|
Post by Joppi on Sept 19, 2009 5:25:42 GMT -5
Well, my parents were born in the 60's, so they never got to Biology class before the Supreme Court "officially" banned Creationism in the classroom (Epperson vs Arkansas, 1968), but I doubt that's really your point.
What does the number of believers have to do with how scientific something is? Comparably, the genesis of Pastafarianism is just a scientific as the genesis in Christianity. Also, if it does, does ID include the creation stories of other major religions like Islam and Hinduism?
Well, of course any half-logical person would believe in micro-evolution, because it's been proven. As BM mentioned, it's been observed and, hell, it was what caused Darwin to come up with his theory in the first place.
Anyway, Evolution does bank a lot in micro-evolution, because macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over a very long period of time. Scientists have found substantial evidence of evolution throughout the years, which leads them to believe that it indeed happened. Again, this is why it's a scientific theory and not a scientific fact (or law, or whatever).
What was the point of mentioning Nazis if not to subtly compare Evolutionists to them? Nazis were not mentioned anywhere else in the topic and you brought them out of nowhere with a quote implying that people controlling the classroom control the people. You then said that Evolutionists do have control of the classroom. What was the point of saying this other than to demonize Evoluionists?
I think this is a very important point to mention. Despite the heat of debate, I personally do not hold anything against anyone in these kinds of threads. I mean, unless someone is religious to the 1000th degree and feels the need to tell everyone that they're going to hell, I'm probably not going to hate anyone for what they post. I am a little sarcastic and aggressive in my debate style, but that's just the way I debate. I wouldn't carry that same attitude over to the real world for that same person.
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Sept 19, 2009 5:40:31 GMT -5
Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it any more true than if one person believes something. The argument that because a lot of people think something is true it must be is a common logical fallacy called argumentum ad numerum.
Well considering that the theory of evolution is about the evolution of LIFE on earth, that's exactly what it is supposed to address. It doesn't seek to provide an answer as to what happened in the universe before life began since that is irrelevant to it's subject; how life began and developed.
As I said before, the theory of evolution IS NOT a theory about the creation of the universe (see: the big bang theory).
The plants and animals today are perfectly suited for what they do because the conditions under which they evolved made those genetic traits and functions desirable. That is, the organisms with those traits survived better compared to their peers without those traits, and so they were more likely to live to reproduce and pass on those traits.
And even as perfect as they seem they are still changing. Evolution hasn't stopped. Although we may not be witness to it, that's because for more complex animals evolution takes millions of years. We can however see it occur in organisms with very short lifespans which reproduce rapidly. I already mentioned the example of bacteria which literally evolve before our eyes in the case of a medication being applied, some bacteria having a genetic mutation making them immune to the medication, those bacteria surviving and propagating, and the non-resistant bacteria dying out.
|
|
|
Post by matgordo on Sept 19, 2009 10:12:50 GMT -5
My 2 cents as a pharmacist: anti- microbials and all other medication for that matter has brought HUMAN evolution to a standstill. It is no longer survival of the fittest, but survival of the richest. Humans no longer require the ability to adapt since the lack of patience to wait for evolution has eradicated it. Have you ever wondered why "aliens" are depicted as weak, frail beings with large craniums? Probably because their entire race has been pumped full of antibiotics and other life prolonging drugs for eons. Hmmm....
|
|
|
Post by redwurd on Sept 19, 2009 10:31:07 GMT -5
D 8 !!!!! WE'RE DOOMED!!!
HELL LETS DEBATE ABOUT HOW WE CAN FIX THE MESS WE ARE IN!!!
Before we become EXTINCT!!!
|
|
|
Post by hanzrimer on Sept 19, 2009 13:22:19 GMT -5
"Evolution is a joke, it's made up by people who want to cling to the evolutionary theory but are embarrassed to say that things evolved from goo. If you believe in Evolution that's fine, but not start making stuff up and instead of saying Evolution say things like some goo made us what we are or whatever. "
who's embarrassed to admit things evolved from goo? What your saying makes no sense man, Intelligent Design was literally just made up by some guy who had a wild hair up his ass, Evolution is a pretty concrete scientific theory (in my opinion pretty close to a fact). If someone were to say I'm Christian I believe in god, I probably would not argue with them, I'd disagree but not argue, but Intelligent design was recently completely made up by people who want to cling to god but are embarrassed to admit they believe in god (yes I'm repeating myself but It;s true so I'll say it again) like Ben Stein, who is Jewish (works for jews too), he wants to sound intelligent so instead of saying God did it! He's saying some theory that was just made up.
|
|
|
Post by hanzrimer on Sept 19, 2009 13:24:36 GMT -5
D 8 !!!!! WE'RE DOOMED!!! HELL LETS DEBATE ABOUT HOW WE CAN FIX THE MESS WE ARE IN!!! Before we become EXTINCT!!! Humans should go extinct.
|
|
|
Post by Fober-dud on Sept 20, 2009 3:48:01 GMT -5
"Well, my parents were born in the 60's, so they never got to Biology class before the Supreme Court "officially" banned Creationism in the classroom (Epperson vs Arkansas, 1968), but I doubt that's really your point."
Thank you Joppi, for not being nit-picky about what I was saying, and trying to stay on topic. Props from the fob.
"What does the number of believers have to do with how scientific something is? Comparably, the genesis of Pastafarianism is just a scientific as the genesis in Christianity. Also, if it does, does ID include the creation stories of other major religions like Islam and Hinduism?"
