Evolution/darwinism

[Mr. Ron]

WHY do people refuse to believe it? Seriously. Its basically fact, yet various area schools near me have introduced creationism into the science programs.


Why...why why why do people ignore fact?

[Arrakakaka]

Because people rely on religion as a backbone. Not many people are open-minded on the subject.

Creationism is fine to introduce, but as long as they show both sides of the story and other ideas like evolutionism, darwinism, de-evolution, and so on. Bias is normally the problem.

[Mr. Ron]

Except creationism ISN'T a science to begin with.

[Der Übermensch]

Because they don't understand it, and thus don't want to think they are descended from a monkey.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

because the values and faith of christianity are so engrained in them that they would of course never accept a theory (or fact) that would attack that faith as long as they live (?)

imo believing in god and jesus and noah and adam and eve is just as nutso as not believing in darwinism despite the fact that they go hand in hand

[Mr. Ron]

Here's a nice little gem from a person I was debating:

An interesting observation:
One thing that puts the evolution model into doubt is the height of the Grand Canyon. The top of the Grand Canyon is considerably higher than the beginning of the canyon where the Colorado River enters into it. This would mean that the river would have to flow uphill for thousands or even millions of years before it could cut a groove below the mouth of the canyon so the water could begin to flow downward. This ‘mystery’ can’t be explained by anything except the fact that the water had to be higher than the canyon when it was formed. It would either have had to be higher than the canyon for millions of years, or it would have to be flowing over a land that is not yet hardened into rock.

[Reaganista]

some facts aren't that important in the long run, tbh

people who arent going into some biological field dont really need to know any of this

[Iscariot]

evolution is a theory just like creationism

neither one is a proven fact so people are free to study whichever idea they choose

[AA-12]

I agree. Even myself, someone who is fairly religious (no christianity here mind you :p) accepts evolution and HIGHLY supports Darwinism.

[Akira]

You guys are stupid. You actually believe humans came from monkeys?

Morons. Like there's any evidence to suggest that.

[PerpetualBurn]

evolution is a theory just like creationism

neither one is a proven fact so people are free to study whichever idea they choose

I hear highly evidence science and random conjecture are completely equal. So I agree.

[Charlie Daniels]

Here's a nice little gem from a person I was debating:

An interesting observation:
One thing that puts the evolution model into doubt is the height of the Grand Canyon. The top of the Grand Canyon is considerably higher than the beginning of the canyon where the Colorado River enters into it. This would mean that the river would have to flow uphill for thousands or even millions of years before it could cut a groove below the mouth of the canyon so the water could begin to flow downward. This ‘mystery’ can’t be explained by anything except the fact that the water had to be higher than the canyon when it was formed. It would either have had to be higher than the canyon for millions of years, or it would have to be flowing over a land that is not yet hardened into rock.

...and what was your answer?

[spitfirejunky]

I honestly don't care about what they teach. But teaching creationism in the context of a science class is like teaching math during history.

[Arrakakaka]

You guys are stupid. You actually believe humans came from monkeys?

Morons. Like there's any evidence to suggest that.
So whats your genius theory on how we got here?

[Smokey D]

Just a guess, but I think he might be being facetious. Monkeys and humans came from the same (very distant) ancestor -- we aren't directly descended from them.

[Akira]

Yeah. I was 100% sarcastic. I am a firm evolutionist.

[gregulus]

I hear highly evidence science and random conjecture are completely equal. So I agree.

this post was confusing. what?

[Akira]

this post was confusing. what?

He was sarcastically saying that something that is backed up by science (evolution) and something with no real evidence (creation) are both equally valid.

[Mr. Ron]

evolution is a theory just like creationism

neither one is a proven fact so people are free to study whichever idea they choose


One has mountains of evidence, one has none.

[Smokey D]

I actually think this is a pretty stupid debate since the kind of people who can willfully ignore such a large body of evidence are not the sort to be persuaded by some guy on the internet, if they can be persuaded at all.

[Mr. Ron]

Thats whats frustrating about it all. I'm just concerned about people fooling themselves.

I mean, I'm sure you can still believe in god and evolution if you don't take genesis literally.

[Kayetan]

Mr. Ron, sir, I understand your opinion, but I dun come from no damn monkey.

[Mr. Ron]

No one is suggesting that. Separate but similar ancestors! :p

[Kayetan]

I'm suggesting you accept my ****ing sarcasm.

[Mr. Ron]

I got your sarcasm, I just used it to make a point.

>_>


<_<

[Eliminator]

how did we come from a monkey i mean like its there and im here so tell me that smart guy oh right you cant

[Mr. Ron]

Magic.

