anything, that has caused me to question my views in any way. I'm not close-minded, it's just that no one seems to know what they're talking about. Trying to get your point across by calling everyone else an idiot doesn't show much intelligence either. Also, the whole "I have a degree in this so I know what I'm talking about" argument carries little weight.

It seems all these pseudo-researchers on here spend more time trying to prove others wrong than actually doing research.

Hi, my name is Chad; I read a book, so I know what I'm talking about. Assimilate my views...

 

[NewSc2]

Originally posted by: Descartes
I don't feel anyone has said anything, regarding anything, that has caused me to question my views in any way. I'm not close-minded, it's just that no one seems to know what they're talking about. Trying to get your point across by calling everyone else an idiot doesn't show much intelligence either. Also, the whole "I have a degree in this so I know what I'm talking about" argument carries little weight.

It seems all these pseudo-researchers on here spend more time trying to prove others wrong than actually doing research.

Hi, my name is Chad; I read a book, so I know what I'm talking about. Assimilate my views...

you mean i can't say "ev0lution pwns j00!"?

 

[0roo0roo]

debate is only valid if converts are created.


:Q

 

[Thegonagle]

Since they all tend to very quickly exceed 100 posts, I don't tend to read them, much less reply, so no, they haven't changed my correct views on evolution.

 

[XZeroII]

It's now been 2 hours and only 1 person has supposedly changed their views. What does this tell us about the subject?

 

[0roo0roo]

what important subject do people easily change their views on?

oh yes, so this thread is pointless

all threads are pointless.

 

[jspeezy]

I have no beef with those who think God created life. I just have a problem with those who consider creationism a science and try to force it into schools.

-BDAWG

I'm not sure why any logical person would want to keep Creationism out of schools? I think since there is obviously a large population of seemingly illusional people arguing based on the bible, that the school is the best place to analyze this popular belief system along with evolution objectively. As if both were just different ways of percieving reality, both just theoretical models, both not 100%proven. This way, starting from a young age kids can see both sides and begin to think critically about the two. Now teaching evolution as pure fact, or teaching "creation science" as pure fact, that I would agree is inherently wrong. Everyone is so paraonoid about "separation of church and state" that they don't even want to bring up the bible in a classroom setting. I think that if the two are looked at as popular, sometimes conflicting theories, that they can be argued down over the years logically, and help to bring about the real truth. Since that is the relation of the two sides, both creationists and evolutionists sincerely want to bring about the truth. What better way to bring about truth than through logical argument? Where both sides are equally taught and equally known by the student, so that the student can deliberate on his/her own? This would really help solve the ignorance problem we have been experiencing on AT these past few days.

 

[FrustratedUser]

No.
But I could understand 1 of the pro-creation posts. I now respect his point of view and he (might) know who he is.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: jspeezy

I have no beef with those who think God created life. I just have a problem with those who consider creationism a science and try to force it into schools.

-BDAWG

I'm not sure why any logical person would want to keep Creationism out of schools? I think since there is obviously a large population of seemingly illusional people arguing based on the bible, that the school is the best place to analyze this popular belief system along with evolution objectively. As if both were just different ways of percieving reality, both just theoretical models, both not 100%proven. This way, starting from a young age kids can see both sides and begin to think critically about the two. Now teaching evolution as pure fact, or teaching "creation science" as pure fact, that I would agree is inherently wrong. Everyone is so paraonoid about "separation of church and state" that they don't even want to bring up the bible in a classroom setting. I think that if the two are looked at as popular, sometimes conflicting theories, that they can be argued down over the years logically, and help to bring about the real truth. Since that is the relation of the two sides, both creationists and evolutionists sincerely want to bring about the truth. What better way to bring about truth than through logical argument? Where both sides are equally taught and equally known by the student, so that the student can deliberate on his/her own? This would really help solve the ignorance problem we have been experiencing on AT these past few days.

Evolution is scientific theory, whereas Creationism is distortion of religious dogma. Not only that, but Creationism focuses upon the Judeo-Christian concept of how the the world was supposedly created, and this promotes favoritism and tacit Federal endorsement of one particular (type of) religion over others. Therefore, Creationism does not belong in public school.

Yes, I agree that this is like arguing the abortion issue: No opinions will ever be changed on either side.

"Laugha while you can, monkey boy!" - Lord John Whorfin

 

[0roo0roo]

As if both were just different ways of percieving reality, both just theoretical models, both not 100%proven.

sorry you can't equate the two. evolution is a scientific theory. creationism at best is a religious story, not a scientific theory. johny barely has the time to learn good science in school, now you want to add pseudo science? americans schools are behind in science in math, do you see europeans trying to give religious stories equal time in school? it would be pointless as trying to give flat earth theory equal time in school. and frankly, teaching creationism objectively would involve teachers basically disproving creationism since no good science supports it.