I never said that it was scientific, I merely said that since you are one individual it would be less likely for your theory to be represented in the modern American classroom. Intelligent Design does have an entire social group that believes that it is true, Evolution has an entire social group that believes that it is true. P.S. regarding your comment, I would not consider myself a Christian.
Now you and BM are saying that there are no facts behind ID, so I'm going to go to an ID site and bring up their points on how they think life began, and when you guys refute it, I will bring up the counter point from their side, and you can do the same with Evolution to me, I'm trying to get somewhere with this debate, because we could go on forever like this but it seems we are not accomplishing much to me. It's late so I'm going to stop at that for tonight, then I will try to respond to the other posts but I'm tired right now and not as sharp as I could be.
|
|
|
Post by Joppi on Sept 20, 2009 8:29:56 GMT -5
You know, when I imply in my post that I'm messing around, it's usually a cue to you that you don't have to respond to that particular thing.
Science classes should never be based on popularity. They should be based only on accepted scientific theories.
And I didn't intend to imply that you were. It just seems that most proponents of ID seem to use the Christian format for genesis.
Feel free to. I can't see it accomplishing anything, but if you feel that it will advance the argument, then, by all means, try it out.
|
|
|
Post by Fober-dud on Sept 21, 2009 3:12:10 GMT -5
"Science classes should never be based on popularity. They should be based only on accepted scientific theories."
I wasn't disagreeing with you, but I was making the point that you are less likely to have your theory represented than an entire social group.
"You know, when I imply in my post that I'm messing around, it's usually a cue to you that you don't have to respond to that particular thing."
Well that's fine, I was thanking you for not being nit-picky. But this issue isn't that important. Do not reply.
"who's embarrassed to admit things evolved from goo? What your saying makes no sense man, Intelligent Design was literally just made up by some guy who had a wild hair up his ass, Evolution is a pretty concrete scientific theory (in my opinion pretty close to a fact)."
You are missing my point Hanz.
"The plants and animals today are perfectly suited for what they do because the conditions under which they evolved made those genetic traits and functions desirable. That is, the organisms with those traits survived better compared to their peers without those traits, and so they were more likely to live to reproduce and pass on those traits.
And even as perfect as they seem they are still changing. Evolution hasn't stopped. Although we may not be witness to it, that's because for more complex animals evolution takes millions of years. We can however see it occur in organisms with very short lifespans which reproduce rapidly. I already mentioned the example of bacteria which literally evolve before our eyes in the case of a medication being applied, some bacteria having a genetic mutation making them immune to the medication, those bacteria surviving and propagating, and the non-resistant bacteria dying out. "
I'm not sure if anyone else does, but I see a huge flaw in your argument BM. If what your saying is true, then we shouldn't be seeing any "complex" organisms today. If it's a complex organism, then you say it takes longer to evolve; if so, then they would have most certainly died before they were able to evolve. Harsh conditions can obviously kill an organism in under 1 million years.
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Sept 21, 2009 3:47:49 GMT -5
wtf are you talking about? Dying is a part of evolution; those without favorable traits are less likely to survive and often die before they can reproduce, gradually eliminating certain traits from the gene pool.
|
|
|
Post by Fober-dud on Sept 22, 2009 1:38:12 GMT -5
I'm not talking about a few animals dying, I'm talking they WOULD go extinct if conditions were unfavorable and it took MILLIONS of years for them, as complex organisms, to evolve and adapt to the conditions.
|
|
|
Post by Fober-dud on Sept 22, 2009 1:44:20 GMT -5
Plus I would like if you guys could actually provide some specific examples as to how ID is false, because all I've heard you guys say is stuff along the lines of "It's not scientific.", while I have been giving specific examples of how I think Evolution is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Joppi on Sept 22, 2009 5:14:10 GMT -5
Plus I would like if you guys could actually provide some specific examples as to how ID is false, because all I've heard you guys say is stuff along the lines of "It's not scientific.", while I have been giving specific examples of how I think Evolution is wrong. Well, you'd have to bring up the points for why ID is correct first. In general, though, my likely response to most of the points will be something along the lines of, "Prove the creator exists".
|
|
|
Post by hanzrimer on Sept 22, 2009 11:19:06 GMT -5
If you believe in something I feel you have the burden to prove it's true, not others to prove it's wrong. What would happen if I busted into conference full of top scientist and said " a giant invisible Octopus lives in the sky and controls our thoughts, I have no real proof of it, but It should be a new theory and unless you can prove it to be wrong i think it should be accepted".
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Sept 22, 2009 14:50:01 GMT -5
I'm not talking about a few animals dying, I'm talking they WOULD go extinct if conditions were unfavorable and it took MILLIONS of years for them, as complex organisms, to evolve and adapt to the conditions. Dude, have you ever been taught evolution? Either you haven't, or you weren't paying attention in class because you wouldn't be asking those questions if you knew what you were talking about. Yes, from time to time species go extinct if there is a sudden and drastic change in the conditions they live in. However, change is usually gradual, and when there is some sort of factor which threatens the survival of the species, some will die but some will survive. Usually those that survive had some sort of favorable traits that they in turn passed on to their offspring. Over time, this process will repeat itself until the species is genetically different enough from it's ancestors that it would not be able to have viable offspring with them, at which time they are considered a new species. That's called evolution. But seriously, I shouldn't have to be teaching you. If you're going to come to a debate you should know what you're talking about, and if you don't then you shouldn't be debating to begin with.
|
|