[TheDarkHorse]

deja vu..

seriously, havent you already made this thread before?

dont think you're a whole new person just cause you decided to come back after three weeks

[Mr. Ron]

Dude, wtf are you talking about. I don't think I ever made an evolution thread.

[TheDarkHorse]

I am wrong then, yet this thread is not necessary.

[Mr. Ron]

How isn't it. Its a political issue.

[Smokey D]

I don't really know why you need to convince them if they aren't in control of you or what your children are learning or anything.

[Mr. Ron]

Hey, I can try to get through to them. Thats what we all do here, don't we?

[Smokey D]

I suppose if you're on a forum it's appropriate, but I can't think of anything more pointless (more pointless than most of what we say here, even).

I just have a thing against people going out of their way to intrude on what should be a private choice, especially when it's not in a context of debate.

[Reaganista]

i'm only here to read zero's posts

...and what was your answer?
probably that the grand canyon didn't evolve

but i dunno


I just have a thing against people going out of their way to intrude on what should be a private choice, especially when it's not in a context of debate.
public school isn't and shouldn't be a private choice

[Tyrant21]

evolution is a theory just like creationism

neither one is a proven fact so people are free to study whichever idea they choose

evolution is a Theory, similar to oh lets say, the Theory of Gravity. Theory with a capital T is different.


creationism relies on a completely unfounded belief , not science.

theory does not equal Theory

oh and dont ask questions like how did i come from a monkey blah blah, go look up for yourselves, I just took a class on it and it's pretty enjoyable compared to most of the crap i sit through

[TheDarkHorse]

How isn't it. Its a political issue.

its been done way too many times. Nothing ever came out of the other threads. do you really think anything will come of this? Complaining about the issue isnt necessary

[Reaganista]

neither is complaining about complaining imo

[Iscariot]

One has mountains of evidence, one has none.

the idea behind something being a theory is that there is not enough evidence to conclusively call it a fact

that leaves the door open for debate

if joe blow wants to believe the world was created by a divine being rather than believe that grandpa blow used to be a monkey in the wilds of africa then that's joe's right

just like if someone like myself believes in god but also believes in evolution that too is perfectly acceptable

there are endless possibilities and the people that jump on any conclusion and those who state party x is ridiculous for not following the "logical" parade are just as closed-minded and ignorant as those on the other end of the spectrum

[Tyrant21]

the idea behind something being a theory is that there is not enough evidence to conclusively call it a fact



you should read my post again

[Tyrant21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
read this, or at least this part

"In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation."

[Iscariot]

what your post about capital t's and premature conclusions based on circumstantial evidence

like i said i'm not disagreeing with the probability or possibility of evolution but what i'm saying is that what those who favor evolution call evidence those who favor creationism call nonsense

what those who favor creationism call evidence those who favor evolution call nonsense

both are theories or Theories if that floats your boat

what validation does science have over any other ideology without concrete evidence

carbon dating is highly unreliable it's been revoked in several instances regarding the evidence backing evolution just as many religious claims have been debunked by science

anything is possible and as 1970's flower child'esque as it may sound i'm a fan of keeping an open mind

edit: gravity =/= evolution

the validation of one theory does not = the validation of a completely non-correlative theory and stating that because x theory can't be proven wrong does not mean that y theory also cannot be proven wrong

evidence evidence evidence

where are the skeletons dna and irrefutable proof that human beings today were chimpanzees yesterday

that's what separates theory from fact

we have likely links and possible connections we do not have an iron-clad brick to mortar foundation of proof

[Tyrant21]

what your post about capital t's and premature conclusions based on circumstantial evidence

like i said i'm not disagreeing with the probability or possibility of evolution but what i'm saying is that what those who favor evolution call evidence those who favor creationism call nonsense

what those who favor creationism call evidence those favor evolution call nonsense

both are theories or Theories if that floats your boat

what validation does science have over any other ideology without concrete evidence

carbon dating is highly unreliable it's been revoked in several instances regarding the evidence backing evolution just as many religious claims have been debunked by science

anything is possible and as 1970's flower child'esque as it may sound i'm a fan of keeping an open mind

ok, there are so many more forms of dating then carbon dating, i really dont feel like going into it, but clearly you didnt read the wiki link. I can believe whatever i want, maybe i think mars is god, i have a theory that mars is god. This belief is substantially less justified then the theory of evolution or the thoery of gravity or the theory of atomic energy. There are more then one meaning to the word, a scientific theory has gone through actual scientific testing versus a theory which has in no way been proven.