 

[udonoogen]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

As if both were just different ways of percieving reality, both just theoretical models, both not 100%proven.

sorry you can't equate the two. evolution is a scientific theory. creationism at best is a religious story, not a scientific theory. johny barely has the time to learn good science in school, now you want to add pseudo science? americans schools are behind in science in math, do you see europeans trying to give religious stories equal time in school? it would be pointless as trying to give flat earth theory equal time in school. and frankly, teaching creationism objectively would involve teachers basically disproving creationism since no good science supports it.

... while at the same time no good science can adequately disprove it.

i'm a creationist and a Christian and you probably won't change me either. i do enjoy reading the threads though ... before they get to be ten pages or something like that.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: udonoogen

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

As if both were just different ways of percieving reality, both just theoretical models, both not 100%proven.

sorry you can't equate the two. evolution is a scientific theory. creationism at best is a religious story, not a scientific theory. johny barely has the time to learn good science in school, now you want to add pseudo science? americans schools are behind in science in math, do you see europeans trying to give religious stories equal time in school? it would be pointless as trying to give flat earth theory equal time in school. and frankly, teaching creationism objectively would involve teachers basically disproving creationism since no good science supports it.

... while at the same time no good science can adequately disprove it.

i'm a creationist and a Christian and you probably won't change me either. i do enjoy reading the threads though ... before they get to be ten pages or something like that.

you can't disprove something involving a magical being at its core.

you can only disprove its pseudo scientific claims.

just like you can't disprove the universe wasn't created by scooby doo.

"the universe was created by scooby doo" is not a scientific theory.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo



you can't disprove something involving a magical being at its core.

I don't know... I saw a TV show where they proved that when they make elephants disappear on stage, it's all just mirrors. Are you saying David Copperfield isn't magical?

 

[udonoogen]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: udonoogen

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

As if both were just different ways of percieving reality, both just theoretical models, both not 100%proven.

sorry you can't equate the two. evolution is a scientific theory. creationism at best is a religious story, not a scientific theory. johny barely has the time to learn good science in school, now you want to add pseudo science? americans schools are behind in science in math, do you see europeans trying to give religious stories equal time in school? it would be pointless as trying to give flat earth theory equal time in school. and frankly, teaching creationism objectively would involve teachers basically disproving creationism since no good science supports it.

... while at the same time no good science can adequately disprove it.

i'm a creationist and a Christian and you probably won't change me either. i do enjoy reading the threads though ... before they get to be ten pages or something like that.

you can't disprove something involving a magical being at its core.

you can only disprove its pseudo scientific claims.

just like you can't disprove the universe wasn't created by scooby doo.

"the universe was created by scooby doo" is not a scientific theory.

i find the big bang a rather magical event, myself. i find evolution of very complex species from amino acids and a primordial goop quite a magical series of events. we are aren't even close to understanding how complex even our brain is. in my book, chance can't be that accurate and there must have been some magic dust in that goop. we can mythologize and call both "pseudo" science or we can just leave it at that. apparently intellectual talk more than i am capable of has gone on here and not many have been convinced. in either case you have yourself a fine saturday. =)

edit: clarification ... and the second time ... good night ... 530 in the mornin gotta get some rest

 

[0roo0roo]

that is true, things like the big bang aren't currently provable. but we're not talking about creationists that think god could have been the initiator, but those who think the earth is 6000 years old

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Fausto1
Nope. I'm a biologist by trade. It would pretty much take God himself personally explaining things to me to change my mind. Creationists just need to accept the fact that they're 95% monkey and get over it.

Actually it is more like 99%.

Fausto1 is correct. It is ~95%. Originally it was thought to be 99% but strands were found which dropped the percentage.

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

I'll have to add my point.

Both are not provable. You take the information given to you and make a judgement call on what you want to believe. Either way you have to have faith in one of them.

 

[udonoogen]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
that is true, things like the big bang aren't currently provable. but we're not talking about creationists that think god could have been the initiator, but those who think the earth is 6000 years old

regardless of how old people think the world is, i've come to realize that it doesn't matter. whether the world is a bajillion years old or if it's two hundred years old has no "real" noticeable effect on my life right now as it stands. it's history.

however, what i do think is important is that people don't miss the central message of Christianity with all the distraction of origins and such. that's the saving grace of Jesus Christ. =) anyhow i didn't stay up until 530 to open another can of worms so i'm gonna go to bed now. you guys have a good weekend

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Fausto1
Nope. I'm a biologist by trade. It would pretty much take God himself personally explaining things to me to change my mind. Creationists just need to accept the fact that they're 95% monkey and get over it.

Actually it is more like 99%.

Fausto1 is correct. It is ~95%. Originally it was thought to be 99% but strands were found which dropped the percentage.

That's the problem. No 'fact' is only 95% true. And then we are talking physical makeup and not mental capability.

Even scientists are so deverse in their theory involving evolution that it's impossible to fathom every article written on the subject.

In EVERY thread the 'evolutionists' end up calling the 'creationists' idiots. Bot theories have holes punchd in them a truck can drive through and no 'scientist,' and they are as brainwashed as those they claim are, will ever say 'I do not know!'

I do not know and probably never will. I've not changed my mind. They do not know either. Of that I'm certain!

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Fausto1
Nope. I'm a biologist by trade. It would pretty much take God himself personally explaining things to me to change my mind. Creationists just need to accept the fact that they're 95% monkey and get over it.

Actually it is more like 99%.

Fausto1 is correct. It is ~95%. Originally it was thought to be 99% but strands were found which dropped the percentage.

That's the problem. No 'fact' is only 95% true. And then we are talking physical makeup and not mental capability.

Even scientists are so deverse in their theory involving evolution that it's impossible to fathom every article written on the subject.

In EVERY thread the 'evolutionists' end up calling the 'creationists' idiots. Bot theories have holes punchd in them a truck can drive through and no 'scientist,' and they are as brainwashed as those they claim are, will ever say 'I do not know!'

I do not know and probably never will. I've not changed my mind. They do not know either. Of that I'm certain!

You misread my statement. I was stating NOT that it is 95% true that we came from monkeys, just that 95% of our DNA is similar, not the 99% I was responding to.

 

[Tominator]

You misread my statement. I was stating NOT that it is 95% true that we came from monkeys, just that 95% of our DNA is similar, not the 99% I was responding to.

I didn't mean to infer, but it's been stated many times in various threads that 95% is 'close enough' to be part of the proof that evolution as a fact is proven.

Keep in mind that I always refer to evolution as it is claimed to be the origin of all life. The ability of nature and science to cause mutation in single, even multiple cell creatures or even reptiles is not evolution in my view. Once again, even scientist's views are too diverse for them to agree on much.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: Tominator

You misread my statement. I was stating NOT that it is 95% true that we came from monkeys, just that 95% of our DNA is similar, not the 99% I was responding to.

I didn't mean to infer, but it's been stated many times in various threads that 95% is 'close enough' to be part of the proof that evolution as a fact is proven.

Keep in mind that I always refer to evolution as it is claimed to be the origin of all life. The ability of nature and science to cause mutation in single, even multiple cell creatures or even reptiles is not evolution in my view. Once again, even scientist's views are too diverse for them to agree on much.

You just missed the point. If 100% of our DNA is identical to monkey we would be monkeys.

 

[Tominator]

You just missed the point. If 100% of our DNA is identical to monkey we would be monkeys.

And maybe you missed mine...There is no credible link from monkey to man. The huge posters in every public school in the United States showing how we evolved from apes is a huge lie! Instead of separation of church and state, we need separation of fact from fiction!

 

[LordMaul]

Nope, I'm still a Christian, microevolution-believing, gun grabbing right wing ultra conservative and like it that way.

 

[LordMaul]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: jspeezy

I have no beef with those who think God created life. I just have a problem with those who consider creationism a science and try to force it into schools.

-BDAWG

I'm not sure why any logical person would want to keep Creationism out of schools? I think since there is obviously a large population of seemingly illusional people arguing based on the bible, that the school is the best place to analyze this popular belief system along with evolution objectively. As if both were just different ways of percieving reality, both just theoretical models, both not 100%proven. This way, starting from a young age kids can see both sides and begin to think critically about the two. Now teaching evolution as pure fact, or teaching "creation science" as pure fact, that I would agree is inherently wrong. Everyone is so paraonoid about "separation of church and state" that they don't even want to bring up the bible in a classroom setting. I think that if the two are looked at as popular, sometimes conflicting theories, that they can be argued down over the years logically, and help to bring about the real truth. Since that is the relation of the two sides, both creationists and evolutionists sincerely want to bring about the truth. What better way to bring about truth than through logical argument? Where both sides are equally taught and equally known by the student, so that the student can deliberate on his/her own? This would really help solve the ignorance problem we have been experiencing on AT these past few days.

Evolution is scientific theory, whereas Creationism is distortion of religious dogma. Not only that, but Creationism focuses upon the Judeo-Christian concept of how the the world was supposedly created, and this promotes favoritism and tacit Federal endorsement of one particular (type of) religion over others. Therefore, Creationism does not belong in public school.

Then, therefore, Evolution doesn't not belong in public schools either. It focuses on athiesm, telling kids that the creation of earth had nothing to do with any sort of God, that God had no part in any of it, and it was all done by random actions of the universe. Therefore, it's Federal endorsement of NOT believing in a religion, meaning athiesm.