[Iscariot]

ok, there are so many more forms of dating then carbon dating, i really dont feel like going into it, but clearly you didnt read the wiki link. I can believe whatever i want, maybe i think mars is god, i have a theory that mars is god. This belief is substantially less justified then the theory of evolution or the thoery of gravity or the theory of atomic energy. There are more then one meaning to the word, a scientific theory has gone through actual scientific testing versus a theory which has in no way been proven.

the means of scientifically testing a theory are also theories in themselves

the data acquired from those tests is circumstantial at best which leaves us with a theory that still does not cross that line into being a law no matter how justified the evidence may be it isn't validated and verified

[Tyrant21]

the means of scientifically testing a theory are also theories in themselves

the data acquired from those tests is circumstantial at best which leaves us with a theory that still does not cross that line into being a law no matter how justified the evidence may be it isn't validated and verified

science is a far more accurate medium then blind faith, or a random belief an some omnipresent creator.

science got us where we are today, not anything else, so it's hard to argue against it. It has it's faults, for sure, but why are you typing on a computer to someone you don't even know? science.

and there is various amounts of conclusive evidence that are hard to deny, something of this kind of importance is not just accepted by the scientific community almost universally if there aren't significant reasons for it.

[Iscariot]

science requires as much faith as any religious point of view

it's a logical fallacy to assume that the majority opinion is inarguably correct just as it's a logical fallacy to assume the same of the minority opinion

being able to accept either point of view is the kind of open-mindedness that aids the progress of science

gregor mendel certainly wasn't a man without faith and without his research we may not even be having this discussion

even charles darwin was a man of god

[Tyrant21]

"science requires as much faith as any religious point of view" this is such an absurd statement, that doesn't apply to just evolution, you seem to propose that all science is just as legitimate as scientology.

there is a lot of science that is absolutely proven, virtually nothing in religion is proven.

[Iscariot]

"science requires as much faith as any religious point of view" this is such an absurd statement, that doesn't apply to just evolution, you seem to propose that all science is just as legitimate as scientology.

i don't understand how you came to this conclusion

there is a lot of science that is absolutely proven, virtually nothing in religion is proven.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5724143/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0427_040427_noahsark.html

for a few examples

like i said i'm not on either side of this but i can't stand idly by while people make silly assumptions of what's infallibly right and wrong

[Tyrant21]

i don't understand how you came to this conclusion



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5724143/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0427_040427_noahsark.html

for a few examples

like i said i'm not on either side of this but i can't stand idly by while people make silly assumptions of what's infallibly right and wrong


shroud of turin has been disproven, there is little evidence that is actually where john the baptist did his magic, and regardless, it wouldn't be supernatural, so it's an irrelevant point.

but really, don't try to argue religion is as legitimate as science, it's not, it does not rely on evidence, it relies on blind faith

[Iscariot]

shroud of turin has been disproven

no the carbon dating asserting the shroud of turin as a medieval prank was disproven and the nearly x-ray image imprinted on the shroud is still heavily up for debate

there is little evidence that is actually where john the baptist did his magic

now you're just being nasty

and regardless, it wouldn't be supernatural, so it's an irrelevant point.

science asserted that the world was flat from about the 15th century bc to the 1st century ad until that was proven to be "supernatural" nonsense

but really, don't try to argue religion is as legitimate as science, it's not, it does not rely on evidence, it relies on blind faith

an unproven unstudied scientific theory also requires blind faith

edit: it's way to warm in my computer room right now so i'm going to relocate but thanks for this almost thought provoking conversation

[spitfirejunky]

Whether creationism is valid or not, it's not a theory, so you can't make any real comparison to evolution.

[Tyrant21]

no the carbon dating asserting the shroud of turin as a medieval prank was disproven and the nearly x-ray image imprinted on the shroud is still heavily up for debate



now you're just being nasty



science asserted that the world was flat from about the 15th century bc to the 1st century ad until that was proven to be "supernatural" nonsense



an unproven unstudied scientific theory also requires blind faith
"an unproven unstudied scientific theory also requires blind faith"
based on scientific evidence, which enough exists to equivocate it to the theory of gravity. I didnt mean to be nasty an any way, im enjoying the debate so dont get the wrong intention.

but there is a distinct difference between blind faith and science, asides from this, science has one view that is mostly supported, religion has an innumerable amount of views. This is a result of inconclusive beliefs. You can't walk up to someone and say, hey this is why god exists, it wont work, you need to explain in depth a reason and convey and understanding of why that is possible.

There is plenty of logical evidence to support evolution, religion demands an accepting of something completely unproven, which science does not demand. That is not arguable, I went to a catholic school and had to outline sections of the bible, many of which could not even possibly be true.
In any case i have to go roof tomorrow morning so im out, but it was nice having this discussion, ill be back on tomorrow night if it's still popping around

[GreyHam]

pretty much just people who cant see whats in front of them

join a pressure group

[VomitStainedCretin]

science asserted that the world was flat from about the 15th century bc to the 1st century ad until that was proven to be "supernatural" nonsenseFalse: many ancient Greek, Roman and Arabic scientists believed the world was spherical and this was accepted by the majority of the non-scholastic scientific community long before Columbus.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth: In early Classical Antiquity, the Earth was generally believed to be flat. Greek philosophers from that time period were prone to form conclusions similar to those of Anaximander, who believed the Earth to be a short cylinder with a flat, circular top.[1] It is conjectured that the first person to have advocated a spherical shape of the Earth was Pythagoras (6th century BC), but this idea is not supported by the fact that most presocratic Pythagoreans considered the world to be flat.[2] Eratosthenes, however, had already determined that the earth was a sphere and calculated its rough circumference by the third century B.C. [3]

By the time of Pliny the Elder in the 1st century, the Earth's spherical shape was generally acknowledged among the learned in the western world. Ptolemy derived his maps from a curved globe and developed the system of latitude, longitude, and climes. His writings remained the basis of European astronomy throughout the Middle Ages, although Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (ca. 3rd to 7th centuries) saw occasional arguments in favor of a flat Earth.

The modern misconception that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat first entered the popular imagination in the nineteenth century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828.In any case science is prepared to accept falsification as aiding the advance of knowledge. Those theories that stand up best to falsification (evolution has been fairly successful at holding its ground) are accepted as best for determining what is justified true belief. Traditional Biblical beliefs generally have a much harder time standing up to falsification.

[Dr Hooch]

evolution is a theory just like creationism

neither one is a proven fact so people are free to study whichever idea they choose

Along with FSM, right?


Because all "theories" are equal?


www.venganza.org


I wish people could understand scientific use of the word "theory"

[-1up!-]

Those theories that stand up best to falsification (evolution has been fairly successful at holding its ground) are accepted as best for determining what is justified true belief. Traditional Biblical beliefs generally have a much harder time standing up to falsification.

True. Science gladly accepts to be seen as wrong and corrected, while religious beliefs don't have this capacity to accept they are off the mark.

By the way equating science and religion by saying they require the same amount of faith is ridiculous. Science operates on a strict methodology of observation, hypothesis-making, and experimentation with variable control before making conclusions. Religious arguments stem from texts written centuries ago, in an age where science was still blunt, and offering no serious methodology to test its claims. In the pursuit of knowledge of nature it is of no contest that science > religion.

[ringworm]

In that HBO Doc, Friends of God, a young person said he was going to college so he could be a scientist at the Creationist University, or something like that, I was totally confused as to what they base their studies on

I guess you have to see the vid to hear his entire comments to see the insanity of a religious nutjob performing scientific tests to prove their beliefs

[peeted]

Im thankful i live in the uk and have never been exposed to creationism in school.

[sweboy]

Evolution is an evil lie spread by Satan and his homosexual sidekicks.

[Mr. Ron]

Said Jerry Falwell

[PerpetualBurn]

t's a logical fallacy to assume that the majority opinion is inarguably correct just as it's a logical fallacy to assume the same of the minority opinion

Science doesn't work by appeal to majority though.

You obviously have absolutely no understanding of the scientific method.

[Iscariot]

lol k guys i'm not here to take sides carry on being douchebags without me

[PerpetualBurn]

Lol if you post like this guys lol then you can avoid the obligation to admit when you've made a right tit of yourself rofl k

[Chrysostom]

evolution is a theory just like creationism

neither one is a proven fact so people are free to study whichever idea they choose

You sound like a person who doesn't quite understand the meaning of the word theory in the scientific context. This is the definition of scientific theory:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.

Creationism does not fit this definition and is they are therefore not simply both theories.

[Tyrant21]

lol k guys i'm not here to take sides carry on being douchebags without me

yes thats borderline just coming out and saying you are wrong, you did say a lot of ridiculous and unfounded things in your arguments though...


btw to everyone else i made the Theory vs. theory point several times in this thread already earlier

[Smokey D]

And everyone has made them in previous threads as well.

We're not really covering any new ground here. Unless someone can come up with something particularly enlightening in the next few posts, I'm probably going to shut this down.

[Mr. Ron]

Just shut this down.